Talk:Chinese

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anon's edit[edit]

Is this a good or bad edit? I don't know much about Chinese politics, so is this vandalism, political bias, or a good edit? — Stevey7788 (talk) 21:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think it is a good edit, since most Taiwanese do not consider themselves Chinese.

Siyac(talk) 9:35, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Due all history on those Chinese countries, like all the time expend on learning them(up to six years)and all the differences between them and all difficulty for communication between other languages and for written languages, those countries should consider seriously to switch their language to a more convenient one as English, may be Spanish, may be Esperanto, etc.

Restoration of disambiguation[edit]

The version on [23 October 2005] has taken away a lot of disambiguation aids. If the editor had seen the many of the articles that were linking here, the editor may have had second thoughts about cutting down this list. To give examples: when a subject is referring to a chinese restaurant, in nearly all cases they mean Chinese cuisine, a chinese restaurant is not necessariy run by Han Chinese and hence the staff in the restaurant do not necessarily speak the Chinese language. This is being restored to be a disambiguation aid, see also Wikipedia:Disambiguation. (Sloman 10:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). Dab pages are supposed to be navigational aids that separate articles that could have the exact same title. Only Chinese language, Han Chinese and Overseas Chinese are included here. This is not supposed to be a general link list for various China-related articles and certainly not just any article that contains the word "Chinese". If people have linked to this page by mistake, correct the linking, not the dab page.
Peter Isotalo 17:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Link correction aid[edit]

The link correction has been put here as it is needed for making corrections. (Sloman 19:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Bonafide.hustla (talk · contribs)'s edits[edit]

Bonafide.hustla (talk · contribs) is repeatedly deleting "(Taiwan)" from the article. "Taiwan" is the most internationally commonly used name for the Republic of China and should be described as such. Another user here reverted Bonafide.hustla's edits. Are Bonafide.hustla's edits appropriate? RevolverOcelotX

It's a violation of NPOV and indirectly imply Taiwan is part of China or Taiwanese are Chinese which are delicate and controversial issues on wikipedia.--Bonafide.hustla 20:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bonafide.hustla, the article does not imply that. It clearly a commonly used name for the Republic of China. Please gain consensus on the talk page before deleting content from the article. RevolverOcelotX
As per Iachimo (Talk | contribs) (rv) --Bonafide.hustla 21:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As per Calton 14:32, 28 July 2006 Calton (Talk | contribs) (Taiwan) RevolverOcelotX
As per my last edit summary: of course the citizens of the Republic of China were universally called "Chinese" not very long ago. As far as I know, there is also no dispute about the extent of the territories currently administered by the RoC, the largest part of which is the island of Taiwan. I do not see an implicit claim of "Taiwanese are Chinese" on this page. Kusma (討論) 08:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had a few friends from Taiwan while I was in America. The one I know the most referred to her culture and food and language as Chinese, to contrast it with American culture etc. She is ethnically Chinese, but tells people that she is from Taiwan.

My friend moved to New York because there are many "Taiwan people" there, so it was easy for her to find a job. She eventually attended a church that was full of "Taiwan people." She described the church as having Chinese traditions, and having a service that was in Chinese.

I later asked my friend if she is Chinese or Taiwanese and the answer was complicated.

Andyohio 11:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese derogatory term[edit]

I replaced the link to Japanese controversial term on Chinese. Regarded as derogatory by many, avoided being used by Japanese government, that word shouldn't be linked to this page. please do not this sneaky things here again. --Yau 12:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cantonese / Chinese[edit]

I think this statement is false as it currently is written:

"An exception is that the term is usually understood to be Standard Cantonese, when used in the special administrative regions of Hong Kong and Macau in the People's Republic of China."

Andyohio 11:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More people speak Wu Chinese (Shanghainese) than Cantonese. Can Shanghainese be added to the list? --15lsoucy (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are 4 theories about ROC[edit]

1. Taiwanese version: claim ROC ceased to exist after 1949 and China and Taiwan are 2 independent soverign countries.

2. ROC-advocate version: ROC and PRC are two countries kinda like the 2 Congos in Africa

3. PRC version: ROC cease to exist after 1949 after successful communist rebellion took over China and PRC was established. This ignore the government in Taiwan which PRC doesn't control.

4. KMT version: claim ROC is the only legitimate government in both Taiwan and China. This ignores the government in China, which isn't called the ROC.

All 4 theories have strong support so the inclusion of Taiwan in the ROC column has POV issue.--Certified.Gangsta 09:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a disambiguation page, not an article. Besides, NPOV is upheld by acknowledging opposing views, instead of censoring them--Jiang 02:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you mean by that. The version right now is a violation of NPOV since whether Taiwan is an independent, soverign country or part of China is a controversial issue so Taiwan shouldn't be included in this article.--Certified.Gangsta 05:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which geographic areas do you think the ROC is administering at the moment? Kusma (討論) 07:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, but just because the ROC administer Taiwan doesn't mean the world recognize this fact nor the population in Taiwan counted as Chinese.--Certified.Gangsta 07:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just what would your definition of fact be? Keep in mind there are always people who believe otherwise. Holocause is a fact but there are still people who claim otherwise. Now given that China consider Taiwan as part of it. China also consider people in Taiwan as Chinese. UN consider Taiwan = China therefore people of Taiwan = Chinese in the past. All countries with diplomatic ties with China consider Taiwan part of China, how does world not recognize the population in Taiwan not Chinese? It is only the pro-independence group in Taiwan who consider themselves not Chinese. Not including Taiwan violates NPOV, including it, also violates NPOV. However the lesser of 2 evils would be to include Taiwan unless a better person can word it properly. --NYC 18:22, 10 APR 2007 (UTC)

--Just to add that population in Taiwan province, ROC (or Taiwan authority from the PRC version ) always counted as Chinese in diplomatic term internationally.

Whether ROC could be officially recognized in this world is another issue, depends on the interaction between the PRC and the ROC. (PRC claims it is the successor of ROC since 1949 and PRC is the sole legitimate authority of a country called China, which means Taiwan independence and Taiwan seperatist movement from the ROC (or PRC from PRC version) will cause war).

Therefore it is often to clarify the situation across the Taiwan Strait as "keeping the status quo", which is lawfully and constitutionally the only accepted condition by every party involved.

No access to Wictionary in China....[edit]

Therefore WP:NAD is not relavent, at least for this term and all terms associated with China. "zh.wikipedia.org" is also blocked. My material about translation was not what you would find in a typical English dictionary. It was just aimed at making the term less ambiguous when speaking to a person from mainland China.

The meaning of Chinese (and the related terms in other languages) should vary whether you are talking to someone from Taiwan, mainland China, Macau, S.Korea, N. Korea, Vietnam, Mongolia. Andyohio 12:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above, this should be clarified.

Merge "Chinese people" into this?[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was The result of the debate was no consensus to merge. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Should we merge Chinese people into this article? That article is supposed to be a DAB article but doesn't conform to WP:MOSDAB at all. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is categorized as a disambiguation page; I don't see how it doesn't apply as one. It's as much of a disambiguation page as Hawthorn is. Badagnani 20:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, firstly let me state that I actually don't care too much either way. But Chinese people has grown to look like it wants to be an actual article, and has veered really far from WP:MOSDAB. There is a discussion about this on its Talk page. I thought we should either make it conform to MOSDAB or really develop it into its own article. If we make it conform to MOSDAB, it'll basically mirror how half of this article looks, so no point in having a seperate DAB page, really. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

  1. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. All of the links on the Chinese people disambiguation page are already covered by disambiguation links on this page. There isn't any real merging that needs to be done; Chinese people can just be redirected here. Dekimasuが... 12:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. I understand the opposition's POV, but we don't need so many disambiguation pages, especially since they are both very short. --tess 22:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support merging dab pages. I oppose having multiple dab pages. See below. — Randall Bart 04:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per my comment in discussion section and above. Vicarious 22:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

  1. Oppose. Chinese is a disambig page that includes all pages that are "Chinese..."; Chinese people is for Chinese people. This seems fairly straightforward. Badagnani 20:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per above. --Sumple (Talk) 21:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

I don't think a suggestion for a redirect requires a merge vote. What are we proposing to add to this disambiguation page? Dekimasuが...? 02:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess what I meant to suggest was to blank out Chinese people and put a redirect in it. But that's basically the same thing as a merge. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) This is debate not a VOTE. We are discussing structure and WikiPhilosophy, not facts, so we might eventually vote on it, but that's a last resort.
2) I strongly support the convention that [[Chinese people]] ought to be an article about an ethnicity. However, there are a billion and a half Chinese, and there are another billion and a half dead Chinese, and a surprising number of them wrote a lot of history. There are so many different articles, that there will be fights over making any one article the article on Chinese people.
3) Multiple dab pages with heavy overlap is troublesome. Disambiguators have ping ponged links between these two. Perhaps this should be escalated to a general MoS:DAB issue. I strongly support merging dabs where there is heavy overlap, and this is heavy overlap. I understand the argument that a reader shouldn't get a big dab page when a small one would do, but the reader should rarely see the Chinese people page. If the disambiguation faeries are doing their job, there won't be links to that page, and someone typing a word into a search box will almost surely type just "Chinese". Having a separate dab page frustrates the disambiguation faeries and thus the final reader, more than a lengthier dab page frustrates the reader. — Randall Bart 05:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The real question in my opinion is if there's any content left after you remove the disambiginess, after reading the page 9sh times I decided their wasn't, but that their might be at some point in the future. Vicarious 21:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cleanup of the dab page[edit]

The edits that were made to change the disambiguation page (not by me) were a positive step in cleanup for WP:MOS-DAB, so I have reimplemented some of them. Although the page still has several entries that have too many links, the link to Chinese culture should not be near the top of the page as it was before. WP:MOS-DAB states that we should "list other entries of which Title is a part in a "See also" section unless the subject is very frequently referred to simply by the single name." The word Chinese, as a noun, does not generally refer to the culture (this is usually "the culture of China" or "Chinese culture"), unlike the noun uses of the term for the language, people, and cuisine. The see also section is a useful workaround for people who are looking for a more specific topic (see Japanese for another example of this), but we are supposed to be talking about noun forms of the words for the main links at the top of the page. Dekimasuよ! 05:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The removal of much useful information in the name of "cleanup" does not seem to be helpful. As changes to this page have been the subject of some debate, please go over each proposed change (particularly the big ones) here so that we can see that edits are being made in a deliberate, judicious, and thoughtful manner that all can agree on. Badagnani 05:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that Chinese cuisine be moved up, as it is often referred to simply as "Chinese" in Western countries. Badagnani 05:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After another review I see that some of the changes that were made were unhelpful, as you suggested. (I had to go back and take out links that weren't in the page before his edits, not noticing that he had added them). I propose to keep your version (with cuisine moved to the top), but have culture moved back to the bottom and have the see also section constitued as in the new edit. Dekimasuよ! 06:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that someone has already done this. Badagnani 06:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought you would agree with it, so I went ahead with that. This was the brunt of the change I actually wanted to keep when I misunderstood the breadth of the original changes and started the partial revert. Dekimasuよ! 06:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Also, the link should be readded to Chinese people now that we have taken the disambiguation tag off of that page. Dekimasuよ! 06:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like someone has already wikilinked it. Badagnani 06:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't think there would be any dispute there. Dekimasuよ! 06:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the comment that Chinese cuisine is "one of the richest and most diverse culinary cuisines and heritages in the world" goes too far in expressing a point of view. Can we find a more neutral text description for that link? Dekimasuよ! 06:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, this should probably be toned down. Badagnani 06:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Chinese auction and Chinese fire drill. Again, WP:MOS-DAB states that we should "list other entries of which Title is a part in a "See also" section unless the subject is very frequently referred to simply by the single name." A Chinese fire drill is never referred to as "a Chinese", so it shouldn't be at the top of the page. Discussion of the adjectival form, if you really think it is necessary, should be in the see also section. Dekimasuよ! 06:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are correct in that neither of those two things is referred to as "Chinese." Badagnani 06:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No harm was done in dab-ing the wikilinks that didn't have "Chinese" in them (viz. this comment: "rev last; no piping on disambiguation pages, and the straight links are alphabetized"), and I object to the revert on WP:IAR grounds, as it's much more elegant to have all the links have "Chinese." Badagnani 06:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It actually does cause some small problems; when people fix links to this page through CorHomo, it will create piped links rather than direct ones on every page where a link is fixed. Dekimasuよ! 06:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additions[edit]

I don't think this edit is correct, because I don't think hanja or any of the others is called "Chinese." Badagnani 23:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on who you ask I think. I'm neutral to whether or not we should include these mentions, but for example, "hanja" and "kanji" just translates as "Chinese characters" in their respective languages. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of those are called "Chinese," though they may be called "Sino-" this-or-that. Badagnani 00:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese in the Russian Revolution and Chinese in the Russian Civil War[edit]

Hello. I'm an editor in the above article.

  • It is known that the White Russians tried to "blame" the Chinese for the Revolution and Civil War. Trotsky made fun of that, for example.
  • An editor presented the Reference below as the 1st authority on the matter.
  • Can anyone please help explain this source? Is it reliable, or is it propaganda of the time? Does anyone know anything about the author?
  • Is it true that the Chinese played a notable or significant role in the Russian Revolution and Civil War (1917-1920)?
    Пын Мин. История китайско-советской дружбы. М., 1959.
    (Peng Ming, "History of the Chinese-Russian Frienship",
    translation from Chinese, Moscow, Sotsekgiz, 1959,
    original: "Zhong-su yu she", Pekin, 1957 (Russian)

Thank you.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 11:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additions[edit]

There are 5000 years of Chinese history and culture and I cannot believe there is so little information given, There are many things that can be added in the passage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamnotdead (talk • contribs) 06:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chinese&oldid=1200854768"