Jump to content

Talk:British Chinese

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by InternetArchiveBot (talk | contribs) at 02:10, 26 July 2017 (Notification of altered sources needing review #IABot (v1.4.2)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


There are currently 80 (eighty) external links in this article, occupying over half of the article. Wikipedia is not a repository of links, nor a directory for every British Chinese association in the country. Please see Wikipedia:External links before adding any more. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be bold and snip ALL the external links from the article, with the exception of articles/essays from reliable sources which could be used as sources for further developing the article. I've left the list of removed links below, so if anyone wants to insert individual links back in (observing Wikipedia:External links), please go ahead, but do not just paste the whole list back in. cab 08:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Diaspora
Arts & Culture
Business
Community Organisations
Education & Learning
Housing
Legal (advice & support)
Libraries and Librarians
Media
Music
Welfare & Health
Religious
Social Enterprise
Sport
Youth

wrong name

The standard for naming such articles is for the country of origin to be first and the country of destination to be second.

As such, 'British Chinese' should be used for people from Britain who becoame Chinese citizens. Then 'Chinese British' should be used for poeple from China who became British citizens. This would match nearly all other articles, lists, categories for such people. If this is not not done, what can people from Britain, now Chinese citizens be called? Thanks Hmains 16:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the standard for naming articles is to use the most common term, which would be British Chinese, since we are not classifying groups of people, but reflecting existing and verifiable classifications. Show me one British person who has become Chinese. And please, don't do a cut and paste move again because it destroys the page editing history. See WP:RM for more info. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a single British Chinese person or organization or any British person refers to the Chinese in Britain as "Chinese British". -- Shapiro-israel 08:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I assume this "standard" is a wiki standard, nevertheless "British Chinese" is standard in the UK. I think the number of British people who become Chinese citizens are so few, they are not usually identified as a group. LDHan 16:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are two pages about the naming conventions: WP:NCI says "Use the name(s) and terminology that the individual or organization themselves use.", while the main naming policy WP:NC says, "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature". I think both of these cover British Chinese. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British Chinese means Chinese of British descent. I don't think that's what this article is describing. __earth (Talk) 14:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not source your statement that "British Chinese means Chinese of British descent", then we cannot use it to determine an encyclopedic name for this article. We cannot move the page to "Chinese British", which I assume is the name you prefer, based on your personal opinion (based on analogy to African American or Chinese American) about what the terms "British Chinese" or "Chinese British" should mean. Instead, we must base our page naming on what the term actually means to people who use it. A Google search for "British Chinese" shows a majority of hits referring to British citizens of Chinese descent, indicating that it is a well-accepted term for referring to such people. In contrast, a Google search for "Chinese British" shows mostly information on international relations of the UK and the PRC, indicating that it is not a well-accepted term for referring to any group of people at all.
And I don't mean to spam, but please also see this discussion on naming conventions I am trying to initiate. Thanks. cab 09:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

：英国华侨 vs 英籍华人 although the latter produces less search results in Google, but please consider which is right. Dat789 13:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Origins of British Chinese

This is ridiculous the article says "People from mainland China and Taiwan and their descendants constitute a relatively small proportion of the British Chinese community" but then goes onto say "29% in Hong Kong, 25% England, 19% China, 8% Malaysia, 4% Vietnam, 3% Singapore, 2.4% Scotland, 2% Taiwan, 0.9% Wales, 0.1% Northern Ireland"

If 19 + 2 = 21% of people are born in Mainland or Taiwan, whilst 29% are from HK. There there is only an 8% difference. Therefore I would NOT say people from Mainland or Taiwan are SMALL!! Somebody should change this statement or give me some other figures!

Perhaps it was not very well written but I think the first sentence was trying to say that the proportion of people from mainland China and Taiwan and their descendants living in the UK is small compared to Chinese people worldwide, ie people from mainland China and Taiwan make up 90-95 per cent of Chinese people worldwide, but in the UK they only make less than about 25 percent of Chinese people, (19 + 2 + descendants). LDHan 16:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The two statements appeared to be contradictory but are both accurate based on the 2001 census because in the first sentence, "people from Mainland China and Taiwan" describe the proportion of people coming DIRECTLY from Mainland and Taiwan, rather than their place of birth. A large number of people migrated from Mainland to Hong Kong as refugees before the 80's and would consider themselves "Hong Kong Chinese" when they migrated to the UK afterwards. So although according to the place of birth, 19% were from China, a high proportion in this group would described themselves people from Hong Kong rather than people from Mainland China. This distinction is important before the return of Hong Kong's soverienty to China in 1997 as Hong Kong is a distinct seperate region. Since then, some researchers have started to group people from Hong Kong under the whole of China. In addition, in the 6 years since the last census in 2001, there have been a large influx of mainland China migrants coming to the UK, although there have been no official source to confirm the extent in numbers, various media reports have regularly quoted a figure of up to an additional of 200,000, making the mainland Chinese a majority rather than a minority as stated in the article. In the absence of official figures until 2011, a possible re-write could be something like this: "For a long time, most of the British Chinese are people or are descended from people who were themselves overseas Chinese when they came to the United Kingdom. The majority are from former British colonies, such as Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and also other countries such as Vietnam. People from mainland China and Taiwan and their descendants constitute a relatively minor proportion of the British Chinese community until recently. The first new arrivals made up of non-status migrants who arrived either asylum seekers or through human trafficking throughout the late 90's, they were followed by professionals with Work permits or on the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme. A large number work in the Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) sector. " Chineseartlover 06:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have now found article in the cover story of Zoneeast Magazine, which will support the rewrite, and will add the rewrite into the main text accordingly. Please add other citation if possible. Thanks Chineseartlover 08:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Vmaealbum.jpg

Image:Vmaealbum.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The name "Chinese British"

Is this actually used for referring to Chinese people in Britain in reliable sources, or is it just a term made up by analogy to "Chinese American"? Aside from the tens of thousands of GHits about relations between the United Kingdom and China, the only uses I can find referring to people are older books about Chinese people in former British colonies who acquired British Subject status, not Chinese people in Britain proper. [1] Compare also "british chinese students" (443 GHits [2]) to "chinese british students" (no GHits [3]). Cheers, cab 00:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's cultural differences. Linguistically, the first word describes the second, so the second word is what the person is perceived as. UK probably doesn't subscribe to the all inclusive mentality like US, Canada, Australia, etc. So immigrants would always be viewed as immigrants in the UK. Otherwise we should have the term "Chinese Briton". (BTW, Indian decedents in the UK are also called British Indian.) --Voidvector (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox photo

At the moment the infobox photos has KT Tunstall (quarter Chinese), Gok Wan (half Chinese) and Max Minghella (half Chinese), the Max Minghella photo has an extra person so making it look like there are four. I don't think these are representative of the British Chinese. LDHan (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Max Minghella's mother doesn't look very Chinese. His mother is maybe mixed. Max is probably 1/4 Chinese just like KT Tunstall. Sonic99 (talk) 18:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about 'people of Chinese ancestory'. That definiton does not require people to be 'pure' Chinese, so the inclusion of half-Chinese people is not inappropriate. The pictures here could always be changed, but to what? Pictures on Wikipedia are limited as they have to meet criteria on ownership on use, and scrolling down some pages of British Chinese people, a lot do not have photos. What images would people prefer? Indisciplined (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you exactly propose then? Shapiro-israel (talk) 10:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't proposing a change at all. I was merely saying that those who want to change the images will have to come up with alternative ones. So far, no-one has done that. Indisciplined (talk) 14:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I wasn't talking to you as you can tell from the indent. I was talking to the moaner at the top called LDHan. I detest it when people moan but don't make any recommendation. Shapiro-israel (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese British Population

The Chinese British population is small in the UK. I don't think there is a future for the British Chinese. They will all be assimilated and mixed into the white British population. Otherwise they can just immigrate to another country where there are more Chinese. Sonic99 (talk) 18:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I don't really see what you are getting at with the above comment. The Chinese British community is an extremely sucessful one that has shown its presence in the UK for many years. It may not be as big as the Chinese populations in say the USA and Canada, but with the increasing growth of immigration to the UK the Chinese may soon number half a million. In Some UK countys the Chinese made of the largest minority ethnic group (in Cumbria for example, other communities such as the South Asian ones have since outnumbered, but they still have a very large prescence, just look at how many Chinese restaurants can be found around the country). You have no evidence to back up your claim, which I believe most people reading would agree with, after all the Chinese were one of the few nationalities to be represented in the 2001 UK Census (along with Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and the Irish). To summaries, the Chinese British population is not 'small' and there is no reason whatsoever to include your claim on this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.98.216 (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, it seems sonic99 is basing size on effectiveness of a ethnic group. As with other races, there are varying degrees of integration with the "native" population, ranging from full social interaction with all races down to marriage and having children together - all the way to no integration at all i.e. working in wholly chinese based businesses, or having a job in a multiracial company but otherwise socially exclusive to chinese people in their interactions. The "otherwise they can just immigrate to another country" is bordering on racism, a more indirect way of saying "if you don't like it here, get out". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.101.41 (talk) 04:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 Chinese 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 Chinese 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 Chinese 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).

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. 122.105.144.54 (talk) 13:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than just mouthing off, un-named contributor, you actually have to be put forward evidence for your assertions. So far, you have not done so. Indisciplined (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. 122.105.144.54 (talk) 13:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please provide evidence for this assertion. Indisciplined (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Urgent need for review to counter systematic bias

Since no one has responded to the above concerns outlined in the previous two sections in a meaningful way, I have flagged the article as biased and inaccurate. The article is urgently in need of review and editing by a neutral third-party. 122.105.149.241 (talk) 12:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This un-named contributor has not even cited why they consider the article "biased and inaccurate" and has not "flagged" it in any way. If you have a point to make, explain it and back it up with sources. Indisciplined (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know why this article has a hatnote link to Sindarin at the top? That's a fictional language from J.R.R. Tolkein's Middle-Earth, and as far as I know it has nothing to do with British Chinese people. Robofish (talk) 13:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never noticed it before but now you've mentioned it, a search for when it was added and the editor's contributions at the same time turned up the intended link, i.e. it looks like just a typo, which coincidentally happened to be another language though clearly not the right one. So fixed it.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 14:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article comments

This article is in pretty bad shape. The history is gigantic and largely unsourced (like much of the rest of the article). It contains inappropriate and undue sections like Advice and support, mental health etc. Needs a thorough cleanup. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UK Census 2001

Agreed that this article is in bad shape. Notice how the numbers used in the introductory text (giving a number of about 250K) is different than the number used in the boxed summary (on the right) which states 500K. From my own research of the 2001 Census, I have obtained a number of 470K. I do not know where the 250K number comes from, other than the fact that it links to another Wiki page. Wiki should not cite itself. I will change the numbers and add my source (UK Bureau of Statistics) unless someone has a better source. Drminnesota (talk) 07:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disputes about Society and Business

I propose that we delete this entire section. The section right above it: "Socioeconomics", can be broken up into its two root words, socio- meaning society, and economics which can refer to business. Therefore, there are two sections that are dedicated to society and economics - this one, however, is wholly unreliable. This whole section is redundant and contains no references. It is also possibly based on personal opinion. Consider deleting the entire section and rewriting parts of the history in the intro of "Socioeconomics" Drminnesota (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Population math is really bad

Where does this 1% number come from? Falkiewu (talk) 07:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the population number is extremely variable... Can someone provide the link to the latest UK census, it appears that this data is either unavailable to the public or is archived to a point that it is almost hidden. If only it was like the US census data... Drminnesota (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious

I would refer to this, at Talk:Model_minority#Dubious. I thank you. -- KC9TV 22:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.huaxianchinesesociety.co.nr/
    Triggered by \bco\.nr\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 17:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 18:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on British 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) 02:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_Chinese&oldid=792361410"