Talk:Hui people
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| WikiProject China (Rated Start-Class) | |
|---|---|
 |
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...
|
|
| WikiProject Ethnic groups | (Rated B-Class, High-importance) | |||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||
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)
[edit] Chinese text on population loss
I'm going to try to translate these. Whether it makes it into the main article, I'm not an expert so I'd rather have someone else do the work, but at least all these years of studying History and Anthropology gave me enough of a background to make an attempt
The English translation is on the article: 清代陕西人口峰值出现在咸丰十一年（1861年），即回民战争爆发的前一年，其峰值人口数大约在 1394万左右。从同治元年（1862）到光绪五年（1879）的17年间，陕西全省战乱未定，灾荒继起，期间生灵涂炭，人民流离失所，社会经济遭受了极 大的破坏，而人口的损失尤为惨重。综观陕西战乱灾荒的17年，其人口损失有以下几个特点：
其一、人口损失数量惊人。短短的17年内，全省人口从1394万口锐减至772余万口，人口损失总数高达622万，大约占战前人口总数的44.6%。
其二、战争期间损失的人口数量远高于灾荒期间损失的人口数量。天灾令人恐怖，人祸更为可怕，17年中，因战争原因造成的人口损失约有520.8万，在全部损失人口中所占的比例高达83.7%，而灾荒期间损失的人口不过101.2余万，占全部损失人口的比例仅有16.3%。
The population peak in Shaanxi was 1861, the year prior to the outbreak of the Hui Rebellions. The peak population was estimated to be around 13.94 million or so. In the 17 years between 1862 and 1879, Shaanxi became a war zone, with widespread famine and migration of the Hui population, causing a major economic crisis. The population loss during this period was especially significant as it was estimated that the province alone lost 6.22 million citizens, about 44.6% of the pre-Rebellion population.
Karajanis (talk) 13:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The English translation is on the article: 纵观清代270多年的历史，陕西回族的发展经历了一个大起大落的过程。清初全省回民总数大约有 84.5万，经过康、雍、乾、嘉、道五朝两百多年的休养生息，才发展到170万口左右的规模。但在同治年间回民战争沉重打击下，短短六七年内，全省回民人 口损失高达155万，战后陕西回民锐减至15万口左右，人口损失比例超过91%。
同治年间，陕西全省战乱不断，生灵惨遭涂炭 ，人民流离失所，社会经济遭受了极大的破坏。短短的7年内，全省人口损失总数高达数百万，[62]其 中仅回民人口损失就有155万口之多。战争中汉人的损失数量远远高于回民，但就其相对数字来讲，回民人口的损失比例又远远高于汉人，高达91%，几乎到了 亡族灭种的程度。不少战前回民聚居的州县，战后回民踪迹全无。战争不但使历经二百多年逐步积累起来的回民人口丧失殆尽，而且还摧毁了陕西回族继续发展的基 础，改变了全省人口的民族结构，直到今天陕西回族人口再也没有恢复到清初的规模。1990年全国第4次人口普查时，陕西回民人口总共只有13.2万，仅占 全省人口总数的0.4%，全国排名第15位[63]
The population of the Hui people in Shaanxi during the 270 years of Qing control fluctuated wildly. From the start, the province estimated a Hui population of 845,000. After five dynastic changes and over two hundred years of peace, the population increased to 1.7 million. However, during the Hui Rebellion of the Tongzhi years, 1.55 million Hui people were displaced or killed within six years, a loss of 91% of the population.
During the Tongzhi period, Shaanxi was in a state of chaos, with a large degree of population movement and economic turmoil. The province lost millions of citizens, including 1.55 million Hui people. While speaking purely on the basis of numbers, the Han suffered a far greater number of casualties than the Hui, the percentage of the Hui lost - 91% - was almost reaching genocidal levels. Many previous centers of Hui residences became devoid of Hui presence after the end of the Rebellion, and entirely wiped out the two hundred years of development and expansion of the Hui people in the province. The Rebellion changed the demographics of the Shaanxi province irreversibly, and disrupted the base for the development of further Hui population growth. EVen today, the number of Hui people in Shaanxi has yet to reach the early-Qing dynasty numbers. During the 1990 census, Shaanxi only reported 132,000 Hui persons, a total of 0.4% of the province, and ranked 15th in the nation.Karajanis (talk) 13:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
