Talk:Chinese people in Myanmar

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

What should this page be called?[edit]

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)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • Perhaps, but I don't see why that makes them any less reliable. Cordless Larry (talk) 03:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Oppose this particular proposal due to the proposed title's ambiguity. Am open to other options, though. —  AjaxSmack  04:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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)[reply]

The Tone of This Article[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
[ 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)[reply]

COPYVIO and Han Chauvinism[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

User:Yue is restoring to an old version[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

None of the trade and industry is remotely true[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

WP:DUCK sock[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Trade and Industry Cleanup[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chinese_people_in_Myanmar&oldid=1206664436"