Talk:Hukou

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): 6ibberish. Peer reviewers: RiceStudent, Dnelson 14.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Miss janae. Peer reviewers: Tsadowsk.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Self-contradictory
This article contradicts itself. Take the following sentence: "Although an individual is technically required to live in the area designated on his/her permit, in practice the system has largely broken down. After the Chinese economic reforms, it became possible for some to unofficially migrate and get a job without a valid permit. Economic reforms also created pressures to encourage migration from the interior to the coast. It also provided incentives for officials not to enforce regulations on migration."

The very next sentence reads:

"Technology has made it easier to enforce the Hukou system as now the police force has a national database of official Hukou registrations. This was made possible by computerisation in the 1990s, as well as greater co-operation between the different regional police authorities."

Even though the wording of the sentence only speaks of the possibility to enforce the system, mentioning this at least strongly implies that the system is in fact enforced in the manner described. This is in contradiction to the previous sentence, which says that the system still exists on paper but is not generally enforced any more. Could somebody with knowledge of the matter please clarify? SchnitteUK (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

More than just the PRC
Jiangs edit comment said that Hukou are also issued in Taiwan. If so we need a pointer and article written for the ROC. SchmuckyTheCat 04:45, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * It is a system in mainland China and territories administered by the ROC. Currently the article does not have any reference to the ROC's system. &mdash; Instantnood 04:51, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * make some, it probably doesn't need a seperate article. You could also link to Right of Abode for the HK and Macau perspective. SchmuckyTheCat 04:56, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I added the first sentence 70.57.137.163 01:10, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) [Dpr]

should we use gender-inclusive language? Yiyun 04:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge from Allegations of Chinese apartheid
Assuming that it's still around, it appears that the section Allegations of Chinese apartheid, largely criticisms of the Hukou policy, could be merged here. Criticisms should not normally be shuffled off into separate articles. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe not normally but Allegations of Apartheid sphere of articles is exactly that. Unless apartheid is a word to avoid outside the realm of south africa, it should stay there IMO. Amoruso 17:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Amoruso. I oppose this proposed merge, as I believe it should not be discussed or decided in isolation. A precedent was set on Wikipedia to refer to "apartheid" in the title of an article about one country that had been accused of "apartheid."  That was an unfortunate precedent, but until it is changed, consistency demands that "allegations of apartheid" be treated the same for different countries.  Amoruso also refers to the issue of "words to avoid", and there is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Words_to_avoid of a proposal (which I support) that articles other than those about South Africa should not have "apartheid" in their titles.  6SJ7 18:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Disagree Irrespective of whether the word "apartheid" may validly appear in another article or not, parts of the deleted article are of great relevance here. I am working on integrating these in my userspace, and will post when I have it in a presentable state. I have a sneaking suspicion that if the DRV is endorsed, the battle will spill over to this article ;-)Ohconfucius 04:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Much of the content of that article was in fact about Hukou, not about the allegations. In fact, probably well more than 50% of that article was actually about Hukou.  How much, if any, can be usefully integrated here is an interesting question.  The right answer may be very little, but I don't think it is none.  GRBerry 17:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"Allegations of Chinese apartheid" is on the term and its political use, while here aspects of Chinese society are presented. --tickle me 00:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Working comments on merge Aug 7, 2007
I have carefully worked on merging the relevant section of the 'apartheid' article in my userspace, and then transferred it in 4 macro steps.

I felt that the breach of WP:SYS needed to be dealt with instead of just lazily C&P. WP:COPYVIO was certainly relevant in the merge, as many of the sentences cited from the 'apartheid' article were directly lazily and unashamedly copied word for word from said footnotes. The article also violated WP:PSTS, and thus the heavy reliance on the number of primary sources has been reduced to a minimum. As there was already quite a bit of information in the BBC and Independent articles, I was able to cite the same facts as per the primary sources, reducing reliance on these. I also felt that referencing the word "apartheid" with n different and unique citations when those references (and info therein) could have served more widely to populate the article was tantamount to point-pushing, so these have been properly refocussed. Ohconfucius 03:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge
Do not leave your comments here. Please leave your comments at Talk:Family register. Thanks.--Mak Allen (talk) 05:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Confusion about Taiwan
First sentence of the article says: "A hukou (Chinese: 户口; pinyin: hùkǒu) or huji (Chinese: 戶籍; pinyin: hùjí) refers to the system of residency permits which dates back to ancient China, where household registration is required by law in mainland China and Taiwan."

Another sentence in the same section says: "A similar household registration system exists within the public administration structures of Japan (koseki), Vietnam (Hộ khẩu) and North Korea (Hoju). In South Korea the Hoju system was abolished on 1 January 2008."

And in another section we find: "When Taiwan was under Japanese rule from 1895 to 1945, the Japanese government maintained the same system of household registration (koseki) as they did in other parts of the Empire of Japan. This system of household registration, with minor changes, has been continued."

Based on the last sentence, it sounds like Taiwan is using the Japanese system. If the Japanese system is a Hukou, then the first sentence should say "where household registration is required by law in mainland China, Taiwan, and Japan. If the Japanese system is different enough that it is not a Hukou, then the first sentence should not include Taiwan but rather Taiwan should be listed alongside Japan, Vietnam, and North Korea.

Or did I miss something? Readin (talk) 04:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a good point. My impression was that the system currently in Taiwan is descended from the ancient system applied by the Qing Dynasty, and so is the same as that in mainland China in form if not in policy purpose.
 * If, however, the Taiwanese system is indeed descended from a sufficiently different Japanese system, then all it shares with the mainland system would be the name, rather than the substance. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The system used in Taiwan is the ROC (Chinese) system, and where relevant, using the data from the Japanese colonial period.--pyl (talk) 05:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not what the article says. Any idea where we can find a reliable source to use to fix the article? Readin (talk) 04:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I know the huji system is an area of study in some social science disciplines (sociology, government, etc) - so maybe JSTOR will have a couple of papers on it? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hukou system. 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/20070808024838/http://home.wangjianshuo.com/archives/20060610_hukou_system_in_china.htm to http://home.wangjianshuo.com/archives/20060610_hukou_system_in_china.htm

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) 08:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Potential Future Edits
Hello! As part of a class assignment, I am considering editing this article. My edits would potentially include expanding the article to provide a more extensive description of the history, evolution, implementation, and reform of the hukou system. I am also particularly interested in the system's consequences in regards to inequalities in health, education, and income. A more comprehensive description of my plans is available here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:6ibberish 6ibberish (talk) 05:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Update: My intended changes can now be found in my user sandbox. Essentially, I am planning to edit the section focusing upon the hukou system in mainland China, providing a more comprehensive description of its evolution since the founding of the People's Republic of China in 1949 and expanding upon the information provided about its function, rationale, role in inequality, and various efforts to reform the system. 6ibberish (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Update: I've edited the opening paragraph of the section "Household registration in the Chinese mainland" so as to include a broader introduction to the overall hukou system. In the future, I will be adding more information and revamping this section. 6ibberish (talk) 01:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Editor Review
6ibberish's contributions are a great addition to this article. I think that the article does a very good job of presenting various viewpoints and remaining neutral. The lead is informative and reflective of the remaining article. I think the "Household Registration system in Mainland china" is quite long, and you could consider promoting its 4 sub sections to a heading of their own. Especially because the Hukou system in Taiwan does not have nearly the same level of completeness as mainland china. I also think more links and pictures would help to make the article more interactive with the reader. Overall, great work! Thank you for your contributions to wikipedia! Dnelson 14 (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Article Review
I recently read this article and would like to provide some feedback!

6ibberish has made a lot of great progress on this page. This editor has really filled out the content of this article and made it more comprehensive. I really appreciate the neutrality of this article.

The only changes I would make would be to add more links and pictures. While you could add more information, I feel like there is already a lot going on so it isn't necessary.

Good luck with continued editing to this page!

RiceStudent (talk) 04:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hukou system. 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/20080226205611/http://www.ukzn.ac.za/ccs/files/Whitehouse%20China.pdf to http://www.ukzn.ac.za/ccs/files/Whitehouse%20China.pdf

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) 13:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 27 October 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC) &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Hukou system → Hukou – Most search hits lead to the system. Disambiguation exists already. Gryffindor (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - Primary topic. -Zanhe (talk) 09:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Problematic Sourcing in Rationale and Function section
The last paragraph of the the Rationale and function section reads:

Human rights activists state that the hukou system has also been used to systematically deny Uyghurs and Tibetans from moving out of Xinjiang or Tibet by disallowing them from renting or buying housing in more eastern parts of China, and that any who do manage to leave are commonly forced to return through the system.

citing citations 17 and 18. Citation 17 is a Globe and Mail article which does not discuss hukou. Citation 18 is a Medium post by someone claiming to have translated a series of text messages which appears in the Globe and Mail article. Should these be given unreliable source tags until better sources corroborating these claims can be found? I admit that I am still not totally familiar with Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines, so I may be off base here. Wobblymolly (talk) 04:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I have added a new source to this section. I am still interested in hearing the consensus on the reliability of citations 17 and 18 and whether or not they should be removed from this section. Wobblymolly (talk) 16:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)