Talk:Chinese people in Myanmar

What should this page be called?

If you are going to propose that this page be moved to "Chinese Burmese" or something (a move which I would oppose), please join this discussion on naming conventions which I have initiated. We want to avoid having the same debate about "ethnic group name first or country name first" on every single talk page relating to ethnic groups living outside their ancestral countries. Thank you in advance. cab 10:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: no consensus to move. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Chinese people in Burma → Burmese Chinese — No precedence for naming articles "Chinese people in..." for articles about overseas Chinese (see Chinese Thai, Chinese Malaysian, etc.). Title is unnecessarily wordy and not concise. --Hintha(t) 06:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose If "Chinese Thai" and "Chinese Malaysian" are your models, then it should be "Chinese Burmese", at least if we are talking about Burmese citizens. If they are Chinese citizens, it's "Chinese in Burma." Kauffner (talk) 11:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the articles in question are at Thai Chinese and Malaysian Chinese (also the names which are used to refer to them in most reliable sources and the names which the people themselves use, e.g. Malaysian Chinese Association). Not every country in the world uses the American-style ordering of ethnicity first, citizenship second. In the rest of the former British Empire the opposite ordering is more common.

Also, citizenship is not really a good dividing line for deciding what name to use. Within any given community, especially one with more than a million people right next door to their ancestral country, some people may choose to take local citizenship, while others retain their ancestral citizenship. Quite often this is merely done for reasons of business or travel convenience and has nothing to do with identity. cab (call) 12:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Support The proposed title Burmese Chinese is where the article was until an an undiscussed move two weeks ago made on grounds of "consistency with other articles", which is a weak reason at best; some of these articles are at "Chinese Fooian", others at "Fooian Chinese", and others at even different titles. There is a precedent for purely descriptive titles like "Chinese people in Foo", but only if the country doesn't use one of these "Fooian Barian" conventions, or if both countries have sent large groups of migrants to each other thus making the use of "Fooian Barian" conventions needlessly confusing. But neither of these seem to be the case here, and the proposed title can be found in many scholarly works about Chinese migration, e.g. [1][2][3][4][5]. cab (call) 12:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Support: The current title doesn't reflect the intent and content of the article. To me, it connotes foreignness; I take it to be about "Chinese citizens in Burma". Many Burmese Chinese have been in Burma/Myanmar for generations, and many of whom consider themselves fully Burmese, no holds barred. I suspect they'd find the current title which reduces them to just one aspect of their heritage quite insulting. As for Chinese-Burmese or Burmese Chinese, it's a question of style. I agree with "User cab" here that we need not adhere to American convention. Hybernator (talk) 14:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The proposed title does not distinguish between Bermese nationals of Chinese origin/ethnicity and Chinese nationals of Burmese origin/ethnicity. The country does not use English as an official language, and we should not use British v American English to decide the title when something with more clarity is availabe that avoids using some dialect of English that is opaque to the other variety of English. 65.95.14.96 (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I'm not particularly interested in what the British versus American English conventions are so much as what reliable sources call this group, and, as demonstrated above, that seems to be Burmese Chinese. Cordless Larry (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• • Comment are those sources published in the US? The ones demonstrated above, are mostly published in the US. 65.95.14.96 (talk) 02:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Perhaps, but I don't see why that makes them any less reliable. Cordless Larry (talk) 03:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment "Chinese in Burma" gets 1,570 hits on Google books. It's also the title of this book. Of course, "Burmese Chinese" gets more hits, but they are mostly about international relations, (or lists like "Burmese, Chinese, Khmer, Vietnamese"). The examples given above are mostly not relevant. Two of them refer to people living in Hong Kong and another is about people in the U.S. Two use "Burmese Chinese" as an adjective. In order of adjectives, origin is last, whereas in the proposed name "Burmese" is an adjective modifying "Chinese." These are American sources, so how likely is it that they are using a British word order? Kauffner (talk) 03:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• • Yes, perhaps "Chinese in Burma" is better. That seems to have plenty of scholarly use. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Or maybe "Ethnic Chinese in Burma" is even better because it avoids potential confusion with Chinese citizens. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support: Neither "Burmese Chinese" nor "Chinese Burmese" is intuitive, but both intimate an Overseas Chinese community, while "Chinese people in Burma" seems to refer to Chinese nationals in Burma. Quigley (talk) 03:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Both "Burmese Chinese" and "Chinese Burmese" are ambiguous. Chinese in Burma might suggest Chinese nationals in Burma but Chinese people in Burma deliberately refers to people not nationality. --Bejnar (talk) 23:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Chinese people in Burma to me refers to the Chinese nationals in Burma, not to the Burmese people of Chinese descent, which the article is about. I urge everyone to read the article. Many Burmese Chinese have lived in Burma for generations. Except for the recent immigrants, most Burmese Chinese are culturally Burmese (language, religion, etc.) and many have some Burmese blood too. What's next? Do we rename Chinese Americans to Chinese people in America? The move was made, presumably in good faith, by some neophyte editor without any discussion. Restoring it is now a problem. What irony. Wikipedia has to do something about this. Hybernator (talk) 00:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I tried to Be bold and did that move because of the reasons discussed below. Restoring is not a problem. Perhaps, this discussion will bring a better title. See Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Soewinhan (talk) 06:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

In 2007 Ethnic Koreans in China was moved to Koreans in China. This is an old problem, and we need to decrease ambiguity, not increase it. --Bejnar (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Currently there's a lot of conflict over this point (see, for example, Talk:Ethnic Mongolians in China, Talk:Chinese Indonesian, Talk:Ethnic Koreans in China, Talk:Chinese Malaysian). We have examples of all of the following patterns, and there's been objections to every single one. (Full disclosure: I'm not an unbiased informant here, I'm personally opposed to standardisation on the American-style model of "Ethnicity, then nationality" and have been going around arguing against it).:

• Ethnicity, then nationality (like Chinese American):. Some people go around trying to standardise all other usages to match this one, even when these are minority usages (e.g. Chinese Malaysian) or not clearly established (Chinese Mongolian, Korean Chinese). There's also conflict over whether usages of this form should be hyphenated or not.
• Nationality, then ethnicity (like British Chinese): Some people complain this is inaccurate and try to standardize as above. Others also complain that this form overemphasizes the foreignness of the ethnic group in question (the ethnicity as a noun, modified by the nationality).
• Non-English names in the language of the ethnic group (like Koryo-saram): Some people complain this usage is not clear to English speakers. It also may lead to conflicts over transcription (e.g. the above spelling, based off of an old romanization, could be updated to use the Revised Romanization spelling "Goryeo-saram"). Also, how members of the ethnic group living outside their country of origin prefer to call themselves may be different from what their co-ethnics back in the mother country call them (in this case, "Goryeo-in").
• Non-English names in the language of the country of residence (like Zainichi Korean): Same problem as above, plus the possible accusation of racism because you're using the "mainstream" name instead of the ethnic group's name in their own ethnic language (Jaeil). Especially when the mainstream name doesn't make any distinction between foreigners and citizens. (E.g. Hoa, which just means "Chinese").
• Ethnic (Group name) in (Country name) (like Ethnic Koreans in China): some people complain that this is too unwieldy, and also it doesn't sufficiently distinguish between Chinese citizens of Korean descent, and Korean citizens living in China. Others assert (usually just based on their own opinion) that "Ethnic Abc" is clearly distinguished from plain old "Abc" (as in Ethnic German). Also this usage does start to look excessively long if you try to think about how to title a page describing the reverse migration of said ethnic group to their country of origin.

Any suggestions? Can other readers here help us to write clearer guidelines regarding this to avoid having to repeat the same debate on every single ethnicity page? cab 04:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Bejnar, you seem to have pasted the above comment by CaliforniaAliBaba from another page. I presume that they didn't consent to this, and it appears strange because the comment is dated 2006. While quoting old comments might be OK, I'm not sure that this is an approach that should be followed on talk pages. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, consent, see "What should this page be called?" above. I just noticed that based on the comments, no one was reading cab's comments. It was reproduced since cab's original link no longer worked and an archive search was required. --Bejnar (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

If there is a common usage term along the lines of "Chinese American", that should be used. Otherwise, it should be "Ethnic XXX in YYY". Kauffner (talk) 14:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose this particular proposal due to the proposed title's ambiguity. Am open to other options, though. —  AjaxSmack  04:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose "Burmese Chinese" is ambiguous and could refer to "Chinese people in Burma" or "Burmese people in China" or those with mixed-blood. I don't think "Chinese people in Burma" could refer to "Chinese nationals in Burma" unless you take the term "Chinese(adj)" exclusively for PRC. Also, "Chinese (as a noun)" may mean "citizen of China." For the term like "Chinese Americans" is acceptable because it has both historical and popular usage. To me, both Chinese people in Burma and Ethnic Chinese in Burma encompass all Chinese in Burma regardless of nationality. Soewinhan (talk) 06:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chinese people in Myanmar. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100920043536/http://irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=14151&page=2 to http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=14151&page=2

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) 14:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chinese people in Myanmar. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130825223730/http://www.international.ucla.edu/cms/files/ch1and5.pdf to http://www.international.ucla.edu/cms/files/ch1and5.pdf

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) 08:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Chinese people in Myanmar. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120314155426/http://irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=22592&page=2 to http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=22592&page=2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101006031921/http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=3799&page=1 to http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=3799&page=1
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://realfoodchicago.com/index.php/tours/tours-vn/item/213-mandalay?tmpl=component&print=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120215122240/http://www.mmtimes.com/no461/sport01.htm to http://www.mmtimes.com/no461/sport01.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161229122056/http://asiapacificnewsnetwork.com/china-pipelines-bring-benefits-complaints.html to http://asiapacificnewsnetwork.com/china-pipelines-bring-benefits-complaints.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=381&page=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111004082631/http://irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=21127 to http://irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=21127
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110818183335/http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=21496 to http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=21496
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722223003/http://irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=21656&page=2 to http://irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=21656&page=2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060507103249/http://newidea.nandaw.net/ to http://newidea.nandaw.net/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060423014826/http://mocsa.org.tw/ to http://mocsa.org.tw/
• Added archive https://archive.is/20041029031455/http://163.29.16.16/english/index.asp to http://163.29.16.16/english/index.asp

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) 21:46, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

The Tone of This Article

I was looking at "Trade and Industry Section", and the tone comes across as rather anti-Chinese, hence violating the NPOV policy? Is it possible to fix it somehow. I think it's fine to say that the ethnic Chinese have a disproportionate economic clout relative to their population, and that it has caused resentment among the indigenous peoples, but the section goes on towards blaming the ethnic Chinese for the poverty in other ethnic groups, which I think can come across as rather bigoted. After all, it is very similar rhetoric that Hitler against the Jews, and we all know what happened as a result of that. The dog2 (talk) 05:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

To me, it's the opposite. It's rather anti-Burmese and has a disturbing tone of racial superiority. The truth is yes, many Chinese tend to favor one another for business and form a sort of bamboo cartel. This led to a rapid resource acquisition using foreign capital and the displacement of local populations. In addition, many Chinese have a known reputation for greed which is a sin in Burmese culture. Burmese are less motivated by monetary stimulus. Instead, this article makes it look like there is some sort of inherent superiority within the Chinese which led to their so-called "success." Lillyanna2020 (talk) 08:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

What a load nonsense, it's obvious both of you exhibit WP:IDONTLIKEIT sentiments while unequivocally violating [[WP:NOTCENSORED guidelines based on the previous removals that both of you have made. The fact is, Overseas Chinese economic dominance (not just in Burma, but the rest of Southeast Asia) is an economic reality and if you think all these groundbreaking facts somehow constitute "Han chauvinism," or what you both characterize as a "disturbing tone of racial superiority" then you might as well label all the academically well-sourced information that back up these assertions of Chinese economic dominance as somehow perpetuating "Han chauvinism or racial superiority." It is worrisome that well-documented information grounded in reliable, rigorous, and robust academic sources is interpreted as kind of threat from you. This is a clear case of violation of WP:NPOV and a good example of WP:I just don't like it and WP:NOTCENSORED. Since it's completely evident in your tone that you cannot tolerate well-grounded facts backed by legitimate academic sources, I guess that makes you both the racially prejudiced ones. SimeonManier (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

[ Burmese are less motivated by monetary stimulus. ] so that is chinese fault? that's just blaming the hardworking for being successful. furthermore this isn't even true, there are many Burmese business in my country, many of the more entrepreneur Burmese just choose to leave their country. that statment feel more like prejudice against the Burmese. 101.127.8.197 (talk) 23:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

COPYVIO and Han Chauvinism

CCP trolls are adding Han Chauvinist content to the article, often copying verbatim from books like Bamboo Network. JordanKSM (talk) 23:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Chinese are NOT "economically dominant." They are rich, sure, due to the KMT opium trade. But most of Burma's economic sector is controlled by Burmese cronies.JordanKSM (talk) 23:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

The fact is, Overseas Chinese economic dominance (not just in Burma, but the rest of Southeast Asia) is an economic reality and not related to ″Han chauvinism" that you falsely assert, purport, and insinuate. Furthermore it is sad that you confuse economic clout (grounded in robust, rigorous, and reliable academic research) with unrelated racial supremacist theories from the past (that you wish to impute and insinuate that facts that you disagree with) and that you are apparently not interested in getting into the topic. It is worrisome that well-documented information grounded in reliable, rigorous, and robust academic sources is interpreted as kind of threat from you. This is a clear case of violation of WP:NPOV and a good example of WP:I just don't like it and WP:NOTCENSORED. It's obvious that your recent removals constitute a blatant violation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:NOTCENSORED guidelines, especially when its well-sourced material backed by relevant and reliable academic scholarship based on your fallacious claims of so-called Han chauvinism. Facts are facts. Blow me if you can't accept, handle, and withstand the truth. SimeonManier (talk) 22:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

They are NOT economically dominant. YOU think YOU are dominant. That's racist and Han Nazist. Most of the Burmese economy is under the control of the Junta's cronies. Your citations are ALL LIES! The source does not support what you are saying, except for Amy Chua, who has NEVER been to Burma to begin with (her sources contain major errors about the country). Also, HAVE SOME SHAME! Don't claim to everyone with a name that sounds Chinese as Chinese. Amy Chua, for example, claims any famous person that includes "Yu", "Han", or any Chinese character is Chinese. Quite shameless. JordanKSM (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Nobody "can't handle it." Even the "rich" Chinese get rich via the heroin trade and other illegal or semi-legal businesses. Money is not worshipped in Burmese culture. Just stop spouting you are superior or other nonsense. Shameless and garbage of humanity. JordanKSM (talk) 22:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

By the way, YOU reverted to an edition in 2020. So many editors have edited this page. That cannot be allowed. JordanKSM (talk) 22:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Amy Chua's books that claim the Chinese own everything and "dominate" the Burmese economy are factually incorrect. Her book does nothing more than illustrate her lack of exposure to the country. There are thousands of citations on the fact that much of the Burmese economy is under the control of the cronies, all except two are not Chinese: Serge Pun and Lo Hsing Han. Serge Pun's company is based on FDI, not a local investment. Lo Hsing Han became rich due to the heroin trade. Chinese own no telecoms. Most Chinese are "middle-class," not too poor, not too rich. But that's a far cry from "domination." 22:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

It's also so poorly written that I am not sure it's English or some alien language. A paragraph with 3000 words? Not to mention COPYVIO? Oh my god. Unassimilated Chinese today have virtually no political power. If anything, association with them is political suicide. JordanKSM (talk) 23:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Freedom of speech is not reserved for one side of a particular spectrum of opinions nor should it be exclusively applied as a different standard for any particular individual such as the bitter likes of yourself. Wikipedia operates as an open and transparent platform that is not designed to either prioritize nor protect convenient speech, pleasant, likeable, agreeable, politically correct speech, or speech that nobody such as the likes of yourself, want to hear. Even if you come across speech that you may find disagreeable or unpleasant, it should not be subject to censorship on this platform in order to cater and placate your personal insecurities nor should such content be altered in order to appease and accommodate your emotionally fragile sensitivities. Furthermore, if you were an editor that was genuinely committed toward upholding the vital principles of freedom of speech and information, you would have the prudence and wisdom to acknowledge without reservation and concede by gracelessly admitting that you lack a logical basis to support your baseless assertions and allegations, even if it leads you in resorting towards derogatorily denigrating me as a so-called "Han chauvinist," a term which by the way I vociferously deny nor harbor any nefarious motives of. Moreover, where are the respective sources that would postulate your unfounded accusations, whether they pertain to the merits of my edits, the evidence that I substantiate my edits with, or with regards to Chua's background? If my revisions are deemed by people such as the likes of yourself as substandard in terms of quality, I would greatly appreciate in observing your alleged superior writing ability in revamping the revisions I have proposed, as well as enhancing the entirety of the article, considering your supposed claims of your literary prowess may be exaggerated to make me second guess myself. However, based on your emotionally charged and lacking in substance responses, I have yet to witness any evidence of such literary prowess. As far as Amy Chua is concerned, she boasts an impressive educational background, a sterling resume, and is well-respected lawyer and scholar within the American legal community in addition to boasting a catalogue of well-written books such as the likes of World on Fire that was received favorably in the American academic community. All my previous edits dating back to 2020 are academically sourced and scholarly backed and were certainly not edited out of prejudice or what my detractors characterize as “Han chauvinism”, which is patently false. Your sole hope of formulating a logical (let alone excogitate a winning) argument seems to be only devolving into insults (including one erroneously accusing me of being a "CCP Troll"), slander, derogatory language, unfounded allegations, and personal attacks which, in my opinion, is frankly comical, pitiful, and puerile.

If the content in this article, and even more so on Wikipedia as an online platform as whole is grounded in the facts and reality rather than conjecture and ignorance, we will undoubtedly see a marked improvement in its aggregate quality. It’s about time we had more honesty in this article, instead of suppressing what should be common sense, no how bitter and uncomfortable the facts and truth may be and regardless of the economic circumstances and realities that people such as the likes of you don't have the courage to face, let alone accept and swallow. As it should not be considered “Han chauvinist” or “racist” when there are there are glaringly obvious differences in socioeconomic performance that are objectively provable, backed by reliable and robust scholarly literature, and academically sourced by respected and authoritative scholars such as Amy Chua and Leo Suryadinata and who have conducted extensive research into this matter. And you have the gall to accuse me of being a "Han chauvinist" when my only goal here on Wikipedia is to educate and inform. All your hurled name-calling, ranting, spurious assertions, and pejoratives isn't going to change reality, seeing how you're a blocked editor and your empty words amount to nothing of value other than a distant afterthought. Furthermore, I find very little credence in your poorly rationalized and emotionally-charged rebuttal since it is one that is not built on credence, evidence, rationality, and reason. What in my previous edits even remotely postulates a semblance of implication or evidence of the false accusation of me being a “Han Chauvnist?” In my previous revisions dating back more than four years, there is nothing that even remotely implies or indicates even the slightest suggestion or implication that support your unfounded accusation of me being a “Han Chauvnist.” I urge you not to create a straw man, fabricate extraneous arguments, or misrepresent my words; as it appears that insecure individuals like yourself with your emotionally-charged pejoratives find it difficult to acknowledge the facts I have presented, no matter how pleasant, inconvenient, or harsh they may be for you to accept. SimeonManier (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Yue is restoring to an old version

It's settled that Ne Win is not a Chinese for so long. User:Yue has been trying to revert to an old version and removed my edits about KMT invasion of Burma. JordanKSM (talk) 10:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

The "trade and industry" is a eulogy about "how great our race is" or "how superior we are to the Burmans" style BS. Many sentences copy the source without attributions. I think it might be appropriate for Chinese Wikipedia, but definitely not WP:MOS and not WP:DUE. JordanKSM (talk) 10:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

There are many arguments why Trade and Industry don't meet quality standards, CPOVIO, and other criteria for inclusion. If it were a new article, it would surely be rejected. User:Yue is refusing to discuss or address the concerns and waging an edit war. JordanKSM (talk) 10:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@JordanKSM: If "there are many arguments", then make them. If "there are copyright violations", then provide evidence. Do not project claims of restoring to an old version of the article — this was your first edit to this article in which you restored an old version, complete with spelling mistakes and formatting errors which had since been corrected. The only "old" versions of the article I am restoring are the ones before your unjustified removals of content. If you have a good reason(s) as to why that particular section should be removed, then provide them here instead of falling back to "I don't like it!" and "everyone's a pro-China editor but me!" Afterwards, remove that particular section instead of restoring an older version of the article because, again, you also restore all the typos and remove content which have nothing to do with your grievances. Yue🌙 19:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Your addition has been removed by so many users before. Stop adding the same thing. Tell me how that section is encyclopediaic. I can add 1GB about how Burmese are more collectivist, selfless, and superior to the Chinese (Ways That Are Dark, Ungly Chinaman, etc. etc.). But that won't be suitable for an encyclopedia. JordanKSM (talk) 21:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the edits that I made previously were indeed reversed; however, the editors responsible for the removal failed to provide a valid justification for doing so. But then again, your only recourse is indicated in your overreliance on derogatory language, personal attacks, and insults to support your spurious claims as it is your only method of persuasion at this point when it comes to defending your unfounded assertions in an effort to demonstrate that you supposedly possess a sound argument to boot. Your puerile responses which are far from graceful, not only exemplify and reveal a deep-seated inferiority complex on your part, but also undermine the very essence of Wikipedia editing professionalism and represent a complete disregard for the qualities expected from a dignified editor of your subpar caliber should possess. It is rather hypocritical of you to demand adherence and call for WP:STANDARDS that you yourself fail to meet, since you lack any credibility in addressing your own flawed and unfounded arguments, which have no substance and fail to uphold any rational basis. What other vacuous responses do you have prepared in your debate arsenal, aside from incessantly spewing insults, presenting fallacies, fabricating an obfuscation of unproven allegations and unsubstantiated claims, spreading malicious slander, making personal attacks, or foisting nebulous categorizations onto other editors with whom you happen to disagree with? It is certainly not a wondrous enigma that you've been blocked for your juvenile antics and comical gambits, which in my opinion should not only warrant criticism, but should also be subject to mockery. But I voluntarily choose not to engage in that kind of indecorous conduct as it may have a deleterious effect on my editing reputation, as I strive to maintain a humble and poised demeanor on this platform. Your poorly rationalized responses are replete with nothing but derogatory remarks, pejoratives, nebulous categorizations, fallacies, and erroneous allegations. Instead of taking me head on by rationally presenting a compelling counter-argument, you have the gall (considering the obvious weaknesses in your faltering argument, which is obviously collapsing on its own weight) to insinuate moral, but also racial superiority by suggesting that the Burmese are purportedly more "superior" to the Chinese in terms of collectivism, altruism, complexion, and physical attractiveness? When the fact is, the subject of contention is about socioeconomic differences, not about how the Burmese are purportedly "better" than the Chinese in terms of collectivism, altruism, complexion, and physical appeal. The ineffective diversion tactics that you have cooked up, whether intended to distract me from the current subject of contention at hand or provoke a response isn't going to work on me as they will ultimately backfire and prove to have fatally damaging, deleterious, and detrimental effects that will not just consequentially harm your editorial reputation based on the unfounded accusations that you continually impute against me, of which are unwarranted and unsustainable in the long run. Moreover, your response would be far more credible if you were able to produce and supply the corresponding evidence (regardless of how politically incorrect it is) at will to substantiate such outrageously scandalous and spurious claims. Because last time I checked, it was the indigenous Burmans who have been expressing the bickering grievances regarding the alleged economic exploitation of Burma by the Chinese, often resorting to weak justifications to deflect attention in an attempt to conceal their own socioeconomic failures and shortcomings.

I also don't wish to cast aspersions or impute any nefarious motives on your part, but your poorly argued and pitiful response unquestionably beyond doubt are entirely devoid of rudimentary logic and rationality. It would be advisable for you to acquiesce by discontinuing your petty bickering with me while prolonging this contentiously fruitless debate any further beyond this point to avoid any additional embarrassment, especially considering now that you aren't just a blocked editor. But a blocked editor who has failed to present any credible argument to put forward when it comes to making a case as to why my edits should remain off-limits with regards or considered invalid in the "Trade and industry section." For starters, the trade and industry section is considered encyclopedic simply on the basis of the abundance of corresponding evidence that I use to substantiate my edits with, much of which comes from comprehensively reputable academic sources and is supported by strong scholarly-backed literature (including Amy Chua, Wang Gungwu, and Leo Suryadinata that I rely on to validate my revisions. Second of all, the section is pertinent as it not only pertains to the Burmese Chinese community, but due to the article's extensive focus on the Burmese Chinese community, particularly in relation to their business activities that are quite notable and warrant detailed documentation in an encyclopedia, as highlighting their commercial undertakings that are undoubtedly deserving of detailed documentation in an encyclopedic manner. Moreover, you seem to take issue with the facts and statistics provided in the trade and industry section, as the material content within it seems to stir up some deep-seated grievances or insecurities or trigger insecurities that you may harbor. Seeing your past behavioral patterns of needing to either slander, pose nebulous categorizations, or present fallacies (given the inept two-bit editor that you are without presenting any compelling counter-arguments on your own volition) on this platform suggests an intrinsic desire on your part to alleviate your feelings of insecurity and resentment, particularly when reading about the economic successes of another ethnic group that are being gloriously documented on Wikipedia. The content within this section seems to offend you personally, as it contains facts and statistics that you find objectionable and discomforting in terms of addressing your own grievances and insecurities, as it contradicts your own personal beliefs and feelings by not aligning with your own perspectives in which perhaps may even potentially exacerbate them. This is obviously reflective in your previous remarks, as your prior comments indicate a strong undercurrent of harboring deep-seated resentment and insecurities. And given how your previous behavior on this talk page clearly indicates a consistent panoply of clues which strongly suggests that you don't only harbor deep-seated feelings of resentment and insecurity, but also possibly having a hidden agenda to promote or a personal vendetta to subtly convey them in a more nonchalant manner.

In case you haven't wondered and have not thought about it, I have had ample exposure and interactions with individuals from Southeast Asia, including Burmans. And based on my personal life experiences, I can confidently affirm that the unsubstantiated assertions coming from you with regards to the physical appearance of Han Chinese in comparison to Burmans, such as the labeling of the former as "ugly Chinaman" or holding to the concept of "Ways That Are Dark," based on skin complexion are completely inaccurate and unfounded. It is erroneous (considering the significant quantity of erroneous information and fallacies emanating from an incompetent editor of your caliber) to suggest especially if you are debating whether Burmans are aesthetically superior or inherently more physically attractive than their Han Chinese counterparts based solely on their darker skin complexion, as Han Chinese, whether if they're Northern or Southern, typically have lighter skin tones than Burmans. Furthermore, it is worth noting that lighter skin is typically perceived to be more desirable in East Asian culture, so a preference for lighter skin is prevalent as lighter skin is generally considered more attractive than darker skin, though it is essential to acknowledge that perceptions of beauty are inherently subjective, subject to individual interpretation, and varies from person to person. Given the average physical differences of the taller stature and lighter skin tone among the Han Chinese compared to their Burman counterparts, I have never observed any notable media coverage in showcasing in how Burmans are at the forefront of reshaping global beauty ideals. Since it is rare to find any iota of significant recognition in the global press that can validate your spurious claims with regards to how Burmans are allegedly the pioneering trendsetters in redefining the benchmarks that shape global beauty standards. Because of this, I can also confidently state that the physical stature of Burmans is as unimpressive as their commercial business capabilities, as they certainly are not renowned for being particularly astute in commercial business matters. Despite this, it is rather a bold statement coming from a two-bit editor of your caliber, given your pugilistic and combative retorts, to insinuate moral and racial superiority. Irrespective of whether the ongoing discussion is related to my own editorial merits the contrast in physical attractiveness between the Han Chinese and the Burman counterparts, or being astute in commercial business matters. Your aimless meanderings and emotionally-charged outbursts, ultimately amount to nothing but a source of embarrassment from an objective standpoint and certainly by all reasonable WP:STANDARDS with which you hypocritically try to foist onto this platform. There's simply no sense in engaging in any rational conversation with you beyond this point.

Yet despite your weak counter-argument, the issue of whether Han Chinese or Burmans are more physically attractive ought to be addressed separately from the main subject of contention at hand rather than delving into superficial discussions about physical attractiveness. As it is unnecessary to diverge from the current conversation and does not directly contribute to the main deliberations that are being made by you. In addition, while I do not wish in refrain from digressing from the current debate and get sidetracked by tangentially extraneous discussions, it may be prudent to save the debate on the physical attractiveness of Han Chinese versus Burmese individuals should be addressed on another occasion and in a separate conversation, as diverting into a discussion on subjective beauty standards only becomes a distraction from the main issue. You would be wise enough to stay focused on the main argument at hand and refrain from digressing into irrelevant discussions about physical attractiveness, as your feeble attempts in either provoking a reaction and to distract me with your "ugly Chinaman" insult from the core argument at hand only reflects the lack of substantive argumentation that you have on your part to support your flawed positions. While everyone is entitled to their own opinions and certainly it is within your Wikipedia rights to hold your own opinions, hastily resorting towards making derogatory remarks such as labelling an entire ethnic community of people as "ugly Chinaman" is not only redundant and unproductive, but also serves to detract from any valid points you may have been trying to make in the first place, if there were any and does not contribute to a constructive discussion and only serves to provoke unnecessary conflict. Such superficially irrelevant and off-hand remarks only serve as an attempt to either distract or provoke me from the core argument by instigating a reaction reflects poorly on the strength of your argument and only serves to weaken it, not to strengthen an unsubstantiated argument, despite the fact that your argument itself lacks substance from the outset. Your derogatory comments, such as the flippant "ugly Chinaman" remark, do not contribute to a meaningful discussion and instead serve as a distraction from the actual debate that both of us are supposed to have. Although it is important to recognize and respect differing opinions, it appears to me that you only resort to hurling derogatory remarks by only make such off-hand comments like the aforementioned "ugly Chinaman" in an attempt to either distract or provoke and solicit a reaction from me, instead of producing a substantial argumentation which you do not possess in the first place. SimeonManier (talk) 02:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

The content has not been accepted by the community. In addition, you are REMOVING legitimate history about the KMT invasion. You are disguising your removal of content with reverts. You can instead retore your ugly trade and industry section. JordanKSM (talk) 21:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I didn't remove anything. The addition was not consensus-based. The problem is with the one who added it. Anyone who actually read that section would understand that it's not encyclopedic and relies on general sources written by non-specialists. Basically, the whole section is about how the Chinese are great, how they are superior, how they dominate everything, and how they just decimate the Burmese. Nobody would find that to be suitable for an encyclopedia. In addition, some paragraphs have 3000 words or 5000 words. It needs a major rewrite if it ever were suitable for a standalone section. The choice is yours. Want to add it? Make it encyclopedic and meet WP standards. Don't wanna do the work? Then, don't force such an ugly section on an otherwise good article. Also, you repeat lies after lies that Ne Win was Chinese (he wasn't). Claiming every major Burmese historical figure as "Chinese", you probably aren't here to build an encyclopedia. You are here to spout racist, "How we are superior to everyone" in articles. JordanKSM (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

And inept two-bit editors such as the likes of yourself have no business in being the moral authority of establishing WP:STANDARDS at this point given the fact that you're already a blocked editor either with a hidden agenda to promote or a personal vendetta to exact on. Furthermore, your emotionally-feeble replies and empty claims amount to nothing of anything of value here in this discussion. At this juncture, your inability to formulate a logical argument appears to be limited to merely resorting to unsubstantiated accusations, insults, and vituperative attacks, especially one's that absurdly suggest that my edits somehow imply "Han supremacy" or misapprehensively regard "every major Burmese historical figure as "Chinese" despite the fact that all my edits are thoroughly substantiated by reputable and authoritative academically sources. Your incessant rambling adduces nothing helpful to improve the article nor does hold any weight, rationality, reason, or substantive, especially given the fact that now since you are a blocked Wikipedia user with no credibility and zero legitimacy to to merit such postulated (or from my vantage point, baseless and implausible) edits to be enforced within the contemporary context of the article. You utter out puerile responses resembling those no different from that of a drawling petulant juvenile in a schoolyard since you don't even have a riveting argument to begin with. And now that you are out of options when it comes to making a compelling counter-argument, the only strategy that you have left cooked-up now in your debate arsenal instead of rationally presenting a case is by resorting towards hurling insults, spouting personal attacks, and making unfounded accusations of me of being a "Han chauvinist." All your utterly asinine antics and risible gambits to provoke me through your petulant rambling and protracted meandering isn't going to make me change my mind nor prompt me to reconsider any of the changes that I previously made regarding the editorial matters that you have repeatedly questioned. SimeonManier (talk) 20:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

None of the trade and industry is remotely true

The whole section cheery-picks and exaggerates sources that are themselves not based on specialists on Burma. No researchers specializing in Burmese history would argue "the Chinese dominate Burmese economy." Even in Mandalay, many researchers have pointed out that Chinese influence is highly exaggerated. The whole section is irredeemable. Super-long paragraphs that repeat essentially the same thing. Seem to me the author was motivated by showcasing "How great we are!" instead of delivering content to the readers. JordanKSM (talk) 22:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

It's a curriculum vitae on "achievements of our race" and not a section delivering content. Nobody needs to know who owned which rice mill in colonial Burma. Wikipedia is not indiscriminate collection of factoids (WP:PLOT). JordanKSM (talk) 22:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

The edit is question is by mass reversal of edits by a probable sock of user Yue which restored a very old 2019 version with trade and industry section. The trade and industry section was added by indef-blocked User:Backendgaming. The trade and industry section was added to similar articles about "Chinese in x" and had also been removed everywhere. JordanKSM (talk) 22:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, another insubstantial response masquerading as a false accusation coming from you of incorrectly attributing your inability to progress to my alleged promotion of Han chauvinism through my edits is unjust since you are nothing more than a blocked Wikipedia user with no credibility or legitimacy to support your edits in the current context of the article. The unfounded assertion that I am insinuating Han chauvinism in my editing endeavors as a justification for your lack of progress is beyond baseless. Therefore, it seems that your only chance in formulating a riveting argument at this point is only limited to merely resorting to invectives and pejoratives, which to me appears to be nothing more than another feeble and pitiful effort to salvage whatever credibility remains in terms of attempting to validate a purported argument on your part. If the discussion revolves around highlighting the accomplishments of a particular ethnic group, then I proudly consider myself the enthusiastic editor who takes pride in chronicling the economic successes, contributions, and the valuable inputs made by the Han Chinese towards the economic development and progress of Burma. It is unsurprising to encounter such a phenomena from a disgruntled editor such as the likes of yourself, whose comments are consumed by bitterness and grievance, whose emotional insecurity is evident in their resentment towards the economic achievements of another ethnic group, one to which you do not belong and would wish to belong to; as it is evident that you harbor a desire to be associated with their accomplishments, since your dissatisfaction and envy regarding the economic contributions of the Han Chinese in Burma are quite palpable. So once again, please do not falsely allege that I am propagating Han chauvinism in my edits as a means to explicate your inability to come up with a rational counter-argument in relation to my edits. Moreover, it also seems that you are grappling with feelings of inadequacy, but does really persisting in dwelling on feelings of insecurity and resentment ultimately benefit you in the long run? Why don't you take responsibility for your own editorial actions and not place absurd insinuations on others if you are unable to progress, as you should not pin the blame on me for your lack of progress by falsely accusing me of insinuating Han chauvinism in relation to my edits. It is beyond erroneous to suggest that my edits hint at Han chauvinism as an explanation for your difficulties in moving forward, whether in terms of economic competition or in formulating a compelling and coherent counterargument regarding your stance on the editorial changes that I have previously undertaken, as your accusations me of hinting at Han chauvinism in my edits as the cause for your difficulties in moving forward are unwarranted and without merit. SimeonManier (talk) 21:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:DUCK sock

It appears that User:SimeonManier is a WP:DUCK sock of User:Backendgaming. He's restoring the "Trade and Industry" sections in all articles about "Chinese in X"; the sections are basically a racist rant against whichever country the Chinese reside in. The "Trade and Industry" section here is an exact replica of Hoa_people#Trade_and_industry with the same sources (Yos Santasombat, Amy Chua, etc., not a single specialist from the said country is included) and with the same unreadable massive paragraphs. JordanKSM (talk) 04:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Basically, he read three books, and every single sentence from those books has been rewritten into massive Wikipedia sections. JordanKSM (talk) 05:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

It should be noted that User:Backendgaming is a massive sockpuppeter with dozens of accounts in his name. See: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Backendgaming. JordanKSM (talk) 05:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Another replica is Laotian_Chinese#Trade_and_industry which starts with, "Chinese dominate all sectors of Laos!" The section has been removed and readded by socks of Backendgamging again and again. JordanKSM (talk) 05:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Your inability to formulate a logical argument at this point seems limited to simply resorting to insults and personal attacks. What additional derogatory remarks do you possess in your repertoire that you wish to direct towards me? It is evident that you are nothing more than a disgruntled and blocked user without any credibility or legitimacy at this moment to justify and substantiate your edits within the context of the current article? SimeonManier (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Trade and Industry Cleanup

I've gone through the section to try and remove much of the more obvious cleanup issues based on WP:CITEKILL, NPOV and duplciate/contradictory information. Unfortunately, I can't access many of the sources used to verify and remove much of the remaining information. Right now, I believe that it's a matter of content and want to open it up for comment here.

The section still relies heavily on a few sources and is still incredibly long and needs to be condensed/moved to an separate dedicated article. Specifically, there are a few paragraphs that are just lists of businesses Sino-Burmese run/own. Furthermore, the section is very vague between Chinese (the government) business/trade/industry and Chinese (ethnically) business/trade/industry. The two are linked but not identical. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 16:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Yue🌙 07:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Gen San Yu.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Split proposed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to split to Economy of Burma and Mandalay as relevant EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 19:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

---

The section on Trade and Industry meets both criteria of WP:WHENSPLIT. It is extremely long and also gives WP:UNDUE weight to economics in a article about an ethnic group stemming from a WP:POV issue. Most of it should probably go to a new article called Bamboo networks in Myanmar with important aspects going to Economy of Myanmar. The entire section on Mandalay should have its important portions copied to Mandalay's section Economy. Even as it is right now, the large paragraph on Mandalay would itself be WP:UNDUE weight in the Mandalay article, given the context of everything else there, hence the suggestion for the brand new article. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 12:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@SimeonManier pinging EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 12:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@User:EmeraldRange If the article (or specifically, the trade and industry section) need be does requires splitting, then so be it as I'm insouciant at this point with regards to such matters on the state of this article right now. As long as the facts and statistical abstractions (no matter how disagreeable and inconvenient, and which are backed by authoritative scholarly academic sources) are presented in a forthright, innocuous, neutral, and an unprovocative manner. If Wikipedia is truly committed in proclaiming itself to be a free, open and transparent encyclopedic platform, it should not bend over backwards by either altering, censoring, prioritizing, or protecting certain forms of speech while excluding and shutting out the speech that other editors may find disagreeable or unpalatable in order to appease and accommodate their emotionally fragile sensitivities. SimeonManier (talk) 02:37, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:NPOV doesn't state that every line from every book must be on Wikipedia. We give due weight as prevalent in general sources on the topic. This article does not follow due weight. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 03:10, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

@User:EmeraldRange WP:NPOV also doesn't state that my previous edits are disqualified and somehow merit removal for the sake of generality or appeasing and accommodating the grievances and insecurities of one editor. The well-being of the Wikipedia community and commitment to the truth, no matter how disagreeable and inconvenient it is should be upheld if WP:NPOV and WP:STANDARDS are to be adhered to and certainly far outweighs the grievances, insecurities, and vendettas that one individual disgruntled editor (even though he's a blocked one now) may have against me. Furthermore, I have yet to see the evidence to the contrary supplied by other editors on this article that somehow refutes my previous additions. In that case, then give the WP:UNDUE weight that is needed per the sources on the topic pertaining to this article and the trade and industry section as supplied by such editors as needed within the Wikipedia guidelines, even if it merits the removal of any previous additions that I have made. As such, for the purposes of maintaining and upholding generality given the state of this article right now, I agree wholeheartedly with you that most of the current material content, whether if its pertaining to Mandalay's economy should be moved to a subsection within the Economy of Burma itself or split into the creation of a new article. But this should be a separate conversation aside from the current one that we're having because the bottom line within this current discussion is about upholding the facts and statistical abstractions within the article's trade and industry section. As long as this request of mine is fulfilled and live up to, this article will continue to thrive and progress, regardless of its present condition. SimeonManier (talk) 18:04, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I'll mark this as a Support for the split, since whether to move most of the content should be moved is the primary topic of this discussion EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 18:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.