Jump to content

Talk:Overseas Chinese

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

Overseas Whites

[edit]

I find it shocking there is so much info about the ethnic Chinese in other countries, down to numbers and habits (there's a dedicated page for each country!), whilst I don't see much attention to the white populations in non-white countries.

81.111.120.73 (talk) 04:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you that triggered that there are arguably "more" articles in chinese diaspora? Non british white people who migrated to white people majority america from Greece, Italy, Ireland, Etc are fairly represented too.......And what do you suggest? To not talk about it if it is ever covered more than white people diaspora. I don't see the valid point as Wikipedia is a global website.

120.17.210.36 (talk) 00:05, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


For the very simple reason that there is "White" people don't usually consider themselves part of a global "white" population group, but define themselves in terms of their nationality instead.
Some white people do see themselves through this prism as do other non-whites. Perhaps the term European or Caucasian is better suited, say using European-American, like there is African-American, rather than 'White'.
Do all Han people see themsevles in a united group? It's still pretty diverse collection linguastically and based on apperance, nevermind the politics. Han seems to be quite a fluid term that has changed over time, depending on the ruling entity, it's just like say not all Arab people consider themselves Arabic, and originally coming from the deserts of Saudi Arabia.
Furthermore, how do you define a "white country"? Only in the West? Clearly Sweden would fit the bill, but what about say, Latin America? Would you consider Panama a "white country"? What about Brazil? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.14.42.212 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 19 May 2013


Go here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imhUmLtlZpw (Martin Jacques: Understanding the rise of China) Western aka The Fallen Roman Empire aka Caucasian and the Chinese have DIFFERENT histories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jing345 (talk • contribs) 17:13, February 7, 2014

Is Chinese an ethno-lingusitic group or not, like Arabic? What is the Chinese concept of ethnicity, it doesn't seem to match the western sense.

Missing overseas Chinese

[edit]

There are more Chinese than article's stats, are these population index are up to date? Also where are these Chinese in Korea?--KSentry(talk) 12:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Han minorities

[edit]

Does this article include non-Han ethnic groups. For instance, this includes Chinese nationals that are ethnic Koreans? I think most 'overseas Chinese' and mainlanders, wouldn't include minorities if they immigrated abroad? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.29.12.193 (talk) 03:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of Mongolian peoples

[edit]

Some Chinese patriots consider Mongolians to be part of the Chinese nation. This is inspite that some Mongolian groups, such as Hazara in Afghanistan or Buryatians and Klamyks in Russia have never been goverend by a Chinese entity, however are Mongolians (and Tuvans) to be included in the lost diaspora? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.29.12.193 (talk) 03:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland Flag

[edit]

Some has twice removed the Northern Ireland flag template ( Northern Ireland) from the infobox. Re-inserted. Please do not remove. Qwerta369 (talk) 09:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can (and should, instead of blindly reverting) use the page history function to see who it was. In this case, it was User:O Fenian, whose stated reason for removing it was that it's a historical flag no longer in use. I'd suggest contacting that editor directly at his talk page, since I'm guessing that, like myself, none of the other regular editors who watch this talk page and contribute content to the article have any informed (or even uninformed) opinion on the matter. cab (talk) 09:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. If User:O Fenian has a problem with the Northern Ireland flag template ( Northern Ireland), he should seek to "fix" the template itself or see Template Talk:Country_data_Northern_Ireland, rather than removing the template from articles. I have sent him a message on his talk page. Qwerta369 (talk) 09:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article has not had a flag for quite some time, see the history of the article. That is because Northern Ireland does not have a flag. See Flag of Northern Ireland. There is no need for me to "fix" any template, since it is still in use for some sporting contexts and it will cause an uproar. For further information on this see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons). If you object to the lack of a flag I recommend you contact the Northern Ireland Assembly and ask them to create a new one, since until there is a new flag one will not be appearing in this article. O Fenian (talk) 10:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
O Fenian. Please see Template Talk:Country_data_Northern_Ireland. The issue of whether this flag should remain or be changed has been discussed at length and the consensus is that it should remain. If you do not agree, please seek a new consensus. Since your issue appears to be with the flag contained within the Northern Ireland flagcountry template and not with the flagcountry template itself, I have reinserted this template. All other countries in the infobox have their respective template. Please do not revert. You may also wish to read WP:POV. Qwerta369 (talk) 10:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have explained why that is a red herring. See guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons)#Overbroad use of flags with politicized connotations, Flag of Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland flags issue, and even the British Prime minister's spokesman saying "The position in relation to Northern Ireland was that it did not have a national flag" (striking due to currently dead link), and British government papers saying "The Ulster flag and the Cross of St. Patrick have no official status". Northern Ireland does not have a flag, the only breach of WP:POV is using that flag in this article. O Fenian (talk) 10:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
O Fenian. I suggest that you discuss this on Template Talk:Country_data_Northern_Ireland if you are unhappy with the flag used in the Northern Ireland flagcountry template. Qwerta369 (talk) 10:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That template is irrelevant as to whether the flag can be used in this article, as I have explained. I have also explained what you need to do if you want Northern Ireland to have a flag, contact tbe Northern Ireland Assembly. O Fenian (talk) 10:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In particular you may wish to look at this edit (and the discussion it is in). A change to the template has been ruled out due to the sporting use, but an administrator says "If you think that the flag is inappropriate for that set of articles, just remove the {{flagicon|Northern Ireland}} string from {{Northern Ireland elections}}. You don't need to change anything else". Yet bizarrely you say no I need to change the template, instead of doing what he says. O Fenian (talk) 10:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is also WP:IRISH FLAGS. I have now provided links to two guidelines about not using the flag, provided two reliable sources saying Northern Ireland does not have a flag, and have also directed you to two Wikipedia articles about the flag and problems associated with it. I do not accept "you need to go the template talk page to amend it" as an argument any more, I am sorry. O Fenian (talk) 10:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The infoboxm, and its Northern Irish flag or lack thereof (presently: lack) has been moved to Template:Overseas Chinese infobox, following along with the practise of similar articles like Japanese diaspora (Template:Japanese ethnicity). Please feel free to continue your discussion at Template talk:Overseas Chinese infobox, and request protection for that template if necessary to avert an edit war. Cheers, cab (talk) 11:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese in France

[edit]

Hello,
I have a new source claiming that there are 600,000 to 700,000 overseas Chinese people in France, whereas this article says 230,000. However this source is in French. Will you still take it into consideration? Thank you in advance for your reply. Source : http://www.slate.fr/story/23827/chinois-de-france-ne-veut-rien-dire —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakuzanodon (talk • contribs) 08:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most numbers that came from "News sites" are highly unreliable, as they tend to exaggerate things. An example of this would Angola in which a News article claims there are 100k Chinese there, yet the real number is well below 10k and most of them are temporary workers. A real reliable number would be either from France National Bureau of Statistics itself or to a lesser extend, the Chinese Oversea compatriots statistics.--LLTimes (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see but statistics based on ethnic origins are normally forbidden in France; the INSEE does not make any. These figures were estimated by Pierre Picquart, who is a specialist in China, in his book L'Empire chinois. This source has also been used by the very famous newspaper Le Figaro ([1]) and the magazine Réforme ([2]). Even the article about Chinese people in France on the French wiki uses these figures. Yakuzanodon (talk) 07:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've justified what I stated but still, you won't reply. May I know why? Yakuzanodon (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overseas --> Chinese Diaspora?

[edit]

I'd like to see consistency in this. It's weird to see one ethnic group be called "X Diaspora" while this article is "Overseas Chinese" instead of "Chinese Diaspora". Red Card For You (talk) 02:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the only outlier. See Non-resident Indian and Person of Indian Origin (which uses an even more cumbersome official government term), Iranian citizens abroad, Cuban exile. Quigley (talk) 02:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there's an ulterior purpose I suggest we move all of them to match "X Diaspora". I'll take the liberty of doing it. Red Card For You (talk) 03:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. I'm not familiar enough, but I did ask the creator of this article (other knowledgeable editors should be consulted also; at least submit a move request), who is still an active editor and who chose this name, to explain. It could be used more than 'Chinese diaspora', be the preferred language of the scholarly literature, or be more or less inclusive than a 'diaspora'. Quigley (talk) 03:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I got the note. Pretty strongly against the move, since no one in China is going to have any clue what a "diaspora" is. There's just no Chinese term for the word "diaspora" so if you use that term, no English-speaking Chinese person in China is going to have any clue what you are talking about. One other point is that being an "overseas Chinese" is an legal status in both Mainland China and Taiwan. There are also a thousand different controversies involving naming that you really don't want to get into.
Also, I think that the same thing is true for Indians (although I'll be glad to hear any corrections). I've heard Indians talk a lot about NRI's, whereas my guess is that most Indians are not going to have a clue what a diaspora is.

Roadrunner (talk) 04:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, actual English usage is preferred as a guide to article titles, rather than Wikipedian attempts at standardisation. Formulations like "Fooian diaspora", "Fooian exiles", "Fooian emigrants", "Fooians abroad", etc. have subtly different meanings, and the whole point of WP:NC(CN) is that the scholars and writers who study these subjects have a better idea than three random Internet users who show up at a Wikipedia talk page about how to refer to all of these different populations. Compare:

Or for that matter:

And:

Regards, cab (call) 08:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I too think the move is unnecessary. Diaspora is not just a synonym for overseas: from the article: "In all cases, the term diaspora carries a sense of displacement; that is, the population so described finds itself for whatever reason separated from its national territory, and usually its people have a hope, or at least a desire, to return to their homeland at some point,", So it is used for example for the Jewish diaspora or the Palestinian diaspora but not usually to describe people of Chinese descent living outside China.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 11:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think its a very bad idea since "Overseas Chinese" is the standard term that people are familiar with. If you go to someone in China and talk to them about "Overseas Chinese" they know what you are talking about whereas if you talk about a "Chinese Diaspora" they are going to have no clue what a "diaspora" is. I don't even know how to translate the term "diaspora" into Chinese.
Yes this may create a lot of inconsistency because different ethnic groups have different terminology. But there are usually a lot of minefields in the naming, and there are usually extremely good reasons for the names being what they are.

Roadrunner (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diaspora carries a connotation of historical context: Groups of emigrants being forced out or fleeing. That is certainly not the case for all overseas Chinese who chose to emigrate for various reasons. Since diaspora does not entirely represent overseas Chinese I am going to edit it out. Feel free to put it back in with an explanation or something to clarify the reasoning behind this choice. Thank you. 11/20/2018 9:06 AM PST.

Use of "PRC"

[edit]

The term "PRC is used in conflicting ways here. In the 1st paragrah, it's meant to include HK and Macau. Further down, it's used to mean Mainland China.

I propose changing the top paragraph to be neutral. (I know there's a whole debate on using of "PRC" and "Mainland," but I think it's largely irrelevent here.)

The top is also clunky and wordy, and I propose changing it to this more concise version that just gets to the point of the definition of the term.

"Overseas Chinese are people of Chinese birth or descent who live outside Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan or other regions with a Chinese majority. People of partial Chinese ancestry may also consider themselves Overseas Chinese." Pumpkin888 (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Either do that or use the term "Greater China Area", which means the same thing as what you've written. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info Box

[edit]

Why are there pictures of people without any labels? I think those pictures are not notable to the article and should be removed.71.251.43.92 (talk) 06:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peru, Panama, India

[edit]

Peru has been brought up before: [3]

These country numbers are based on the ROC commission figures and they look wrong. Peru especially. It's rare to see a Chinese immigrant in Peru. The historical immigrants came in the 1800s so they became part of the melting pot. There may be over a million people with Chinese ancestry in Peru but they in no way identify as Chinese like someone in the US or Malayasia so to group the Peruvian number with these other figures is misleading. Panama I think is the same case. I really wish to see the Peruvian number corrected because it inflates the count by over a million.

The Chinese in India article gives 20k.

Moneyboats (talk) 03:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible to add another column?

[edit]

I don't know how to do this but is is possible to add a country population column so we can easily check some of the percentage math?

Moneyboats (talk) 03:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

White Australia policy

[edit]

This article goes to some lengths to talk about semi-recent racially motivated attacks against ethnic Chinese living in countries where they are a minority. It even briefly mentions the discrimination faced in North America. However it is probably just as note-worthy that one of the countries where Chinese now live as a large proportion (Australia) once had racially motivated government policy directed (predominantly) towards the Chinese. I might see if I can integrate this into the article myself at some point.--Senor Freebie (talk) 03:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overseas Chinese is not an accurate term

[edit]

In China, they have an expression haiwai huaqiao which became translated as overseas chinese in English. But those are Chinese citizens living abroad, they are expatriates. Citizens of the US or other countries that are of Chinese descent are NOT "overseas Chinese" and may be offended by such terms. I was reading an article about my hometown san francisco and it referred to persons of Chinese descent. But when I clicked on the term it linked to this page. Being of CHinese extraction but a full red blooded tax paying American girl, I felt hurt and bewildered, and hope that someone can correct this item. I am new to Wikipedia and not sure exactly how to go about doing this but will give it a try,please forgive me if I am doing it wrong. Thanks guys Capigu (talk) 07:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The term you are looking for is actually "huayi", which is ethnic Chinese populations living outside the Sinosphere. They are ethnic Chinese (fully or in part) regardless of nationality. The term "Overseas Chinese" unfortunately, does not draw such a fine distinction between huaqiao (which as you correctly identified, refers to PRC-citizen expats) and huayi. However, that is the term most people are familiar with. So your hurt feelings and bewilderment are of little relevance to the correctness of the term as commonly understood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.14.42.212 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 19 May 2013

yeah, so huaqiao is chinese nationals abroad whereas huayi includes foreign-born "chinese". but what, then, is the term (in chinese) for JUST the latter?
it comes up a LOT in mixed groups. someone asks, in chinese, "is that person chinese?" and you wanna reply "no, he's chinese-american" or "he's 2d generation", but not so specific. i feel like there must be a good term in chinese for this, i.e. "foreign-born" or the like.
the chinese-ams i know use "huaqiao" to mean this specifically (i.e. EXCLUDING chinese nationals), but since that's incorrect at its core, i dunno how widespread such use is. if anything, i've told them to AT LEAST switch to "huayi".... 66.30.47.138 (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What about those of only partial Chinese descent? And what of those Chinese who first immigrated/displaced to say Jamaica and then they or a generation or two, migrated to the USA, doe's that make them overseas Jamaicans or Chinese, or both? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.29.12.193 (talk) 03:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

also, the article on Chinese British says that the 'overseas Chinese' population of Russia is the third largest such population. Given that Russia and China share a land border, the word 'overseas' is clearly wrong. 134.153.14.79 (talk) 13:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese in Angola - Wikileaks

[edit]

There is a state department cable from Angola that gives the base number of Chinese in Angola:

"The Chinese presence looms large in Angola. Although exact numbers are elusive, a minimum of 50,000 Chinese are in the country; most other estimates are markedly higher."

http://wikileaks.org/cable/2010/02/10LUANDA84.html#

This is a second source that supports the first source from the WSJ. So I remove the dubious tag.

Novacidadedekilamba (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese in Ghana

[edit]

I have reverted the edit of 6,000 to 20,000 thousand ethnic Chinese in Ghana, which doesn't sit well. There is no reason why there can't be 750,000 ethnic Chinese inhabiting Ghana. After all Ghana is the 5th most peaceful country in Africa and has the biggest economy out of the 4 African countries ranked before Ghana on the 2012 Global Peace Index. For this reason, any investors from Asia, Europe, North America, Central America, South America, Carribean, Middle East (i.e. Arab Gulf states), and Oceania mostly choose Ghana as their place to work, to do business and for foreign direct investment on the African continent. The source introduced by Novacidadedekilamba who just recently joined Wikipedia (Welcome to Wikipedia by the way) is not a study coming from Ghana (i.e. a reliable and well respected Independent Ghanaian national daily newspaper), and as the source provided by Novacidadedekilamba is not solely focused on Ghana, while the source from ModernGhana (a Independent Ghanaian national daily newspaper) which is a well respected and reliable news source of solely Ghanaian news in Ghana and its news information and studies are solely focused on Ghana. MarkMysoe (talk) 09:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Academic sources are still better than news outlets. Your Ghanaian source is dubious at best since it's a bit extreme to suggest that a mere 10,000 - 20,000 in 2010 went up to 750,000 (perhaps the number is on Chinese tourist, misinterpreted?). Ghanian census would be better if you have one.--LLTimes (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Civil War

[edit]

I think one of the factor that contribute to the Chinese diaspora is inclusive of Chinese Civil War. the Communist Party China and Kuomintang when the nationalist lost the war in 1949 many Chinese to South East Asia, traveling by boats and ships, this explain why the Chinese made up 75% of Singapore today, and 25% of Malaysia's Population.

Malaysia gain independence in the year 1957 and 1963 East Malaysia and Singapore. And later 1965 Singapore was separated from Malaysia.

refer to Chinese Civil war article and i need some help on improving this article based on the Chinese civil war.

Captain2123 (talk) 12:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hoa Chinese

[edit]

In the Assimilation part, i think the content is quite misleading and confusing. The Vietnamese people intentionally have adopted Chinese culture in term of clothing, language, traditions, politic system for thousands of year, not from Chinese immigrants, same things to Korea and Japan. Also the reference doesn't represent any idea related to Vietnam? Who gave in? I request a modification to this section. Ho Cam Dao is undoubtedly Sino-Vietnamese pronunciation, no different to other Sino-Vietnamese vocabulary. Sino-Vietnamese dominates 60- 80% of Vietnamese vocabulary. Hiraki (talk) 06:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC + 10)

The Chart doesn't work

[edit]

The categories don't match up when the chart is sorted. (96.24.118.128 (talk) 21:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Definition of Huaren

[edit]

I doubt many Chinese and otherwise would consider, say a Tibetan or Uyghur person of the PRC who has migrated (not fled) to another a country a Huaren or overseas Chinese? Say that Tibetan went to the States, she or he would be considered Tibetan-American, not Chinese-American? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.43.217.70 (talk) 04:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese in Egypt

[edit]

This number is tagged as dubious and I agree. There's nothing else on the Internet supporting the wide estimate provided by the newspaper article.

Agreement to remove it? Thorougpod (talk) 16:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese in Russia

[edit]

Why is the figure used is taken from data assembled by Taiwanese state agency while more relevant estimations exist, like the one mentioned in this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_people_in_Russia#CITEREFZayonchkovskaya2004 article? 46.216.109.175 (talk) 02:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese in Indonesia

[edit]

The number of Chinese population in Indonesia : https://www.facebook.com/notes/yayi-haidar-aqua/setelah-hegemoni-ekonomi-kini-saatnya-etnis-cina-berkuasa-penuh-di-ri/10152174951296126 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.193.7.81 (talk) 02:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


There are some people who constantly change the Indonesian statistics to 10 million based on an unreliable Taiwanese source. Please stop doing that and the official Indonesian census of 2.8 million should be the correct one.

This wikipedia Indonesian Chinese figure has been changed many times in the past. Please follow official figure from Indonesian government which is 2.8 million and not some unsubstantiated figure from Taiwan or some amateurs.

2405:9800:B900:4904:8133:A2D4:2AFF:BDFA (talk) 01:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Overseas Chinese. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Overseas Chinese. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese in India

[edit]

The figure for Chinese in India is off given that Refugees in India, gives a figure of 150,000 Tibetan refugees in India. This is a likely source of contention by nationalist on both sides, i.e. "we are Tibetans, not Chinese" and "they are not Han, so are not Chinese". Does someone bolder and braver than me want to wade into this.--KTo288 (talk) 07:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 21 external links on Overseas Chinese. 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) 09:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 March 2018

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 21:35, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Overseas Chinese → Chinese diaspora – This move is for consistency as both Korean diaspora and Japanese diaspora use the term diaspora instead of "overseas". AquilaXIII (talk) 05:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

User Km151kk edit warring and vandalising the page

[edit]

@Km151kk: Please see below sections and respond accordingly. Ibadibam (talk) 23:09, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Vandalising of Australia figure

[edit]

A user, Km151kk is repeatedly edit warring and vandalising the Overseas Chinese article by changing the population figure for Australia. The population figures in the Overseas Chinese article relate to the population of a country with Chinese ancestry (ie, ethnicity), not, the population which was born in the People's Republic of China.

You are continuously changing the figure for Australia to the PRC-born population.

Please see the 2016 Australian Bureau of Statistics official census source as cited on the article:

1) https://quickstats.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/quickstat/036

Scroll down to the heading 'People — cultural & language diversity' and then look at the first subheading under that section - 'Ancestry'.

Ancestry, top responses Australia English 7,852,224 Australian 7,298,243 Irish 2,388,058 Scottish 2,023,470 Chinese 1,213,903 3.9

Every couple of days, the user attempts to change the figure to the population in Australia which was born in China.

These continuous edits constitute vandalism of the article, which relates to the Chinese diaspora in each country (ie the population in each country with Chinese ancestry). The figure used for each country is that of the population of that country with Chinese ancestry, not the figure for the Chinese-born population of each country.

To be clear, this conduct should stop right away to avoid a banning or semi-protected status to the article to prevent edit-warring.--StormcrowMithrandir (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(2) Repeated Undiscussed moves of article to Overseas Han Chinese

[edit]

User Km151kk is now moving the article from Overseas Chinese to Overseas Han Chinese repeatedly (every day) when the article refers to persons of all Chinese ethnicities outside China. Various users are having to repeatedly move the article back to Overseas Chinese. This is extreme edit warring and vandalism of the article. A look at the user's contributions page reveals that the user continuously vandalises the Overseas Chinese article (numerous edits which are all reverted) and does not edit any other wiki pages.

User Km151kk needs to be banned in order to stop this repeated severe vandalism of this article.StormcrowMithrandir (talk) 22:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bandung Conference

[edit]

Where in the final communiqué of the Bandung Conference does it say that “overseas Chinese owed primary loyalty to their home nation, rather than to China”? I can only find “Zhou Enlai announced at the Bandung Conference in 1955 that the Chinese government would offer a nationality agreement similar to that of Indonesia to any country with which China had diplomatic relations”[5] – Kaihsu (talk) 10:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism by user MrStephenLeon

[edit]

Editors will have noted the recent edit warring by user MrStephenLeon.

This user continues to attempt to add figures to the infobox population table without citations. In particular, the user has now on more than 15 occasions attempted to insert a figure for the number of Mexicans of Chinese ancestry that is many times more than can be supported in any source, and has not even included a citation.

Worse than this, on the page Chinese immigration to Mexico, the user has made a claim that there are 1.9 or 2.3 million Mexicans of Chinese ancestry (when the only source cited on that page that gives a figure says 70,000) and has included citations which when opened, do NOT give a figure for the population of Mexicans of Chinese ancestry - the user included the citations on that page purely to mislead in circumstances where they have no relation or support to the number claimed.

It goes without saying that unsourced figures will be deleted as they are against Wikipedia policy. Furthermore, in light of the above conduct, any attempts by the user MrStephenLeon to add statistical figures to this page will be scrutinised very carefully.StormcrowMithrandir 00:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

unnecessary paragraph

[edit]

in the section titled "Waves of emigration in late Qing Dynasty" why does this article randomly start talking about height variation, it doesn't seem relevant. Badpagenoticer (talk) 23:42, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Picture Bamboo Network

[edit]

I wonder whether the values in the Figure with caption "Share of economy and population held by Chinese people" are reliable. The linked source in the Wikimedia Commons page is nothing like a peer-reviewed scientific article nor official statistics, it's a Powerpoint presentation that does not cite any sources. Otrebor81 (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Overseas_Chinese&oldid=1194050638"