Talk:Chinese people in Myanmar

message: If you are going to propose that this page be moved to "Chinese Burmese" or something (a move which I would oppose), please join this discussion on naming conventions which I have initiated. We want to avoid having the same debate about "ethnic group name first or country name first" on every single talk page relating to ethnic groups living outside their ancestral countries. Thank you in advance. cab 10:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What should this page be called? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Chinese people in Myanmar. 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/20100920043536/http://irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=14151&page=2 to http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=14151&page=2
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chinese people in Myanmar. 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/20130825223730/http://www.international.ucla.edu/cms/files/ch1and5.pdf to http://www.international.ucla.edu/cms/files/ch1and5.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) 08:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on Chinese people in Myanmar. 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/20120314155426/http://irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=22592&page=2 to http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=22592&page=2
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101006031921/http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=3799&page=1 to http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=3799&page=1
*Added  tag to http://realfoodchicago.com/index.php/tours/tours-vn/item/213-mandalay?tmpl=component&print=1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120215122240/http://www.mmtimes.com/no461/sport01.htm to http://www.mmtimes.com/no461/sport01.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161229122056/http://asiapacificnewsnetwork.com/china-pipelines-bring-benefits-complaints.html to http://asiapacificnewsnetwork.com/china-pipelines-bring-benefits-complaints.html
*Added  tag to http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=381&page=1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111004082631/http://irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=21127 to http://irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=21127
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110818183335/http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=21496 to http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=21496
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722223003/http://irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=21656&page=2 to http://irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=21656&page=2
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060507103249/http://newidea.nandaw.net/ to http://newidea.nandaw.net/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060423014826/http://mocsa.org.tw/ to http://mocsa.org.tw/
*Added archive https://archive.is/20041029031455/http://163.29.16.16/english/index.asp to http://163.29.16.16/english/index.asp
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) 21:46, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I was looking at "Trade and Industry Section", and the tone comes across as rather anti-Chinese, hence violating the NPOV policy? Is it possible to fix it somehow. I think it's fine to say that the ethnic Chinese have a disproportionate economic clout relative to their population, and that it has caused resentment among the indigenous peoples, but the section goes on towards blaming the ethnic Chinese for the poverty in other ethnic groups, which I think can come across as rather bigoted. After all, it is very similar rhetoric that Hitler against the Jews, and we all know what happened as a result of that. The dog2 (talk) 05:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: To me, it's the opposite. It's rather anti-Burmese and has a disturbing tone of racial superiority. The truth is yes, many Chinese tend to favor one another for business and form a sort of bamboo cartel. This led to a rapid resource acquisition using foreign capital and the displacement of local populations. In addition, many Chinese have a known reputation for greed which is a sin in Burmese culture. Burmese are less motivated by monetary stimulus. Instead, this article makes it look like there is some sort of inherent superiority within the Chinese which led to their so-called "success." Lillyanna2020 (talk) 08:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: What a load nonsense, it's obvious both of you exhibit WP:IDONTLIKEIT sentiments while unequivocally violating [[WP:NOTCENSORED guidelines based on the previous removals that both of you have made. The fact is, Overseas Chinese economic dominance (not just in Burma, but the rest of Southeast Asia) is an economic reality and if you think all these groundbreaking facts somehow constitute "Han chauvinism," or what you both characterize as a "disturbing tone of racial superiority" then you might as well label all the academically well-sourced information that back up these assertions of Chinese economic dominance as somehow perpetuating "Han chauvinism or racial superiority." It is worrisome that well-documented information grounded in reliable, rigorous, and robust academic sources is interpreted as kind of threat from you. This is a clear case of violation of WP:NPOV and a good example of WP:I just don't like it and WP:NOTCENSORED. Since it's completely evident in your tone that you cannot tolerate well-grounded facts backed by legitimate academic sources, I guess that makes you both the racially prejudiced ones. SimeonManier (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: [ Burmese are less motivated by monetary stimulus. ] so that is chinese fault? that's just blaming the hardworking for being successful. furthermore this isn't even true, there are many Burmese business in my country, many of the more entrepreneur Burmese just choose to leave their country. that statment feel more like prejudice against the Burmese. 101.127.8.197 (talk) 23:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Tone of This Article 

message: CCP trolls are adding Han Chauvinist content to the article, often copying verbatim from books like Bamboo Network. JordanKSM (talk) 23:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Chinese are NOT "economically dominant." They are rich, sure, due to the KMT opium trade. But most of Burma's economic sector is controlled by Burmese cronies.JordanKSM (talk) 23:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  The fact is, Overseas Chinese economic dominance (not just in Burma, but the rest of Southeast Asia) is an economic reality and not related to ″Han chauvinism" that you falsely assert, purport, and insinuate. Furthermore it is sad that you confuse economic clout (grounded in robust, rigorous, and reliable academic research) with unrelated racial supremacist theories from the past (that you wish to impute and insinuate that facts that you disagree with) and that you are apparently not interested in getting into the topic. It is worrisome that well-documented information grounded in reliable, rigorous, and robust academic sources is interpreted as kind of threat from you. This is a clear case of violation of WP:NPOV and a good example of WP:I just don't like it and WP:NOTCENSORED. It's obvious that your recent removals constitute a blatant violation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:NOTCENSORED guidelines, especially when its well-sourced material backed by relevant and reliable academic scholarship based on your fallacious claims of so-called Han chauvinism. Facts are facts. Blow me if you can't accept, handle, and withstand the truth. SimeonManier (talk) 22:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  They are NOT economically dominant. YOU think YOU are dominant. That's racist and Han Nazist. Most of the Burmese economy is under the control of the Junta's cronies. Your citations are ALL LIES! The source does not support what you are saying, except for Amy Chua, who has NEVER been to Burma to begin with (her sources contain major errors about the country). Also, HAVE SOME SHAME! Don't claim to everyone with a name that sounds Chinese as Chinese. Amy Chua, for example, claims any famous person that includes "Yu", "Han", or any Chinese character is Chinese. Quite shameless. JordanKSM (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

text:  Nobody "can't handle it." Even the "rich" Chinese get rich via the heroin trade and other illegal or semi-legal businesses. Money is not worshipped in Burmese culture. Just stop spouting you are superior or other nonsense. Shameless and garbage of humanity. JordanKSM (talk) 22:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

text:  By the way, YOU reverted to an edition in 2020. So many editors have edited this page. That cannot be allowed. JordanKSM (talk) 22:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

text:  Amy Chua's books that claim the Chinese own everything and "dominate" the Burmese economy are factually incorrect. Her book does nothing more than illustrate her lack of exposure to the country. There are thousands of citations on the fact that much of the Burmese economy is under the control of the cronies, all except two are not Chinese: Serge Pun and Lo Hsing Han. Serge Pun's company is based on FDI, not a local investment. Lo Hsing Han became rich due to the heroin trade. Chinese own no telecoms. Most Chinese are "middle-class," not too poor, not too rich. But that's a far cry from "domination." 22:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

text:  It's also so poorly written that I am not sure it's English or some alien language. A paragraph with 3000 words? Not to mention COPYVIO? Oh my god. Unassimilated Chinese today have virtually no political power. If anything, association with them is political suicide. JordanKSM (talk) 23:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  COPYVIO and Han Chauvinism 

message: It's settled that Ne Win is not a Chinese for so long. User:Yue has been trying to revert to an old version and removed my edits about KMT invasion of Burma. JordanKSM (talk) 10:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many arguments why Trade and Industry don't meet quality standards, CPOVIO, and other criteria for inclusion. If it were a new article, it would surely be rejected. User:Yue is refusing to discuss or address the concerns and waging an edit war. JordanKSM (talk) 10:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  If "there are many arguments", then make them. If "there are copyright violations", then provide evidence. Do not project claims of restoring to an old version of the article — this was your first edit to this article in which you restored an old version, complete with spelling mistakes and formatting errors which had since been corrected. The only "old" versions of the article I am restoring are the ones before your unjustified removals of content. If you have a good reason(s) as to why that particular section should be removed, then provide them here instead of falling back to "I don't like it!" and "everyone's a pro-China editor but me!" Afterwards, remove that particular section instead of restoring an older version of the article because, again, you also restore all the typos and remove content which have nothing to do with your grievances. Yue🌙 19:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

text:  Your addition has been removed by so many users before. Stop adding the same thing. Tell me how that section is encyclopediaic. I can add 1GB about how Burmese are more collectivist, selfless, and superior to the Chinese (Ways That Are Dark, Ungly Chinaman, etc. etc.). But that won't be suitable for an encyclopedia. JordanKSM (talk) 21:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

text: The content has not been accepted by the community. In addition, you are REMOVING legitimate history about the KMT invasion. You are disguising your removal of content with reverts. You can instead retore your ugly trade and industry section. JordanKSM (talk) 21:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

text: I didn't remove anything. The addition was not consensus-based. The problem is with the one who added it. Anyone who actually read that section would understand that it's not encyclopedic and relies on general sources written by non-specialists. Basically, the whole section is about how the Chinese are great, how they are superior, how they dominate everything, and how they just decimate the Burmese. Nobody would find that to be suitable for an encyclopedia. In addition, some paragraphs have 3000 words or 5000 words. It needs a major rewrite if it ever were suitable for a standalone section. The choice is yours. Want to add it? Make it encyclopedic and meet WP standards. Don't wanna do the work? Then, don't force such an ugly section on an otherwise good article. Also, you repeat lies after lies that Ne Win was Chinese (he wasn't). Claiming every major Burmese historical figure as "Chinese", you probably aren't here to build an encyclopedia. You are here to spout racist, "How we are superior to everyone" in articles. JordanKSM (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  User:Yue is restoring to an old version 

message: The whole section cheery-picks and exaggerates sources that are themselves not based on specialists on Burma. No researchers specializing in Burmese history would argue "the Chinese dominate Burmese economy." Even in Mandalay, many researchers have pointed out that Chinese influence is highly exaggerated. The whole section is irredeemable. Super-long paragraphs that repeat essentially the same thing. Seem to me the author was motivated by showcasing "How great we are!" instead of delivering content to the readers. JordanKSM (talk) 22:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a curriculum vitae on "achievements of our race" and not a section delivering content. Nobody needs to know who owned which rice mill in colonial Burma. Wikipedia is not indiscriminate collection of factoids (WP:PLOT). JordanKSM (talk) 22:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

text: The edit is question is by mass reversal of edits by a probable sock of user Yue which restored a very old 2019 version with trade and industry section. The trade and industry section was added by indef-blocked User:Backendgaming. The trade and industry section was added to similar articles about "Chinese in x" and had also been removed everywhere. JordanKSM (talk) 22:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  None of the trade and industry is remotely true 

message: It appears that User:SimeonManier is a WP:DUCK sock of User:Backendgaming. He's restoring the "Trade and Industry" sections in all articles about "Chinese in X"; the sections are basically a racist rant against whichever country the Chinese reside in. The "Trade and Industry" section here is an exact replica of Hoa_people#Trade_and_industry with the same sources (Yos Santasombat, Amy Chua, etc., not a single specialist from the said country is included) and with the same unreadable massive paragraphs. JordanKSM (talk) 04:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:DUCK sock

message: I've gone through the section to try and remove much of the more obvious cleanup issues based on WP:CITEKILL, NPOV and duplciate/contradictory information. Unfortunately, I can't access many of the sources used to verify and remove much of the remaining information. Right now, I believe that it's a matter of content and want to open it up for comment here.
The section still relies heavily on a few sources and is still incredibly long and needs to be condensed/moved to an separate dedicated article. Specifically, there are a few paragraphs that are just lists of businesses Sino-Burmese run/own. Furthermore, the section is very vague between Chinese (the government) business/trade/industry and Chinese (ethnically) business/trade/industry. The two are linked but not identical.
EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 16:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your help. Yue🌙 07:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trade and Industry Cleanup 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion