Talk:Overseas Chinese/Archive 1

Archive 1

Indonesia data

The indonesian data doesn't match with the one from the indonesian chinese page.

Multiple links to Chinese WP

It's interesting that there are two links to the Chinese wikipedia: zh:華僑 zh:华侨. Do they mean different things? -- Error

華僑 was the original version in Traditional Chinese and it was the 1st zh interlanguage link added. A Simplified Chinese version (华侨) was made using MS Word auto-convert later. The Simplified link was added in an attempt to try if the different versions of the same zh link can be differentiated. Apparently, it can not.

--Menchi 02:00 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

With the new zh-tw:華僑 and zh-cn:华侨 links, the links are labelled differently now as: 中文(繁体) (Traditional Chinese) | 中文(简体) (Simplified Chinese). --Menchi 02:18, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Religion

Can something be said about their religions? Are conversions to forms of Christianism significant? -- Error 05:08 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

ROC

Removed ...

The R.O.C. continues to allow legislative representation to overseas Chinese, a seat which has remained controversial as many of the voting members of the American overseas Chinese communities were supporting the KMT military dictatorship while enjoying the freedoms of America.

Actually no. The overseas Chinese seats in the Legislative Yuan are not controversial on Taiwan. The seats are distributed among the parties based on their vote totals in Taiwan and then the parties hand them out to their supporters among overseas Chinese. Also, the DPP gets as much support from overseas Chinese as the pan-blue coalition. The KMT really doesn't get that much support from overseas Chinese anymore. --User:Roadrunner

The numbers are from?

The articles give both a 60 million and a 33,720,000 number. What's up with that? - Jerryseinfeld 19:38, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It depends on how you count the people of Taiwan (23 million), Hong Kong (7 million) and Macau (0.5 million). If you define Overseas Chinese as all Chinese outside mainland China, then you get a total of about 60 million. However if you classify them as "Offshore Chinese" then you get 33 million. (Note that these numbers don't always match up. Estimating Chinese in Southeast Asian countries, particularly Thailand, is difficult at best.) --Constrainer 19:01, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

japan and korea

ive noticed something very strange. chinese go everywhere. indonesia, vietnam, thailand, singapore, cambodia, philipines, cuba, even mauritius! however, there is no mention of chinese in korea or japan. i find this very strange because many japanese and most koreans have chinese surnames. also, japanese and koreans writing system is based on chinese, so i find it very hard to believe that there arent a ton of chinese in those countries. how can these countries that show no signs of chinese culture within their own culture, such as thailand, singapore, cambodia, philipines, mauritius have significant chinese populations, while japan and korea who have embraced everything chinese from language to religion, to clothing, to architechture not have a sizable chinese population?

Chinese are the second-largest minority group in Japan, after Koreans. As for Korea, it depends on what you mean by Chinese. If you mean Han Chinese, then a lot of them left after the Korean War because of discrimination and lack of economic oppurtunity. If you mean Chinese citizens, then there's a large population of Korean Chinese (chaoxianzu) living and working in South Korea. Unlike other overseas Koreans, they aren't automatically granted citizenship (probably in the interests of good relations with China), so they're still PRC nationals.--Yuje 06:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

still however, if you compare the chinese populations in japan vs thailand or indonesia, its highly insignificant.
Thailand Thai Chinese 7.3 million

Indonesia Indonesian Chinese 7.3 million

Japan 175,000

華僑 vs 華裔

I have changed the text explaining the difference. There is a difference, but it was not the right difference that's written there.

華僑 literally means a Chinese person (華人) "living as a sojourner in a foreign country" (僑居). It is probably right in saying that the person must be born in China; a person born outside China probably won't consider his/her place of birth as a foreign country.

However, the word 華裔 does not imply that the person is born outside China; This is at least the case in Canada here. We have previously used the term "Canadian Chinese" (加藉華人, stressing Chinese ethnicity, then Canadian citizenship), but now the term "Chinese Canadian" (華裔加人, stressing Canadian nationality, then Chinese ancestry) is preferred, whether or not the person in question is born in or outside China. The word 裔 literally means "descendant(s)" so 華裔 simply means "descendants of Chinese people". —Wing 00:23, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Latin America and South America

How come the statistics box doesn't contain the number of ethnic Chinese living in Latin America and South America? theboogeyman 22:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know. But I do know that adding the info would be a great little project. Wanna help? Be bold! Cheers, -Willmcw 21:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I added Brazil and Panama into the statistics box. Those were the only two countries I could find that had a significant population of Chinese in Latin and South America. If there is another country that anyone else knows about, please add it! Thanks! --theboogeyman 22:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I've read that there are about 60,000 ethnic Chinese living in Argentina (look at http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentinos-asi%C3%A1ticos). I can't tell if the number is accurate or not. gus8591 14:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Brazil has 200,000 ethnic Chinese (look at http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/colunas/retratosdachina/chineses_no_brasil.shtml)

England vs the UK

Many people from the New Territories in Hong Kong were chosen to earn a better living in England and Holland in the post-war period.

(?) Do you mean England or the whole UK? See British Isles (terminology) if you are not sure.

Did the Chinese people moved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?

(Comment left by 202.40.139.165 on main article. Moved to discussion page by Yuje.)

Can anyone elaborate on this comment? What is meant by "were chosen"? Who chose these people? When did this happen? Also, can anyone cite any sources for this information? - HongQiGong.

Chinese people commonly make the mistake of using "England" to refer to the whole UK and "Holland" to refer to the Netherlands. This is because the common Chinese terms for these places (yinguo, helan) are derived from these names.--Jiang 03:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I suggest that this sentence be deleted from the article unless somebody comes up with a source of information and/or provide a bit of elaboration. The sentence is a little confusing by itself. Hong Qi Gong 04:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It's probably bad English, they were not "chosen". Many people from the New Territories in Hong Kong did emigrate in the UK in the post-war period. I have corrected the sentence.LDHan 17:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Australian figures do not match

The number of ethnic chinese in the Chinese Australian article does not match the table. I also found that the figure from the article came from the 2001 Census so can't understand how the figure in the table is not only lower but is said to be from 2003 when the population would have grown since then.

Typical Overseas Chinese houses

Do we really need pictures of them, especially more than one picture of them? Hong Qi Gong 15:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Overseas chinese is hardworking and dicipline, and they got money by working very hard, so they can built houses, large houses. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hensu75 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 11 June 2006.

Is there really anything special about the "Typical Overseas Chinese house" ? There are overseas Chinese in SE asia, N. America, Europe etc, so what's "typical"? The photos are mostly pointless, they don't tell us anything, except that there are some who are very rich, and some who are well off. LDHan 17:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

In addition, I dispute the contention that they're "typical". Not all overseas Chinese are well off and can afford such houses. —Umofomia 21:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

So should we get rid of those pictures? Hong Qi Gong 17:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the pictures from the article. The premise of a "typical overseas Chinese house" is ridiculous, which is proven by that each of the three images depicted a different style of architecture. In addition I removed the photo of "Overseas Chinese in New Zealand"—having photos of some Chinese people adds nothing to this article, which is to say nothing of the fact that the image is so small, the presence of humans can barely be discerned. Such is also true of the other three images, where the features of the image are eclipsed by one's wondering why they were uploaded so small. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 06:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Source for population numbers

What sources have we been using for the population numbers that are listed at the bottom of the article? Hong Qi Gong 14:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think without the source(s) of the figures, the changes to the numbers should be reverted. I suspect vandalism by user:Hensu75, eg the figure for the UK according to the 2001 census is 247,403, it has been changed to 647,403. LDHan 16:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Where do the original numbers from the other entries come from? Only the UK entry actually links to the source of its number. None of the other entries do, and they don't match the numbers from this, which is linked in the External links section. Hong Qi Gong 17:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

definition of "Overseas Chinese"

Please stop editing or adding texts to say that Chinese people in continental Asia are not or may not be considered "Overseas Chinese". The very definition of "Overseas Chinese" is Chinese people living outside the Greater China region. So while it may be a misnomer, Chinese people living in continental Asia outside of the Greater China region are, in fact, Overseas Chinese. Hong Qi Gong 06:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Let us be democratic about this. You are free to express your view and nobody asked you to to stop editing or changing what others wrote. The terms "Chinese", "overseas", etc. are ambiguous and it is natural that people may have different views. You may not like or agree with everything written here, and nobody is the absolute authority. I think the former version was better and more accurate, but would welcome a debate (on the talk pages) if you insist on changing the text again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.252.4.21 (talk • contribs) 2006-06-17 03:58:14

Wikipedia is not a democracy. And the term "Overseas Chinese" is a commonly used academic term to refer to Chinese people outside the Greater China region. There are plenty of sources to show that.([1][2][3] and many many more) If you want to say that it sometimes does not refer to Chinese people living in continental Asia, you'd have to show some sources that say this. Otherwise you're violating Wikipedia:No original research if no reliable source actually say this. Hong Qi Gong 15:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

People's Rublic of China definition

So what do they call people born in the mainland, Taiwan, Hong Kong, or Macau, who don't have Chinese passports? --tess 19:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Assuming you are talking about people who are not only born in, but also live in these places, you wouldn't call them Overseas Chinese. For example, some (Chinese) people in Hong Kong have British National Overseas passports instead of Chinese passports. But Overseas Chinese would be Chinese people who permanently live outside the Greater China Area. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about people who no longer live in China, Hong Kong, Macau, or Taiwan, who don't have Chinese passports, and I'm only asking about the PRC's definition. Does the PRC consider them Overseas Chinese also? The article's definition seems to have left them out. tess 20:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, the PRC definition is a legal definition, and thus is tied to citizenship. So no, those Chinese people who live outside the Greater China Area with non-Chinese nationality would not be considered Overseas Chinese under the PRC definition, or more specifically, would not be considered 華僑. But please do see if you can find sources to confirm this. I'm not 100% sure if this is true. That whole subsection needs to be sourced to verify its validity. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

海外華人

The correct term in Chinese is haiwai huaren. But there is no need to even have the Chinese term here in the English encyclopedia. Just link with interwiki/interlanguage links if you want. And we should be democratic in respecting each other's views, even if as Hongqigong claims, wikipedia is not a democracy.

Ethnic minorities of China in overseas countries

Overseas Chinese are not limited to ethnic Chinese populations, but rather include also the diaspora of the entire Chinese nation (Zhonghua minzu). For example, ethnic Korean minorities from China who are living in South Korea today are often included in calculations of overseas Chinese, because these ethnic Koreans also identify themselves as part of the Chinese nation (zhonghua minzu). Similarly this also applies to Nusantara Chinese Peranakans in South East Asia.

Is this really true? I don't see Tibetan refugees in Dharamsala counted in the figure of overseas Chinese in India, for example. Nor are they commonly (ever?) referred to as such. Same goes for Uyghurs in Turkey, Mongolians from Inner Mongolia who moved to Outer Mongolia, etc. Even Dungan (Hui in Central Asia) are not usually seen as overseas Chinese, though they still speak a Sinitic language. And "Nusantara Chinese Peranakan" (I'm guessing this just means Peranakan --- nusantara is a BM/BI word meaning "the Malay archipelago") are actually descendants of ethnic Chinese, so they don't belong in that paragraph. cab 14:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is "Chinese" can mean different things, in English "Overseas Chinese" usually means "Overseas Han Chinese". Perhaps "Chinese" in the sense of "Chinese citizen" is used as part of the justification that China is a multi-ethnic state. I'm not sure that ethnic Koreans (from China) do identify themselves as part of the Chinese nation (zhonghua minzu). LDHan 15:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[4] [5] These photos can answer your question. Ethnic Korean from China migrate to U.S.A. identify themselfs as Overseas Korean Chinese. 203.218.21.56 (talk) 18:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It probably depends on who you ask. I don't remember the books or articles I've read on overseas Chinese including anyone but Han Chinese, but that is not to say that sometimes ethnic minorities in China living overseas are not also counted. Maybe this is what the Chinese government does? At any rate, I've put a couple of {{fact}} tags in that section. --- Hong Qi Gong 16:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

True, but at the same time, we have to consider the fact that many of these "Overseas Chinese" are either self-identified as "Chinese" or are "classified" as such by the receiving state (with or without their consent). That was what the above paragraph is trying to say I suppose, and I do sense that it is an observation which is not meant to be strictly applied in all cases.--Huaiwei 11:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think such a statement can be made without qualification. Although I know some Manchus who do consider themselves Chinese, I also know a Mein/Yao (whose grandparents were from China) who don't, and I bet a lot of Tibetans and Uighurs don't consider themselves Overseas Chinese. --Yuje 05:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

As I have already said, "it is an observation which is not meant to be strictly applied in all cases". I speak mainly from the Southeast Asian perspective, where the majority of "ethnic Chinese" are either self-identified or are identified by the state. And I say "Many", because the vast majority of Overseas Chinese has been and continue to reside in the Southeast Asian region. Individual exceptions dosent negate the overall trend. Anyhow, the fact that a few non-Hans dont consider themselves as Chinese while overseas still dosent negate the statement, does it?--Huaiwei 06:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

My reply was directed at the original comment, (of all ethnic groups in China classified as Overseas Chinese), not at yours. --Yuje 06:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Then indent your reply properly, as I have just done for you. You arent new to wikipedia.--Huaiwei 09:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

chinese diaspora

I propose to reverse the article redirects so the main article is 'Chinese Diaspora' and this article would redirect to that article. I would move the contents of this article to 'Chinese Diaspora'. This would make the Chinese articles match most/all other WP diaspora articles. Your thoughts or questions? Thanks Hmains 04:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I think "Overseas Chinese" is used much more often, both formally and informally. LDHan 14:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "Overseas Chinese" is a lot more common. Please don't make such a disruptive mass move of all dozens of pages from Category:Overseas Chinese to Category:Chinese diaspora unilaterally. --Yuje 04:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Most, if not all of the research done on the Chinese residing outside of China, HK, Taiwan, etc is called "Overseas Chinese" research. Not "Chinese Diaspora" research. I object to it being changed to Chinese Diaspora. -- Montie5 08:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

"Overseas Chinese" is the more commonly used term. --- Hong Qi Gong 14:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

ethnic chinese

This article is NOT a correct reference to link to when referring to ALL Chinese people. This ONLY pertains to Chinese people who are not living in China. Thanks Hmains 02:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

"Ethnic Chinese" is a term used in academic literature and news media to refer to Overseas Chinese. This aligns with other uses like Ethnic German. There is no need to call Xyz people living in their country of origin "ethnic Xyzian"; you just call them Xyzian. If someone is using the phrasing "ethnic Chinese" to mean something else like Han Chinese or Zhonghua Minzu, their writing should be reworded. When I cleaned out the links to Ethnic Chinese (as per wiki policy since it is a redirect), virtually all of them meant Overseas Chinese anyway, except for the uses on Hong Kong pages, and one case where it meant both Chinese overseas and Chinese in the mainland. cab 07:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

After looking at your recent edits, I finally get what you're actually driving at. But many of the pages you are going around to change to point to China are actually talking specifically about Chinese living overseas, not all Chinese, and not Han Chinese, e.g. Filipino Mestizo. cab 08:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Zhenghe(鄭和)(Hui ethnic )is overseas Chinese

Zheng He is a famous overseas Chinese, but he is a Hui people not Han Chinese. Overseas Chinese doesn't only refer to overseas Han Chinese. Edipedia 19:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, Hui Chinese are genetically the same as Han Chinese. Secondly, Zheng He was an explorer and an admiral, but he didn't settle down to live outside of China, so he's not an Overseas Chinese, regardless of the fact that he was Muslim or Hui. --- Hong Qi Gong 20:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hui ethnic is not genetically the same as Han Chinese. They are mainly Mongols and Turkic. You can see this in the Chinese Wiki zh:回族. Otherwise why bother to make them an ethnic minority. Zheng He did live outside China and temporarily settled down in several places overseas. Only a racist can say that overseas Chinese only refers to Han Chinese. Edipedia 20:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hui Chinese were mainly Mongol and Turkic... over a thousand years ago. There's been about a thousand years of intermarrying with Han Chinese. They are basically Han Chinese who are Muslim.

And besides, you've contradicted yourself already. Zheng He temporarily settled down in several places overseas. The point is that he did not move to a place overseas and settle down, and call that place home. --- Hong Qi Gong 21:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

There is another more commonly used phrase "海外華人" for overseas Chinese. "海外華人" doesn't need to live permanently outside China. Edipedia 21:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

華僑 is the common term used for Overseas Chinese. There's a ton of academic work concerning Overseas Chinese and their communities, and they all refer to people who live permanently outside of China. Please do not insert your original research and please do not change the very definition of what Overseas Chinese means. --- Hong Qi Gong 21:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean original work? Don't you agree that "海外華人" refers to overseas Chinese? Edipedia 21:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You are trying to say that Overseas Chinese translate to 海外華人, and that 海外華人 do not live permanently outside of China. However, the definition of Overseas Chinese would necessitate that they live permanently outside of China. So 海外華人 would be the wrong translation then. --- Hong Qi Gong 21:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Where did you get the idea that overseas Chinese need to permanently live outside China? "海外華人" refer to overseas Chinese who either permanently or temporarily live outside China. The thing is that overseas Chinese are not only Han Chinese but also other Chinese minorities overseas. This is indicated in the terminology section of this article. You're contradicting yourself. Edipedia 21:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I actually disagree with that. I've never read of anybody but Han Chinese referred to as Overseas Chinese. But at any rate, just don't change the translation to 海外華人 or edit the article to say that they do not need to live permanently outside of China to be Overseas Chinese. There're a ton of research done on Overseas Chinese, and you changing the translation or definition of it would violate Wikipedia:No original research. Thank you. --- Hong Qi Gong 21:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Your logic is just wrong. There are a lot of things you don't know or heard of. You can't make judgement completely on your own experience. Chinese people temporarily living outside China qualify most as overseas Chinese (海外華人). Nobody considers Lucy Liu, Michelle Kwan overseas Chinese. At least, people consider them American citizens first. So citizenship matters more. Technically speaking, Zheng He(鄭和) is overseas Chinese. Overseas Chinese are not just Han Chinese. Edipedia 14:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No, Zheng He is not Overseas Chinese not because he was not Han Chinese. But because he never settled permanently outside of China. Please read some studies on Overseas Chinese. He was an explorer and a traveller. He was not an Overseas Chinese. --- Hong Qi Gong 15:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, he is used as model overseas Chinese in the article. You are making stories yourself. As I explained above, those Chiense people living temporily outside China qualify as overseas Chinese most. Edipedia 15:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Zheng He did not emigrate. He travelled and explored. There's a big difference. --- Hong Qi Gong 15:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if Zheng He is not overseas Chinese. That still does not justify your editing. Edipedia 15:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll conceed that whether or not Overseas Chinese only refers to Han Chinese is disputable. However, 華僑 is a much more common term than 海外華人. --- Hong Qi Gong 16:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

So what about 华人？

In the PRC at least, there are three terms: 华侨 for "Chinese people" living overseas. In the past, this meant Chinese people who held Chinese citizenship while residing on a long-term basis overseas. This is relatively rare now and so the term also extends to any Chinese person living overseas. 华裔 means a "descendant of Chinese". Usually this means someone born overseas, but descendant from Chinese parents or ancestors. 华人 is a more general term that means any Chinese person, and 海外华人 (I think) specifically means "Chinese person(s) living overseas", without making any assumptions on their citizenship status or place of birth. Thus, for example, in official usage the Chinese government always refers to 华人华侨, which I guess means "foreign nationals who are Chinese, and Chinese nationals living overseas".

I'm raising this point because the article deals comprehensively with many terms, even mentioning rare terms like 华胞 (who on earth says that...), yet neglects 华人 or 海外华人, which seems to be standard/official equivalent of the term "Overseas Chinese".

So, can any experts clarify the status of these terms? --Sumple (Talk) 07:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

These are social terms, but they aren't found anywhere in PRC law. One thing that is confusing is that the PRC government will refer to "qiao bao" in context where they obviously mean Chinese born overseas. The other thing that makes things complex is that the terms change over time.

Roadrunner 17:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

"Chinese people", "descendant of Chinese", "foreign nationals who are Chinese": I assume "Chinese" here means "Han". The problem is many people also use "Chinese" to mean a citizen of China, including all the non-Han minorities. LDHan 10:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No, "Chinese" here means 华 as in 中华 - as in Chinese, which is not the same as Han... There are plenty of people who are Chinese yet are not Han. --Sumple (Talk) 10:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Overseas Chinese=海外華人

The Chinese equivalent of Overseas Chinese is "海外華人". Other words are subsets of this word. Please see the Chinese version of this article. zh: 海外華人 Edipedia 16:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

"Pre-Overseas Chinese" section

As much as I think it is important to mention the term 唐人, I really have no idea what the purpose is of the following passage in the Pre-Overseas Chinese section:

Before the term Overseas Chinese was introduced, peoples of Imperial China that inhabited abroad were known as Tang Lang by Hokkien speakers or Tong Yan by Cantonese speakers (Chinese: 唐人). Modern Standard Mandarin was not the language in the old Imperial China, therefore it is not proper to read as Tang Ren.

It's not "proper" to pronounce it as "Tang Ren"? Doesn't that depend whether you're saying it in Mandarin or not? --- Hong Qi Gong 02:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

RE: I have removed 'proper' to make it proper. Anyway, I want to emphasize the old use of TangLang & TongYan, because the old folks in Nanyang did not use Tang-Ren. L joo 09:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Lol. In fact, it's not proper to call China "China", because people in China call it something else. Also, it's not proper to call "Mars" Mars, because Martians don't speak English.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  --Sumple (Talk) 04:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected - see Marvin the Martian --Sumple (Talk) 04:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget Martian Manhunter. --- Hong Qi Gong 05:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Now, if only we could find Marvin Tangren, who would prove that Pre-Overseas Chinese (sic) actually did call themselves that ... —Nat Krause^(Talk!) 05:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha, the calling of China "China" started from a mistake pronunciation, the English-speakers got the idea 'Cina' from Indians (or probably others), and they start calling it "Chaai-Ner" "Chaai-Nees". According to Lynn Pan, the Spanish in Philippines met the Hokkien traders and they called them "Seng Li", (Seng Li=Doing Business, Chinese: 生意).

Anyway, it was translation. The Chinese today translate the name "Victoria" to "WeiDoLiYa", some translate it "Weiduolia" "Waitoliyeh", so which one is correct?

Later, all these terms, evolve, evolve and evolve into, "Chinese Overseas, Overseas Chinese, Chinese American, Nanyang Chinese, Malaysian Chinese, Singaporean Chinese, Huaren, etc, etc. L joo 09:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The article is not so much on the term "Overseas Chinese" though. The concept of the "Overseas Chinese" started as soon as Chinese people started moving and settling abroad, and forming communities. If you don't mind, I would like to delete that section and move the content to the Terminology section. --- Hong Qi Gong 14:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with HongQiGong: the section seems to be more about terminology rather than concepts: A rose by any other name, etc., unless it's called crapweed. --Sumple (Talk) 14:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: I don't mind, please move to terminology. Btw, probably some misunderstoods, it was not 'that simple' (many things cannot open talk in public). The whole thing was in the past/present, highly sensitive issue, because the Overseas Chinese controlled too much of economy, and that's why very sensitive. Remember: China's viewpoint and Overseas's viewpoint are different. Probably the page has to involve the "华侨政策" & the old "郑和的国家观与华侨政策" and many other political stuffs. L joo 16:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

If you can provide some sources on the sensitive issue of using the term 唐人, I think that would be very helpful. Anyway, I'll move the content to the Terminology section later, unless someone else does it first. I need to edit it to make it fit into the Terminology section. --- Hong Qi Gong 16:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the section and moved the content to the Terminology section. I've also removed the Chinese terms in the intro of the article. We can just use the Terminology section for all the different Chinese terms. --- Hong Qi Gong 01:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

usage of 海外華人 and 華人

Yes, I know that 華人 says nothing about citizenship, but I think 海外華人 specifically is a term used by the PRC government for Chinese citizens living overseas. I couldn't find any sources for this though. Also, note that I'm not saying that the term is only used by the PRC government. --- Hong Qi Gong 03:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi HongQiGong, I'm pretty sure 海外華人 as used by the PRC government makes no assumptions on citizenship, because there is another term HuaQiao used by the PRC (sorry no Chinese input on this comp... hope you know what I'm saying) that specifically means citizens living abroad. Thus, for example, the Huaqiao Office of the PRC State Council deals only with its citizens living abroad. --Sumple (Talk) 04:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Usage of (唐番 Tang Fan) & (过番客 Guo Fan Ke)

• 番: 旧时对西方边境各少数民族和外国的称呼。如:番西(四川西部少数民族地区);番钱(外族钱币);番王(少数民族的领袖);番客: (指客居中国的外族人或外国人;或客居南洋的中国人) Dictionnaire chinois chinois

唐番:

• [readusa.com/readusa/sino-america-history/index.html 美国华文《唐番公报》在旧金山创刊。 1876/04/05 美国旧金山白人举行反华 大会。 1878/12/24 美国华文《萃记华美新报》在纽约创刊。 ]

• [www.sinica.edu.tw/~capas/publication/newsletter/N23/2301.pdf 特別喜歡以伯公與拿督公為例，認為「唐、番土地」就是唐番交融的象 ... 拜「唐 番土地」，明確表現其協調後的文化認知]

• [www.fgu.edu.tw/~wclrc/drafts/Taiwan/gong/gong-01.htm 如美國《唐番新聞》，光緒二年七月九日創刊。名為「唐番」，義殆指唐人在番邦，其報刊 體例則自稱：「茲《新聞》之作，亦是率由舊章，與唐山《轅門日報》同出一轍」]

• [www.ls11.com/Article_Show.asp?ArticleID=15035 如唐朝时：通过和亲政策促进了唐蕃 友好，文成公主和金城公主入藏切了唐番的关系；]

过番客: "...李光耀1973年访台时对行政院长蒋经国说：新加坡其实被视为中台以外的第三个中国。民族、文化和语言上的一脉相传，由不得我们否认。但李光耀在回忆录中说中国是“世界最古老的文明，延续了4000年不曾间断的历史。我们这些过番客，斩断了自己的根，寻觅另一种气候另一片土壤重新扎根，欠缺的正是这种自信。”李光耀对新加坡前途忧心忡忡，不知道命运会怎样安排。这段话值得深思..."

• [renwen.100steps.net/ct/cankao/hh21.htm 不单富人们如此，就是那些因贫穷而外出谋生的过番客在外另娶或带回二奶、三奶的亦 不在少数...]

• [bbs.chinabroadcast.cn/simple/index.php?t166623.html 1920年，新加坡仍是英国殖民地，眼看发展潜能优厚，吸引了不少中国过番客南来。]

• [youth.zaobao.com/friday/pages/594tup1.html 过番客南来不容易牛车水以前是华人的聚集区，早期从中国来到这里的过番客，多数都 在这里落户，他们主要来自广东与福建。]

半唐番:

• 身为台湾与日本人的混血儿，被叫作半唐番，既不为日本人所接受，亦不为台湾人社会所容纳

• [learnedfriend.blogspirit.com/影像音圖文誌/ 阿拉丁這角色是由Jason Scott Lee去演，他是個半唐番，怎樣看都是 中國人的臉，而不是阿拉伯人，而且，中國人的臉都是要襯著長辮子，剃了半邊頭髮的。]

• [www.zhongshantour.com.cn/static/2006-08-24/1156404933520387.html 三是把侨居地的语言文化中的一些语词、语意等带回家乡，形成了较为独特的侨乡半唐番的语言； 四是他们把国外的一些动植物和商品带回香山，丰富了家乡人的物质生活。 ]

L joo 08:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I don't have time to read all of them right now, but I'll get to them later. --- Hong Qi Gong 14:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Of Chinese descent

How does the PRC and ROC government refer to people like Kristin Kreuk and Naomi Campbell? Do they regard them as 华人，华裔 or 海外华人? If you are partly of Chinese descent living outside the PRC and the ROC, does that means that the PRC and the ROC government regard you as an Overseas Chinese?

Ceuta 15:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The Usage of Laowai 老外

In recent years, the usage of Laowai 老外 is getting popular. 2 years ago I travelled to somewhere Sichuan in China and I chitchat with a bus driver. There were some American tourists on our bus, so I heard the driver and his friends calling them " Laowai 老外...." and so I thought Laowai is a term designed for Non-Chinese or perhaps Non-Overseas-Chinese, suddenly the driver said "Hey, you are Laowai too (你们也是老外)".

L joo 09:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Laowai just means foreigner. LDHan 11:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

... That was... a joke? --Sumple (Talk) 11:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, I think the joke is that the bus driver was juxtaposing the category of "Chinese" with the category of "foreigner". L-Joo is apparently a Chinese-speaker from an Overseas Chinese family, and so, thus, he would tend to be seen as "Chinese" in a sense; however, the driver was pointing out that L-Joo is also not a Chinese citizen, and so, in that sense, he is a foreigner. The joke is that "Chinese" is habitually seen as exclusive of "foreigner".—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 14:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The term means "foreigner", but is usually only applied to non-Chinese or non-Asian. A lot of people do, however, use it to make fun of Chinese people from overseas who act or dress too westernised or foreign. --- Hong Qi Gong 14:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reply. I think Laowai has multiple meanings: foreigners, westerners, westernised outlook, make fun on others, Overseas Chinese, etc. My friend from Malaysia, she is ethnic Chinese, look Chinese, and she speak fluent Putonghua. Her colleagues in China call her "Laowai" on phone and on Skype, they sound seriously, friendly, not making fun on her. Anyway, take it easy, lol.

L joo 22:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

WTF guys (in relation to Australia)

Chinese are NOT 20% of the Australian population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.67.75.124 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-01 01:54:18

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Australians —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.67.75.124 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-01 01:55:41

Yeah yo, homey G, WTF man. Anyway, feel free to correct the numbers when the article becomes unprotected. Most of the numbers on that chart are unsourced and unverified anyway. --- Hong Qi Gong 06:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Prejudice

I think it should be noted that "Mainland Chinese" (my definition is those from Taiwan, Hong Kong, and China) look down at Overseas Chinese, because they weren't born/raised in Mainland China. Both of my parents are Overseas Chinese (my mom's Chinese born in Malayasia, my dad Chinese born in Vietnam) and Mainland Chinese have always felt some sort of resentment toward us for that; many of my friends have Overseas for parents as well, and they have similar problems. Why sigh, cutie pie? 19:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

That's very POV. But if you can find a reputable source for this information, we can mention it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say in general on average any one group of Chinese people will have prejudices against any other Chinese people, and that's not even mentioning the prejudice against other ethnic groups. Eg even within mainland China city people look down on rural people, and then there's the HK prejudice against people from mainland China and so on. Obviously I'm not taking about individuals. I remember once reading about the prejudice held by southern Jiangsu people against people from northern Jiangsu, and it wasn't some tabloid type article but a piece of academic research. LDHan 21:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

In contrast to your experiences, I find many mainland chinese respect overseas chinese, partly because many people in mainland China (PR China, excluding HK, Macao & Taiwan) still 崇洋, and overseas Chinese are generally successful economically & professionally, although we may not speak or write perfect 北京话 -- "There is no really poor Chinese outside mainland China" (from the book "a billion customers"). 〖大马华人】 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.93.152.3 (talk) 02:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Expatriate category

As "overseas Chinese" includes those who retain Chinese citizenship but live in foreign countries, the expatriate category seems to me to be valid. LDHan 22:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to read all the article Oversea Chinese without finding overseas Chinese includes those who retain Chinese citizenship but live in foreign countries--Ksyrie 22:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, those exact words are not in the article, are you saying that Chinese citizens who live (usually long term) in foreign countries are not overseas Chinese? "Overseas Chinese are Chinese people who live outside China", "Huá qiáo (华侨) refers to Chinese residing in countries other than China", and "Huá qiáo, (also Qiáo Bāo or Zhōng Guó Qiáo Mín), is defined by Chinese nationality law as a person born in mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong or Macau, who resides overseas but possesses Chinese citizenship and a Chinese passport" are all in the article. LDHan 14:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Those words used to be and I wondered about them too. But somebody "fixed" it. tess 00:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Why does Ethnic Chinese redirect to Overseas Chinese?

This is ridiculous. Ethnic Chinese should redirect to Han Chinese instead. Many Overseas Chinese aren't even ethnic Chinese (see ethnic Koreans from China living in South Korea). Someone please change the redirect. --Mamin27 03:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as "Ethnic Chinese"? Sees like some sort of oversimplified western neologism like "Ethnic Indian" or "Ethnic African" or something. Rumpelstiltskin223 03:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It redirects to Overseas Chinese because of the massive number of sources cited on the talk page. Try doing a Google books search - virtually every hit refers to Overseas Chinese. Also as per Ethnic German, Ethnic Indian. I am reverting this change. cab 03:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

While Ethnic Chinese directing here seems weird to me, directing it to Han Chinese is also odd. The 3 terms aren't synonymous to me. But that's the rub. No one, especially persons of "Chinese" ancestry (including me), seems to be able to agree what they mean.--tess 00:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Chinese in Malaysia

List of racial discriminations in Malaysia, practiced by government as well as government agencies. This list is an open secret. Best verified by government itself because it got the statistics.

This list is not in the order of importance, that means the first one on the list is not the most important and the last one on the list does not mean least important.

This list is a common knowledge to a lot of Malaysians, especially those non-malays (Chinese, Ibans, Kadazans, Orang Asli, Tamils, etc) who were being racially discriminated.

Figures in this list are estimates only and please take it as a guide only. Government of Malaysia has the most correct figures. Is government of Malaysia too ashamed to publish their racist acts by publishing racial statistics?

This list cover a period of about 49 years since independence (1957).

List of racial discriminations (Malaysia):

(1) Out of all the 5 major banks, only one bank is multi-racial, the rest are controlled by malays

(2) 99% of Petronas directors are malays

(3) 3% of Petronas employees are Chinese

(4) 99% of 2000 Petronas gasoline stations are owned by malays

(5) 100% all contractors working under Petronas projects must be bumis status

(6) 0% of non-malay staffs is legally required in malay companies. But there must be 30% malay staffs in Chinese companies

(7) 5% of all new intake for government army, nurses, polices, is non-malays

(8) 2% is the present Chinese staff in Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF), drop from 40% in 1960

(9) 2% is the percentage of non-malay government servants in Putrajaya. But malays make up 98%

(10) 7% is the percentage of Chinese government servants in the whole government (in 2004), drop from 30% in 1960

(11) 95% of government contracts are given to malays

(12) 100% all business licensees are controlled by malay government e.g. Approved Permits, Taxi Permits, etc

(13) 80% of the Chinese rice millers in Kedah had to be sold to malay controlled Bernas in 1980s. Otherwise, life is make difficult for Chinese rice millers

(14) 100 big companies set up, managed and owned by Chinese Malaysians were taken over by government, and later managed by malays since 1970s e.g. MISC, UMBC, UTC, etc

(15) At least 10 Chinese owned bus companies (throughout Malaysia, throughout 40 years) had to be sold to MARA or other malay transport companies due to rejection by malay authority to Chinese application for bus routes and rejection for their application for new buses

(16) 2 Chinese taxi drivers were barred from driving in Johor Larkin bus station. There are about 30 taxi drivers and 3 are Chinese in October 2004. Spoiling taxi club properties was the reason given

(17) 0 non-malays are allowed to get shop lots in the new Muar bus station (November 2004)

(18) 8000 billion ringgit is the total amount the government channeled to malay pockets through ASB, ASN, MARA, privatisation of government agencies, Tabung Haji etc, through NEP over 34 years period

(19) 48 Chinese primary schools closed down since 1968 - 2000

(20) 144 Indian primary schools closed down since 1968 - 2000

(21) 2637 malay primary schools built since 1968 - 2000

(22) 2.5% is government budget for Chinese primary schools. Indian schools got only 1%, malay schools got 96.5%

(23) While a Chinese parent with RM1000 salary (monthly) cannot get school-text-book-loan, a malay parent with RM2000 salary is eligible

(24) 10 all public universities vice chancellors are malays

(25) 5% - the government universities lecturers of non-malay origins had been reduced from about 70% in 1965 to only 5% in 2004

(26) Only 5% is given to non-malays for government scholarships over 40 years

(27) 0 Chinese or Indians were sent to Japan and Korea under "Look East Policy"

(28) 128 STPM Chinese top students could not get into the course that they aspired e.g. Medicine (in 2004)

(29) 10% place for non-bumi students for MARA science schools beginning from year 2003, but only 7% are filled. Before that it was 100% malays

(30) 50 cases whereby Chinese and Indian Malaysians, are beaten up in the National Service program in 2003

(31) 25% is Malaysian Chinese population in 2004, drop from 45% in 1957

(32) 7% is the present Malaysian Indians population (2004), a drop from 12% in 1957

(33) 2 million Chinese Malaysians had emigrated to overseas since 40 years ago

(34) 0.5 million Indian Malaysians had emigrated to overseas

(35) 3 million Indonesians had migrated into Malaysia and became Malaysian citizens with bumis status

(36) 600000 are the Chinese and Indian Malaysians with red IC and were rejected repeatedly when applying for citizenship for 40 years. Perhaps 60% of them had already passed away due to old age. This shows racism of how easily Indonesians got their citizenship compare with the Chinese and Indians

(37) 5% - 15% discount for a malay to buy a house, regardless whether the malay is poor or rich

(38) 2% is what Chinese new villages get compare with 98% of what malay villages got for rural development budget

(39) 50 road names (at least) had been changed from Chinese names to other names

(40) 1 Dewan Gan Boon Leong (in Malacca) was altered to other name (e.g. Dewan Serbaguna or sort) when it was being officially used for a few days. Government try to shun Chinese names. This racism happened in around year 2000 or sort

(41) 0 churches/temples were built for each housing estate. But every housing estate got at least one mosque/surau built

(42) 3000 mosques/surau were built in all housing estates throughout Malaysia since 1970. No churches, no temples are required to be built in housing estates

(43) 1 Catholic church in Shah Alam took 20 years to apply to be constructed. But told by malay authority that it must look like a factory and not look like a church. Still not yet approved in 2004

(44) 1 publishing of Bible in Iban language banned (in 2002)

(45) 0 of the government TV stations (RTM1, RTM2, TV3) are directors of non-malay origins

(46) 30 government produced TV dramas and films always showed that the bad guys had Chinese face, and the good guys had malay face. You can check it out since 1970s. Recent years, this tendency becomes less

(47) 10 times, at least, malays (especially Umno) had threatened to massacre the Chinese Malaysians using May 13 since 1969

(48) 20 constituencies won by DAP would not get funds from the government to develop. Or these Chinese majority constituencies would be the last to be developed

(49) 100 constituencies (parliaments and states) had been racistly re-delineated so Chinese voters were diluted that Chinese candidates, particularly DAP candidates lost in election since 1970s

(50) Only 3 out of 12 human rights items are ratified by Malaysia government since 1960

(51) 0 - elimination of all forms of racial discrimination (UN Human Rights) is not ratified by Malaysia government since 1960s

(52) 20 reported cases whereby malay ambulance attendances treated Chinese patients inhumanely, and malay government hospital staffs purposely delay attending to Chinese patients in 2003. Unreported cases may be 200

(53) 50 cases each year whereby Chinese, especially Chinese youths being beaten up by malay youths in public places. We may check at police reports provided the police took the report, otherwise there will be no record

(54) 20 cases every year whereby Chinese drivers who accidentally knocked down malays were seriously assaulted or killed by malays

(55) 12% is what ASB/ASN got per annum while banks fixed deposit is only about 3.5% per annum

There are hundreds more racial discriminations in Malaysia to add to this list of "colossal" racism. It is hope that the victims of racism will write in to expose racism.

Malaysia government should publish statistics showing how much malays had benefited from the "special rights" of malays and at the same time tell the statistics of how much other minority races are being discriminated.

Hence, the responsibility lies in the Malaysia government itself to publish unadulterated statistics of racial discrimination.

If the Malaysia government hides the statistics above, then there must be some evil doings, immoral doings, shameful doings and sinful doings, like the Nazi, going on onto the non-malays of Malaysia.

Civilized nation, unlike evil Nazi, must publish statistics to show its treatment on its minority races. This is what Malaysia must publish.

We are asking for the publication of the statistics showing how "implementation of special rights of malays" had inflicted colossal racial discrimination onto non-malays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.187.192.6 (talk • contribs) January 18, 2007 16:22 UTC

Any reliable sources for all of the above? Apparently not, since you say they're just estimates. cab 19:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

This may make a good article on its own, with a link from this article, when reliable sources are cited.--tess 23:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It may be interesting to compare this with Ketuanan Melayu.--Huaiwei 01:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

Perhaps this article would best be moved to Chinese diaspora? The two terms are mostly synonymous, with the term Chinese diaspora more technical and literal. Overseas Chinese would rarely, if ever, be used to describe ethnic Chinese in Mongolia and Russia, for example. I'd suggest the opening sentence rewritten as, "The Chinese diaspora, commonly referred to as Overseas Chinese, are people..." Thoughts welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.189.137.249 (talk • contribs) 2007-01-20 21:22:20

This was discussed very briefly above. Several editors (myself included) felt that "Overseas Chinese" is a more common term. And personally, I think there's enough material to make a different article out of "Chinese diaspora". Eventually down the line, I would like "Overseas Chinese" to be more about the demographics of Overseas Chinese, whereas "Chinese diaspora" would be more about the history of and trends in Chinese emigration. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but the problem I see is that while Overseas Chinese may be more common, it is not used in instances that include or refer to Mongolia and Russia, whereas this article does. Perhaps we should consider switching to the the technically correct, albeit less common, name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.189.137.249 (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

I tend to agree. This article should be in line with the other diasporas. Kesälauantait 20:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

There is already a page for Chinese Migration/Chinese Diaspora, and those two terms seem more synonymous than "Overseas Chinese" and "Chinese Diaspora" are to each other. I wonder why typing "Chinese Diaspora" doesn't redirect there instead.--tess 00:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

There is another solution, which is to combine the two under Chinese diaspora, as both articles can be classified under that name. This would also address the issue of Mongolia etc. Ryan Fields 00:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Languages

Of the Overseas Chinese, what percentage are from a Cantonese-speaking background, what percentage speak Hokkien, Chaozhou, Hakka, Wu, etc.? This seems important to the subject, and should be treated. Badagnani 07:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Good question. I don't know the specific numbers, but Overseas Chinese in North America have historically been mostly Cantonese. Recently, in the last decade or two, there has been a rise of Hokkien immigration from Fujian. There are sizable Hokkien and Hakka populations in Southeast Asia, but I don't know how their numbers compare to the Cantonese population there. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

From my experience here - local population vast majority Cantonese. New immigrants Wu or Cantonese both in large proportions. --Sumple (Talk) 10:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This can be traced from the Chinese Clan Association. L joo 18:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that article needs lots of expansion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes the article needs lots of expansion, and also create Zupu (Chinese: 族谱) which is the "clan's ancestral/family lineage record book", very important in Chinese. L joo 23:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I just added a section on Language in the article, though I only have information for North America. Please expand the section for other overseas Chinese populations as well. Thanks! —Umofomia (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Navigation template

What do people think of navigation box footer for Overseas Chinese articles - good idea, bad idea, redundant? I ran one up the lazy man's way at {{Overseas Chinese}} by using {{Africa topic}} and its cousins in a {{Navbox generic}}; dunno if that's the best solution given all the redirects and redlinks. Comments? cab 01:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. But maybe I just think so because I like navigational templates. By the way, I've been playing around with the idea of starting an Overseas Chinese WikiProject. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea. Certainly many of the Chinese American-related articles are in need of attention, and such a project could attract the interest of editors who may not neccessarily be interested in China itself.--Yuje 07:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah well trying to keep a WikiProject running doesn't appear to be very easy. I've been pretty involved with Wikipedia:WikiProject Hong Kong lately, and even though a number of people signed up as participants and we've been tagging a large number of articles with the HK WikiProject template, there are really only 2 or 3 active contributors there (including me). And this is Hong Kong we're talking about. You'd think there would be more contributors. Maybe I'm just biased here. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe set it up as a working group under some other WikiProject? My opinion is that there's too many WikiProjects and not enough article improvement going on, especially with some of the more recent WikiProjects. At minimum, if you don't have enough interest to keep a decent COTW going with more than one or two people editing it, there's probably not enough critical mass for a WikiProject. (The other problem with improving longstanding articles that are in crap condition is that some of them need drastic changes, but no one's really willing to take the step of removing all the unsourced dross that's cropped up over the years. I know I certainly find it's a lot easier writing new articles on new topics from scratch.) cab 09:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah there's definitely a question of not having enough critical mass for the HK WikiProject. But it's still been pretty useful for coordinating editing between the few active contributors and some editors that come and go only for specific issues they're interested in. Anyway, maybe the thing to do is to start a WP:TASKFORCE for Overseas Chinese under WikiProject China to gauge how much interest there is in a WikiProject for Overseas Chinese. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I do feel it's perhaps redundant, as each diaspora article should link to this one but perhaps not to each other. This is the problem I have with other templates, such as the Latino template. It directly links Columbian and Mexican Americans when in actuality they have little in common, much like I assume the Chinese in Israel and Vietnam would. I would prefer each to link to Latino, but not each other. L. Fields 13:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

True that some groups have "little" in common, but we should also consider reader interest as well. Now I don't know specifically about Latino groups, but the general topic of Overseas Chinese itself has been subject to much academic study. Maybe the academic interest lies more in Chinese international migration and the issues that arise from that, rather than case studies of certain individual groups. But just from my own personal reading, most books about Overseas Chinese do case studies of individual Overseas Chinese groups. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Latinos in the United States has been of academic interest, but Latin American minorities elsewhere have been considerably less so. I still feel a template isn't needed, although perhaps a 'see also' link could be provided to the table of this article. L. Fields 22:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

ROC Statistics

Here's a listing of the top 20 overseas Chinese populations, as compiled by the ROC's Overseas Chinese Affairs Commission [6]. Unlike the current statistics on the page, all of these are citable and verifiable. I suggest we use them. --Yuje 14:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Continent/Country	2005 Population	Rank	Growth rate (%)
Indonesia	7,566,200	1	1.38
Thailand	7,053,240	2	-2.77
Malaysia	6,187,400	3	1.19
United States	3,376,031	4	2.90
Singapore	2,684,900	5	1.31
Canada	1,612,173	6	4.10
Peru	1,300,000	7	0.00
Vietnam	1,263,570	8	1.34
Philippines	1,146,250	9	0.62
Myanmar	1,101,314	10	1.03
Russia	998,000	11	0.00
Australia	614,694	12	2.52
Japan	519,561	13	6.56
Cambodia	343,855	14	2.30
United Kingdom	296,623	15	4.64
France	230,515	16	0.44
India	189,470	17	1.61
Laos	185,765	18	2.31
Brazil	151,649	19	1.39
Netherlands	144,928	20	0.50

I suggest that we use these numbers for those existing numbers on the article that are not referenced. If references from the groups' local governments are provided for the existing numbers, I would prefer we use those instead. I would think that, for example, the numbers from the UK government would be more accurate for British Chinese than those from the ROC government. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Miss Chinatown/Miss Chinese

I posted a message on the Talk page of Miss Chinese International Pageant a little while ago saying that a lot of articles could be created for the participating pageants around the world that send representatives to the Miss Chinese International Pageant, and I didn't get any response. Not suprising because that article doesn't get much activities.

Anyway - so far, there are only articles for Miss Chinatown/Miss Chinese in New York, Vancouver, Toronto, and US country-wide. But these pageants are literally all over the world. Here's a google search for "Miss Chinatown", and here's a google search for "Miss Chinese". It may sound silly, but aside from some semblance of Chinese cultural heritage, Miss Chinatown/Miss Chinese seems to be one thing that many Overseas Chinese communities have in common. This seems to be true even in a country like South Africa - the 2006 winner of Miss Chinese International was Miss Chinese South Africa.

So if anybody is interested, please do create articles for these pageants. I created this category a little while ago for them - Category:Chinese beauty pageants.

Also, BTW, this is something that could be coordinated by a WikiProject for Overseas Chinese. I also want to gauge what kind of interest we have on a WikiProject like that. If there's only a few editors interested, then I don't think it's worth it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

So where does Chinese-born foreign nationals go?

I see the terminology section now differentiates between "Chinese citizens born in China" and "Foreign citizens born outside China who are Chinese". So where does "Foreign citizens born in China who are Chinese" go? This would include people born in China but who later take up foreign citizenship. --Sumple (Talk) 01:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about the sentences that specifically comments on how the PRC government defines these terms? If so, I'm pretty sure that such people would technically be 華裔 (Huayi). But I'm not 100% sure. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

That whole section needs to be cleaned up anyway. Just look at even the first sentences.

The Chinese language has various terms equivalent to the English "Overseas Chinese". Huáqiáo refers to Chinese residing in countries other than China. Huáyì refers to ethnic Chinese residing outside of China.

Um... what? Aren't the two sentences giving basically the same definition for the two terms? Or am I missing something? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the first sentence should say "Chiense national"... I lean towards your view, that such people would be "Huayi" too, or maybe just "Huaren", but I'm not sure. --Sumple (Talk) 05:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's my definition (correct me if wrong)

• 1. Chinese-born-in-China = Chinese/Zhongguo-ren
• 2. Chinese-born-in-China-working/living-oversea-holding-Chinese-passport = Chinese/Zhongguo-ren
• 3. Chinese-born-in-China-migrated-oversea-but-still-holding-China-passport = Chinese/Zhongguo-ren
• 4. Chinese-born-in-China-migrated-oversea-holding-foreign-passport = Huaqiao
• 5. Chinese-born-in-foreign-land-holding-foreign-passport = Huayi/Oversea Chinese
• 6. Chinese-born-in-foreign-land-migrated-to-China = Chinese/Zhongguo-ren (not sure)
• 7. Holding two passports = ??

L joo 04:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, pretty sure Chinese living overseas holding Chinese passport is Huaqiao (see this article). Examples include Indonesian returnees in the 1950s/60s who were identified as "Huaqiao" because they had been resident in Indonesia but still held Chinese passports. --Sumple (Talk) 05:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I just realised, I don't think we have a source for the actual PRC definitions. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

A lot of Chinese from China lived in Malaysia for months, some even longer, they hold China passport, are they Chinese tourists or Huaqiao? L joo 09:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

If they hold permanent residency visas - Huaqiao. If they hold temporary tourist/refugee/work visas, then Chinese visitors. --Sumple (Talk) 21:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Passport and Oversea Chinese

For all the chinese living abroad,The passport holders of PRC and ROC are calculated as oversea chinese or not?--Ksyrie 20:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

They're 华侨 "Chinese nationals living overseas". They have the right to freely enter China (or whatever) at any time.--Sumple (Talk) 22:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

Majority populations
Singapore 2,684,936
Christmas Island, Australia 1,045

Why is Australia listed there? LaNicoya 15:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Because Christmas Island has a majority Chinese population and has somewhat different administrative treatment from the rest of Australia. cab 23:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Russia

We're talking about this over at Talk:Han Chinese#Number. IMO the figure of nearly 1 million for Chinese in Russia is complete nonsense; various scholarly analyses have also demolished such "The Chinese Are Taking Over The Russian Far East!" yellow peril population stories. The Russian census has been known to underestimate populations figures, but not by a factor of 30. cab 23:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not nonsense. -guy

Official defintion of overseas Chinese

I removed this because it is incorrect. The nationality law of the PRC doesn't define hua qiao or hua yi.

http://www.china.org.cn/english/LivinginChina/184710.htm

In official documents that I've seen the legal term I've see is "ethnic Chinese with foreign nationality" (wai guo ji hua ren).

The PRC government officially designates the following groups of Overseas Chinese accordingly: {{citation}}: Empty citation (help)

• Huáqiáo (Chinese: 华侨) also known as Qiáobāo or Zhōngguó Qiáomín (Chinese: 僑胞、中國僑民), is defined by Chinese nationality law as a person born in mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong or Macau, who resides overseas but possesses Chinese citizenship and a Chinese passport.
• Huáyì (Chinese: 华裔) also known as Wàijí Huárén (Chinese: 外籍华人, 海外華人, 華胞), is defined by Chinese nationality law as a person of Chinese ancestry born outside mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau, and who is a citizen of a foreign country.
• Canadian Huáyì (Chinese: 加拿大華裔) is, under Chinese nationality law, a term used to refer to a Canadian-born person of Chinese ancestry, as are the terms American Huáyì (Chinese: 美国華裔), Brazilian Huáyì (Chinese: 巴西華裔), and so on.

Roadrunner 17:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

"I removed this because it is incorrect. The nationality law of the PRC doesn't define hua qiao or hua yi." << Yes, if you read the article below, the gov of PRC deliberately inexplicited the definition of Oversea Chinese.

"....针对今年的印尼暴乱华人妇女遭受强奸、屠杀、抢劫和焚烧等事件，《人民日报》的社论说，“印尼华人妇女已经加入了当地国籍……”中国政府的意思是十分的明显的。既然已经加入外国国籍，中国政府不宜干预，否则恐有干涉内政之嫌。这个问题不仅在海外的华侨中理所当然地引起了议论，据说在北京大学也有提出非议的大字报。 这件事提醒我们，现在究竟怎样定义华侨的问题再也不容回避了。 中华人民共和国宪法第五十条规定，中华人民共和国保护海外华侨的合法权利和利益。既然有了这样的条款，声援和关注海外华侨的举动应该具有相当的法理基础，为什么每当华侨在面临重大威胁和生存危机，呼唤祖籍国伸出援手的时刻，中国政府时常表现得优柔寡断，左顾右盼，拈轻怕重，裹足不前？ 问题是华侨的定义模糊不清。直到最近德国的华侨中还有过一次关於华侨定义的争议。有人振振有辞地划分所谓华侨、海外华人之间的界限。据说还是七十年代周恩来的口谕。查一九八九年版的辞海华侨条目：“华侨是侨居国外的中国公民。不包括出国旅行访问的人员，国家派往他国协助建设的工人和技术人员，国家派驻外国的公务人员和在国外学习的留学生。已经加入或取得外国国籍的中国血统的人是外国公民，亦称外籍华人，不是华侨”。七十年代初期在欧美地区，华侨加入当地国籍的已经越来越多。只是在东南亚地区，例如越南还有不少华侨保留中国国籍（和台湾的中华民国国籍）。可是将近三十年过去了，如果继续沿用这种定义，那么现在海外的中国人九成九都是“华人”，中国政府又不承认双重国籍，所以海外华侨的数量可以说微乎其微。令人费解的是，按此定义，中国宪法关於保护华侨的条款还有多少实际意义？ 既然华侨只是居住在海外的公民（保留中国国籍），他的公民权利不应当因为出国而丧失。而且出国旅行人员、公务人员和留学生，照样受国家保护，为了这极少数侨居海外的公民，单辟一个宪法第五十条有甚么必要？ “外籍华人不是华侨”，不在宪法条款之内，则意味着不受中华人民共和国保护。可是反观多少年来的实际情况却刚好相反。国家鼓励华侨投资，归还海外华侨的房产，欢迎华侨汇回外汇款项，团结和接纳华侨中的杰出人士帮助国家建设，出钱出力出智慧，这些侨资、侨房、侨汇和侨务都是历年来党政宣传部门称道华侨工作成绩的基本项目，且是华侨得到保障的例证。这些“华侨”实际上百分之百都是“华人”。著名的杨振宁教授和贝聿铭教授，以及每年回国观光、国庆观礼的华侨代表团成员，几乎没有一个人是继续拥有中国国籍的。全国人大华侨委员会代表团走访、约谈的华侨，有几个还有中国国籍？国务院华侨事务办公室所接待的华侨也绝大多数没有中国国籍。依照辞海的定义，则全国人大侨委会和国务院侨办岂不应该改为（海外）华人委员会和华人事务办公室？如此明显的政策界限漏洞难道各级领导部门都没有发现吗？ 是不是觉得，把话说穿了，“不保护海外华人”，到时候要鼓励回国投资、赈灾捐款不方便，不如含糊其辞，笼统地混称华侨，有利於统战工作？这种做法是不符合法治精神的。“必也正名乎，名正而言顺”。这是两千多年来，儒家问政的基本态度。更何况提倡法治的今天。含糊其辞混得过一时，也顾不了长远。我认为，所有居住在海外的中国人都应该是华侨。有的人加入当地国籍後，不再认同祖籍国，不寻求保护，那也悉听尊便。恩泽周沿，取舍由之。这样才符合当前国内外的现实情况，也符合法治精神。 长期以来，侨务部门的工作实际上跟宪法的保护条款并无多大关系。鼓励华侨给国内亲人汇款，增加国家外汇，依靠的是华侨的乡恋亲情和家族观念，国家的邮政和银行有责任保证通汇的安全。华侨房产落实政策，也是因为文革动乱，在拨乱反正的时候，优先照顾解决。即使没有海外关系，国内公民的私人财产在理论上也是必须完璧归赵的。华侨回国投资实际上跟其他外国公民的投资的待遇是一样的。国家征税和提供保护应当一视同仁。如果不发生整人运动，国家又讲究健全的法治，这些问题本来都不是问题。 那么，人们常说的“祖国是华侨的坚强後盾”是甚么意思呢？最关键的还在於保护华侨在海外的利益。也就是华侨在侨居地遇到非法侵害，祖籍国政府依旧提供相应的保护和关注。 提供保护和关注，有没有干涉内政之嫌呢？没有。 为了人权的伸张，谴责暴行，关注受害人，是任何个人和政府义不容辞的责任。 世界上一些地方发生暴行或不公正言行，总会引起许多国家人民和政府的抗议。....." http://www.yangjianli.com/right2goback/pengxiaoming1.htm L joo 10:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a translation, this is English (language) wikipedia. LDHan 12:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

"...In view of the Indonesian riots Chinese women victims of rape, killing, looting and burning incidents, "People's Daily" editorial said, "Indonesian Chinese women had joined the local nationality ..." The Chinese government is the meaning of the obvious. As we have already acquired foreign nationality, the Chinese government should not interfere, otherwise there may be interference in the internal affairs of the public. This issue is not only the overseas Chinese were naturally attracted statements. It is said that Beijing University has also made the criticism poster. This incident reminds us that the definition of what is now the Chinese could no longer be avoided. Article 50 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China, the People's Republic of China overseas Chinese protection of the legitimate rights and interests. Since there is such a provision, solidarity and concern overseas moves should have considerable legal basis. Why whenever major overseas in the face of threats and survive the crisis and calls for countries to lend a hand to the prisoners at all times, The Chinese government often displayed indecisiveness and thither, preferring hesitate? The problem is the definition of overseas Chinese unclear. Until recently in Germany there are overseas Chinese once on the Chinese definition of the controversy. It was tempted to division of the overseas Chinese and overseas Chinese between the boundaries. It is said that Zhou Enlai 1970s or oral. Zha 1989 edition of Ci Hai overseas entries : "The overseas Chinese are living abroad Chinese citizens. not including travel abroad visit, State to help build his country's workers and technical staff, State of the presence of foreign public officials and students studying abroad. have joined or acquired foreign nationality who are of Chinese descent foreign citizens, also known as overseas Chinese and overseas Chinese is not. " In the early 1970s Europe and the United States, joined local Chinese nationality has been increasing. Only in the Southeast Asian region, for example, in Vietnam there are many overseas Chinese nationality reservations (and the Republic of China on Taiwan nationality). But nearly 30 years have passed, and if we continue to use this type of definition, Now, overseas Chinese 90% are "Chinese", the Chinese government does not recognize dual nationality, Therefore, the number of overseas Chinese can say little. What is puzzling is that the According to this definition, the Constitution of China on the Protection of Overseas Chinese in terms of how much practical significance? Since the only Chinese living overseas citizens (to retain their Chinese nationality), his civil rights should not be denied because of overseas. And travel abroad, civil servants and students, but still protected by the State, to which a handful of expatriate citizens, a single provision of the Constitution is what the 50th necessary? "Expatriate Chinese is not Chinese," the Constitution is not within the terms, it means that without the protection of the People's Republic of China. For years, but contrary to the actual situation is exactly the opposite. The state encourages overseas investment, the return of overseas property, welcome back to the Chinese foreign exchange funds Chinese unity and acceptance of eminent persons to help nation-building, che wisdom, and these overseas Chinese and overseas Chinese. remittances and overseas Chinese affairs are the party and government propaganda departments over the years commendable achievements in the work of overseas Chinese basic projects, and the protection of overseas Chinese is a good example. These "overseas Chinese" are actually 100% "Chinese." Professor Yang Zhenning, a famous professor and IM Pei, and the annual return sightseeing, the Republic of China Overseas Chinese delegation, Almost no one is to continue to have Chinese nationality. Chinese NPC delegation visited and interviewed the Chinese, there are a number of Chinese nationality? Overseas Chinese Affairs Office of the State Council, which received the majority of overseas Chinese are also not of Chinese nationality. In accordance with the definition of Ci Hai, NPC is the Overseas Chinese Affairs Commission and the State Council Overseas Chinese Affairs Office should not read (O) Chinese and Chinese Affairs Office? This obvious loophole policy limits Is leading departments at all levels have not found? Does that, to put it bluntly, "not to protect overseas Chinese", and at that time to encourage the return of investment, Disaster Relief donations inconvenient, as in vague terms, generally known as mixed overseas is beneficial to the united front work? This is not consistent with the spirit of the rule of law. "It is necessary to name the deals, who was run smoothly." This is 2,000 years, the Confucian asked the basic attitude. Moreover, promotion of the rule of law today. Kunde ambiguous wording than 1:00, the long-term not care. I think that all the overseas Chinese should be Chinese. Some people join the local nationality, not accept native country, not to seek protection, it also U.S. alliance. Enze weeks along, the only choice. This will be in line with the reality of the current situation at home and abroad, with the rule of law. For a long time, overseas Chinese affairs department, in fact, with the protection clause in the Constitution has little to do. China encourages overseas Chinese to relatives of remittances, increase the country's foreign exchange, rely on the overseas Chinese's Nostalgic kinship and family concepts, Post and the National Bank has the responsibility to ensure the safety of remittance. Chinese real estate implementation of the policy, but also because the Cultural Revolution turmoil in redressing the wrongs, the priority solution. Even in the absence of foreign relations, domestic private property of citizens in theory also be restored to Zhao. Overseas Chinese investment is actually citizens of other foreign investments are treated the same. State taxation and provide protection should be treated equally. If not happen the whole movement, the state stresses the rule of law, which was originally not a problem. Well, as people say, "Chinese motherland is the strong backing" What does that mean? The most crucial is that the protection of overseas Chinese and overseas interests. Chinese is where they encounter illegal encroachment and native government still provide the protection and concern. Provide protection and concern, did not interfere in the internal affairs of the government? No. To uphold human rights, condemned the atrocities, the victims of concern, and any individual is the bounden duty of the government. Some of the world's atrocities took place or unfair words, in many countries the Federation of the people and government protests..." (by http://translate.google.com)

Manipulate one another: A very typical Mandarin politician's trick.

I think I understood the government decree better when it was written with squares. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kransky (talk • contribs) 10:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite tag

First of all, there are enough sub-groups/class differences/provincial differences among Chinese in the PRC, that I don't think that the first paragraph holds.

Second, statements that start with "Undoubtedly" should be examined carefully.

Roadrunner 18:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

% of global population

The figures don't add up at all: if 8.5m Thais are 11.7%, how can 7.0m be 12.1%? Jpatokal 16:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Why don't put Han = Chinese?

What about Taiwanese?

• Taiwanese don't want foreigners says that they are Chinese. But most of Taiwanese are Han. 203.218.20.204 12:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Han is name of a dynasty, is political. Chin is a name of a dynasty, is political too. Taiwan is a name and is political too. L joo 02:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• • NO, Chinese is all ethics living in China, Han is Han Chinese. 198.155.145.86 06:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

If Chinese are all ethnics living in China, then how can there be such a thing as "overseas Chinese", since those people would not be living in China?Readin (talk) 14:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Overseas Chinese, the official definition

Do you think the PRC government want to set a definition for Overseas Chinese? Phaseissue 07:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Question: What’s the definition of overseas Chinese?

Answer: Overseas Chinese refer to Chinese citizens who reside abroad. Residing abroad means that they have received permanent or long-term residing permits from a foreign country. Chinese citizens who have not received permanent or long-term residing permits from a foreign country but has resided legally in a foreign country for five consecutive years (including five years) and are residing abroad currently are deemed as residing abroad. Chinese students who study abroad (on public or private fund) and those going abroad on business (including laborers) are not deemed as residing abroad. [7]

Surely the PRC government never set a definition for those foreign passport holders. That means the term "Overseas Chinese" did not include foreign passport holders. That means ethnic Chinese who have had already accepted foreign passport are not "Overseas Chinese". Phaseissue 07:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The term was already used widely in the academic literature to refer to ethnic Chinese born and raised overseas before the PRC government even came into existence [8]. The PRC government definition is worth mentioning somewhere in the article, but it's not the common one in English. cab 13:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The term "Overseas Chinese" is designed for peoples whose native language is English. At least not for native Chinese user because the meaning is different. Phaseissue 02:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Peru

In Peru there are not 1,300,000 chinese people, if that were correct, that people would be about 5% of peruvian population. I think the number of 250,000, below in Current numbers, is accurate, because asian peoople, chinese, japanese, corean and others, are only about 4%.--Enkiduk (talk) 01:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The 1,300,000 figure is according to this web page: [9] But I don't know how they came up with that figure. Nor do I know where the 250,000 number comes from. The CIA factbook lists 3% for all "Chinese, Janpanese, and etc" minorities. Can someone else shed light on this? tess (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

In general I haven't found that OCAC site to be a particularly reliable source. Their numbers are often contradicted quite severely by (presumably better-informed) local government sources and scholarly works. See Talk:Han Chinese#Number. cab (talk) 02:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Chinese population of Jamaica

User:Lizainfini stated [10] that this recent edit [11] changing the population for Chinese in Jamaica from 10k to 70k is based on the number provided by the Joshua Project, an evangelical Christian group. Some editors have questioned the accuracy of the Joshua Project's statistics, as well as the propriety of using them as a source; see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Ethnic_groups#Blanking of links. I have no opinion on this either way, just wanted to note that others may find it controversial. cab (talk) 03:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This article has become a racist joke

This article has become little more than a reinforcement of popular myths and is highly patronising to many people around the globe as a result. In particular, this article:

1.Falsely implies that most Cantonese, Hokkien and Taiwanese peoples are of Han ethnicity. In fact nothing else can be further from the truth. In fact, their ancestors were the victims of one of the worst genocides in world history at the hands of various Chinese armies. Once subjugated, the existences of distinct Cantonese, Hokkien and Taiwanese ethnic identities (as opposed to 'regional' identities) were 'conveniently' forgotten by most people in the world (and tragically to this day). Thus from this point of view, the label of Han ethnicity was a brutal imposition upon the Cantonese, Hokkien and Taiwanese peoples against the wills of the said local peoples.

2.Implies that Taiwan is part of China. The reality is that Taiwan is **NOT** part of China and will never be for the foreseeable future. Over the past several millennia, the Taiwanese have maintained a distinct ethnic identity totally separate from the Han ethnicity. Therefore, to describe the Taiwanese as 'Chinese' is not merely wrong; it is downright offensive.

3.Fails to make any real distinctions between the concepts of ancestry and ethnicity whatsoever. There is more to ethnicity than simply being descended from a particular ancestor. Naturally, ethnic identities evolve and may even change over time (but not counting genocides). One could even argue that the concept of ancestry is nothing more than a political and social misconstruct since a recent scientific study has proven beyond reasonable doubt that all modern humans were descended from Africans.

The above points, in particular, MUST be taken seriously. Someone who is an expert on the subject matter of this article must edit this article IMMEDIATELY to remove the blatant biases in the article (including population figures).

If this article is not fixed by 21 March 2008, 00:00 UTC, this article will be **NOMINATED FOR DELETION**.

Note: I would have attempted to correct some of the biases in the article, but owing to the fact that most of the required references are very difficult to obtain (and generally not found on the internet), I have called for an expert to fix the article instead.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.109.98.142 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever thought that perhaps the reason your references are difficult to obtain is because not many people, including experts, agree with your view? I'm not sure you'd find many Cantonese/Hokkien people who'd say they're not Chinese. I agree the Taiwanese issue is more contentious though. On your third point, the fact that we're all descended from Africans is irrelevant, because a subgroup of people can still be descended from peoples later down the line and thus identify with one another. You wouldn't say that being human is a political and social construct because we're all ultimately descended from bacteria, would you? Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, I suggest you read up on Wikipedia:Deletion policy before you make threats to delete the article. Deletion is not something that is done just because you disagree with the article. —Umofomia (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Taiwanese are ethnically Chinese (Han). What is wrong or offensive about calling them Chinese? The unsigned person seems very aggressive over nothing. If he's Chinese from Taiwan, then it just shows he belongs to the radical party or is its supporter, which is not majority. If not, it's better ask the Taiwan people if they identify themselves as Chinese. The same applies to dialect speakers. Ask any dialect speaker, they will say, they are Chinese. --Atitarev (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the facts on Cantonese/Hokkien/... not being Han and "genocides"...However, Taiwan was once before the civil war not mainly Han Chinese, if I remember correctly. Poeloq (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The current population (the overwhelming majority) is Han, so immigrants from Taiwan are called Chinese (Han). Non-Han population calls themselves whatever their name is. They don't have to be identified as Chinese, if they don't wish to. --Atitarev (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The population in Taiwan had been majority Han since the end of the Ming dynasty. The first wave of Han migration was when the Ming dynasty fell. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm sure it's been explained on WP somewhere before, but the issue here is very linguistic. Nobody in Taiwan would refer to themselves as 中國人 (Zhong Guo Ren), but many, if not most, would say that they are 華人 (Hua Ren). In English common usage, however, both 中國人 and 華人 are simply called "Chinese". So there you have it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Implying that Cantonese and Hokkien are of Han ethnicity is hardly a "false" statement. It's been largely testified to by both Han and non-Han, including Cantonese, Hokkien, etc themselves. Of course, multiple views can be represented, IF a legitimate source for them can be found. As a Cantonese, I don't believe myself to be a distinct ethnic group from Han Chinese. In fact, my family genealogy books in my ancestral village in China traces back to the settlers from more nothern parts of China during the Tang dynasty. I speak Cantonese yes, but many Cantonese speakers consider it to be more faithful to ancient Chinese than Mandarin is. Take for example some works of the famous Tang Dynasty poet Li Bai: 「床前明月光，疑是地上霜，舉頭望明月，低頭思故鄉」 or 「明月出天山，蒼茫雲海間。 長風幾萬裡，吹度玉門關。 漢下白登道，胡窺青海灣。 由來征戰地，不見有人還。 戍客望邊邑，思歸多苦顏。 高樓當此夜，嘆息未應閑」. Every other line rhymes in Cantonese, without exception and with the same sound, while this isn't true in Mandarin. Given this, I certainly don't agree that I've merely "forgotten" my ethnicity because my ancestors were wiped out by genocide.--Yuje (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

When talking about overseas Chinese, it's obviously the ethnicity, since overseas Chinese live overseas, not in China. --Atitarev (talk) 05:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not obvious because upon first hearing the term "overseas Chinese", the obvious assumption to make is that it is talking about citizen of China living outside their home country, not people living outside China who have ancestors from China.Readin (talk) 15:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This article has been nominated for deletion

Because the article and this talk page consistently contains untrue and offensive material, and remain so after repeated warnings, this page has been declared UNTRUE AND OFFENSIVE and will be DELETED IF DEEMED APPROPRIATE. Furthermore, everyone is now reminded that deleting content from talk pages simply because some content conflicts with their opinions is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.144.118 (talk) 10:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The article cannot avoid being offensive and racist because the term it describes is offensive and racist. As offensive as the term is, it is used by governments such as the Republic of China to describe people they have choses to racially classify. As such it represents something that should be documented. I believe Wikipedia has articles for other offensive topics too. The fact that the topic is offensive is not sufficient grounds for deletion. Readin (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should take that back. I looked at the website for Taiwan's Overseas Chinese Affairs Commission and it is not as I had been lead to believe. The "overseas Chinese" term applies to citizens of the ROC, not to everyone with ancestors in Taiwan or China. So perhaps you are right about the article going to far in trying to apply the term by race rather than by nationality. See discussion below. Readin (talk) 15:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ambiguous

First sentence says "Overseas Chinese are people of Chinese birth or descent who live outside the Greater China region, which includes territories administered by the rival governments of the People's Republic of China (PRC) (Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau) and the Republic of China (ROC) (Taiwan and surrounding islands)." However, according to the article on "Greater China" it can include Singaporeans as well as Taiwanese and Chinese. It is unclear from this article whether Singaporeans are to be considered "Overseas Chinese".Readin (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That article on Greater China is a travesty for its lack of sources. I guess I could be wrong, but it's a total surprise to me that places like Singapore is sometimes included as part of "Greater China". Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised that it isn't always included given it's heavily Han population, which seems to be the criteria.Readin (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I was surprised that Singapore was included as well. "Greater China" as used by [http:://www.atimes.com Asia_Times], CNN, Forbes, and various stocks JCOIX, DPCRX, LNGZX, GCH usually don't include Singapore.--Yuje (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

A citation was recently provided for the first sentence . The page given as a link is in Chinese, making it difficult for some of us to verify. However that same organization has an English website Overseas Compatriot Affairs Commission, R.O.C. (Taiwan). According to that page (click the"Q & A" link, then the question about "Is there any restriction on who can apply for an Overseas Compatriot Identity Certificate?") and we find the following: "Overseas Compatriot Identity Certificates are issued pursuant to the Overseas Compatriot Identity Certification Act which applies to Republic of China¡]hereinafter the ROC¡^nationals residing overseas. However, this does not apply to persons with Mainland China, Hong Kong or Macau residency status, or persons holding passports issued by Mainland China." ROC nationals are citizens of the ROC, not people of Chinese birth or descent. This website therefore doesn't just fail to support our opening sentence, it actually contradicts it.Readin (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Until fairly recently, the Overseas Compatriot Affairs Commission was in fact named the Overseas Chinese Affairs Commission, while its Chinese name remains unchanged. The issue of Taiwan's politics remains fairly controversial (whether Taiwanese are zhongguoren), but the issue of ethnicity is less so (whether Taiwanese are huaren). In English, both words mean a Chinese person, but the first means a citizen of China while the second means ethnic Chinese. The situation is ambiguous in English but not in Chinese.--Yuje (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Even Chinese people is ambiguous. This should not only be about politics, about the schism between the PRC and the ROC, or about Han chauvinism. This is about a very proud 5000+ year-old heritage. Yes there are differences within peoples of the region, disagreements, resentments, and offenses. But there has to be a better way of conveying those. "Overseas Chinese" as a term isn't necessarily offensive. Its the explanation that is lacking. --tessc (talk) 01:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I had meant to come back to this earlier, but didn't have a chance until now.

• First let me comment on the source I added with this edit - [12] - which was subsequently removed. While it does not state directly who exactly "Overseas Chinese" are, we can see from the statistics of Overseas Chinese population as given by the ROC government that they do not count the population in Taiwan itself as Overseas Chinese. It counts those that are outside Greater China as "Overseas Chinese", or, to avoid an oft troublesome linguistic problem, it counts those outside Greater China as 華僑. But there are definitely other problems with using that source, so I do not object to its removal.
• Second - the problems facing the definition of "Overseas Chinese". Now, with HK and Macau being under PRC rule, both ethnically and nationality-wise, there should no longer be any question that Chinese people in both HK and Macau are not considered Overseas Chinese. The political landmine lays, once again, in Taiwan, and there's never any easy answer there.
• Third - Sources. It's been a long time since I've read them (so long that I can't even find them in my possession anymore), but here are a couple of sources that I know of:
  • The Last Half Century of Chinese Overseas edited by Elizabeth Sinn. This is a collection of academic works by people who study the Overseas Chinese people. I didn't read it in its entirety, but I think some of the papers presented in this book discuss how "Overseas Chinese", or more specifically, "華人" and "華僑" are defined.
  • Sons of the Yellow Emperor: A History of the Chinese Diaspora by Lynn Pan. This is more of a narrative and is a much easier read.
• But I honestly can't remember if these sources devoted much effort to discussing whether or not people in Taiwan are considered "Overseas Chinese", no doubt because the writers wanted to stay away from the political landmine which we face.

Anyway, no easy solution here. But hopefully we can work something out. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

One last thing - to address the point that User:Readin raised - according to the source:

• Overseas Compatriot Identity Certificates are issued pursuant to the Overseas Compatriot Identity Certification Act which applies to Republic of China（hereinafter the ROC）nationals residing overseas. However, this does not apply to persons with Mainland China, Hong Kong or Macau residency status, or persons holding passports issued by Mainland China.

The key here is that ROC nationals who reside in Taiwan are actually not eligible for Overseas Compatriot Identity Certificates - meaning those who are in Taiwan are not "Overseas Chinese", or 華僑. The statement further states that those who are PRC citizens are not eligible for the certificates, thus excluding Chinese people (excepting foreign nationals of Chinese descent, of course) in all of Greater China as "Overseas Chinese". Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

While I'm disturbed by the use of the term "Greater China", Regarding the OCAC source, I don't question that the official position of the ROC government is that Taiwan is not considered "overseas". The reason I changed to cn to a dubious is that the ROC government website definition only includes "Chinese nationals" (by which it intends to include Taiwanese nationals). The definition says nothing about the ancestry of the people. So the "dubious" tag refers to the phrase "people of Chinese birth or descent", not the term "Greater China". I'm aware that their are distinctions made in Chinese, but we must remember that the topic of this article is the English term "overseas Chinese", not the potential Chinese translations of that term. If the term "overseas Chinese" originates from several terms in Chinese, perhaps that should be part of the opening sentence. Perhaps something like:

"Overseas Chinese" is an English translation of several distinct but related Chinese terms used to refer to Chinese nationals or people with Chinese ancestry who live outside the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China. The official definitions used by the two governments differ...

Readin (talk) 15:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of the use of "Greater China", it appears to be used in business contexts but not elsewhere. It does remind one of "Greater Serbia". Perhaps a better description can be found.Readin (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

On the definition of "Overseas Chinese" as a matter of nationality or ethnicity, I believe you'll find that official government sources or related sources from the PRC or the ROC are the only ones that define it in terms of nationality. Academia and the news media define the term as a matter of ethnicity. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

On the term "Greater China" - in my opinion, whether we use the term or not in this article is of no consequence. The real issue is how the term "Overseas Chinese" may include or exclude Taiwanese people, both overseas and living in Taiwan. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I noticed there's another similar article on chinese who have migrated overseas called "Chinese Emigration". Should this article be merged together with the other article and be renamed Chinese Diaspora instead?Mineowyn (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Offensive?

• The term is offensive to some as it appears emphasizes race over national identity.

Since we don't have a source for this and only a claim by an IP editor who went as far as thinking that this article should be deleted, I suggest we delete this until a source surfaces. What does everybody think? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Since nobody commented on this I'm going to be bold and remove it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan

Is Taiwan included in the diaspora?Anwar (talk) 13:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Overseas Chinese Ultra-Nationalism

Is it worth mentioning in this article a possible trend that has become more prominent recently for some, if not many, overseas Chinese to be fiercely ultra-nationalistic and hostile towards anyone that doesn't follow their respective government's policies? Case in point would be the current situation at Duke University, with harassment and threats against an overseas Chinese by others for being a "traitor to her people" or scuffles during protests against the Beijing Olympics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaguq (talk • contribs) 23:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No, my impression is that those tend to be visa students, which is hardly the usual definition of "Overseas Chinese". -- ran (talk) 07:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

40 million Chinese spread over six continents for five centuries. Do you honestly think the Duke incident, or a bunch of IT majors annoying Canberra residents, is significant enough to be included here? Kransky (talk) 13:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there already a centuries old trend of 'Chinese extremism'. By this I mean a trend whereby the label of 'Chinese' identity would be imposed against certain people against their wills and which ultimately severely marginalises them. An example of this would be Taiwanese people being labelled 'Chinese' when these people clearly reject this label. A much worse example would be the extreme but virtually silent marginalisation of Cantonese and Hokkien peoples (and indeed many other ethnic minorities) whereby their distinct and independent ethnicities would simply be not recognised or even acknowledged (apparently this issue was raised elsewhere on the Wikipedia some weeks ago but was howled down as 'downright offensive' and 'ridiculous'). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.34.57 (talk) 11:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Attention all editors

Please note that the Hoa people are NOT considered ethnic Chinese by immigrants from China, Hong Kong or Taiwan; the 'Hoa' are considered 'Vietnamese'. In light of this, I urge all editors to check that this and all related articles reflect the said classification. 122.105.148.182 (talk) 07:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Attention 122.105.148.182, you are just wrong about this. Roadrunner (talk) 23:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

About the source from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS)

The information from ABS on ancestries of the Australian population is not appropriate for inclusion in this article. Ancestry and ethnicity are NOT the same concepts. Furthermore, the fact that the Australian census relies heavily on self-classsification with little attempt to even define ancestry makes the ABS ancestry data uttlerly worthless.

Because of the problems with the ancestry data from ABS, I have inserted a Taiwanese source (that was previously used before the ABS source was inserted) for the number of Overseas Chinese living in Australia and have amended the figure accordingly. 122.109.98.81 (talk) 10:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

So, you are expecting us to believe that the Taiwanese government has the capacity to produce more reliable statistics on the number of Chinese Australians than the Australian Bureau of Statistics? The last time I checked the Taiwanese did not run Censuses in Australia.

"The Australian census relies heavily on self-classification"...well, no s**t, Sherlock. Please excuse this vulgarity, but I do not know how you can run a Census without people declaring their own details. If you believe that the output of the Census is manifestly incorrect to the point it is not a reliable source, please visit the documentation on the ABS website (www.abs.gov.au) and identify what is wrong. I would also be happy to discuss on Wikipedia:Reliable sources the integrity of the Taiwanese stats. Kransky (talk) 13:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The point being made here is that ancestry and ethnic identity are different concepts. Since there is no question in the ABS census that specifically asks about one's ethnic identity and only a question about ancestry (which is very vaguely defined, e.g. no proper explanation for what 'Australian ancestry' might mean for instance even though most Australians are strictly non-Indigenous), it follows that the ABS data should not be used as an indicator of ethnic composition. As for the Taiwanese source, some say it is not very reliable. However, I believe it does aim to provide data that actually represents ethnic composition (which is what we want) rather than ancestral composition.

The upshoot of all this is that we can continue to use the Taiwanese statistics as well as any other sources that provide reliable data on ethnic composition, provided that we do not try to make deductions without solid evidence. A corollary of this is that the ABS data clearly does not belong in the Overeas Chinese article. 122.105.150.76 (talk) 05:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

In developing the Census the ABS used a reference group to scope how the question of ancestry should developed and analysed. People asked how they personally identified themselves as (and six million Australians felt as if their ties with Europe or Asia were so tenuous and distant that their ancestral identity is exclusively Australian) If they considered themselves to be Taiwanese (and 5,000 odd did), their answers were duly recorded. You are not going to find many Censuses in modern countries in which the state speculates what the ethnic composition of its residents are; given the heterogenity of many countries' populations ethnicity is meaningless and almost impossible to quantify.

You may find the background details of the Census helpful.

For the 2006 Census, the objective of the question on ancestry is to gain a better understanding of a person's ethnic background, particularly for Australians who have recently arrived. A person's ancestry, when used in conjunction with the person's birthplace, language and religion, and whether the person's parents were born in Australia or overseas, provides a good indication of the ethnic background of first and second generation Australians.

Ancestry data also helps to identify the distinct cultural groups within Australia, such as Maoris or Australian South Sea Islanders, and groups which are spread across countries, such as Kurds or Indians. Country of birth data alone cannot identify these groups. Identification of these groups is essential for planning and the effective delivery of services to particular ethnic communities.

Ancestry was first included as a question in the 1986 Census. The aim of the question was to measure the ethnic composition of the population as a whole. Evaluation showed that it was not useful for this purpose as there was a high level of subjectivity and confusion about what the question meant, particularly for those people whose families had been in Australia for many generations. Very little use was made of the ancestry data from the 1986 Census. As a consequence, ancestry was not included in either the 1991 or 1996 Censuses.

However, leading up to the 2001 Census, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) established a Census Consultative Group on Ancestry, with the objectives of:

• seeking user input;
• identifying user requirements for these data;
• researching international practices; and
• developing and testing questions which would provide acceptable and accurate data at a reasonable cost.

The conclusion of the Consultative Group was that major policy issues required data about those people who were born overseas themselves, or whose parents were born overseas. It was considered that an ancestry question, in combination with a question on whether the person's parents were born in Australia or overseas, would produce the desired information.

For the 2006 Census, respondents were asked to mark the ancestries they most closely identified with and to consider their ancestry back as far as two generations (ie. their parents and grandparents). Respondents were asked to report at least one ancestry, but no more than two ancestries (see Figure 1). The instructions differed from the 2001 Census where respondents were asked to 'Provide more than one ancestry if necessary', and to consider their parents, grandparents and great grandparents.

Because Ancestry is a multi-response question in the Census, responses were coded into two variables - ANCP1 (first response) and ANCP2 (second response). Depending on the number of responses given, some people are recorded with one ancestry while others have two. There is no ranking of responses, so if a respondent reports two ancestries, both answers have equal standing.

I am interested in knowing what methodology underpins the Taiwanese estimates, but unfortunately no details are provided on the website. Should we refer them all to Wikipedia:Reliable sources? Kransky (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Blatant and Serial Systematic bias

There is substantial evidence both in this talk page and in the article edits themselves that there is a continual pattern of serial systematic bias. Perhaps the article needs to be reviewed and edited by a third party in order to address the bias.
Becuase of this, I have flagged the article as biased and inaccurate. 122.105.149.241 (talk) 12:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide an elaboration on what you consider "biased and inaccurate?" -- Fuzheado | Talk 04:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

There are multiple issues with the article. Perhaps the worst of them is the backgrounds of the editors who edit this page and the corresponding article regularly. A person's background is relevant as it can have a great effect on how they may approach certain issues. It seems that many of the people editing the article and this page share a background that happens to be the name of the article in question. This is a recipe for continual systematic bias.

I would also like to address the issue of ethnic identity. It is evident from both the discussions here and the article content itself that too many editors have difficulty distinguishing between 'civic identity', 'ethnic identity', 'cultural identity' and 'ancestry'. This results in the ridiculous situation where statistics for self-reported ancestries are misconstrued as reliable indicators of ethnic composition (an example being the misuse of ABS data in the article). Perhaps this confusion may be the result of conflicting views over what these concepts are. However, I believe that it is time that the definitions for all of these concepts be standardised and agreed upon. Otherwise, we might soon face a situation where they will be continual edit warring all over a seemingly trivial issue.

Related to my first point is the issue of - you probably guessed it - the ethnic identites of the Taiwanese (and by extension Hokkien and even Cantonese peoples). It seems that most editors here instinctively accept the notion that most Taiwanese are ethnic Chinese; this is understandable given the amount of information out there that says so. Unfortunately, such a widespread readiness to accept the said notion also has the unintended side-effect of diminishing one's ability to put forward sensible and convincing arguments that argue that most Taiwanese are ethnically Taiwanese and Taiwanese only (i.e. not ethnically Chinese). As a result, this article is flooded with statements that imply that Taiwanese are ethnically Chinese as though there are no disputes about the identity of the Taiwanese people (some statements even imply that Taiwan is part of China, a notion that I find revolting). 122.105.150.76 (talk) 05:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If you are an IP address I am assuming you are not dedicated to Wikipedia, and consequently your words do not carry much weight around. But I will make an exception for you

• I find insulting and racist your comment "There are multiple issues with the article. Perhaps the worst of them is the backgrounds of the editors who edit this page and the corresponding article regularly. A person's background is relevant as it can have a great effect on how they may approach certain issues". Your statement speaks volumes about your insecurities.
• The IP address questions the use of Australian Bureau of Statistics data in which the number of persons who self reported themselves as having Chinese ancestry. IP address should go to the metadata on the ABS website and explain why you think the ABS data is flawed or being misrepresented.Kransky (talk) 11:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think he said it as nicely as he could. If an article is edited only by the people the article is about - especially if those editors are self-selected as in this case - it will likely biases. It will have biases just as it would have biases if it were written entirely by people that the article is not about. It is a fair criticism. The one question I have is how he thinks he knows the backgrounds of the editors.

As for the Taiwan issue - I agree with him that the article is laced with the assumption that Taiwan is part of China. Based on my experiences, people whose parents came to the U.S. from Taiwan tend to be in large numbers people whose parents (or for the younger generation, grandparents) had Taiwan as a stopover on their way from China. That is, they came with Chiang from China to Taiwan, and then proceeded on to the U.S.. They have very strong views that Taiwan is part of China. Again based on self-selection, people editing this article are likely to be those who both have a strong command of English and who identify themselves as "Chinese" even though they don't live in China. In the U.S. that is likely to be people whose parents or grandparents immigrated to the U.S. and that will likely mean they came from China via Taiwan. For people outside the U.S., it likely means people who place ethnic or ancestral identity above or nearly equal to their country of citizenship. And again this leads to a bias that Taiwan, with ancestry and culture coming from China, is part of China.

I've seen the problem, but I haven't had time to figure out ways to reword and correct the bias largely because it is very difficult to untangle given how tightly woven it is into the article. Also, the bias is hard to remove because so many of the source suffer from the same bias due to the former power Chiang and the current power of the PRC in international politics. Readin (talk) 13:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You can equally say it would have bias if it is exclusively written by Chinese. I would rather not risk looking stupid by presupposing who edits this article and analysing what biases they are likely to bring, and instead concentrate in addressing the bias.

I invite you to go to the actual raw data and look at the responses that were nominated by the respondents themselves. At that Census 5,837 Australian residents nominated themselves as Taiwanese, 300 as Uighur, 533 at Tibetan and 380 provided miscellaneous ("not elsewhere classified") Chinese ancestries (including Hui, Manchu, Yi). Kransky (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

On inspecting the list of 'ancestries' in the 2006 ABS census, it is actually quite amusing to see that many of them are really civic identities rather than ethnic or cultural identities (e.g. Iraqi, French) while others are usually seen as ethnic identities (e.g. German, Hmong). From this alone, it is clear that the concept of ancestry is still poorly defined and should not be relied upon too much as a measure of ethnic composition. After all, modern humans originated in Africa so all humans are of African ancestry in a literal and scientific sense. On the contrary, no sensible person would ever suggest that there is only ethnic group in the modern world (no prizes for guessing which!).

On a much more serious matter though, I wonder what would happen if someone claimed that their ancestry was, say, Cantonese and Cantonese only. Would ABS treat that response in the same that it does for 'Taiwanese'? Or would ABS put such a response in whatever category they see fit? I actually find it disturbing that ABS classifies the Manchu ethnic group and some others as 'Chinese', which seems to be indicative of its succumbing to outside pressure (possibly from the PRC itself). 122.105.150.11 (talk) 12:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, any editor who wishes to get a general impression of the backgrounds of the editors who edit this page and the corresponding article can check the pages of editors who have an account; too often the user pages say it all. 122.105.150.11 (talk) 12:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Given that races and ethnicities cannot be clearly defined so that objective determinations can be made of each persons race and ethnicity, we cannot judge sources as being "correct" or "incorrect" in how they choose to classify people. As you rightly point out, it would be correct to classify us all as "African" by ancestry. Were pretty much stuck with reporting what the sources say even if the sources are biased (and they all are) and reporting what people say about themselves. Readin (talk) 14:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

So are we going to get moving and fix the article? Are there any proposals being floated? Have additional editors (with the prerequisite knowledge) who are not ethnic Chinese been summoned for their input with regard to fixing this article? I am afraid that if the answers to these questions are all 'no' then I will have to report the article's serial biases to the administrators. 122.109.121.70 (talk) 12:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I still have not seen any specific issues and edits you would suggest to fix such supposed flaws. How to respond to this vague "totally disputed" charge? -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

122.109.121.70, you are just as much an editor as anyone else. Please recommend specific changes. You think the rest of us have more free time than you do? Is there someplace we should go to summon "non-ethnic Chinese" editors who have time to do a job you seem unwilling to do? As for reporting to administrators, feel free to do so. None of us are worried about losing our Wikipedia pension.Readin (talk) 15:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I have just axed an entire section and rewritten the opening paragraph as a matter of urgency. I hope that we might finally be headed towards banishing the idea that 'Taiwan is part of China' from the article. 122.105.144.11 (talk) 12:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, has anyone realised that there is actually a contradiction in the article? In the box on the right hand side of the article near the top, there is a list of countries where Overseas Chinese can be found and Taiwan is NOT listed. But scroll to the bottom of the article and you will find another box that also gives a list of countries. But guess what? Taiwan IS listed in the latter box! Now, one could argue that an entry for Taiwan should be added to the former box; trouble is, as soon as that happens someone will say 'But many people believe that Taiwan is part of China'. So may be the templates should be modified so that an appropriate disclaimer can be made regarding whether ethnic Chinese living in Taiwan are Overseas Chinese or not. What is your opinion? 122.105.144.11 (talk) 12:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

One tricky problem with whether or not "overseas Chinese" come from Taiwan is that the current government from Taiwan has a lot of bureaucracy left over from the days when they were under a Chinese dictator. When the government of Taiwan uses a definition of "overseas Chinese" that includes Taiwanese in third countries, we can't just ignore it. We should avoid endorsing it, but we can't ignore it.Readin (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I am more than happy to avoid language that implies PRC sovereignty over Taiwan (or for that matter, the idea of RoC sovereignty over mainland China). But the fact is that a large number of Chinese came over to Taiwan in the last few centuries, of which a portion then left, and then became "overseas Chinese".

Take it to arbitration, it will be the case of one professional statistical organisation with one hundred years experience in designing and running Censuses versus the views of an IP address with an unhealthy amount of free time. Kransky (talk) 13:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan is an interesting situation since no one regards people living in Taiwan as "overseas Chinese", because people either object to the "overseas" part of the "Chinese" part. Roadrunner (talk) 03:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

false vandalism charge

122.105.144.11's edits may have been biased or inaccurate, but they were certainly no vandalism. He went though the proper procedure of opening a discussion on this page before making any edits. All of his edits were, however, reversed without a decent explanation why. Readin (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Angelo De La Paz appears to have once again made an on-the-spur-of-the-moment decision to revert an edit simply because that user feels offended at the material being presented. Of course, once an edit has been declared vandalism, no further explanation is needed under Wikipedia guidelines. So unless someone out there can stop this user from making further careless and reckless edits in the name of removing vandalism, I am afraid that this user may continute to revert any controversial edit.

It is bewildering that an attempt by another user to correct a blatantly incorrect fact about the control of the Malaysian economy was also met with objection by the same user who prides on combating vandalism.

As for the templates, it is important to realise that 'Overseas Chinese' really refers to an identity that encompasses both a Chinese ethnic identity and a nationality other than Chinese; it should not be construed as a purely civic identity. So with regards to Taiwan, there are two questions that would need to be addressed:

• Are nationals of the current ROC considered to be Chinese nationals; in other words, is Taiwan considered to be part of China (in this context, 'China' does not necessarily mean 'PRC')?
• Are 'native Taiwanese' (as opposed to Mainland Chinese) ethnically Chinese?
  
  

Hopefully, the answers to the above questions will guide editors on how the templates should be modified.

By the way, anyone who thought that the correct answer to the second question posed above can be found at the Wikipedia article Han Chinese should think again. The said article and most of its editors are also plagued with the 'Taiwan is part of China' mentality. 122.105.144.148 (talk) 03:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, User:Angelo De La Paz has turned up again solely to revert edits. Someone needs to stop him! He has been doing the same thing to a number of other articles as well. I am afraid that the game is getting ridiculous before its opening phase had even run its course. 122.105.144.148 (talk) 03:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You guys are edit warring over what should be verifiable information. Please one of you find some sources to back up your edits. Even if you find sources 122.105.144.148, you'll need to change the tone of your edit as it is not very encyclopedic. Readin (talk) 04:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Useful source of information on recent migration patterns

http://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/publications/Working%20papers/Frank%20Pieke%20WP0524.pdf

Revert information that is just wrong

1) PRC nationals born within the PRC are considered to be "hua ren" in any sort of context that I've ever seen, so defining "hua ren" as overseas Chinese is incorrect.

2) This is also incorrect -- In addition, the ROC had granted residents of Hong Kong and Macau "Overseas Chinese Status" prior to their respective handover to Beijing rule, so the definition may be said to loosely extend to them.

Residents of HK and Macau are special situations under ROC law and are not considered overseas Chinese.

Request for information

Legally speaking, it seems that both the PRC and the ROC, and likely Singapore as well, have created some means of determining who is ethnically "Chinese."

For example, since the 1997 handover, Hong Kong Chinese have not needed a visa to go to China, whereas Hong Kong white people still do. (Their ID numbers were assigned a different prefix, or something like that.) This means that at some point, someone had to sit down and decide which people were Chinese, and which weren't. How did they do that--according to their looks? Names? Self-ascription? And how does the system treat people of mixed race?

The relevant regulation for this is "Explanations of some questions by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress concerning the implementation of the Nationality Law of the People's Republic of China in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region". Basically anyone born in Hong Kong and of "Chinese descent" was given PRC citizenship on 7/1/1997. Chinese descent in PRC nationality law is defined as having a parent with Chinese citizenship. Also this applies to Chinese citizenship. You can be an ethnic Chinese in HK without having Chinese citizenship, you can also be a Chinese citizen without being ethnic Chinese. I think the solicitor General of Hong Kong (Bob Allcock) falls into that category. Roadrunner (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile in Taiwan, the category of "overseas Chinese" is generally used in a narrower sense, to mean an overseas holder of an ROC passport. However, under some circumstances (such as education), ethnic Chinese are treated differently than others. Again, the same questions: How do they determine (ethnic) "Chinese-ness"? And what do they make of mixed-race (or mix-ed nationality) children?

This is complex because pretty much all overseas Chinese are eligible to get an ROC passport. You just can't enter Taiwan with it. Technically speaking, all Mainland Chinese and Mongolians are ROC citizens. The general rule is that if you have one parent that is an ROC citizen, you are also an ROC citzen. However, just because you are an ROC citizen doesn't give you any right to enter Taiwan. Roadrunner (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

In Singapore, people from different ethnic groups are subject to different family law. For example, Singaporean Malays may practice polygamy, but Singaporean Chinese may not. I realize that their ethnicity will be recorded on their ID cards and passports, but...what do they do about borderline cases (e.g., a mixed-race child, or an adoptee, or a Chinese covert to Islam)? Who makes the decision as to what ethnicity to assign, and how?

Thank you very much. --Dawud

Also note that there are different terms in Chinese for "Chinese". Even the term "ethnic Chinese" has two different translations with completely different meanings Roadrunner (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Point of view pushing by an editor

The Los Angeles area has a particularly high number of Mandarin speakers from Taiwan. Taiwanese Americans are heavily concentrated in southern California.

This paragraph implies that Taiwanese Americans are Overseas Chinese. Trouble is, not everyone agrees with this. Unfortunately, a user has reinstated the disputed paragraph a couple of times. I have removed it yet again but I believe it is time that other editors commented on this. David873 (talk) 09:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Certainly Taiwanese (Aborigines excepted) are "(Han) Chinese people." See our article Chinese people. They're just not "People's Republic of China-ese people." There's no problem here. Badagnani (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

That article was pretty biased with no reliable sources. I've tried to fix it a little. But it still doesn't answer David873's question.Readin (talk) 21:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that many people do consider Taiwanese to be Chinese, and this is complicated by the fact that until relatively recently many families that immigrated from Taiwan simply used Taiwan as a stopover on their way from China, and so while they may say they came here from Taiwan, they consider themselves Chinese. The statement seems ok to me. It doesn't say that Taiwanese Americans are Chinese, but it does note that they speak Chinese.

The real problem is that the introductory paragraph takes it as given that people from Taiwan are overseas Chinese. The dispute should be noted. Readin

No it doesn't. It says "Overseas Chinese are people of Chinese birth or descent who live outside the Greater China region, which includes territories administered by the rival governments of the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (ROC)." If you are someone from Taiwan that doesn't consider yourself a "person of Chinese birth and descent" you aren't an overseas Chinese. If you live in Taiwan, you aren't an overseas Chinese. No problem here. Whether people from Taiwan are overseas Chinese are not depends on whether or not you think of them as "people of Chinese birth or descent." If you think they are, they are. If you think they aren't, they aren't. That definition takes no sides as to whether they are or aren't. Roadrunner (talk) 23:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

(talk) 21:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Los Angeles

Reinserted that line about languages spoken in SoCal. Removed the line about Taiwanese Americans concentrated in SoCal, because I'm not sure it is true.

Roadrunner (talk) 23:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed Mainlander

Removed Taiwanese Mainlander from Template, since no one considers them Overseas Chinese. Roadrunner (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Also removed all of the subgroups of Chinese-American from the overseas Chinese template. If we have the template refer to the main Chinese-American article and then have that links to all of the different subgroups, that fixes any political controversy problem and also makes the box much cleaner. Roadrunner (talk) 23:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Also in case anyone complains about Taiwanese-American included in the Chinese American template, let me point out that Asian-American is included next to it. Also there is another potential flame war about whether Tibetan-American should be included, but sincce I'm Taiwanese-American and not Tibetan, I'll let someone else deal with that flame war.

Roadrunner (talk) 23:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Discrimination section needs rewriting

After reading it, I have edited out the bits which basically say "The Chinese are hated because they are supreme" but the section is still nowhere near wikipedia standards. There is still only 1 citation referenced in the section and there already is a notification but no one seems to have paid attention to it as of the time I am typing this. I believe this section is important to the article though it will no doubt bring up some POV issues along the way. --Hamster X 16:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:PINKY January 2007.jpg

The image Image:PINKY January 2007.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Overseas Chinese in South Africa

"...In 2008, the Pretoria High Court has ruled that Chinese South Africans are to be reclassified as black people.[5]"

Since User:Angelo_De_La_Paz thinks my edit constitutes vandalism (rambo reverter trying to get a barnstar??), I will discuss this in here. Apparently my comments weren't convincing enough and are therefore vandalism... I think the fact that there is affirmative action in South Africa toward Chinese is relevant. Should we tell of the laws in California that were designed to curb the amount of East Asians in the California universities? I dont think it is a vital part of the Overseas Chinese experience, and the factoid doesnt contribute to anyone's understanding of the overseas Chinese experience. For this reason, I think it is in the best interest to omit this fun fact from the article, if there are any qualms about this, lets discuss the relevance of the sentence right here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.121.247.116 (talk) 07:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Dubious

In Vancouver, around 23% of the population is Chinese.

According to the Demographics of Vancouver article, the number is 19%. Which is correct? Readin (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hard to tell, but if you need the information, you might want to try the StatCan webpage on the Vancouver CMA: [13] nat.utoronto 18:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Spoken Chinese

• Semple, Kirk, October 21, 2009, In Chinatown, Sound of the Future Is Mandarin, New York Times

"Cantonese, a dialect from southern China that has dominated the Chinatowns of North America for decades, is being rapidly swept aside by Mandarin, the national language of China...Until recently, Sunday Masses at Transfiguration were said in Cantonese. The church now offers two in Mandarin and only one in Cantonese. And as the arrivals from mainland China become old-timers, “we are beginning to have Mandarin funerals,” said the Rev. Raymond Nobiletti, the Cantonese-speaking pastor."

May be of great interest. Regards, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)