Talk:Han Taiwanese

Genetic Relationships
I have removed the part about genetic relationships as I don't think this is a correct interpretation of the data. Also, one study alone kind of puts undue weight. I would like to see some other reliable citations for this. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The tree in this article shows what is shown in the peer-reviewed paper published in Science and there is no interpretation of the tree in this WP article. Please give reasons as to why the tree must be removed. Lysimachi (talk) 10:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

What are your reasons that the tree must be removed? Lysimachi (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Lead sentence WikiLink
I don't understand why the wikilink to Han Chinese was removed multiple times without giving a reason. Are you claiming that Han Taiwanese are not Han Chinese? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * They are 漢人, not necessarily 漢中國人. Lysimachi (talk) 00:22, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The common term in English is "Han Chinese". You are confusing nationality with ethnicity. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Han already means 漢人. Why do you need Chinese here?Lysimachi (talk) 08:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * For goodness sake, the English term is "Han Chinese". You are needlessly adding a redirect here. Please stop your POV Pushing otherwise you will be blocked from editing. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm also not sure if you actually understand English very well. In English "Han Chinese" == the ethnicity. The Han Chinese in PRC are called "Han Chinese from PRC" or "Han Chinese from China". --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 1. Many articles such as [this one] published in Nature (journal) use Han (poeple/culture) to refer to 漢 without using Chinese.
 * 2. If 漢人 should be translated as Han Chinese, then 漢台灣人 should be translated as "Han Chinese Taiwanese", but no source uses this term. It is obvious that Han itself expresses the meaning of 漢人. Lysimachi (talk) 09:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not how translation works. English works differently from Chinese. In English, "Han Chinese" is an ethnic term and it is used to refer to Hanren. One source I mentioned below (from JSTOR) says "nearly 98% of the island’s population are Han Chinese". You can also see this paper in Nature (written by Taiwanese scientists) which says Only the Han-Chinese population, which accounted for 98% of the population in Taiwan, was considered for the recruitment of patients in this study. You can also see this which says All of the participating T2D cases and controls were of Han Chinese origin, which is the origin of 98% of the Taiwan population. What you are not realising is that in English, the term "Chinese" is not owned by the People's Republic of China. Chinese is an ethnic term. A citizen of China is called a "Chinese National". You need to realise that English is a very different language from Chinese. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Your "paper in Nature (written by Taiwanese scientists)" was not published in the journal Nature, but Molecular Psychiatry.

The use of Han to refer to 漢人 is found in papers published in Nature, American Journal of Human Genetics, Scientific American, and other journals. It is also found in the The Cambridge History of China.

Unless you can prove that the usage in those sources is wrong, I don't see any problem in using Han to refer to 漢人. 13:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lysimachi (talk • contribs)
 * This is the English Wikipedia. "Han Chinese" IS the correctly used term. You need to show proof that Han Chinese is different from Han. And stop reverting on the page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:22, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * are you claiming that my references are incorrect? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * in English Wikipedia is all comes down to sources. You need to provide sources to show that "Han Chinese in Taiwan" are not referred to as "Han Chinese". --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 1. If you don't think Han Chinese is different from Han, why are you so keen on adding "Chinese" to the lead? 2. "Han" and "Han Chinese" can have different meanings, such as in this study. Lysimachi (talk) 22:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Because the widely used term is "Han Chinese". Our Wikipedia article for example is "Han Chinese" not "Han People". We use the title most commonly used in reliable sources (in English) per WP:COMMONNAME. If the page Han Chinese was renamed "Han people" I would agree to your edit. But it has not been renamed. Till that time, it stays. Also Han people redirects to Han Chinese so if you want to show that Han people are different from Han Chinese, try creating a new article Han people which is different from Han Chinese. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 1. Your arguments are based on the content on Wikipedia. See, however, WP:CIRCULAR: "Do not use articles from Wikipedia (whether this English Wikipedia or Wikipedias in other languages) as sources." 2. Also note in WP:COMMONNAME: "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Neutrality is also considered". "Han" and "Han Chinese" can have different meanings, such as in this study. Lysimachi (talk) 09:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The source you mentioned above doesn't say that "Han" is different from "Han Chinese". Can you quote the sentence which says this? I am not using another article as a reliable source - I am saying that if you really feel that "Han Chinese" is different from "Han People" try moving the article "Han Chinese" to "Han People". If you are able to get consensus to do that, I will agree to your edits. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Read the paper yourself and you'll find the two terms are used differently. Lysimachi (talk) 10:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Please cite the line. I read the whole paper and it says nothing that these 2 terms are different. Cite the line if you are sure. You know what? You cannot cite the line because you are wrong. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , could you have a look at this paper? I couldn't find anything which states that Han and Han Chinese are different. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You are unable to cite the line. So you are incorrect here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Just saw this reference on Han people on another WP page. Its title is "Han" and it mentions the term "Han people" 14 times, "the Han" (the people) 7 times, and "Han Chinese" 3 times. Lysimachi (talk) 13:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And it mentions "Han Taiwanese" 0 times. So that means there is nothing called "Han Taiwanese"? That's your logic?--Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The article is on the Han people as a whole. Why should it mention Han Taiwanese? Lysimachi (talk) 11:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You still haven't shown me a source which says "Han People" are different from "Han Chinese". Find me a source and quote the line to show it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you show me a source that says "Taiwanese Hans" are "NOT Han Chinese"? The source from the executive Yuan uses the term Han Chinese as well. So I do not understand why is there is a need to cleanse the term "Han Chinese" from this article. I am restoring it. I would appreciate if you do not remove it. If you remove I will pursue dispute resolution. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 23:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure. In this peer-reviewed journal article, Taiwanese of Han ethnicity are distinguished from the Chinese of the same ethnicity: "Although no significant association of NRAMP 1 polymorphism with susceptibility to tuberculosis was found in Taiwanese Hans in this study, a recent study from China reported that variants of NRAMP 1 were significantly associated with the severity of, rather than the susceptibility to, pulmonary tuberculosis in the Han Chinese population." Lysimachi (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That doesn't say that. Also the Taiwanese Executive Yuan says 95% of Taiwanese are of "Han Chinese" descent. Are you saying that the source is wrong? In any case, I am filing a dispute resolution request. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The "Han Chinese" in that sentence (and in that whole article) refers to Hans from China. Lysimachi (talk) 08:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Umm, no. That is exactly where you are wrong. "Han Chinese" is the ethnicity. Anyway, please reply on the dispute resolution page. If you don't participate there, it is assumed that you don't have any objection. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Also the official website of the Taiwanese government uses "Han people(s)" or "Han" to refer to all Han people, while "Han Chinese" is only used in the context of post-WWII immigrants of the Han ethnicity. "Han people" and "Han Chinese" are not always the same. Lysimachi (talk)   —Preceding undated comment added 12:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have started a dispute resolution. You need to reply there. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * See Dispute_resolution_noticeboard --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Taiwan Han Chinese

 * 1)
 * 2) Partial duplication at AZFc on the Y chromosome is a risk factor for impaired spermatogenesis in Han Chinese in Taiwan Here we report our characterization of the AZFc region in Han Chinese in Taiwan (Han Taiwanese) that make up 98% of the population

You tried to say Han Taiwanese are "also referred to as Taiwan Han Chinese" and cited five references [16][17][18][19][20]. WP:V: "anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." None of sources you cited seem to say so. In fact, [20] does not seem to mention "Taiwan Han Chinese" at all, while [16], [18] and [19] don't seem to mention "Han Taiwanese". Your claim is not verifiable. WP:OR: The claim seems to be your original research, for which no reliable, published sources exist. WP:REDUNDANCY: You made the first sentence unnecessarily redundant. WP:LEAD: "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources." How important is "Taiwan Han Chinese" to be mentioned in the first sentence of the lead? WP:UNDUE: "Taiwan Han Chinese" is given undue weight. In fact, the only source ([17]) which mentions (but not equates) both Han Taiwanese and "Taiwan Han Chinese" also mentions "Taiwan-Han Chinese", "Taiwan Han-Chinese", and "Taiwanese Han Chinese". Why is "Taiwan Han Chinese" given special weight here? WP:NPOV: You are trying to push your view that Han Taiwanese are Chinese. Sure there are sources saying that, but this is clearly disputed. Even if there are sources saying Taiwanese people are Chinese or Taiwan is a part of China, you won't find it in the first sentence of the lead in Taiwanese people and Taiwan. Lysimachi (talk) 09:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Can you show me a source which says that Han Taiwanese are NOT Han Chinese. If you cannot, it should stay in the lead per WP:NPOV. If you can, I am willing to look further. I am also warning you not to revert. If you do, you risk a block again. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This article: Han Taiwanese and Han Chinese are listed as different ethnicities.Lysimachi (talk) 10:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * We require a source which explicitly says "Han Taiwanese are NOT Han Chinese". Your source could simply mean that "Han Taiwanese" are a subset of "Han Chinese". I have provided sources which explicitly say that "Han Taiwanese are Han Chinese". --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately none of your sources say "Han Taiwanese are also referred to as Taiwan Han Chinese".
 * Every source that mentions Han Taiwanese use Han to describe them, only some sources say they are Chinese. You cannot write it as if all sources and all authors agree they are Han Chinese because you don't have any evidence for that. Lysimachi (talk) 15:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * We equate to the subject of the article. The subject of the article is "Han Chinese people in Taiwan" or "Han people in Taiwan". The various definitions have to equate to the article subject. For example, no source says that "Han Taiwanese are the 95% of the population of Taiwan", although a source says that "Han Chinese are 95% of the population of Taiwan". Variant descriptions need to equate to the subject of the article. This is exactly what I'm trying to explain. This source equates "Taiwan Han Chinese" to "Han Chinese in Taiwan". This explicity says --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You are synthesizing different sources. No source explicitly says "Han Taiwanese are also referred to as Taiwan Han Chinese" and you have no evidence that all sources agree that Han Taiwanese are Han Chinese. Lysimachi (talk) 20:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You are unable to understand. That's not synth - that's a transitive relationship to the main subject of the article. Also NPOV doesn't need all sources to agree - it needs some sources to agree. In your case, do you have any proof which says that "Han Taiwanese are 98% of the population". You don't right? Also, please stop edit warring if you don't want to be blocked again. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If we go by your logic, can you show me a source which says "Han Taiwanese" are same as "Taiwanese Hans"? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * We don't go by my logic. We go by the logic of Wikipedia and we go by your logic: We require a source which explicitly says "Han Taiwanese are also referred to as Taiwan Han Chines".Lysimachi (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This is your last warning. Do not revert again. Please don't unless you want to be indefinitely blocked. Now go find me a source which says that "Han Taiwanese" and "Taiwanese Hans" are the same. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * We are discussing "Taiwan Han Chinese", right? The burden is on you to prove its verifiability and notability. Lysimachi (talk) 21:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This source equates "Taiwan Han Chinese" to "Han Chinese in Taiwan".
 * This explicity says.
 * Also this says.
 * This says and also  --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This says as well as
 * Now? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Which of them explicitly says "Han Taiwanese are also referred to as Taiwan Han Chinese"? Lysimachi (talk) 22:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you answer the questions in the section below? I'm sure if you are able to answer them, you will also get the answer to this. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:22, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

"Han Taiwanese" and "Taiwanese Hans"
Now could you find me a source which says that "Han Taiwanese" and "Taiwanese Hans" are the same? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If you can answer this, you will be able to find the answer to your question above. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Usually in the Chinese language, people would go from general to specific, because that's how the native grammar works (unless, of course, there is some kind of semantic loan translation), such as 華裔美國人 (which looks like a direct translation from English) and 美國華人 (seems more native). 中國漢族 refers to Han Chinese. 台灣漢族 refers to Han Taiwanese. Though, IMO, the whole Chinese-Taiwanese thing is stupid. The ROC should be admitted into the UN and receive international recognition, like the ROK, and be treated like another Chinese state, with Chinese ethnicity and ROC nationality. In the Chinese language, 華國 may be used as an abbreviation for the Republic of China (changed to 華中民國）, and 華國人 is the demonym. That way, ROC citizens would enjoy worldwide recognition and be true to themselves - that they are ethnic Chinese and of ROC nationality. That's what the old and current KMT wants, anyway - international recognition and a type of Chinese nationality. SSS (talk) 18:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Alcohol study
I had removed it but it was reverted without any explanation. I feel this is undue here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects."
 * 1. What are the other "significant viewpoints" on alcohol metabolism of Taiwanese Hans? If there is none, what is given undue weight?
 * 2. "the prevalence of alcohol dependence among Hans is 10 times lower than that of Austronesians" is not a viewpoint, it's the result of scientific studies. If there is a study that shows otherwise, please add it to the section instead of removing the section all at once. Lysimachi (talk) 00:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You are not familiar with how undue works in practice. We don't put any arbitrary information in the article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What is arbitrary information? Lysimachi (talk) 08:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Umm, I'm not sure of you actually understand English well enough. If that is the case, I suggest you to edit the Chinese Wikipedia. I cannot keep explaining every small English term. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:36, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Inaccurate edit
I have no idea why another of my edit was just reverted. I have no idea how this is inaccurate per this source. I'm reproducing a selection below.

"Both of these dimensions have been evident in Taiwan’s case, mutatis mutandis. In terms of constituent characteristics, the Taiwanese are relatively homogeneous in terms of language, culture, and ethnicity; ethnically, although nearly 98% of the island’s population are Han Chinese, there is a slight complication in terms of ethnic origins that has led to the coagulation of two distinguishable groups (sometimes called subethnic groups, because both are Han Chinese). These consist of (1) those whose ancestors migrated from the mainland in or since the 17th century, known as benshengren, or natives of the province, and (2) those who sought refuge (or whose parents sought refuge) from the mainland in the wake of the Nationalists’ loss of the Chinese civil war in 1946–49, commonly referred to as waishengren, or provincial outsiders."

I seriously do not understand why this was incorrect. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * 1. This is your text: "From the view that Taiwan is one of the "provinces" of Republic of China, the people whose ancestors had migrated from the mainland in the 17th century (along with the Austronesians), are sometimes called benshengren (Mandarin: 本省人, literally "people of this province"), while those whose ancestors migrated after the civil war, (along with the contemporaneous non-Han immigrants), are called waishengren (Mandarin: 外省人, literally "people from other provinces")." Can you see the differences from the source you added?
 * 2. The time of immigration was already mentioned in the previous sentence. Why should it be repeated in a redundant way in the next sentence(s)?
 * 3. There were already Hans in Taiwan in the 16th century. The source is somewhat misleading in saying "in or since the 17th century". A better, less questionable way to distinguish between benshengren and waishengren would be before and after 1945, which was already mentioned in the previous sentence.
 * 4. (This is not directly related to your question) Not all benshengren and waishengren are Han, but the source says both are Han. Either the author is sloppy in writing papers, or the author doesn't know the ethnic compositions of Taiwan very well. Lysimachi (talk) 23:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * OK let's go over this.
 * I can change that to match my source.
 * Umm no, we follow that reliable source say: the strength of the source determines the weight. Yes, the source mentions 17th century. I myself have read late 16th century in a few sources. But most sources say 17th century. The timeline is important here.
 * Which reliable source says "most" sources say Han immigration took place only in the 17th century? Lysimachi (talk) 08:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The terms benshengren and waishengren are applied to Hans and not to aborigines. Most papers say the same as well.
 * Let me look up some more. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Definition
"There is no simple uniform definition of Han Taiwanese. To determine if a Taiwanese is Han, common criteria include immigration background (from continental East Asia), using a Han language as the mother tongue, and observance of traditional Han festivals. Sometimes a negative definition is employed. Thus a Han Taiwanese could be defined as a Taiwanese who does not speak any language of Austronesians or other non-Han people (e.g., Manchus, Mongols) and does not observe the feasts of those people."

This whole chunk above is unsourced. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:36, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Maintenance templates
I have added templates to the page. Many of the citations do not verify the text/are misinterpreted. A lot of the information needs citations. Please don't remove the templates simply because you disagree with it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Blatant misrepresentation of citations
I have removed a bunch of information because they are blatant misrepresentations of citations. I urge the original posted to prove how these are "correct interpretations of the citations" here and not edit war. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I have removed a bunch of information as none of the citations said anything about them being "Han Taiwanese". Before reinserting them, I invite you to show me where does it mention "Han Taiwanese" in the sources and about the subject. Also, please use English language references because "Taiwan HanRen" is translated "Taiwan Han Chinese" - so Chinese language sources are best not used. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * , rather than edit-warring and then templating an experienced editor, please engage on this talk page and discuss the issue. Montanabw (talk) 22:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , can you point out the issue you are talking about? What is blatant misrepresentation of citations?Lysimachi (talk) 14:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Deleting a bunch of other people's stuff and inserting your own with improper formatting and poor phrasing. Also making major changes without discussing them with other involved editors at the talk page.  Looks like you've been here for two years, you should know better.  You need to take your content issues to the talk page of the article and discuss them with other editors who work on this article, not engage in revenge-templating of the regulars.  The problems with your edits have been noted by Lemongirl942 above.  You need to address your proposed edits like a responsible adult and not a petulant child.  You were blocked for this once already, it would not be wise to continue on the same path. That's all I am going to say for now.    Montanabw (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , can you point out which edits you are talking about and their respective problems? Lysimachi (talk) 22:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Look, you need to stop reverting. You actions are exactly what is called WP:OWN behaviour. As for the problems with your content, this is an example. Firstly, I have never seen a "Films" section in an article about an ethnic groups. Second, the citations do not support the content. Where does it say the films are about "Han Taiwanese"? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Their settings focused on Han Taiwanese according to references listed, which clearly mention Han Taiwanese. Lysimachi (talk) 06:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you quote me the line from the references? I see 2 references none of which have any online version and my searches are unable to find that these movies were specifically about "Han Taiwanese". It is natural to be sceptical of offline references, more so when they are non-English ones. So could you quote me the lines from the references. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion that was held at 3RR moved to appropriate venue

 * Content Comment; Well, the Han Taiwanese article is a loaded front, just the first sentence has seventeen citations. That is extreme WP:OVERCITE and a perfect example of in-article conflict. If you have five reliable sources saying one thing and five reliable sources disagreeing with that statement, then you only need 1 or 2 of those sources to verify that there is a disagreement and apply due weight by stating both positions. Even in a 5 v 2, if the sources are reliable and is stating a opposing statement, it will suffice. There is no need for 20 citations across one sentence. Add; A quick look at Han Chinese gives me the impression that "Han", "Han people" and "Han Chinese" are the exact same thing. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:16, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what overcite has to do with the current report. Regarding the equivalence of the terms, please note Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Lysimachi (talk) 09:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 1. The overcite is an observation and as I said, a comment on content not the report. 2. The RS that are cited to statements within Wikipedia are reliable sources, even if Wikipedia is not. For that matter, Taiwanese people says the exact same thing with different reliable sources as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I checked both pages. There is no proof that everyone thinks "Han", "Han people" and "Han Chinese" are the exact same thing, that every author uses them interchangeably in any context, or that "people" and "Chinese" are synonyms.
 * Even if you think these are the exact same thing, could you explain why "of Han descent" in the lead sentence must be changed to "of Han Chinese descent", as Lemongirl942 repeatedly did? Lysimachi (talk) 07:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * .... That is in part a disappointing response. You've built yourself a strawman and then proceeded to knock it down. I have made no such claims as those that you have presented (for clarity; "that everyone thinks" I have only said what I think). I'll take a stab at addressing the actually worthwhile question you have; could you explain why "of Han descent" in the lead sentence must be changed to "of Han Chinese descent" that depends only on the sources available. To me it does not appear that a distinction between Han descent and Han Chinese descent exists, they are synonymous. I would find it relatively unusual for a Han not to be of ethnic Chinese descent (that does not mean they are or identify as being Chinese) given that the Han people is a reference to the Han Dynasty of China. Where else could the Han Taiwanese come from but China? it sounds to me so similar to Australians - where else could they have originally come from but the United Kingdom? Mr rnddude (talk) 08:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I moved out comments from the 3RR report to the article talk page as that is the only appropriate venue for this discussion and have hatted the discussion out of this report. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

In Taiwan's Wikipedia page, it should say "Han Chinese", not "Han Taiwanese". The source "Republic of China Yearbook 2014" (citation 5) that is used for Taiwan's ethnicity information uses the term "Han Chinese", not "Han Taiwanese". Therefore is it indisputable that Taiwan's page should use the term Han Chinese instead. --ExGuardianNinja (talk) 22:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Han Taiwanese. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160818152712/http://www.ey.gov.tw/en/cp.aspx?n=92C1D73D8AD2753A to http://www.ey.gov.tw/en/cp.aspx?n=92C1D73D8AD2753A
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719224923/http://www.ceps.com.tw/ec/ecjnlarticleView.aspx?atliid=154777&issueiid=10981&jnliid=1452 to http://www.ceps.com.tw/ec/ecjnlarticleView.aspx?atliid=154777&issueiid=10981&jnliid=1452

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:53, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

This article was created in 2015, when did this become a NEW Ethnicity?
Prior to the Chinese civil war, even during the civil war Taiwan was merely a province of China(even under Qing Dynasty). How did "Han Chinese" suddenly turn into a different ethnic group, when even Taiwan's official name is the "Republic of China." This article strongly feels like it was created out of Anti-Chinese sentiment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EndRacismNow2021 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess it's technically an 'ethnic group', whatever that's supposed to mean, like Chinese Indonesian, which is a group in Indonesia but not a brand new ethnicity. But then what do you call Indonesians from Taiwan that are Han or non-Han? Or Indonesians from China that are Korean ethnically (Korean-Chinese Indonesians)? The politicalization of ethnicity is becoming a little ridiculous; a lot of SE asian countries, people use "Chinese" to call Han people even after they've become a national of their new country. Like 90% of the culture, language, and genetics is the same as Han Chinese but renamed to Han Taiwanese. There are also Taiwanese Mandarin, Taiwanese Hoklo, Taiwanese Hakka, Taiwanese Hokkien on wikipedia lol; it's a small link farm. GeorgiaDC (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between ethnicity (which is socially constructed) and race. DrIdiot (talk) 04:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Wording
Since User:四条河原町 is not attempting to discuss their edit, I will start. The edit by this user was to replace "a Taiwanese ethnic group" with "subgroup of Han Chinese ethnic group residing in Taiwan". This isn't an issue about "facts" but framing. Per Talk:Taiwan/Archive_25 I propose we at least replace "Han Chinese" with "Han" -- the former has political implications. I propose "Taiwanese ethnic group of Han descent", since it's important to link to Taiwanese people in the first sentence, which the new wording does not do. DrIdiot (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * As I have articulated in the comment section of my revision, the stable version of this page came with the template stating that Han Taiwanese is indeed a subgroup of Han Chinese. What you are doing is, with all due respect, essentially attempting to nullify the previously-reached conclusion by prior editors of this page. 四条河原町 (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I fail to see the relevance of the template regarding wording in the lede. And you violated WP:3RR.  See WP:BRD. DrIdiot (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think it's a bit questionable to include Han Taiwanese in that template. It's very different from every other example in that group in that Han Taiwanese consists of ethnic subgroups that speak languages from completely different language families.  None of the other groups in that template have this property. DrIdiot (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not exactly feel that way, provided that Minnan/Hokkien/Hakka are undoubtedly sinitic languages. 四条河原町 (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I misspoke: "language branch" instead of "family". Essentially every other subgroup in that list speaks languages from only one branch.  Han Taiwanese speak (at least) three. DrIdiot (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Since most ethnic groups in China can now speak Mandarin, they can potentially speak 2 (or more) branches if their native dialect is different. Also it changes depending on how you group things; if going down a level and splitting Han taiwanese into Hakka and Hoklo Taiwanese, then each of them speak only at least 2, no? GeorgiaDC (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Technically yes, but I don't think it really matters? The point is "Han Taiwanese" as a category doesn't fit in the categorization scheme used at Han Chinese subgroups. DrIdiot (talk) 00:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * For example, Han Taiwanese is not listed on the main page for the template Han Chinese subgroups. The ethnic subgroups of Han Taiwanese may intersect with Han Chinese subgroups.  But Han Taiwanese is generally not construed as an ethnic subgroup of Han Chinese.  My understanding of the purpose of this article is that it is about the ethnic Han subgroup of Taiwanese people, who may share some commonalities.  I can see an argument for merging this article with Taiwanese people, however. DrIdiot (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know the intention of the editors who first came up with the name, but Han Taiwanese seems to be not only an ethnic label but a combined geopolitical (Taiwan) + ethnic (Han/Chinese) one. While there are some people who use this terminology (looking at search enginge/database hit results), I've never personally heard of it being used in everyday conversation or in academic circles in Taiwan or in English-speaking countries in any language. GeorgiaDC (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I think the question is whether this ethnic subgroup has meaning in the Taiwanese context. I think this is a little trickier and requires a deeper dive (can't do it right now, maybe later).  For example, I think Taiwanese Hoklo/Hakka do deserve articles (and I made waishengren some time ago).  And Han are also considered a category in the Taiwanese context, so it's not irrelevant.  But this article also doesn't make a strong case for it, since much of it is about interactions between these subgroups. DrIdiot (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Strange avoidance of colloquial terms. As mentioned above, Han Taiwanese does not seem to be established terminology in any academic source and frankly any colloquial source. I myself am Taiwanese and have never heard of it. I could see Han Taiwanese being used as a term for people of Han ethnic descent in Taiwan but some of the avoidance of "Chinese" is ridiculous. For example Chinese languages was transformed into Han languages, which in fact links to Korean languages rather than Chinese. I've never heard this term before in either Taiwan or outside of it because Han is used as an ethnic or cultural marker. I suspect whoever was doing the editing simply wished to avoid any mention of the word "Chinese" whether or not it made sense. Qiushufang (talk) 01:08, 20 August 2022 (UTC)