Talk:Hui people
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (add comments) |
|
More information about this article...
|
|
 |
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page. |
| NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project's importance scale. |
 |
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses. |
|
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:
|
|
Contents |
[edit] Histiography
Removed comment on PRC histiography. Unless I'm mistaken, the PRC official histories don't deny the diverse origins of the Hui.
[edit] Move proposal
[edit] Another Move Proposal
[edit] Uyghurs and Huis
Were the Uyghurs and Huis differentiated in Dr Sun Yat-sen's idea of five nationalities?
Please reply at Talk:Uyghur#Uyghurs_and_Huis, thanks. — Instantnood 08:22, January 27, 2004, UTC
[edit] Characters?
What's the simplified and traditional characters to go with 'qingzhen si' (mosque)? My Chinese is terrible, so I don't know, but I think it'd be a small (but good) improvement. Kawa 20:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
- 清真寺 ("the temple of purity and truth"). --Menchi 21:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Population
Why is the population of Hui not listed in the article? Badagnani 07:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Utsuls
I edited this passage: "Included with Hui Chinese are other Islamic Chinese who are dissimilar to Han Chinese but do not have their own ethnic group, such as several thousand Utsuls in southern Hainan province who still speak an Austronesian language (Tsat) related to that of the Cham Muslim minority of Vietnam and are said to be the descendants of Chams who migrated to Hainan." This was an extremely Chinese-government-oriented phrasing. To say that the Utsuls don't have their own ethnic group is nonsense; everyone has an ethnic group. What we mean to say here is that the government doesn't recognise Utsul as one of the official 56 ethnic groups, so they lump them in with the Hui for bureaucratic purposes. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 19:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Zheng He
A few questions concerning Zheng He: 1. Is there any evidence that he was considered a Hui, or just that he might be considered a Hui by today's criteria (because, among other things, he was Muslim)? 2. Is Zheng really a common Hui surname? In Zheng He's case, he was given the surname as a reward, his original surname was Ma.Uly 13:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- How did he get the adjective Semur placed in front of Muslim on his description? Semur leads to a disambiguation page. All the usages noted there relate to French usages. Dogru144 16:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] population
can any body give correct population stats we are having a dispute in islam in china.7day 11:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] very painful reactions from others chinese
i once try to open this page:
http://www.asiawind.com/forums/read.php?f=4&i=4374&t=4374
mabushii 06:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Converts
I am curious to know whether Hui Chinese who convert away from Islam are still considered Hui. Normally ethnicity status in China is gained if at least one parent is in a particular minority.
Also are Han Chinese who convert to Islam considered Hui or Han?- PheonixUK
[edit] "related groups" info removed from infobox
For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left here. Ling.Nut 22:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merge with Dungan
I propose merge Hui people with Dungan. They are identically people. Dungan is name used in Centralasian languages and Russian.--AlefZet 16:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well, regardless of the names, the page Dungan right now is actually about the Hui migrants in Central Asia, not about Hui people in general. If we wanted to get very formal, it should be entitled something like Chinese Muslims in Central Asia and Russia. Anyway, how there ended up being Hui people in Central Asia is a very specific episode of the history of northwestern China; this episode doesn't have much to do with the history of Hui people in the northeast, south, etc. parts of China, so it seems to me that merging the two pages would just generate more confusion. For similar reasons, we don't merge Hwagyo (Ethnic Chinese in Korea) back to Han Chinese. Cheers, cab 06:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Hui people and Dungan are different in that they are located in different places. It's good to keep the two articles separated. By the way, you ask to merge Hui people to Dungan, then the discussion should be carried out in Talk:Dungan, not here. I was confused and had trouble in finding the merge discussion. --Neo-Jay 01:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support. The only way to straighten out the fact that the Hui and Dungans are the same people, though these are just names expressed differently in different languages, is to combine the articles. Then go on to sort out the geographic aspect in different sections of a single article regarding Hui/Dungans residing in China, and Hui/Dungans residing in Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and Russia.--Mack2 (talk) 04:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose If they weren't intrinsically different, then duplicate articles would have been corrected long ago without controversy. However, they obviously are. If any merge is made, it should be Dungan into Hui, not the other way around. Hui is the term all Hui/Dungan people use in self-reference. VanTucky talk 04:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Though there is some duplication, the main issue is confusion which came about, it seems to me, in part because some of the early writers were not aware that Hui people in China and Dungans in former "Soviet" Central Asia all called themselves Hui -- it was non-Hui (namely the Turkic groups and the Russians) who called those people Dungan (both in China and abroad). Despite the fact that this was pointed out more than a year ago, the two articles continued to evolve as if these were distinct ethnic groups. And thus the common history, customs, language was underemphasized, and the differences in recent history were emphasized as if "Hui" were those who lived in China, and "Dungan" were those who lived abroad, when in fact these are Hui (by self-label) in both territories. And so Wikipedia, by maintaining two loosely linked articles, is apparently in the business of creating new ethnic groups rather than providing encyclopedic coverage of the anthropological, social, historical facts about the origins and life of the Hui.--Mack2 (talk) 14:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- It doesn't matter which article gets merged into which, but I think it's important to use the ethnonym that these people apply to themselves: Hui. Not the ethnonym that other peoples use to refer to them. That, it seems to me, is the conventional approach. At the same time, since Hui are a "minority" group within all countries in which they reside, the most common label that some of their neighbors or "hosts" use should also be mentioned, with an explanation.--Mack2 (talk) 15:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose' The two should be separate, one popualation uses Cyrillic, the other uses Hanzi. They speak different dialects, one which liberally uses arabic, persian, and russian words, the other which doesn't. True, they are subpopulation of a greater joint-unit, and ultimately, a Han-derived people, but we have tons of articles with similar separations. Perhaps instead of merging these two, you should just create an umbrella article? Or are not Malaysians and Indonesians both not Malay? What kind of difference is there to Americans and Canadians? Or even Brits? 70.55.89.181 (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose They are different enough groups that separate articles are warranted, and there is no compelling reason to overlook the very significant differences and emphasize common origin at some point in the historical past. The Malay / Indonesian analogy is a good one. However (Comment) the sections in each article that refer to the other article could be improved and developed. Alexwoods (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
