Jump to content

Talk:Ethnic minorities in China

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Old talk

I think this topic should consolidate with Demographics of China. ---voidvector

Some websites say "55 ethnic minority groups" or simply say "56 ethnic groups", other websites say "56 ethnic minority groups" but never mention 57 total, so I am confused of how many is actually recognized in total 56 or 57. ---voidvector

I figured out "Dulong" and "Drung" are the same ethnic group. they are duplicates. See here ---voidvector

It seems to be a mistake in the wiki. "officially recognizes 56 ethnic minority groups within China in addition to the Han majority" is incorrect. Offcially it is 55 minorites plus the Han Chinese adding up to total in 56. Source one only lists the 56 ethnic groups (Han included) as well as the Chinese Bureau of Statistics. Please provide a better source for 57 ethnic groups or change it to 56 (saying 55 ethnic minorites + Han) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.165.74.253 (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the ethnic groups in the article are transliterated according to pinyin, right? But in China there's an official Names of nationalities of China in romanization with codes, and I think it should be adopted. --Lorenzarius 17:19 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)

Chinese Jews

I have read a lot on the internet and heard from many friends that Jews are recognised as an ethnic minority in China and that although the Chinese Jews (from Kaifeng?) look Chinese they still have some practices which are recognisably Jewish and their Jewish ethnicity recognised on their passports. Is this all true or just a wild rumour? If so which of the names on the list stands for them (which chinese characer)?Zestauferov 10:38, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

There was a Jewish community in Kaifeng for several hundred years, but as far as I know they are no longer active and have melted into the surrounding population. User:Roadrunner
I see. Thankyou. Can anyone tell me what was the chinese character for the Kaifeng Hebrews/Jews?Zestauferov 09:28, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Changed a bit. Minzu seems to almost always be translated as nationalities in Chinese documents. User:Roadrunner

Question: Any object if I change the name to list of Chinese nationalities? Nationalities is the standard Chinese translation for the term minzu (you can do a search on google for this). Also in the case of the Hui, it makes much more sense, since the Hui contains a lot of different groups that aren't ethnically related at all. User:Roadrunner

Article name

Ethnic minorities China is a very awkward article name. Can we please change this to something more appropriate, maybe one of the names that redirects here? -- Jmabel | Talk 11:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

China influenced by USSR

"Chinese ethnicities theory is heavily influenced by that of the Soviet Union. Official policy is against assimilation and maintains that each ethnic group should have the right to develop its own culture and language."

I guess the USSR said this officially but never really practiced it, instead it destroyed entire cultures and religions and swept them into the "dustbin of history" as Trotsky put it.
If your looking for specific USSR policy on this, Stalin wrote an essay called "The National Minority Question" which might be useful as to the theoretical underpinnings of the USSR's policies. Interestingly enough, they run counter to some of Marx's writings on the topic. - JH 23 March 2006

Future of the article

It would be nice if this article would move in a direction way from relying solely on the PRC "56 nationalities" list. Not that the list should be gotten rid of: there's nothing wrong with it for the most part. It makes a good starting place. However, it has its limitations, such as the case of the "undistinguished nationalities" and the indigenous Taiwanese. There's a lot that can be said about the ethnic demographics of China that doesn't fit into that framework.

Also, I'm not sure "Nationalities of China" is the best title for this page. I know that many sources conventionally translate 民族 as "nationality", but this is distinctly ambiguous in English. What's wrong with "ethnic groups in China" or something like that? - Nat Krause(Talk!) 20:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kaifeng Jews

An anon recently edited the article to claim that Kaifeng Jews are among the recognized nationalities in China, but provided no references to the claim. I didn't find anything about thin on internet and lerning that there are about 400 Jews an Kaifeng, I assumed this was a hoax or misinformation and anon's edits are reverted. I may well be wrong, so please investigate.

By the way, a drawback of this article is lack of any link/reference to official data. `'mikka (t) 03:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Census?

An article similar ro United States Census is missing for China. `'mikka (t) 04:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the name of the article

I propose we change the name of the article to "Ethnic groups in China". The word nationality denotes citizenship, and the Chinese government uses "ethnic minorities" in English. It is especially cumbersome because as of now, we have to put in comments to explain the usage of the word "nationality". The problem could be solved if we just more accurately name the article. Hong Qi Gong 17:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've made the change. Hong Qi Gong 16:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's just not correct, and you did not allow for any discussion. Please don't do this kind of thing in the future so hastily. The English translation selected by the government that came up with the Chinese term in the first place selects "nationalities" as their English translation and they did so for a reason: because that's what is meant by the term, politically. Changing it to "ethnic groups" misrepresents the term in its original use. Plus, your page move involved cutting and pasting text to a redirect page -- that's a very bad way of moving a page, as the page history and discussion is not preserved. Please allow others to respond before moving pages in this manner in the future, especially when your reasoning is incorrect, as in this case, as can be seen at Zhonghua Minzu. Badagnani 16:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People's Daily says "ethnic minorities"[1]. That's what I'm going by. The mistake you're making here is assuming the term "民族" (minzu) only means "nationality". But it can be translated to "ethnicity" as well[2].
I proposed the move 2 days ago and nobody wanted to discuss it. So I moved it. I couldn't do a direct move because there was already an existing page with this name that had a redirect to the incorrectly named "Nationality..." page. That's why I had to copy and paste. Hong Qi Gong 17:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter. There are no situations under which you should perform a cut-and-paste move (except undoing a previous one!). Use Wikipedia:Requested moves instead.&mdash:Nat Krause(Talk!) 22:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are disputing that the Chinese government used, in English translation, for many decades, the term "nationalities"? You seem to have no regard for consensus and are you now going to force me to provide evidence that the Chinese government used this term "nationalities" for many years? Also, in the future do not do the "cut-and-paste" job--that is bad. Please ask an administrator to do the page move properly (once consensus for the move has been built, which you did not do in this case). Badagnani 17:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Click on the People's Daily link that I provided. It's clear as day. "Ethinc minorities". Plus, I already told you that you incorrectly think that "minzu" only translates to nationality. It means ethnic group as well. The term does not distinguish between nationality and ethnicity. Hong Qi Gong 17:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A newspaper does not trump the PRC Constitution, in official English translation, on the website of the PRC Government. [3] Badagnani 17:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of the following have been used:

49,000 results

33,300 results

25,200 results

492 results Badagnani 17:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check this official publication as published in February 2005 on english.gov.cn. http://english.gov.cn/official/2005-07/28/content_18127.htm. Hong Qi Gong 17:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever came up with this translation might be foreign-trained in anthropology, and thus shows the Chinese government is now "with the program" as far as the current/"politically correct"/politically neutral English translation they use. However, it doesn't explain the use of "minzu" to express a trans-ethnic "nationality" such as the Zhonghua Minzu. You've removed "minority" for "minzu" but since there's no Chinese given in the website you've given above, how is the term "minority" expressed in Chinese, as part of the term "ethnic minority"? Obviously the Han are not a "minority." Badagnani 18:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The term "minzu" literally just translates to "people group". As such, it has been used to mean either nationality or ethnicity. I'm not sure if there are more direct Chinese translations of the English words nationality and ethnicity. I'm guessing this is because the idea of nationhood is western in origin. "Minzu" has been used for what is better translated as "Chinese nationality" because Zhonghua Minzu is used to denote basically everybody in China, and under PRC rule. "Minzu" itself does not mean minorities. The common Chinese term for ethnic or racial minorities is "Xiaoshu Minzu", 小數民族, literally meaning "people group that is small in number".
To be honest, I'd prefer that the article be named "Ethnic minorities in China". Because for all practical purposes, that's what the article is about, or should be about. Hong Qi Gong 18:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definition and use of "Chinese"

QuoteUnless specifically stated or discussing Chinese minorities, English usage of the term "Chinese" typically refers to the Chinese nation, and not the Han Chinese.

I would dispute this sentence. I think the English word "Chinese" in English usually refer to; Han Chinese/ethnic Chinese, or to things that are to do with the PRC (not inc. HK and Taiwan) or to the historical China. The use of the English word "Chinese" to refer to the Chinese nation/a citizen of the PRC+Taiwan is only used by the PRC and the Han Chinese/ethnic Chinese.
Eg The Chinese economy: economy of the PRC (not inc. HK and Taiwan). LDHan 15:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to "Ethnic minorities in China" or split the article?

As per the discussion above, I'd like to throw this idea out there. Should we just move the article to "Ethnic minorities in China"?

  1. For all practical purposes, the article is about ethnic minorities in China.
  2. Ethnic minorities in China have certain statuses that are different from the Han majority. The PRC government has special laws and policies regarding ethnic minorities.

Hong Qi Gong 19:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think so, because the Han (and also "Zhonghua minzu") are discussed here. That's the convention for other articles about ethnic groups in Asian nations, such as those for Burma. Badagnani 19:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, I don't feel that strongly about renaming it. But I do think it's a good idea. The Han majority is discussed in the article only in the context of how ethnic minorities are differentiated from it. That's how discussions about ethnic minorities in China generally go, I mean, the Han make up 92% of the population. I do see that there are articles for List of ethnic groups in Myanmar, List of ethnic groups in Laos, List of ethnic groups in Vietnam, etc, but those are basically nothing but lists. This article has grown beyond that. How about we move the list itself to List of ethnic groups in China, and we move the body of the article to Ethnic minorities in China? Hong Qi Gong 20:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a possibility. Although the template covers the names of the ethnic groups, but we could have a list similar to the one I made for the List of ethnic groups in Myanmar, that breaks them down by language group. That might be good. Badagnani 20:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This way, we can expand upon the special statuses and policies that the PRC has concerning ethnic minorities. For example, they are exempt from the One Child Policy, they are allowed certain amounts of autonomous government with the use of their own native languages, etc etc. We can leave this discussion up for a few days before we actually do this. Hong Qi Gong 20:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if anyone is reading this (unlike pages like Hong Kong, where people are always arguing)! I think ethnic groups, though interesting to us, might not be interesting to everyone. The same is true with the ethnic group articles for other Asian countries. It's pretty desolate, with only a few specialists interested in that particular nation or in anthropology in general, chiming in from time to time but not always putting in the hard work to document and organize all the groups. Particularly with Myanmar, it's extremely difficult because references are still scarce. But it's a cumulative process, and the articles are getting better all the time. Badagnani 20:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I posted in the Talk pages of both the China article and the PRC article, asking for people to weigh in on the matter. Hong Qi Gong 21:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nat Krause's redirect

Dear Nat Krause, I'm not sure I understand your redirect back to "Nationalities of China," which was entirely without "discussion." We've already been through the fact that it's not a good idea to do that. Why not undo the redirect, then participate in "discussion"? That would be great. Badagnani 22:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't nationalities of China the original location? I think it is not only an option but a duty to move the page back to where it was before the cut-and-paste move.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 22:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's clear now, but there wasn't any "discussion" so it wasn't clear what you were doing. Let's go with the split proposal discussion below and go with the consensus, then have an admin do the renaming, if it passes. No hurry. Some good information regarding changing/current translations used by the PRC government is coming out of this discussion. Badagnani 22:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Let's see how the discussion on the current proposed Move and Split goes. Then we'll request a Move if we can agree on it. Hong Qi Gong 22:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Move. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try this again - Proposed Move and Split.

Currently the name of the article is "Nationalities of China". What I propose is this:

  1. Rename the article to "Ethnic minorities in China", and have the article be one about ethnic minorities in China. The topic deserves its own article.
  2. Split the list of ethnic groups into its own article, called List of ethnic groups in China, modeled after List of ethnic groups in Myanmar, List of ethnic groups in Vietnam, and List of ethnic groups in Laos.

Hong Qi Gong 22:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, , but only if the various terms that have been used by the PRC government to discuss the ethnic groups in China (ethnic groups, nationalities, national minorities) are all discussed in a thorough manner (similar to the way we've been discussing them here), including discussion of the political ramifications of each translation of the term. Badagnani 22:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Moving this page will require a request to the admins, and that process alone could take a few days. I'll put in that request now. Once the page has been moved, we can split the list off into its own page. Hong Qi Gong 04:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, but that's not so much my original motivation for suggesting the move. I just think that ethnic minorities in China have certain special statuses and face discrimination that the Han majority does not. The PRC government itself has certain policies regarding ethnic minorities only that do not apply to the Han majority. --- Hong Qi Gong 15:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Korean Chinese

That article was specifically written about the ethnic Koreans in China. That's the correct article to link to. --- Hong Qi Gong 19:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved finally

Ok, the article is finally moved. I don't have the time to do it at the moment, but later today when I have more time, if anybody hasn't done it yet, I'll be:

  1. Splitting the list of ethnic groups into its own article.
  2. Editing this article to reflect that it's an article on China's ethnic minorities.

--- Hong Qi Gong 14:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I notice that my original comment of "Support, , but only if the various terms that have been used by the PRC government to discuss the ethnic groups in China (ethnic groups, nationalities, national minorities) are all discussed in a thorough manner (similar to the way we've been discussing them here), including discussion of the political ramifications of each translation of the term" hasn't been followed up on. Badagnani 16:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Give us a little time. Like many articles on Wikipedia, this is a work in progress. And of course, it goes without saying that your contributions are encouraged also. --- Hong Qi Gong 16:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've split the list into its own article: List of ethnic groups in China. Editing this article to reflect that it's an article on the ethnic minorities will take more time and I won't be able to get to it until later today. But if other editors have the time, please go ahead and edit it! --- Hong Qi Gong 16:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've now edited the original article to reflect that it's an article about ethnic minorities in China. I've trimmed it of some of the things which I thought were unnecessary, like the numerous translations in Chinese characters. However, a lot of content can still be added onto the article. --- Hong Qi Gong 00:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Condition of move

Some time ago, during dicussion regarding the move of this page, I wrote:

"Support, , but only if the various terms that have been used by the PRC government to discuss the ethnic groups in China (ethnic groups, nationalities, national minorities) are all discussed in a thorough manner (similar to the way we've been discussing them here), including discussion of the political ramifications of each translation of the term."

In inspecting the article, I see that the person proposing the move has not included such a section or text interrogating the various translations and their usages and implications. This needs to be done promptly (in fact, it needed to have been done before or soon after the move, but was not) or I will withdraw my support for the move. Badagnani 19:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, do you have any sources for this information? I thought the article needs expansion, but that it already is pretty informative.
Also, it was mentioned before the move that the list of ethnic groups would be split into its own article. --- Hong Qi Gong 19:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, List of ethnic groups in China was already linked in the "See also" section when I split the article. --- Hong Qi Gong 19:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have a lot more expertise than I do on this subject. Badagnani 22:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then I'm not sure exactly what "political ramifications" you're talking about... --- Hong Qi Gong 00:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's clear that whether you use the term "political" or some other term, calling an ethnic group who may or may be granted some amount of autonomy a "nationality" or calling them something else, such as a "minority" or "ethnic group," gives a different connotation and has various ramifications that may explain why certain of the translations were used in the past, but have been abandoned in favor of another translation. Badagnani 00:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you raised the possibility of "political ramifications", I assumed you were aware of what they were. To the best of my knowledge, using "nationalities" as opposed to "ethnicities" or "ethnic minorities" in this case is a simple matter of having used a bad translation. The Chinese government certainly is not immuned to that, especially since native English speakers sometimes incorrectly use "nationality" when what they mean is "ethnicity". --- Hong Qi Gong 01:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree, and I'm not entirely ignorant of the subject. "Nationality" is a very specific construction that was used by the USSR as well as the PRC and it's a quite different view than that used regarding, for example, the 500+ officially recognized Indian tribes in the United States or Australian Aborigines. Chinese policy, as far as I understand, has been officially opposed to assimilation, allowing for the use of local languages and customs and thus recognizing the integrity of these peoples, many of whom have lived in the territories they inhabit before the Han. To ignore these issues shows a failure to recognize all the issues surrounding PRC cultural policy, which isn't so uninformed as to just arbitrarily use whatever translation they find in some dictionary, without putting any thought into it. Badagnani 01:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After the article was moved, I already added a section to the article mentioning that the Chinese government allows for the use of ethnic languages and customs in autonomous regions. But I don't see how this fact makes the official categorisation by the Chinese government any different from, for example, the US's categorisation of Native Americans. What it basically says is that the Chinese government seems to be more supportive of ethnic minorities using their languages and customs than the US is, with regards to Native Americans. If you are aware of other issues and have some sources, would you like to add to the article? I know that the Chinese term that is used is 民族 (minzu), but the term is ambiguous on nationality and ethnicity. Saying "nationality" here would be misleading because that denotes citizenship. All these ethnic minority groups have Chinese citizenship (and therefore the same nationality). That's the reason I proposed and supported the article move. --- Hong Qi Gong 04:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point, though, that the PRC government (like the USSR government before it) certainly recognized the existence of distinct "nationalities" within the overarching political "nationality." While they often didn't have true autonomy, many zones in both the PRC and former USSR were called "autonomous regions." You seem to have done quite a bit of study on this topic so you should be aware of these issues, no? Badagnani 04:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of how the PRC's policies are similar to that of the USSR's. I know that the term that is used in Chinese is 民族, but the term basically just translates to "people group", and is not specific on citizenship. I know that nationality denotes citizenship, which is misleading when applied to these ethnic minorities because they all have the same nationality. Also, I know that ethnic minorities in autonomous regions in China have certain preferential treatments (which I've already added to the article). At this point it seems like you are more aware of the possible "political ramifications" than I am. That's why I asked you to contribute. --- Hong Qi Gong 04:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. does not, in its actions or use of terminology, emphasize the fact of distinct "nationalities" as regards indigenous peoples. On the other hand, the Canadian government does so through the use of the term "First Nations" to describe its indigenous peoples. Badagnani 04:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that changes the definition of "nationality". Again, all it seems to mean, at least to me, is that the Chinese government is more supportive than the US is of its ethnic minorities in their use of ethnic languages and customs. --- Hong Qi Gong 04:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Population

Is the 107 million+ population for PRC+ROC non-Han minorities correct? I added it, it was removed, I added it back and it's still there. I think it adds something important to the article and want to make sure 1) it's accurate and 2) the other specialists here agree the population figure should feature in the article. Badagnani 07:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move the page back?

I propose moving the page back to Nationalities of China. First of all, but most important, nationality is the term in preferred use by the Chinese government. In all of its official government publications, and names such as the Central University for Nationalities, China National Ethnic Song and Dance, the term "nationality" is preferred. Should we just completely ignore this? Furthermore, the term "ethnic group" or "ethnic minority" is inaccurate because they do not always correspond to the nationalities classified by the government.

The basis for this is not an abnormality, nor bad translation by the Chinese government. China as a multi-national state is the basis of Zhonghua Minzu idealogy. Nationality does not denote citizenship, as was mistakenly believed. Nations do not necessarily correspond with a state. A place like Iceland is a nation state, because it's a sovereign state with a single nation group, while a country like the United Kingdom consists of multiple nations: England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Note that the preferred translation in the Soviet Union was also "nationalities". This is reflected in its Soviet of Nationalities, and in its constitution, which states "The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a socialist state of the whole people, expressing the will and interests of the workers, peasants, and intelligentsia, the working people of all the nations and nationalities of the country". --Yuje 07:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was my argument in the discussion above. But HQG (who proposed the move) explained that this translation, though not in the PRC constitution (which uses "nationalities"), seems to be giving way to "ethnic minorities" in official PRC-published texts. Badagnani 08:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that this article is not about the idea of a Soviet-style definition of the English word "nationality" as used in the PRC. That's something that should be covered in Zhonghua Minzu. This article is about ethnic minorities in China, their demographics and such, and not how the PRC might define the English word "nationality". The way that "ethnicity" and "nationality" is used in English, "ethnicity" much more accurately describe the topic of this article. Searching "ethnic minorities China" returns about 8.7 million hits, and "ethnic groups China" returns about 17.8 million hits, many of these hits being in the .cn domain, including People's Daily's website. Morever, it should also be noted that the term used in Chinese, 民族, is not specific on citizenship, nationality, or ethnicity. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the PRC didn't define the English word "nationality" in a special way, you seem to be misinterpreting it. It's usage is not an abnormality. The British, the inventors of the English language, define their own country to contain multiple Home Nations, as do the the Spanish (Nationalities in Spain). That those 56 groups are specifically translated as "nationalities" is deliberate, and reflects the Chinese government's idealogy of a being a multi-national country. Institutions such as the universities and the constitution have deliberately and consistenly translated the term as "nationality". It's claims of legitimacy in non-Han areas like Inner Mongolia and Tibet also partly rest on the basis of the country being a multi-national one. Your opinion that ethnicity is a better descriptive term contradicts both official terminology, and verges on original research.

For Google, you might try doing a more careful search, by limiting to the .cn domain. Very many of the hits on "ethnic minorities" and China turn up hits about overseas Chinese in other countries.

--Yuje 16:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The case for the UK, and even the USSR, really, is a bit different, as those countries historically incoporated what could be clearly defined as nations. Ireland, Wales, Scotland, England were all distinct nations. The question is, are UK citizens of Irish descent referred to as "Irish national" or of "Irish nationality"? From what I can see, the answer is clearly no. Again, this article is not about defining what "nationality" could mean, and it's not trying to redefine anything or trying to come up with new terms. "Ethnic minorities" is a common term, and the article is about ethnic minorities in China, who are treated slightly differently by the PRC government than are Han Chinese. If you want to point out how the word "nationality" is used by the PRC, or how it is a "multi national" state, then the Zhonghua Minzu article is the perfect place for that. If you're talking about "official terminology", then I should point out that ethnic groups or ethnic minorities are used as well[4][5][6][7] as nationalities. Like I said, the Chinese term 民族 is not specific on citizenship. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"....those countries historically incoporated what could be clearly defined as nations". What would you call the Tibetans, Mongols, Manchus, Zhuang, and Uighurs? As for the UK, try telling any Scot that Scotland isn't a nation, and I suspect the reply you'll get will be quite colorful, to say the least.
For the link you gave me, try clicking on any of them, like this one or this one. You'll see that "nationality" is still a preferred term, as far back as Sun Yat-sen.
For the most appropriate place to describe the nationality policy is, of course, the page describing those very people themselves. Why describe how they're ethnic minorities but explicitly exclude discussion of ethnic policy on the page?
Again, ethnic groups =/= China's nationalities. Neither Hong Kong, Taiwan, nor Macau use such a system; would you argue there aren't different ethnic groups in them?
Lastly, the term "nationality" is used in the constitution, and in official institutions and laws, such as the State Nationalities Affairs Commission, Regulations on Administrative Work of Nationality Townships, Regulations on Urban Nationality Work, Central University for Nationalities, China National Ethnic Song and Dance, etc. Why would we list the various ethnicities of the Longlin Various Nationalities Autonomous County, instead of just being consistent and using a single term? Why push a confusing and unnceccessary forking of terminology?--Yuje 02:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those links you provided use both "ethnic groups" and "nationalities". Again, it's very simple, the term "ethnic minority" is a common English term[8], with much less ambiguity than nationality (since nationality denotes citizenship), and this article is about ethnic minorities in China. Here are some other official documents that uses the term "ethnic group" or "ethnic minority" - [9]. The reason both terms are used is, once again, because the Chinese term is ambiguous on citizenship and can be translated as either ethnic group or nationality. But since we are talking about all the groups with Chinese citizenship, "ethnic group" is a much clearer term. Also, I don't see where I've opposed including more information about ethnic policies on the article. I was the one who added the "Guarantee of Rights and Interests" section. Again, the issues you're raising here is much better addressed at the Zhonghua Minzu article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 09:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hakka and Hui info

Why does the Hakka and Hui info now appear in two different paragraphs? I think editors need to read the entire article (and "discussion"), and think carefully before making considered edits. I don't think that's going on right now, because everyone is so sure that they are right. We can all work together to make this a great article, perhaps the best on the Internet on this subject. (We already know that many Wikipedia articles do already fit that description.) Badagnani 18:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic groups in China‎

Ethnic groups in China‎ include the Han people. No matter what, it is wrong to direct ethnic groups in China to ethnic minorites in China. Some editors are making technical mistakes here. Nres 19:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct in stating that the redirect from Ethnic groups in China left out the Han people. It's fixed now. Thanks for your input. Badagnani 19:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic groups in China are officially well-defined. There is no ambiguity. What do you create disambig page for? Nres 20:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been discussed here. The Han deserve, and have their own page and the 55 minority groups (about 8 percent of the PRC population total) has another page. The disambig page refers to them all. This gets the reader to the right place to discuss the ethnic groups they wish to learn more about. Thanks for your interest in these pages. It's best, as a new editor, to spend some time here and discuss before making sweeping changes that may have been considered very thoughtfully over time. Regards, Badagnani 20:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're breaking many template links here. Many times, people need to talk all the ethnic groups in a whole. Besides, the contents of the article differs from the Han Chinese and Chinese minority articles. Ethnic groups in China are officially well-defined. It is wrong to make a disambig here. Nres 20:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you are saying. The alternative would be to go back to changing the Ethnic minorities in China page back to Ethnic groups in China, and discussing the Han there. But we've been through that through discussion (which should be archived). We can always discuss it again at the Ethnic minorities in China discussion page. Badagnani 21:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll oppose to your suggestion, because there are just too many contents in the Han Chinese and Chinese minority articles. I'll suggest leave these two as they are and add another Ethnic groups in China article, which is relatively short but not a disambig. Nres 21:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've redirected Ethnic groups in China to List of ethnic groups in China, because really, that's all it needs to be. Also, the "umbrella ethnic identity" concept is covered in Zhonghua Minzu. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PRC propaganda

According to this article, it all sounds like the PRC is paradise for ethnic minorities. I'm having none of it ! It is patent propaganda created by PRC agents ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sacredceltic (talk • contribs)

I disagree. But I do think it would be great if we can find some credible sources about the discrimination that minorities in China may face. And I want to point out to you that you are welcome to contribute to the article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's hard to tell what Sacredceltic was referring to, since he offers no specifics, but I don't think that the section "Guarantee of Rights and Interests" is not very balanced. I removed "The PRC has also implemented 'regional autonomy' in areas populated by ethnic minorities, where heads of these regions are members of ethnic minority groups themselves", because, well, it's not true. The leaders of the autonomous regions, as in other elements of the PRC government, are the party secretaries, and, currently, the party chiefs of each of the autonomous regions (along with god knows how many autonomous prefectures and counties) are all ethnic Hans.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 06:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. A statement like that should have been sourced. I'm not sure if all the autonomous regions have Han Chinese officials at the very top of their governments, but I'm certain that at least some (like Tibet) are headed by Han Chinese officials. I have heard that some government positions are given to ethnic minorities in those regions though. If I can find a source that verifies this, I'd like to add something in that paragraph to mention this fact.
About the balance of that paragraph, I do think it would be useful to include some opposing POVs, or maybe even start a new paragraph to mention the discrimination that Chinese ethnic minorities face. However, I would caution against letting sections like that be dominated by Tibetan and/or Uyghur issues. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this article shouldn't emphasise Tibetan and Uyghur issues to the extent of crowding out other groups. The most numerous ethnic minorities in China are the Zhuang and Manchus, and they don't get much attention—the Zhuang are all but unknown outside of China and Southeast Asia. Tibetan and Uyghur issues get more attention basically because they live on a vastly larger area of land than most other minorities in China. That does indeed put them in an enormously different position, but we deal with that extensively in other articles, so we shouldn't dwell on it unnecessarily here.
As for the ethnicity of the party chiefs of the autonomous regions, I checked it myself by getting their names from Wikipedia and then looking up their information on chinavitae.com.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 00:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I see that all the party secretaries for the 5 autonomous regions are Han. But how about the 30 autonomous prefectures and the 117 autonomous counties? What ethnic groups are the heads of those governments from? And looking at the officials listed on chinavitae.com for the 5 autonomous regions, there are some ethnic minorities in positions of authority (or at least their titles sound important...) Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Though I don't want this article to fall into the trap of portraying ethnic minorities in China just as Asian-looking people who wear "ethnic clothes" and dance "ethnic dances" and sing "ethnic songs", that picture "a Chinese man of Manchu descent", is really low quality (blurry, off-centre, perspective looks like the guy took it of himself) and IMO takes away from the article instead of adding to it. The only redeeming quality is that he's in casual clothing.

Anyway, some good pictures of ethnic minorities in China can be found at:

Shall we select a better picture? cab 21:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine; select the best ones. I think the editor who added that photo may be ethnically Manchu, from his/her user name. Badagnani 21:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Substitution of photo

Why was the Miao photo just deleted and a Hui photo substituted, by an anon IP, without comment, today? I don't believe it's necessary to delete one photo when adding another. Your comments will be welcome. It does seem fair to have photos from different regions (i.e. North, West, and South). Badagnani 22:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with the text

You know it's wrong right? What's in the article is so politically incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Changchih228 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-04 20:36:42

I disagree. What's in the article, and specifically the content you keep blanking out, is factual. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please sign posts with four tildes after your post. The PRC claims 56 ethnic groups and you cannot change that by simply changing the number in the article from 56 to 55, or blanking text. You will probably need to explain in more detail (more than just one line) why you have been blanking massive sections of text from several articles. Badagnani 20:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because you are putting the wrong things under the wrong title. Go to List of ethnic groups in CHina talk page and see why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Changchih228 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-04 21:33:51

Disagree that the "wrong things are under the wrong title". Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

caucasians in china

Just out of curiosity does any source ever talk about caucasians, or for that matter african descent people, living in China after immigrating there? Not very much of this occurs but it does happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.56.120 (talk) 2007-07-30 23:30:41

I believe most sources that mention Caucasians or African descent people in China would probably label them as expatriates, and not ethnic minorities. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Ethnohistorical Dictionary of China By James Stuart Olson

http://books.google.com/books?id=IOM8qF34s4YC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

republican china's frontier policies

books and articles by Lin Hsiao-ting

http://books.google.com/books?id=osn1WrRCelcC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://www.ubcpress.ca/books/pdf/chapters/2006/tibetandnationalistchina'sfrontier.pdf

http://books.google.com/books?id=rsLQdBUgyMUC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://www.silkroadstudies.org/new/docs/CEF/Quarterly/February_2007/Lin.pdf

Rajmaan (talk) 10:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Qing Colonial Enterprise: Ethnography and Cartography in Early Modern China By Laura Hostetler

http://books.google.com/books?id=FdPQESuM7eUC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 21:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Affirmative action in china in practice is only given to religious minorities

In theory, under chinese law, the government helps all minorities equally. In practice, the chinese government only gives extra funds and affirmative actions to religious minorities like hui muslims, while ignoring ethnic minorities.

http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/research/drrc/research/working-papers/~/media/Files/Research/DRRC/WorkingPapers/Working%20Paper%20Archives/Number367.ashx

Rajmaan (talk) 10:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding that. I'm adding it to Affirmative action in China. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I found the paper states "Extremely preliminary version. Please do not cite or circulate. All comments and suggestions are appreciated." I'll make a note of it in the article talk page, but I can't cite this right now. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ethnic minorities in China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ethnic minorities in China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ethnic minorities in China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Image

As eye catching and interesting as it may seem on first viewing, does an ethnic map of China from 1983 really provide us with much useful information? It is not the norm to lead an article on ethnic minorities with a breakdown of the locations of each ethnicity 36 years ago (See, for example, here, here & here, which either lead with a modern breakdown, or with no map at all).

On the few examples I found of articles containing maps that are just an antiquated, they were not used as prominently as the map is here, and the production date was clearly displayed in the caption to avoid any confusion with a modern day map, unlike here, where said information is nested as a note. As the note itself even admits, in a country like China in particular, with high internal migration of people groups, maps can become very outdated in even a short time, nevermind 36 years!

I'm all for keeping the map in some form, perhaps nested lower in the article and preferably used to contrast the ethnic makeup of China 36 years ago compared to today, but currently the only purpose it seems to serve is to a) act as a battle ground between those who want the caption to read 'China' and those who want it to read as 'China & Taiwan' and b) to confuse readers into thinking that the map represents the current ethnic make-up of China.

Curt内蒙 21:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Han Chinese people are not an ethnic minority in China

Why does this article features so prominently tables on the Han Chinese (their languages, subgroups etc.) when they are not an ethnic minority in China? Unless there is a good reason to keep them there, they need to be removed or moved somewhere else. Hzh (talk) 11:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed them for now, a good reason is needed to restore them. Hzh (talk) 11:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guarantee of rights and interests

The following paragraph is completely copied, word for word, from the cited source (31). I suggest that the author either rephrases or removes the text in it's entirety, as it stands in violation with copyright laws.

"the Chinese government is taking draconian measures to slash birth rates among Uighurs and other minorities as part of a sweeping campaign to curb its Muslim population, even as it encourages some of the country's Han majority to have more children.[31] While individual women have spoken out before about forced birth control, the practice is far more widespread and systematic than previously known, according to an AP investigation based on government statistics, state documents and interviews with 30 ex-detainees, family members and a former detention camp instructor. The campaign over the past four years in the far west region of Xinjiang is leading to what some experts are calling a form of "demographic genocide".[31]" Herooow (talk) 19:09, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ethnic_minorities_in_China&oldid=1193943804"