Talk:Han Chinese/Archive 1

message: User:Wanli repeatedly insults Han Chinese with the term "Anangga ski Hanzular" which is Uighur language for "mother f***ing Han people". --Lorenzarius 14:57 Mar 20, 2003 (UTC)
:ah ok, at first I didn't understand why the second paragraph about Uighur was there. KungFuMonkey
:: funny how he has a Chinese username... --Sumple 03:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: I don't think this is true (or at least it massively simplifies the situation)....  For most of Chinese history, serious writing was done in Classical Chinese which eventually turned out to be different than any spoken form.  Also, most speakers of southern dialects are very well aware that if you transcribe their speech into characters, you get something largely incomprehensible to outsiders.
:: Educated Chinese tend to regard the written ideographs as primary, and they regard the seven or eight spoken Han Chinese dialects as simply variant ways of pronouncing the same ideographs. This is linguistically inaccurate, but the attitude has significant political and social consequences.
Roadrunner 04:26, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Written Chinese

message: Han Chinese invaded Central and Northeast Asia. They can be considered barbarians, not those were invaded. There are only ethnic minority in China not around China. Edipedia 15:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: The article mentioned genetic differences between the north and the south. Is there any research showing that Han Chinese from the north are carrying some genes of the Húrén, and those from the south Báiyuè? — Instantnood 18:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The emerging synthesis of the genetic, historical, ethnological, and linguistic evidence seems to support the hypothesis that Northern "Han" Chinese basically are "Húrén" (胡人), while the "original" Han Chinese were rather similar to the "Bǎiyuè" (百越), and whose descendants are found in a purer form in modern East China and South China. The Bǎiyuè appear to have been the direct ancestors of the modern Zhuang, Lakkia, Thai peoples, etc. and were closely related to the ancestors of the Gāoshān-zú (Taiwanese aborigines) and Filipinos. Modern "Han" Chinese in North China are genetically essentially identical to Manchus and Koreans, and they are speaking a radically altered (mostly simplified) form of the Chinese language, perhaps reflecting their ancestors' language shift. All the genetic and linguistic diversity of the ancient Han Chinese is preserved only in the south. So, for all you Chinese people who have been thinking of bashing Korean nationalists as being "Han Chinese pretending to be Manchus (or Mongols)," please stop yourselves before you make a terrible blunder; the reality of the situation appears to be that it is actually you, if you are a Northern Han person, who is the fake one. Ebizur 20:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What the heck is that all about?  Who exactly said that "Korean nationalists" are "Han Chinese pretending to be Manchus"?  Also, you do know that Chinese is a very very different language from the Manchu and Korean languages, right?  There're about zero similarities.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Genetic differences

message: I removed the statement referring to Han as being "not a truly coherent, single ethnic group", what did that suppose to mean? 
Merriam-Webster defines 'ethnic' as 'of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background', so how to add 'truly coherent' into the equation? Nihon-jin came from both Jomon and Yayoi origins, does this mean it is not a 'truly coherent' ethnic group? Unless someone can give a definition for what constitutes a 'truly coherent' ethnic group, phrases like "truly coherent, single ethnic group" has no place in an encyclopedia.  --Geckothesidhe 21:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah exactly. its a ethnic group, not a political party! there's no ethnic group on earth that is pure and homogeneous. except in the imagination of hitler. --Sumple 05:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "not a truly coherent, single ethnic group" 

message: Since when is your religion (being Muslim) disqualify you from being Han as with China's most well known explorer Zheng He? That seems ridiculous and archaic. If he's not Chinese then what is he? That aside, I like the inclusion of Confucius who is a better choice actually and is much better known. Also, Mao is a icon of China and most of the world relate him in some way to China's history. Is an encyclopedia supposed to only promote how people prefer to see themselves or reality? For example, Stalin is on the Georgians page, Dracula is on the Romanians page, and Khomeini is on the Persians page. Does a figure who is controversial mean that they are not suitable to be representative of said ethnic group? I like Yao Ming myself, but two entertainment figures seems a bit much and he shouldn't replace Mao of all people! I included Zhang just because it's good to have at least one woman since females make up half the population. Just my two cents on the subject. Tombseye 19:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, religion is also what divides many other ethnic groups, such as the Jews and Palestinians.  They're both Semitic groups from the exact same small part of the world, and have strong resemblances in terms of language, physical appearance, and culture.  But it's the religious difference (and the concomitant exclusive territorial claims upon the same holy places) that creates such a high wall between them. --Coolcaesar 20:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Semitic is not the same as being identical ethnically and linguistically. Semitic Jews speak Hebrew and used to speak Aramaic and the Palestinians probably once spoke Aramaic and Cannanite as well but switched to Arabic following Arab invasions. The Jews also vary. Some are virtually identical to Pals such as Sephardic Jews, while those from Europe show varying degrees of genetic affinity with Europeans including Germans, Poles, etc. I realize that the Chinese divide themselves as they see fit, so it's all probably a moot point anyway. I still consider Zheng He to be Chinese and leave it to the Chinese as to what type of Chinese they want to consider him. Why they wouldn't want to include a guy who changed the world with his explorations I don't know though. Confucius is a better choice so case closed. Tombseye 21:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: perhaps. if that's the convention for other ethnic groups, then yes. but the image should be color (painting?) and realistic enough to show actual facial figures. the stone carving Han Wudi photo did not adequately portray the facial features and the Confucius drawing is too Western (reminds me of a depiction of Santa Claus that would go on a Christmas card). "Han Chinese" is an ethnicity and not a nationality so I don't see the problem of listing Chinese Americans. --Jiang 01:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This page seems to be catering to a feel good image rather than something for all users though. And what's color have to do with this? Black and white or paintings are used on lots of other peoples pages. And the photos are of really western appealing Chinese anyway. It's hardly an accurate overview and looks really nationalist. And not including Mao isn't going to erase him from the minds of most people in the world. He's there in encyclopedias on China so why not on the Han chinese page? Is this to be only the 'good' Han Chinese page and nothing controversial? Can't say much for the choices, but am glad to see at least on political figure, Zemin, but two entertainers seems a bit much. The other peoples pages have historical figures, political figures, entertainment/arts, and the infamous/famous, but also having at least one woman is good. It'd be somewhat in keeping with that if this page could also be more inclusive as this should not be a platform for feeling good about being Chinese, but an encyclopedia about various groups and there well known members regardless of what they've done. As for the comment from 222.248.80.158 saying Mao's inclusion is like Hitler on the Jews page is absurd. Hitler was not Jewish first off and secondly he is actually on the Germans page. Nor does this imply that Germans are all Hitlerian. Tombseye 07:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, fair enough. I just wanted this page to be more eclectic rather than show a photo op for acceptable Chinese figures while people are far more important such as Confucius, numerous emperors, and Mao are excluded. I've worked on various peoples pages and I was trying to put in a more expansive view. The picture section usually has 1 modern figure, hopefully 1 female if possible, 1 important political figure (usually the most famous), and 1 important historical figure or scientist/philosopher etc. Without that the Han Chinese page just looks like a collage from People magazine and greatly diminishes the many things that the Han Chinese have done throughout history. I see your reasons for including Chao, but she's not really a well known Chinese person and one woman is enough if the only addition is going to be Chao rather than someone of Confucius' stature surely. Also, I think it's just having Confucius in whatever form that is important. I mean we're not going to get an exact picture anyway so why not include something? Just my 2 cents. Tombseye 09:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: That's also a valid point actually that I hadn't considered. I was mainly going by what other pages have done and the idea of a 4 people collage collection seemed to work. Mostly I think any picture of Confucius would be great as I personally happen to think he represents a lot of the interesting philosophical output of China and replacing Chao with him would be cool. Yao's great and I'm neutral with keeping him but not really against him at all. I just wanted an emperor in there too since that represents a lot of China's past. If you want to include a commoner, perhaps someone who led a revolt or even a student protester? If you can find a Confucius picture by the way that would really help this page out in my opinion. Thanks. Tombseye 03:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know everyone agrees that Zheng He is a Hui Chinese. But I don't know that being a Muslim is necessarily a (or the only) criterion that separates the Hui from the Han. I have relatives who are Hui (and get preferential treatment when entering university) but who eat pork and have never been to a mosque...--Sumple 03:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These are just stereotypes based on origin. Significant Christian and Muslim minorities throughout China, not only among ethnic minorities, but also among the Han themselves. See the Han Chinese aricle for more.--Skyfiler 19:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding picture of prominent Han Chinese 

message: As I understand Wikipedia's and USA's fair use rules, the Zhang Ziyi picture is not allowed. It is only allowed to illustrate the person/thing portrayed (i.e. Zhang Ziyi and not all Han Chinese.) --대조 | Talk 17:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zhang Ziyi fair use 

message: I mean that it is common for almost all the nations in the world have something like the diversity of han chinese.Evidence, the so-called 'pure'japanese people are genetically divided into three  major sub-group,one closely relation to Korean people and other Altaic peoples, Chinese People , and Polynesians.
In fact all the japanese people donn't feel it or see it as a matter.
So what the fuss to write such a han diversity in this article?
I have seen almost all the different people pages in wiki, and i found the diversity of a nation can only be found in han chinese page.
I am very curious about the intention of such a section diversity.
So please remove this section.
Ksyrie 05:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have examined all the page aboutjew,German people and turkic people, i found nothing more than 'ethnic division', while for chinese people,it becomes 'diversity'.Due to my limit in english, i just found the latter is more genetical, the former,more spacial.
I found on the webster online the definition of diversity
1  the quality or state of being composed of many different elements or types <a diversity of opinions on where the senior class should go for its end-of-the-year trip> -- see VARIETY 1
2 the quality or state of being different <there's considerable diversity in Jake's two choices for what he'd like to be someday: a clergyman or an acrobat>
and division
Entry Word: division
Function: noun
Text: 1 something that divides, separates, or marks off <we poked our heads over the division between the yards to see what the fuss was about>
Synonyms divider, partition
Related Words barrier, fence, wall; border, boundary, limit
2 a large unit of a governmental, business, or educational organization <the complaints division handled all of the calls from the angry townsfolk>
Synonyms bureau, department, desk, office
3 one of the units into which a whole is divided on the basis of a common characteristic <one of the major divisions of birds> -- see CLASS 2
4 the act or process of a whole separating into two or more parts or pieces <the assembly line was a major development in the division of labor among workers> -- see SEPARATION 1
5 the act or process of giving out something to each member of a group <the person in charge of the division of the profits among the business partners> -- see DISTRIBUTION 1
where we can find diversity to emphasize the inherent difference while division means the the subsequent seperation.
Ksyrie 01:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

text: ... I didn't understand all of that "English", but internal diversity of Han Chinese is an obvious and well-documented phenomenon. --Sumple (Talk) 02:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  It is fair or necessary to emphasize the diversity of Han chinese?

message: Three out of the four people shown in this picture are affiliated with the KMT Nationalists (Soong was the wife of Sun Yat-sen). I suggest replacing it with something that is more representative and less politically-biased.
:But ... Song Qingling was Vice-Chairwoman and Honorary President of the PRC. And Sun Yat-sen was the head of the KMT while it was still allied with the Communists, before the split. Both of them are considered national heroes on the Mainland. We just don't have access to useable pictures of a lot of nonpolitical Chinese people. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 01:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  current picture of prominent Han Chinese people 

message: The article claimed "Han Chinese ... is commonly rendered in Western media as the ethnic Chinese". However, a quick Google News search shows this to be inaccurate. All of the top 10 articles were about Chinese descendants overseas, typically elsewhere in Asia. I have not seen any example of the term "ethnic Chinese" being used to contrast Han with other ethnic groups within China itself. This matches with other general uses of the pattern "Ethnic Xyzian", e.g. Ethnic German (though not with the typical Wikipedia usage, where many "Ethnic Xyzian" pages are just redirects to "Xyz people".) Also see Talk:Ethnic Chinese; I would suggest that Ethnic Chinese be made a redirect to Overseas Chinese and not this page, since that matches more closely with the real-world usage of the term. cab 02:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how "Han Chinese ... is commonly rendered in Western media as the ethnic Chinese" contradicts the Google search, whether or not a Google search proves anything. Both "Han Chinese" and "ethnic Chinese" can be used to describe the overseas Chinese. LDHan 16:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Vast majority of uses of "Han Chinese" in Western media are for the purpose of contrasting Hans with other ethnicities within China  (notice all the top results are about either Tibet or Xinjiang). Sure, "Han Chinese" could be used to describe overseas Chinese, but it's both too general (includes overseas and non-overseas Chinese) and too specific (excludes overseas non-Hans who identify as Chinese). Not to mention, I barely ever see it actually being used this way. Conversely, people going to the Ethnic Chinese page are likely expecting information corresponding to the way the concept is actually used out in the real world, where the adjective "ethnic" appending to any nationality is used to describe the overseas descendants of some nationality. It's weird to call Chinese within China "Ethnic Chinese", which is a usage that sentence I deleted implies, and which is a usage that a redirect from Ethnic Chinese to here also implies. cab 23:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think what the original author meant was that "ethnic Chinese" as used in the West usually actually means "Han Chinese". For example, a Tibetan-Chinese person would be called "ethnic Tibetan" in the Western media. If a newspaper article talks about someone being "ethnic Chinese", it is almost certain  they mean that this person is a "Han Chinese". --Sumple (Talk) 04:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, that's probably what the original author means. And in that case, he/she's incorrect. Most of the uses of "ethnic Chinese" in Western media are referring  to people of Chinese origin living overseas, especially in Southeast Asia. (See Talk:Ethnic Chinese). Those people might be Han, Hui (e.g. Panthay), She people (many of whom speak Hakka), Korean Chinese, etc --- we can't say they're exclusively Han unless we've got a reliable source. Also, the use of "ethnic Chinese" to contrast with "Tibetan", "Uyghur", etc. is comparatively rare; and that use should also be discouraged within Wikipedia, since it is POV (implicitly takes a viewpoint on whether or not Tibetans are part of China, by not including them in the group "Chinese"). cab 11:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The term "Ethnic Chinese" 

message: Hey, it'll be great if you use some contemporaries to represent Han Chinese (in the photo on the right of the article). I recommend using (or at least include) cultural stars like Yao Ming, Zhang Ziyi, Gong Li, Jackie Chan, Jet Li, and Bruce Lee. This is better than just historical figures (by the way, who's the woman on the left?).
:We don't have useable pictures of many modern people. We do have one of Jackie Chan, so maybe we could use that. The woman on the left is Song Qingling.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 02:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find "like" or "dislike" irrelevant in this case. Hanfresco 10:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: The numbers seem strange.  PRoChina has 1.3 billion people, 92% of these are Han.  Total Han population (excluding overseas Chinese) is also 1.3 billion.  It could be a coincidence, or an error.  References would be good.--Per Abrahamsen 06:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demgraphics 

message: "In and around China" is absolutely correct. The term is a historical one, beginning in use since the Han dynasty. E.g. in the Song Dynasty, the Song referred to themselves as the "Han people" so as to distinguish themselves from the minority tribes around them, such as the Jurchens, the Mongols, the Tibetans, etc. Aranherunar 04:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pay attention. The article is talking the present time. The term "Han Chinese" is used to distinguish the majority from the various minorities...Edipedia 16:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's because the term is still in use. "It was during the Qin Dynasty and the Han Dynasty that the various tribes of China began to feel that they belonged to the same ethnic group". Surely, this is about the past? Please do not edit the disputed part when the discussion is still going on.Aranherunar 04:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: the above comment is a duplicate of my comment in User_talk:EdipediaAranherunar 05:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: In another case, the term can still be used in present to describe minorities around China. E.g. in Mongolia, where a number of Han Chinese resides, and where some Mongolians often consider themselves Chinese or directly connected to Chinese in culture. While you can say that Mongolians in the Republic of Mongolia do not consider themselves a minority of China (which is not exactly true, as some do), the Chinese in the Republic do use the term to distinguish themselves from Mongolians. The same case is in Russia, where a number of Han Chinese resides. Though the Russians do not consider themselves a minority of China, most Chinese still use the term to refer to themselves. Aranherunar 04:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That's very very stupid. First, the word "minority" used by Chinese is somehow different. Its translation is 少数民族 (direct translation: Ethnicity with a lesser number): note the 民族. If a russian come over to China we won't call them a minority. Incidentally if one of us went to Russia we won't call ourselves a minority, because we definitely are not a ethnicity with a lesser number. We still call ourself Han Chinese, so we definitely are not minorities. As for the minorities, I mean the 56 minor ethnicities that do live outside China, e.g. Mongolians in Russia. Aranherunar 04:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "In and around China" 

message: :If you keep changing "Yan and Yellow Emperors" into "Yan or Yellow Emperor", well, it's quite apparent whose logic doesn't make sense. Aranherunar 03:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bring up some sources for that and maybe we'll include it. Actually, how is it impossible to be descendants of two men? I don't see how it's impossible, it's VERY possible. The fact is, if these two men do exist, we have a very, very large chance of being descendants/distinct relatives of both of them. It's simple maths - e.g Yan has two children, Huang has two children, the four children marry and have eight children, etc. etc. Few thousand years without accidents and there'll be a billion. Incidentally it spells "descendants". If they don't exist - well, that's another thing. It's just what some of us call ourselves. I see a lot of people doing it - more than they call themselves "Hanren" or something. Aranherunar 04:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: See Yan Emperor. "A close kin of the Yellow Emperor, he is said to be a patriarch of the Chinese. The Han Chinese regarded them both as their joint ancestors." (point emphasized). Aranherunar 04:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Nope, that's original research. You can publish it into a newspaper or something and tell people to form into little groups like "WE ARE THE TRUE DESCENDANTS OF THE YAN EMPEROR, WE PWN THE YELLOW EMPEROR", whatever, but keep it off Wikipedia. As far as I'm concerned the whole lot of your edit is original research, and very bad original research at that.  Aran|heru|nar 04:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  炎黄子孙

message: There is nothing wrong with this sentence. Edipedia 16:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Han Chinese ethnic was formed during Han dynasty.

message: I have reverted these edits because insufficient reason is given as to why the new version is better than the old.
# "In and Around" China, as has been pointed out previously, is designed to include both ethnic minorities within the territory of the Chinese state today or in the past, as well as those outside. For example, "Han Chinese" would certainly differentiate the Han from the Göktürks in the Tang dynasty, right? Yet the Göktürks don't exist in China anymore, and if anywhere they're more likely to be found in Uzbekistan or perhaps Turkey. I agree with you that "minorities in and around China" is inaccurate. I've refactored that sentence, hopefully you will be okay with it.
# "Barbarians", placed in quotes, reflects the attitude of the Chinese regime, or perhaps, people, at the time, who definitely viewed those not under the rule of their own regime as barbarians. For example, during the southern Song dynasty, the Song, Jin, and Liao each viewed themselves as legitimate and referred to the other(s) as barbarians.
# "Project [its] power" is a term that has different connotations to "extend its influence". For example, Australia is able to "extend its influence" over Nauru, but it wouldn't be aboe to "project its power" over the country. Here, we are talking about tributary states, who were not only influenced by the central Chinese government, but were under its power.
:Han Chinese invaded Central and Northeast Asia. They can be considered barbarians, not those were invaded. Tributary states are not ruled by the Han Chinese emperor directly. I think it is more appropriate to say "extend power" instead. Edipedia 16:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, 炎黃子孫 is the "Descendants of the Yan and Yellow emperors" - that's obviously correct. I don't quite understand his change. Aranherunar 04:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Recent edits by Edipedia 

message: I am putting this here because Edipedia deletes everything that gets into his talk page.
Edipedia, please do not request the article for unprotection. You have requested it twice since I requested it for protection, both times claiming that edit wars have died down, a "promise" which you broke immediately by editing (and being reverted) four times in less than forty minutes. Requesting it for unprotection and then immediately edit warring is very unfaithful behavior, and the problem has definitely not been solved. Aran|heru|nar 13:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Unprotection" 

message: All the pages seem to have Dynasty capitalised in the page title and beyond. Is there really any need to change that around? I made a minor edit to make capitalise it. Sasquatch  t|c 05:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalisation of "____ Dynasty" 

message: I seriously doubt the accuracy of the following sentence in the first paragraph of this article. "It (Han) is often known in English and other languages as "Chinese", although "Chinese" would includes many Chinese peoples other than Han."  Traditionally, people in the West consider those in China proper as Chinese, which include both the Han people and other non-Han Chinese peopel within China proper. Chinese doesn't mean Han in English.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Inose (talk • contribs) 2006-09-02 12:47:01 
:I disagree (although the sentence is currently worded badly and cannot be clearly parsed). The concept of "China proper" is quite vague, but it seems to be generally associated with the areas that are inhabited by Han people. Because of this basic connection, it's plausible that, if are using "Chinese" with China proper in mind, they might be using it to mean the Han specifically. It's difficult to tell exactly what people mean, because most people outside of China—especially in countries that aren't even close to China—know about only a few—if any—of the approximately 56 ethnic groups in China.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 01:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that there is an ambiguity in the English word "Chinese".  Most of the editors here seem to know that "Chinese" does not directly mean "Han Chinese", but a lot of Westerners do not know that.  Unfortunately, "Chinese" does not always mean "中國人".  "Chinese" is used a lot to refer to the Han ethnicity, as in 華人, 漢人, 唐人, etc etc.  --- Hong Qi Gong 04:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Hey, hey, take a look at his contributions first, guys. It's Sockpuppet No.4 of Mr. Troll, A.K.A. Edipedia. There's no need to discuss with a sockpuppet made to edit war. He can discuss with his main account when the block expires. Start reverting. Aran|heru|nar 14:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: And "China", in turn, comes from a sanskirt word referring to Qin, a Han Chinese dynasty.  Westerners have used the word "China" long before Chinese society took its current shape.  Like I've said before, most of the editors here seem to know that "Chinese" doesn't necessarily mean "Han Chinese", but common English usage is that "Chinese" does refers to "Han Chinese".  There is an ambiguity to the word.  Please understand, "Chinese" doesn't translate directly to "中國人".  There are a lot of people living outside of China that would call themselves "Chinese", but would not call themselves "中國人", because the latter term denotes citizenship.  --- Hong Qi Gong 15:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I consider Tang dynasty a Han Chinese dynasty.  And I'm afraid that "China" comes from the Qin dynasty.  --- Hong Qi Gong 16:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: You say "China wares"? Do you mean "china wares"? Let's just call it porcelain to be clear. Anyway, China, the country, was certainly known to the outside world before the Tang. But, what I believe Hong Qigong is saying is that the word "China" comes from the word 秦. The point is that the word "Chinese" is not necessarily exactly the same as 中国 or 中华民族.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 16:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: You should read up on the etymology of the English word "China".  Everything I've read so far says that it came from the Sanskrit word cina.  That word was also Latinised into "Sina", as in "Sinologist", "Sinophile", "Sino-European relations", etc etc.  And no, the Qin dynasty doesn't have to have foreign contact for cina to come from "Qin".  There are plenty of historical records written about the Qin dynasty.  --- Hong Qi Gong 17:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bah, this is so ridiculous. Inose (i.e. Edipedia) doesn't even know what he is arguing about. China comes from Chin (Qin, 秦), that is common sense. Now quit your crap and study your own country's history. Aran|heru|nar 06:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The English word China comes from Marco Polo, who calls it Chin. This is a Persian word derived from Sankrit Cin (चीन). The ultimate source may be the ancient state of Qin (秦), the westernmost Chinese state and thus the one Indians would have been most familiar with. The prefix "Sino-" is from Latin and Greek Sinæ, both derived from Arabic Sin (صين). "China" meaning porcelain dates from the 17th century.Kauffner 15:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong sentence 

message: There are a number of references to Chinese people often referring to themselves as "descendants of the dragon", which seems nonsense to me. If someone asked for your ethnicity, do you (supposing you are Chinese) say, "descendant of the dragon, mate"? I doubt it. --Sumple (Talk) 00:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Descendant of the Dragon 

message: Dragon is the symbol of Chinese emperor. The true meaning of "龍的傳人" is subjects of the Dragon (Emperor). More elegantly, we use "Descendant of the Dragon". Genghis Khan, Kangxi, Qianlong and many other Chinese emperors are considered to be "真龙天子". But they are not Han people. All the ethnic groups in China are subjects of verious Chinese emperors (Han Chinese emperor or other ethnic emperors). So they all are considered to be "Descendants of the Dragon". It is just stupid to say that "漢族是龍的傳人。". At least, nobody say so in China. People only say “中国人是龍的傳人。
There are historic reasons to say that Chinese people are the "Descendants of the Dragon", not just Han people. These are indicated in the zh: 华夏族
公元前2700年夏族领袖黄帝东进，战胜华族领袖炎帝，两族达成联盟并将蚩尤灭掉，占据整个中原，华夏二族逐渐融合成华夏族。后来华夏族融合了藏缅族、吐火罗人、东夷、通古斯族、西戎、祝融氏、蚩尤后代、匈奴、鲜卑等。西汉时期，一个以华夏族为基础的新民族：汉族产生了。汉代汉族是由华夏族与东夷族、楚族融合而成的，也有部分羌族的血液。乾隆也是龍 17:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Edipedia, your opinions might be more respected if you stop rampantly using sockpuppets: :Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Edipedia.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 乾隆也是龍

message: This article is full of han chauvinism. Many sentences should be rephrased or deleted. Otherwise it will turn readers' stomach. Zhou Enlai 19:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Edipedia, you should wait till your main account is not blocked anymore instead of creating yet another sockpuppet.  And it turns my stomach that you took Zhou Enlai's name and made a sockpuppet out of it.  - Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, Edipedia, you should wait till the block on your main account is finished instead of making socks to avoid the block.  Regarding the statement in question - it's not a statement of pride, it's just a statement of fact.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: han chauvinism

message: There seems to have been some controversy over just exactly what ethnic groups should be defined as related to the Han Chinese, and the Wikiproject ethnic groups doesn't define it clearly what criteria should be considered for ethnic relationships. Many people seem to consider linguistics alone, while others disagree. I'd like to propose listing relations in the following way: so as to be clearer and less controversial:
Related ethnic groups:
*Overseas Chinese, other ethnic groups in China
*Linguistic relations: Other Sino-Tibetan peoples
**Other Chinese speaking groups: Hui people, Dungan people, Ngai, San Diu people
*Religious relations: 
**Other believers of Taoism: Zhuang, etc
**Other believers of Mahayana Buddhism: Vietnamese people, etc
*Cultural relations:
**Other Confucian cultures: etc, etc
*Genetic relations: etc etc
*Historical relations: assimilated historical ethnic groups
--Yuje 05:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this is a serious problem. Lately, some people have tried to add groups like Mongols and Japanese to the list of ethnic groups related to the Han Chinese, which is very misleading and inaccurate. If there are any East Asian ethnic groups that are not related to the Han Chinese, those would certainly be the Mongols and the Japanese. I think we should limit the indication of "related ethnic groups" to the uncontroversial Sinitic-speaking ethnic groups (Hui, Dungan, etc.), and possibly allow the inclusion of "other Sino-Tibetan peoples" as ethnic groups that may potentially be related to the Han Chinese, at least in a linguistic sense. Ebizur 03:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Han related ethnic groups 

message: Hello,
WikiProject Ethnic groups has added new assessment criteria for Ethnic Groups articles.
Your article has automatically been given class=stub and reassess=yes ratings. [corected text: --Ling.Nut 22:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: -->How to assess articles
Revisions of assessment ratings can be made by assigning an appropriate value via the class parameter in the WikiProject Ethnic groups project banner  that is currently placed at the top of Ethnic groups articles' talk pages. Quality assessment guidelines are at the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team's assessment system page.
Please see the Project's article rating and assessment scheme for more information and the details and criteria for each rating value. A brief version can be found at  Template talk:Ethnic groups. You can also  enquire at the Ethnic groups Project's main discussion board for assistance.
Another way to help out that could be an enjoyable pastime is to visit  :Category:WikiProject Ethnic groups, find an interesting-looking article to read, and carefully assess it following those guidelines.
Thanks!
--Ling.Nut 03:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Assessment Criteria for Ethnic Groups articles

message: About this sentence in the "Terms" section:
:It was during the Qin Dynasty and the Han Dynasty that the various tribes of China began to feel that they belonged to the same ethnic group, compared with other ethnic groups around them.
Isn't there a better way to phrase this?  It's a little vague to say that they "began to feel that they belonged to the same ethnic group".  Both "began to feel" and "ethnic group" are very vague phrases in this context.  "漢人" could have been used just to refer to people who lived under the rule of the Han Dynasty government, and not specifically as a term of "ethnicity".  And also, is there even evidence of this?  Could the term 漢人 be a term whose common usage arose after the Han Dynasty, in order for people in later dynasties to give a name to themselves and their ancestors?  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Han Chinese identity 

message: Please see ; you'll note that it is a speedy deletion template. The two rightmost pictures in those image bars:
* http://www.flickr.com/photos/klaithzhang/159196850/ 
* http://www.flickr.com/photos/dost/244314698/ 
are licenced only respectively as:
* http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/
* http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/
that is, for non-commercial use, and by Wikipedia:Image use policy#Free licenses, can only be used by fair use; their use here is not fair use because this article doesn't explicitly talk about Zhang Ziyi nor about wax sculptures of Liu Xiang, and also free alternatives for general depiction of "Han Chinese" are readily available (public domain pictures of people of said ethnicity). cab 13:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And for the record, I oppose removing Chiang Kai-shek from the infobox. Khoikhoi 00:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:hanchinesebar4.jpg]] and [[:Image:hanchinesebar5.jpg]] 

message: sorry for the vandalism!It was so stupid of me! no more, i promise, you can ban me for now,i learnt a lesson!206.116.5.152 02:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry 

message: Small but significant Christian and Muslim minorities.does any body has a refrence for that.7day 11:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religions 

message: Substituted at 20:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment