Misplaced Pages

Talk:Hanfu: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:39, 22 October 2019 editVeryGoodBoy (talk | contribs)373 edits →Requested move 12 April 2019← Previous edit Latest revision as of 20:38, 23 September 2024 edit undo199.175.128.1 (talk) →is Hanfu really modern chinese traditional dress??: ReplyTag: Reply 
(135 intermediate revisions by 59 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{wpbs|{{WPCHINA|class=C|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Fashion|class=C|importance=High}}}} {{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject China|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Fashion|importance=High}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Talk archive navigation}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 2
|minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(180d)
|archive = Talk:Hanfu/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{Broken anchors|links=
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#Hairstyle and teeth blackening) has been ] before. <!-- {"title":"Hairstyle and teeth blackening","appear":{"revid":958514087,"parentid":957320128,"timestamp":"2020-05-24T06:52:45Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":978561339,"parentid":978560807,"timestamp":"2020-09-15T17:11:21Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"very_different":"32≥30","rename_to":"Feudal customs"} -->
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#Qujupao) has been ] before. <!-- {"title":"Qujupao","appear":{"revid":1009413954,"parentid":1007441794,"timestamp":"2021-02-28T13:12:02Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":1094655936,"parentid":1094646204,"timestamp":"2022-06-23T20:13:16Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} -->
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#Zhijupao) has been ] before. <!-- {"title":"Zhijupao","appear":{"revid":1009413954,"parentid":1007441794,"timestamp":"2021-02-28T13:12:02Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":1094655936,"parentid":1094646204,"timestamp":"2022-06-23T20:13:16Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} -->
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#Youren/ right lapel) is no longer available because it was ] before. <!-- {"title":"Youren/ right lapel","appear":{"revid":1093251304,"parentid":1092961099,"timestamp":"2022-06-15T12:36:29Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":1096856384,"parentid":1095394503,"timestamp":"2022-07-07T02:33:02Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} -->
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#Zuoren/ left lapel) is no longer available because it was ] before. <!-- {"title":"Zuoren/ left lapel","appear":{"revid":1093251304,"parentid":1092961099,"timestamp":"2022-06-15T12:36:29Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":1096856384,"parentid":1095394503,"timestamp":"2022-07-07T02:33:02Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} -->
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#Pipa-shaped collars) is no longer available because it was ] before. <!-- {"title":"Pipa-shaped collars","appear":{"revid":1089995717,"parentid":1089994860,"timestamp":"2022-05-26T19:33:18Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":1092961099,"parentid":1092942764,"timestamp":"2022-06-13T18:09:20Z","replaced_anchors":{"Pipa-shaped collars":"Pipa-shaped collars/ pianjin"},"removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"very_different":false,"rename_to":"Pipa-shaped collars/ pianjin"} -->
}}


== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion ==
==Repeated Vandalism==
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Repeated vandalism by IP: 168.216.187.89
* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2022-04-07T10:52:10.044619 | 汉代 国博首场中国古代服饰展.jpg -->
Watch out for him <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 06:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Participate in the deletion discussion at the ]. —] (]) 10:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion ==
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2022-06-02T05:36:45.706122 | Thin silk skirt, unearthed form Mawangdui Tomb.png -->
Participate in the deletion discussion at the ]. —] (]) 05:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)


== is Hanfu really modern chinese traditional dress?? ==


Baizerman, Suzanne, Joanne B. Eicher, and Cathleen Cerny. "Eurocentrism in the Study of Ethnic Dress." Dress 20 (1993): 19–32.
123.243.252.234 traced back to 123-243-252-234.static.tpgi.com.au <------ Repeated offender of vandalism across all wiki articles it touches. Please beware of this IP and keep track of him.
Blumer, Herbert. "Collective Behavior." In An Outline of the Principles of Sociology. Edited by Robert Park. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1939.
Boas, Franz. "The Social Organization and the Secret Societies of the Kwakiutl Indians." Report of the U.S. National Museum for 1895. Washington, D.C.: U.S. National Museum, 1897.
Ellwood, Charles. An Introduction to Social Psychology. New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1918.
Frater, Judy. "Rabari Dress." In Mud, Mirror, and Thread: Folk Traditions in Rural India. Edited by Nora Fisher. Santa Fe: Museum of New Mexico Pres; Ahmedabad: Mapin, 1993.
Freeman, Richard. Travels and Life in Ashanti and Jaman. New York: Frederick A. Stokes Co., 1898.
Harrold, Robert, and Phylidda Legg. Folk Costumes of the World. London: Cassell Academic Press, 1999.
Hendrikson, Carol. Weaving Identities: Construction of Dress and Self in a Highland Guatemala Town. Austin: University of Texas, 1995.
Kennett, Frances. Ethnic Dress. New York: Facts on File, 1995.
Lentz, Carola. "Ethnic Conflict and Changing Dress Codes: A Case Study of an Indian Migrant Village in Highland Ecuador." In Dress and Ethnicity. Edited by Joanne B. Eicher. Oxford: Berg, 1995.
Mera, H. P. Navajo Women's Dresses. General Series Bulletin No. 15. Santa Fe, N.M.: Laboratory of Anthropology, 1944.
Sapir, Edward. "Fashion." In Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Vol. 6. New York: Macmillan, 1931.
Sumberg, Barbara. "Dress and Ethnic Differentiation in the Niger Delta." In Dress and Ethnicity. Edited by Joanne Eicher. Oxford: Berg, 1995.
Tarrant, Naomi. The Development of Costume. London: Routledge, 1994.
Underhill, Ruth. The Navajos. Norman: University of Oklahoma, 1956.
Weir, Shelagh. Palestinian Costume. Austin: University of Texas, 1989.
Welters, Linda. "Introduction." In Folk Dress in Europe and Anatolia. Edited by Linda Welters. Oxford: Berg, 1999.
Westermarck, Edward. Marriage Ceremonies in Morocco. London: Macmillan and Co., Ltd., 1914.
Wilcox, R. Turner. Folk and Festival Costume of the World. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1965.






Another person who vandalized the article: IP: 71.109.98.60
*03:41, 16 January 2008 71.109.98.60 (Talk) (18,132 bytes) HAHA i DONT CAR3 ABOUT THiS!!!
*03:40, 16 January 2008 71.109.98.60 (Talk) (18,097 bytes) <===========THiS iS BORiNG L0L
*03:42, 16 January 2008 71.109.98.60 (Talk) (18,103 bytes) HAHA i DONT CAR3 ABOUT THiS!!!


according to reference like upward, Hanfu is not traditional dress of modern china. their revived Hanfu is like roman Toga and greek Kiton .
] (]) 04:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
accordinf to definition of tradition. Hanfu is nor traditional dress of modern chinese. ] (]) 05:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)


:Hanfu is the traditional clothing of the Han Chinese, because they are 100% restored according to the clothing of the ancients ] (]) 21:37, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
==Picture Uploaded==
:according to your funny logic, hanbok is not the traditional dress of south Korea, since south korea was established in 1948. It has nothing to do with Ancient Korea. ] (]) 22:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The original author of the picture posted various hanfu pics on photo shop, and allows people to use them
::The word 'Hanfu' didn't even exist before 2000. It's a made up 'modern word' by Chinese government's cultural propaganda. Plus, what is transitional clothing? Doesn't it mean continued generation to generation? Clothes that Chinese people call 'Hanfu' is forgotten and discontinued clothing at least hundreds years ago. So how Chinese revived so called Hanfu? Easy. Good references were there. Korean Hanbok and Japanese Kimono. ] (]) 20:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
via forums, websites, etc. The picture is "hanfu.png"
:It’s even funnier to use western materials to talk about Chinese culture. Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece have perished, but China has always existed. ] (]) 22:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
:It is very likely that those sources are outdated by many decades. Back in the days, there were not much critical studies of non- American/European clothing. This was reflected in the literature of that time when authors did not see non-Western countries as having fashion and believed that non-Western (traditional) clothing was static and unchanged with time, which was itself a bias view on clothing, apparel, jewelleries, garments of others non-American/European people. Because they were not familiar with the clothing of others, they could not neither observe nor record differences in fashion. For them, traditional clothing became something static when it was not.
:Hanfu cannot be compared with the roman toga and the greek kiton; the ancient greeks and romans are old civilization which do not exist anymore. Same with ancient Egypt, the ancient Egypt civilization does not exist. Chinese civilization is remains one of the oldest civilization with a continuous history; hanfu still existed in the 20th century but showed a decline at last from the mid-20th century. The early 21st century shows a progressive return to popularity. As such, hanfu has never ceased to exist. Hanfu also falls in the Webster's Third International Dictionary definition, "an inherited or established way of thinking, feeling or doing: a cultural feature preserved or evolved from the past" . Regardless of how the forms, styles, fashion have changed with time and socio-historical contexts , it still follows an established way of thinking, feeling, and doing, being a cultural feature which has been preserved and evolved from the past. ] (]) 12:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
::Exactly, you admitted. 'Hanfu' is a modern word that didn't even exist before 2000. It was created by Government led cultural operation. The question is why it is different from Roman Toga and Greek Kiton while Chinese has stopped wearing their old clothes for at least hundreds years? ] (]) 20:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)


Traditional dress may be defined as the ensemble of garments, jewelry, and accessories rooted in the past that is worn by an identifiable group of people. Though slight changes over time in color, form, and material are acknowledged, the assemblage seems to be handed down unchanged from the past.Traditional dress or costume is a phrase used widely both by the general public and writers on dress.
] 00:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


It conjures up images of rural people dressed in colorful, layered, exotic clothing from an idealized past in some faraway place. This notion of traditional dress has been scrutinized and found inadequate by many researchers and scholars, but its uncritical use continues into the twenty-first century.
==Picture Deleted==
Deleted the picture of the pajama hanfu worn by the Tang emperor. I will say again. That is not representative of a typical hanfu, and probably is a Qing re-portrayal of a hanfu with qipao elements. If not, then find a better picture of a hanfu. If you wish to this pajama hanfu, state a good reason for doing so.
] 03:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


"traditional costume." In Webster's Third International Dictionary, tradition is defined as "an inherited or established way of thinking, feeling or doing: a cultural feature preserved or evolved from the past" (1993, p. 2422; italics by author).
*That picture '''is''' Hanfu. If it isn't then Li Bai, ], Bai Juyi, all the Chinese emperors since the Tang, all Chinese officials since the Tang, all Chinese scholars/literati since the Tang, etc are not wearing Hanfu. And it certainly is not Qing influenced. Look at the paintings and archaeological evidence. I could name a good deal of paintings painted pre-Qing that shows that the yuanlingshan was worn generally and is most certainly not exclusive or a one off/atypical. And calling it a 'pajama-Hanfu' I find unhelpful. Unless the Qing could time travel, I very much doubt it is connected to the Qing at all. If at all, I think the yuanlingshan influenced the clothing of the Manchurians and not the other way round. One should look at the evidence and analyse the origins and history of it, not assign it as 'Qing/Manchurian' just because it so happens to 'look like' a qipao which is like saying a Chinese emperor's ''mian'' (the tall crown with a flat rectangular board on top with lines of pearls dangling) is Western origin, just because it looks slightly like a mortarboard (and if you know that the Western mortarboard came into existence around the 1400s and that the ''mian'' dates from 2500BC or so, you'll intuitively know that claim is jumping to conclusions, unfounded and quite frankly rubbish)! --] ] 10:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


Often made in the family for personal use, traditional dress uses materials commonly available where the maker lives. These materials and styles are often assumed to have evolved in response to environments-wool in cold climates, cotton in warm. But traditional dress often also incorporates imported materials obtained by trade. Exotic fabrics or notions can be incorporated into a people's dress and become "traditional," as Indian madras has for the Kalabari Ijo of the Niger Delta. Although no one knows where it originated, a print cloth called ondoba, said to have arrived with the Portuguese in the fifteenth century, "belongs" to the Nembe Ijo of the Niger Delta.
If you must upload it then put it on the bottom. The Tang emperor's hanfu variant doesn't match up the hanfu blueprints directly below it. We're trying to distinguish the hanfu from the qipao, and posting hanfus on the top of the page that look like qipaos isn't helping.
] 00:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)




The word "tradition" refers to an old culture that has been passed down to the present, because it is difficult to see that Hanfu is already a tradition the moment you substitute this word. A tradition is called a tradition if it has been passed on for at least three generations from the old days, and it can be recognized as a tradition if there are no interruptions or forgotten things in the middle. This similar concept is also used for UNESCO World Heritage listing. No matter how much they restore the lost Tang music, it cannot become a World Intangible Heritage. Even though relics excavated from tombs in the past are restored, restoration or re-creation does not conform to the concept of tradition. The form of hanfu they speak of differs from dynasty to dynasty, and it is not known how the masses wore it or how it was made.
Your comparison between the headpieces and western mortarboard is unfounded. You have to realize that the pictures uploaded, especially on top, has to match the blueprints of diagonal folds of the hanfu description on the bottom. Uploading that picture repeatedly is totally unhelpful on educating the general public, and only serves to confuse people even more on the differences between the qiapo and hanfu.
] (]) 01:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


Thats why,does not conform to the concept of tradition.
*Indeed it may confuse. But one of the things we must avoid is making assumptions or making people think that _all_ round collared robes are 'not of Han origin' when some of them factually are. But I guess you are right in educating the readers first before throwing in an anomaly into the works. --] ] 20:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


For example, it can be seen that the traditional clothing of modern Italy and Greece is different from the toga of ancient Rome and Greece. In other words, Italy and Greece do not define traditional culture that has been passed down to the present by excavating ancient relics that have not been worn until modern times, restoring what the ancient Romans wore, and wearing them. Even if the ancient Egyptians are unearthed and worn by modern Egyptians, they cannot be their traditional attire. In fact, the traditional clothing of the Egyptians is only recognized as the traditional clothing worn by the Egyptians in Galabe. In case of Hanfu, there is no evidence like photo and other record to proove that Chinese people had have worn Hanfu in modern periods
==Moved Ming Dynasty Emperor Outfit to the Bottom==
The golden Ming Dynasty Emperor Outfit doesn't resemble the original Hanfus, so I'm moving it to the bottom. Delete or replace it if you find a more suitable picture.
] 21:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
:I think the picture you are referring to is actually an image of Hanfu. And it is wear by an emperor of the ] (Tang Taizhong), not ]... I think you probably misread something. --] 00:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


== Citations about Influencing other Cultural Dress ==
Ok, my mistake. The emperor's outfit doesn't resemble a common Hanfu though. We should have the more common variations on the top and less common on the bottom.
] 01:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


I just checked the citation regarding Hanbok being influenced by Hanfu—the one from the National History Museum of Korea in its issu digitized magazine form.
Never mind, I'm still moving it to the bottom. The picture reminds me of a pajama-hanfu. It does not match up with the piece by piece description and layout of the pictures below.
] 17:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


I understand many nationalists from China, Korea, and really whatever other country’s cultural dress is in question get riled up and HEATED about this discussion on origin. Regardless, I must point out that having actually read the magazine no where in it does it support the claim Hanbok was influenced by or descended or associated with etc etc. with Hanfu.
If that picture gets moved up one more time, I'm deleting it. Whoever gets moving it up better have a good reason to use that sub-standard picture in the article.
] 12:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


I’m sure there’s a credible English source out there somewhere that acknowledges connection or influence from Hanfu. But nowhere in the Hanbok section is China or any Chinese dynasties even mentioned. Ergo, this citation is pointless, it does not support the assertion made. Should the citation be removed or some sort of tag placed indicating the need of a stronger citation? It’s kind of like no one actually read the magazine. I feel like this also prompts a round of review on the other citations for clarity. Hopefully they all support what is being said in the article as written, but it is clear the current source for Hanbok is insufficient. Maybe some fashion studies journal article about Hanfu/Hanbok would have the line needed? ] (]) 18:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
I have no qualms about you moving it to the bottom, but the outfit the TANG emperor is wearing is not an uncommon outfit for an emperor at all. Chinese emperors commonly wore that outfit throughout many dynasties including before Manchurian or Mongol domination, as obvious here with the Tang Dynasty emperor's example. I believe even the Koreans and Vietnamese emperors (and mandarins as well) wore a similar influenced outfit as well.] (]) 03:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

==Not a good picture==
I deleted the current picture because it is not representative of pure Hanfu-style.
Please use another picture.
-intranetusa 19:36 7 March 2007

:I've moved your comment to the bottom of the talk page - per the ], makes it easier to track. Anyways, what part of the picture is not representative of a pure Hanfu style? What differentiates pure from impure Hanfu? I personaly don't see much wrong with that picture, so I'm restoring it, but I welcome your arguments to the contrary. --] 17:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
::I'll have to agree with the previous user. I think the picture shows a modern designer's interpretation of the historical hanfu. ] 18:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


A Hanfu clothing resembles robes, sort of like a kimono. This garmet looks an a mix mash of Manchurian and quasi-Hanfu styles. If you see the movie "Hero" with Jet Li, all the characters wear traditional Hanfu. I am going to delete this picture and upload a better one.
-intranetusa 21:46 14 March 2007
:This "garmet" you are talking about is wear by emperor Tang Taizhong of the Tang Dynasty. It is a piece of Hanfu, and this type of upper garmet (with/without golden color) is commonly wore by Chinese emperors throughout dynasties. --] 20:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved this topic back up. I have uploaded two new pictures of authentic Hanfu style clothing from the movie "Hero" with Jet Li. (I own the DVD) This is an actual representation of traditional Chinese clothing, not that quasi modern interpretation of the Hanfu in the original picture that was uploaded.
-intranetusa 22:10 14 March 2007

*The emperor's garment is what is called a yuanlingshan or "round collared robe" and is certainly Hanfu. It was made by the Chinese themselves and wasn't imported from elsewhere. Also, officials, scholars, poets (i.e. Li Bai, Du Fu, etc) wear it. You cannot regard it as not 'pure' enough! --] ] 08:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

== Hanfu or Han Chinese clothing ==

If anyone reads this, I've just edited the article because there was some rather untrue information posted before my edit. Potentially prank/sabotage? This article needs a LOT of work.
] 03:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Satsuki Shizuka

The pingyin of &#35059; is chang2 instead of shang2
---paintery

I think this should be moved back to ]. This is the English wikipedia and we should be putting terms in English as much as possible. -- ]]] 16:29, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

En, I think you are right, because now Hanfu is not very famous!!! -- Anon

: Done. --] 02:36, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

: Ok.... something weird happened when I moved. Here's what happened:
:# I deleted the existing ] as requested.
:# I moved ] to ] (as evident from the current one-event history of ])
:# Apparently ] ''is'' moved, but the place for ] is still empty. No idea where ] went to. It ''is'' redirected to ].
:# So I un-deleted ] and restored it to an earlier version (Oct 23, yesterday).
: I'm clueless and have no idea how to fix this technically. I hope the restored version is up-to-date. Geesh... who knew moving a page would be so complex....... --] 02:43, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

:: Not sure if this is significant or not, but when I restored ]. I saw that it said it was ] who deleted that page, not me. --] 02:47, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

:::Yes, I did delete it. It was listed on ] and, when I saw it, only contained a request for a sysop to delete it so that ] could be moved there. I think we happened to delete at almost the same time. Sorry about that. ] &mdash; ] | ] 02:53, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

:::: So did any data went missing during this deletion-moving-undeletion-restoration? I hope not. --] 02:59, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

:::: Doesn't look like it, fortunately. Sorry about stepping on your toes there. ] &mdash; ] | ] 04:44, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

::::: Don't worry about it. One could say I'm the one doing toe-steppings! It's just very confusing..... --] 06:07, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)





*Influence

Deleted all references to Hanbok. Next time someone posts something about Hanbok, I would like to see some credible evidence. Whoever wrote the article wrote about Hanbok out of their heads, full of bias and factual inaccuracies.
:What are you talknig about? It is clear about that the hanbok style is similiar to hanfu, especially the korean kings cloths. Those cloths are simliar to the cloths during the Ming dynasty in China.

== I am not quite confident with the structure I made!!! ==

If anybody has any idea about what should be put into this article or what is not needed!!! --Anon
:Just keep putting more. We need as much as possible on this topic. :) (Right now we haven't even ''started'' talking about Hanfu itself...) -- ]]] 06:32, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

== here is the Chinese discusson over structure for hanfu ==

http://www.haanen.com/bbs/dispbbs.asp?boardID=42&ID=45518&page=1

we can refer to it!!!
{{quote|&#12298;&#26131;&#32463;·&#31995;&#36766;&#19979;&#12299;&#35760;&#36733;&#65306;“&#40644;&#24093;&#12289;&#23591;&#12289;&#33308;&#22402;&#34915;&#35059;&#32780;&#22825;&#19979;&#27835;&#65292;&#30422;&#21462;&#20043;&#20094;&#22372;&#12290;”&#36825;&#37324;&#30340;“&#22402;&#34915;&#35059;”&#26159;&#25351;&#32541;&#21046;&#34915;&#35059;&#12290;&#32780;&#19988;&#65292;&#40644;&#24093;&#12289;&#23591;&#12289;&#33308;&#25152;&#21019;&#21046;&#30340;&#34915;&#35059;&#20381;&#29031;&#30340;&#26159;&#12298;&#26131;&#32463;&#12299;&#20013;&#30340;&#20094;&#22372;&#20004;&#21350;&#65292;&#20094;&#20026;&#22825;&#65292;&#22372;&#20026;&#22320;&#65292;&#19968;&#19978;&#19968;&#19979;&#65292;&#19978;&#34915;&#19979;&#35059;&#65292;&#20110;&#26159;&#65292;&#20154;&#36523;&#20307;&#30340;&#19978;&#21322;&#37096;&#21644;&#19979;&#21322;&#37096;&#20063;&#23601;&#37117;&#26377;&#20102;&#34915;&#26381;&#12290;}}

== Here is a site which has very elegant and beautiful pictures of Han clothing styles ==
Scroll down until you get to the pictures: - ] 17:51, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

== Without pictures... ==

...it's hard to understand the article! A picture says a thousand words, get it? We ought to incorporate some pics of clothing in here. ] 20:14, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

== galleries of han chinese clothing ==

yes,A picture says a thousand words.
hey look at this,http://www.pbase.com/hanfu
http://c.1asphost.com/hanfu/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=38&PN=1
you can see some galleries of han chinese clothing.
it's amazing,anyway.

== copyright infringement ==

copyright tag placed. See http://library.thinkquest.org/05aug/01780/clothing/history.htm ] 18:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, right. Anybody watching this page had better clean up the copyvio toot sweet or else this article or at any rate large swaths of it are going to have to go to the bit bucked. ] 05:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

If http://library.thinkquest.org/05aug/01780/clothing/history.htm was published in August 2005, then it would appear that that website copied from Misplaced Pages, since much of the current text has existed in Misplaced Pages since --] 07:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

:You can copy and paste the content from that website into Misplaced Pages then, since they probably did copy from Misplaced Pages without giving credit. A colorful website does not mean original content. Besides, they don't even list the authors for their articles, so all of their articles probably came from Misplaced Pages. This article needs more content anyways, and it's not fair for the editors' hard work to be robbed by another site who took it as their own.--] 03:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
::The following address links to the people who created the site: http://thinkquest.org/library/site.html?team_id=05aug/01780. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 03:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

== Current article ==

I'm liking the new rewrite of the article. The previous ones were rather messy. --] ] 18:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Since I live near the Toronto thing, I think I'll go take a peek.] 19:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

== Pictures ==

It's getting slightly crowded. May I suggest we use only important pictures that help with the article rather than one's which seem questionable, like the film/TV ones. --] ] 22:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
:I agree, it is getting crowded. It is hard to argue with how effectively pictures convey the meaning of the article, though. Perhaps a few too many cinematic images. Perhaps we should restrict the images in the article proper to the bare minimum - preferably to images actually referred to by or that is a prime example of the accompanying text. However, I do feel that, with this subject, more pictures is better than fewer. So, what would you say to including most of the pictures towards the end using the ]? --] 22:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
*That would be better, though I find some of the pics not as illustrative and clear than say the rather good diagram ones which are attractive and are the only two pics which are useful to the article. There are surely more better live-action photos of Hanfu out there that are more eye-catching than the currect film/TV ones. --] ] 10:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

:Perhaps we should put in some more pictures taken from historical paintings depicting the clothing of the eras? ] 20:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I made a post here the other day, prior to the database lock, but now it's nowhere to be found. Heh. Anyways, I made a rundown of my opinion of the photos in the article. To summarize:
* The first two images, one from ''Hero'' and the other of two women from an unnamed TV serial, do not add much to the article, and can be done away with. Barely see them, and they don't convey much info.
* The painting of the old man in hanfu, "Bai Juyi", is good. Historical representations in paintings of hanfu generally follow a certain pattern, and this is a good example to help readers identify other such examples as they come across them. A better example may be found, but the article benefits from at least one image like this.
* The painting of Imperial robes - is this even hanfu? To my untrained eye, it looks more like early Qing dragon robes, and thus out of the scope of this article. I have left a comment on the user page for the original contributor on Wikimedia commons, and will hopefully hear back on it soon.
* The two diagrams are good. We might consider placing them closer to one another to better show the differences between the two. This is facilitated by their identical sizes.
* The last image, a photo of a man standing, is excellent - a real world example, and it happens to be the only viable image in the article showing the 3rd layer, the outer robe which is mentioned but not otherwise depicted in the article. A better image may be found, but this one should not be removed unless it is replaced by an improvement.
Anyways, that's my 2 cents. --] 16:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

:*The imperial robe pic is Hanfu (it is the last emperor of the Ming dynasty by the description given). However, I'd prefer if it was something more earlier; a good example with be the ] one. --] ] 16:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
::I've made a few changes. Looks more tidy now. May I suggest that more pictures should be added '''when''' the article is expanded. --] ] 16:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

*Someone replaced the pics of the films/TV. Surely there are better examples of film/TV ones. The Hero one looks blurry and unclear and is more of an action flaunt. I'm thinking of something from ] which is at least clear and shows off Hanfu more... --] ] 14:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

*Someone deleted the last image of the man wearing the 3 layered hanfu, please restore it.
] 17:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

== Quote location request ==

《左傳》云：『中國有禮儀之大，故稱夏；有服章之美，謂之華。』

I've been searching for the exact location of this quote in the ZZ but I can't seem to find it anywhere! Could someone please tell me the chapter, or where this quote really comes from so I can cite the exact source. I added this from information somewhere then decided to search for it, but couldn't find it so I have to ask. --] ] 10:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

*OK, after a bit of a search, I managed to find out that people are quoting this from the 定公十年 chapter. However, after going directly to this said chapter and reading through it, I have seen no trace of this quote. Either this quote is non-existant (and thus, made up), a commentary (which I would be require to see for myself as proof), or from somewhere else... --] ] 10:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

*Ah, I think I found it. It is a commentary after all! 孔颖达《春秋左传正义．定公．卷五十六．传十年》注疏. People should make it clear because it looks like a direct quote from the the original text instead of accurately specifying that it is a commentary!

==Moved Picture==
Whoever put the picture of the "yuanlingshan"Tang robes on top, I've moved it again. Any picture uploaded on the upper portion has to at least match the hanfu description-blueprints on the bottom...including the diagonal folding of the cloth. The variant of this specific type of hanfu, without detailed description, serves no purpose whatsoever except to confuse people. The main purpose is to distinguish the hanfu from the qiapo. If that picture is uploaded on top, this works contrary to this purpose.

] (]) 01:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

*OK, OK, OK. I think that's settled then. The only reason I don't want to use that pic is because the emperor faces to the right and it would look better if he faced to the left, but I suppose that is besides the point... --] ] 20:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok then, glad it's settled. I'll see if I can find another picture that has him facing left. If you can find a similar image of him facing left, feel free to upload it.
] (]) 19:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

== Qing dynasty = modern China? ==
:"Technically, the Qing dynasty and afterwards would be considered modern China, so the qipao would be modern clothing and not traditional."
Sorry, but this sentence is very POV. How can you say Qing Dynasty is 'modern' (a term which is entirely subjective)? We don't consider the Victorians particularly 'modern' save the industrial revo. Anything pre-20th century is not 'modern' IMHO (I would say anything that is more that 25 years old is slipping from the realms of 'modernity'). I would accept 'late Qing' but anything more is pushing it to the extremes a tad too much and is very misleading. And this is before we go onto the issue of the qusetionable rhetoric employed... <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Well, assigning any specific dates is subjective but not necessarily POV as long as that subjectivity is reflected outside of Misplaced Pages. In the West, "modern" can begin as early as the end of the Middle Ages as the ] article notes. Your strict definition of modernity as it relates to history in general is shared by few. ]'s widely-read text, ''The Search for '''Modern''' China'', uses A.D. 1600 as the beginning of his treatment and has a reasonably convincing justification for considering the era from the Qing Empire forward as modern. Of course, Chinese Marxists would use 1911 as the cutoff because they consider the pre-Republican era to be ]." — <span style="border:1px solid blue;padding:1px;">]</span> 00:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
::Fair enough. But I still think it sounds like a sentence agruing a case for something, especially when 'technically' is used in such a manner. It sounds like a statement of fact, but fact should not be open to interpretation. --] ] 12:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
:::Modern China is from british invasion 1840, Qing as a whole is definitely not Modern China.--](Kèyì) 06:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
::::Qing as a whole is certainly modern China from an English (language, not culture) perspective. 古 is a lot more recent than "ancient" is, which is actually a whole political thing and very little to do with clarity in expression.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] 08:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

== Can anyone upload the following pictures to the gallery,plzZZ??? ==

] (]) 18:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii52/rp00n/Img240834667.jpg
http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii52/rp00n/Img240834668.jpg
http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii52/rp00n/Img240834666.jpg
http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii52/rp00n/Img240834669.jpg
THZZZZZZ] (])

*The question would be why and where will they fit in? I am relectant to add computer generated imagery in favour for historical paintings or actual practice. --] ] 12:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

== The word costume ==

I think over using this word is inappropriate. Technically, clothing becomes "costume" when it is worn outside of its original cultural or historical context. Wearing Hanfu nowadays would constitute wearing a costume, since the wearing of it is enacting an anachronism. But back in pre-Manchu times, Hanfu was simply the clothing people wore. It's inappropriate to label it "costume" unless your specifically talking about people running around in Hanfu today. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*No, the word can also just mean the regular styles of clothing. see a dictionary. ] (]) 01:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
*Again, the word is open to interpretation. Everyone refers to 'national costume' and I don't think they imply anything to it. --] ] 12:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's interchangeable in common speech. Costume would give the sense of a more elaborate clothing that you don't wear everyday.
] (]) 19:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

== the round collared robe IS hanfu ==

and it is NOT atypical or uncommon at all. it was extremely common even during tang dynasty for not only the emperor but mandarins and other high male officials. the person who assumes the pictures of round collared gowns must be distorted qing-style depictions probably knows little of chinese history or fashions (or a shallow knowledge). in other words hanfu is not one similarly cut garment worn by all chinese but rather refers to the diverse types of clothing worn by ethnic chinese. it is understandable that some chinese try to distance themselves from clothing which looks similar to qing styles in an attempt to promote a lesser known style of hanfu, but you cannot use wiki to distort the truth. that round collar is authentic 100 percent chinese variation of hanfu which was very common for not only the emperor but officials as well. I think the problem here is attempting to define the word hanfu with one particular type of outfit when it's evident chinese fashions were diverse. ] (]) 03:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

*Agreed. Although it may originated from other ethnic groups during the Tang Dynasty, but it has since been integrated with the Hanfu 'system'. Hanfu is not just 'crossed collar, tied to the right'. There are also straight (parallel) collared- and round collared-Hanfu. ] (]) 13:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

== picture needed!!! ==
Maybe this picture would be suited , it's great --] (]) 16:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

]

*This is a kimono. You can tell by the flipped collar, obiage and obijime. ] (]) 12:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
**It's hard to say whether this is a kimono without looking at the full costume/picture. Kimonos have a lot of the same elements as tang dynasty costumes, with "obiage" and "obijime" included. Regardless, this picture probably does not work, there are more pics of han clothing ] (]) 17:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
*The form of Hanfu that was brought over to Japan during Tang Dynasty was the blouse-and-skirt Ruqun (襦裙). There was neither obiage nor obijime at that time. Kimono nowadays developed from the clothings worn by the samurai class (武家) during the Edo period, which was in turn developed from the kosode (小袖, the undergarment) of the Juni Hitoe (十二単) worn by the noble class (公家). Though the Juni Hitoe developed from Ruqun, they were totally different in terms of appearance, cutting and method of wearing, and thus the Juni Hitoe can be considered an original Japanese creation. Obiage and obijime were created and used only when the obi of the Kimono became wider during the Edo and Meiji period.] (]) 02:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
**For me it's very difficult to see how the costume she is wearing is "put together" in this picture especially the portion with the sash and rope at the waist. To my limited understanding, such elements also existed in Chinese garb. With the similarities that exist in region's costume and the fact that the photo shoot featured various other new fangled "Traditional Chinese" type garments, isn't it hard to definitively say that this drees here is indeed a kimono? ] (]) 21:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

*It's definitely a Kimono (though it's more of a "cosplay Kimono").
http://www.pbase.com/pcwing/jess_sum

1) The sleeve opening is sewn together below the wrist (with no sleeve cuff).

2) The collar is the same colour as the clothing.

3) Hanfu belts/sashes are never that wide. They also don't have so many "ornaments" on them.

4) A ohashori fold can be seen below the obi.

] (]) 09:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


:yeah, it's kinda tricky since the uploader cut off half of the picute. --] (]) 06:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

:Oh cool :) Thanks for the correction. ] (]) 14:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

:If it helps I tagged it as a kimono when categorising it at Commons, though someone else decided it was hanfu. That said its probably a costume created by TVB's costume department rather then a proper kimono (hence the cosplay comment) or hanfu.] (]) 00:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

== Addition of Ming Dynasty Hanfu ==
I am planning to add a section on Ming Dynasty Hanfu, as there has been a lot of research work done on Ming Dynasty Hanfu, which includes artifacts and drawings from Ming Dynasty, and good quality Ming-styled Hanfu made by Hanfu activists, as in here: http://photobucket.com/hanfu
] (]) 12:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

: GREAT!! i will fully support this kind of involvements. --] (]) 06:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

:!! we should detail each dynasty's unique Hanfu and the photos in the album is beautiful --] (]) 06:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

*I need some help with posting the new section and pictures. Some of the pictures have watermarks (especially the Hanfu made by Hanfu shops), and I have no idea how to upload the pictures to wiki. ] (]) 08:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

*I have added the new section, along with pictures in the gallery. ] (]) 14:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


:I think most of your picture are infringing copyrights, just try to find out who the authors are and fill in the image summary. also some of old Ming portrait that you added are expired in copyright so it's good but follow the example of this image and fill in the correct descriptions . http://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Gu_Hongzhong%27s_Night_Revels_1.jpg --] (]) 20:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

:I will help you fill in the summary of old portraits --] (]) 20:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

: Supersentai, you did good but you upload alot of your pictures that does not really improve the article such as artifacts of Ming dynasty where the quality is unclear. Also the pictures you uploaded, well, let's say it's not good looking, we need more "artistic“ ones. btw you know tang dynasty clothing?--] (]) 22:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

*I suggest that we give each different style of hanfu its own stub, like this: ]. This way, we can add more images for each style of hanfu, because it is really difficult to list more styles of hanfu or describe each style in greater detail with restrictions on number of images. ] (]) 16:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

: we could certainly do that =] that would be great !! should make like "List of Hanfu clothing" or "list of Han chinese clothing" or list of ming dynasty clothing? your choice --] (]) 16:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

*'List of Han Chinese clothing' would be good enough. Can you help me to make the change? I know nothing about starting an article/stub. By the way, I think yuanlingshan and panling lanshan can be under the same stub, since there is almost no difference between them.] (]) 16:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

:sure! i will made the artical --] (]) 16:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

:Hey i made the artical, please check it out here ]. --] (]) 17:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

*I removed the Song Dynasty section from the new article, because some of the information are wrong. In fact, there is very little differences between Song and Ming clothings. Most of Song clothings continued into Ming Dynasty. Can you help me to make stubs for each individual style of Hanfu? Thanks.] (]) 00:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

== Ruqun discussion ==

Please join in the discussion at ruqun ]. ] (]) 01:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

== External links update: ==

With all due respect to fellow editors, I just did some update to the external links:

1. deleted hanfu.org link, which is now dead
2. added hanfu.info link, which is an English hanfu Han Chinese Clothing blog.

PLUS, I propose to remove china-cart.com link, which is a advertise link.
also check the thinkquest.org link, which is down for now.

Let me know if you don't agree these changes. -- liuyiwp

== Sinosphere and Hanfu ==
The source cited to back the causal relationship between the concept of Sinosphere and Hanfu specifically refers to state-formation and makes no mention of clothing. Hence, this claim for the moment should be considered original research until proper evidence is provided. ] (]) 00:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

:Done removed! unless someone disagrees --] (]) 02:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hanbok: the art of Korean clothing
Korea: a historical and cultural dictionary

Neither of these sources support the claim that Hanfu influenced Korean Hanbok. Both only refer to Hanfu as only having influenced "Korean traditional dress", which doesn't necessarily translate into Hanbok, and the latter also doesn't specify direction of influence. Considering tremendous influence nomadic clothings has had on Hanfu, it wouldn't be surprising to find some similarities. ] (]) 02:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

:Alright, then change 'hanbok' to 'Korean traditional dress' then. ] (]) 18:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

::So no disagreement? --] (]) 20:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that "Chinese influence" equates with Hanfu. For instance, Sunny Yang's book points to Chinese influence on Korean official robes, Gwanbok, but other more detailed sources also point out that this Gwanbok style, having originated from western Asia, is foreign to Chinese themselves. ] (]) 03:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Its a pretty neutral statement. Since China have influenced Korea, does that mean that "some" Korean cultures is Chinese? doesn't have any korean uniqueness? If indeed the custom was adopted it (which i highly doubt), it would be modify into Chinese's styles. "...distinctively Tang". :)--] (]) 04:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's accurate to include every single styles that were worn in the so-called "Han Chinese" dynasties are all Hanfu. The official robes adopted by Koreans, for instance, are explicitly said in detailed sources to derive from western Asian cultures, not indigenous styles fashioned by Han Chinese. If, by definition, that Hanfu is any and all clothings popularly worn by Chinese when China is under Chinese rule, then western jeans, suits and dresses could be included in that concept as well. It should be emphasized thus that Chinese influence is not necessarily influence from Hanfu, but rather influence from any styles in China, both indigenous and foreign to Chinese. ] (]) 08:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
: i dont really see the problem i didn't include specific names but a general name "traditional korean clothing" which my source tells me. --] (]) 15:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

As I have pointed out, the sources you refer to specifies foreign styles that Chinese have adopted that are different from indigenous "Han Chinese clothing". "Chinese influence" doesn't equate with "Hanfu influence", since not all that were worn by Chinese were indigenous. ] (]) 00:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
: can you specify where in my source that tells "specifies foreign styles that Chinese have adopted that are different from indigenous "Han Chinese clothing". "Chinese influence" doesn't equate with "Hanfu influence", since not all that were worn by Chinese were indigenous."--] (]) 00:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
: Okay are you kidding me? It's been two days now and you choose to avoid this discussion you've started. It's funny that every time i revert you came but after that you don't. '''AND answer my question above please'''. If you want me to use more '''reliable sources''' then i will. --] (]) 19:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sunny Yang's book refers to official robes of Tang Dynasty that has been used since Silla Dynasty, which are an adopted foreign style for the Han Chinese. Not everything worn in China were "Han Chinese" and hence "Hanfu". I should also point out that Sunny Yang also adheres to the dualistic tradition view of Korean traditional clothing, where she says, "Later, at end of the Three Kingdoms period, the Tang Chinese style was adopted for royal families and nobility as formal wear, while Korean traditional clothes were worn as everyday wear." ] (]) 00:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
: It's a fact and true that not everything worn in China are han clothing. I don't call it hanfu, preferbably Han clothing. In Valerie Steele 's encyclopedia of clothing and fashion. she stated "The woman's hanbok in contrast, is probably derived from a tang dynasty women's fashion for high-waisted dresses worn with a short jacket( or from a later Chinese revival of that Tang style)." This argues continueing effect of Tang style on Hanbok. And according to this Levinson David 's Modern Asia Volume 2, citing informations of from "Lee Hun-jung. (1989) 2000 Years of Korean Costume. Seoul: Ministry of Culture and TourismYang, Sunny. (1997) Hanbok: The Art of Korean Clothing. Elizabeth, NJ: Hollym International.". It stated that "Under the influence of Chinese culture, from the seventh century CE onward the sleeves of Korean jackets and robes became larger and trousers wider. Headdresses and robes were similarly modified." "China's influence on Korean costume became more evident. Korean figurines unearthed from a mideighth century tomb in Kyongju, the capital city of the Shilla kingdom, were depicted in Chinese-style dress. In earlier tomb mural paintings, long jackets with belts at the waist were worn over long, pleated skirts, but the figurines from the Unified Shilla wore skirts over their jackets, a distinctively Tang Chinese style." Becuase i don't have alot of time, you might see me hurrying and unpatient but I'll try to research more on this dallyung or Chinese adopt official robes stuff.--] (]) 15:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If Valerie Steele's account means that the Tang style had lasting effect, then her view is a minority unrepresentative of scholarly consensus. Even one of the websites you've introduced clearly distinguishes Tang style as "completely different from Korean hanbok" and "no longer in practice", calling the style exotic and strange. The same website also introduces Gwanbok(dallyeong) as having originated from Central Asia, Levinson doesn't clearly state which aspect of "Chinese culture" had influenced Korean costume and whether the influence was a lasting one. Chinese culture by then was already heavily influenced by foreign culture, particularly Tang Dynasty. It is widely known that Korean nobles and royals wore Han Chinese style clothings from Silla to Koryo Dynasty, but as I've pointed out with Sunny Yang's example, most see this as having been a separate trend from that of Hanbok.

What you seem to fail to grasp is that indigenous styles of Chinese clothing were not the only trends in East Asia. While the Japanese kimono, a one piece clothing similar to Hanfu, may have been influenced enough to be worth mentioning, Korean hanbok, consisting of two pieces, is completely different. Even if there was any influence, it was insignificant to begin with, and to point out this "influence" unilaterally without contrasting information ultimately distorts the general truth that Korean Hanbok is a tradition alienated from Hanfu that is much closer to other stylistic lineages in East Asia, such as the nomadic styles. In other words, inserting a passage saying that a completely different type of clothing has had influence on Hanbok only misinforms readers with an erroneous impression, and doing so only serves the political agenda of establishing the ideology of Sinosphere or Chinese nationalism by any means necessary, the point of view in which everything in East Asia "must have originated from Han Chinese". ] (]) 21:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
:First, i didn't introduce that link, CB did. Also you're one mad theorist. If you keep on going on with your theory then it will probably sparks negative responses from viewers. I don't want to mention any Korean-centric stuffs here , so please clothing discussion only.--] (]) 02:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, did you say ''my theory''? It's widely mentioned in reliable sources that Hanbok and Hanfu are different and not related. It is explicitly stated even in the site CB provided, which is by the way the "official" site of Korean culture hosted by the Korean Ministry of Culture and Sports. I don't think it's a stretch to interpret the persistence by some to have Hanbok embroiled in this article, the only "missing piece" in the Chinese nationalistic conception of the Sinosphere, as ideologically driven. ] (]) 00:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

:Okay i get your points and you didn't get mine, there is no need to throw in your "theory" of "political agenda" and etc. Now please zip your mouth about that k? It's not related and Sinophere was removed. --] (]) 01:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

== Yoon Ji-won's source as requested ==

{{cite journal|url=http://ocean.kisti.re.kr/IS_mvpopo212L.do?cn1=JAKO200617033616779&poid=kna&method=download |author=Yoon, Ji-Won |title=Research of the Foreign Dancing Costumes: From Han to Sui-Tang Dynasty |publisher=The Korean Society of Costume|volume=56 |pages=57-72 |date=2006}}

Here, I'm opening the thread since I've been asked to verify Yoon Ji-won's source. On the other day, I just skimmed through the source, so I obviously missed the mention of "]". I can confirm that what {{User|Cydevil38}} claim is true, at least regarding ], and influences of Central Asian clothing on Chinese clothing. However, Cydevil38 should've provided exact page numbers, urls, or ISBN or ISSN, and all other necessary information when he added it. The source consists of scanned texts, so there is no way for non-Korean editors like {{User|LLTimes}} can scrap or rely on translation tools to check the source. I spent a great deal of time for this reading the source, and typing the pertinent passage. However, I have no time for translating them, so Cydevil38, please translate them to end the dispute.

{| class="wikitable collapsed collapsible"
!Due to the copyright law, the whole quotation is hidden
|-
|4. 半袖衣 (반수의)
漢族의 의복 양식은 몸을 깊이 감싸고, 우임을 특징으로 하는데 비하여 반수의 형태는 목둘레를 깊이 파서 가슴이 노출되는 것이 있어서 관두의형이 있는가 하면 좌임인 것도 있어서 한족의 전통적인 복장 양식과 상치되는 것이 많다. 타림분지, 그 중에서도 특히 호탄에서는 반수의를 많이 착용하였다.5)

隋唐代 여자들은 小袖의 襦 위에 長裙을 입었으나 유 위에 소매가 짧은 덧옷을 입기도 하였다. 無袖衣 또는 반수의는 半袖, 半臂, 背子 등의 여러 가지 명칭으로 불렸다. 原田淑人은 "배자와 반비는 동일한 것이다....배자는 중국 고유의 복제가 아니라 쿠차, 호탄 등 서역에서 행해진 것이 東漸한 것 같다"고 하였다. 반수의의 착용과 더불어 나타나는 신체의 노출현상 즉 목둘레선을 깊게 파서 가슴이 드러나는 것도 역시 호풍으로 나타나는 것이다. 유혜영은 '당의 복식에 나타나는 관능미의 표현이 실크로드를 통해 동점해 온 외래요소로서, 불상에 보이는 관능적 표현이 중국 복식 문화에 노출과 관능의 요소를 긍정적으로 수용할 수 있는 배경이 되었으며, 측천무후가 등장하여 섭정을 하게 되는 650-710년간 窄身露胸의 의장이 유행한 것은 측천무후의 개인적 성향과도 관계가 있는 것 6)이라고 하였으며, 실제로 위진남북조대를 거쳐 당대에 이르기까지 불교의 유입, 갈등, 정착 과정과 함께 노출과 밀착양식이 가시화된다.
|-
|
:5) 김소현 실크로드의 복식-호복. (2003년). 앞책, 민속원. p. 239, {{ISBN|8956380791}}
:6) 김소현 실크로드의 복식-호복. (2003년). 앞책, 민속원. p. 235-240, {{ISBN|8956380791}}
|-
|Yoon, Ji-won(윤지원) - obtained her bachelor, master, Ph.D degrees in fashion design from ]. Currently a visiting professor at the same school.
|-
|Kim, So-hyeon (김소현) - obtained her bachelor, master, Ph.D degrees in clothing and textile from ]. As of 2005, Kim served as a professor of Baehwa Woman's University. 이화여대 의류직물학과를 졸업하고, 동 대학원에서 박사 학위를 받았다. 이탈리아 피렌체대학교 복식학교의 초청 연구원을 역임했다. 2005년 현재 배화여대 교수로 재직 중이다. 지은 책으로 <호복-실크로드의 복식> 등이 있다.
|}
--] 04:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

: Thanks CB for wasting so much time between both of us. I think i can get a glimpse of what the above "will" say, a confident confirm from you is pretty much enough. Normally, I wouldn't trouble people to go that far as to confirm their sources for me, mainly because i doubt the claims that he was adding. On the Beizi (背子) part, a normal person who know Chinese would know the meaning of it. There are two meanings of the word but in this context, Beizi means a "coat" or something that you wear outside, but so is ''banbi''. So it's right to call them both beizi as both of them are similar to "]". However, It would be better not to do so as there are a lot more clothing that might be consider beizi. Banbi and Beizi in it's ancient definition might be referring to two different items. It was known more as Banxiu (半袖) than beizi and there are no other sources *i presume* mention banbi as "beizi". Both banxiu and banbi is mostly used. By the way, why does Cydevil love to include foreign influences on other clothing but angry when someone puts the tag on his stuff haha. Kidding aside (the sources i used in banbi page also mention Han clothings' influence on hanbok and it specifically say 韩装 but whatever). Anyway Thanks Cas.--] (]) 05:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

==Zhiduo/zhishen ==

The link needs to redirect to Zhiduo_Clothing, not the disambig page, I would do it myself, but couldn't figure out how without listing _Clothing in the link. Actually this applies to half the clothing items on the page.] (]) 03:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

link as in ]? ] (]) 06:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

::Done ] (]) 09:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

==Beware==
This article had been hackled by pro Ming-philes from ]] region whom have a strong ], editors should take note, because their standpoint of protaying themseleves as victims can be very dangerous and absurd for argument they went into.

p.s: I am not a Manchu.<span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

You don't need to mention this. Misplaced Pages has told us to write ]. And I don't think those editors from ]] region means they are probably pro Ming-philes. Instead, such a kind of remind might be considered as a discrimination to those who is living in such region. ] (]) 17:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

== Requested move ==
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
:''The following discussion is an archived discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ]. No further edits should be made to this section. ''

The result of the move request was: '''Move'''. ] (]) 20:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

----
] → {{no redirect|Hanfu}} – The article ought to be moved to the proper title "Hanfu", which is the name by which the topic is most-commonly known. Currently, this article uses an unnecessary descriptive title, which was decided about 9 years ago. Googlebooks vs / JSTOR vs / Ngram -- ] (]) 00:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

*'''Support''' - per sources, but also since the modern sounding "Han Chinese clothing" suggests to me at least some kind of comparison of modern Han Chinese fashions and marketing to modern minorities (who may wear headcoverings for example). ] (]) 01:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

*'''Support''' with redirect from old title. ]]]<small><sup><i>(])</i></sup></small> 04:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

*'''Support''' per nom and ]. The current title is ambiguous. — ] 20:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a ]. No further edits should be made to this section.</div><!-- Template:RM bottom -->

== About the Xuanduan: Is it a robe? ==

I was heard that to show respect to the tradition, the Xuanduan is designed to be ruqun (I mean, Xuanduan is a set of blouse, skirt and other accessories, not a robe). Even the length of the blouse is stated to be 2.2 ], or about 73.5cm. That should never been considered as a robe. Reference page is http://baike.baidu.com/view/210648.htm, but that might not be so reliable... However in this article, it is stated as a robe. I am looking for further investigation. If someone knows more about that, please tell me. ] (]) 17:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

== Leading photo selection ==

Recently there are some conflicts on choosing the article leading photos. I think ] is better than ]. Althought the first one is not the photo about famous people in history, it is lively and can show what modern Hanfu looks like. This is more meaningful than using ancient pictures. I think the better place the second one is the "history" chapter. What do you guys think? --<b>]</b> 14:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
<gallery>
File:Hanfu man and lady.jpg
File:Jin Wu Di.jpg
</gallery>
:The clothing depicted in the painting by ] "]" looks detailed and complex, and you can see many elements of Hanfu on the people's cloth (including headgears, belts, shoes, etc.). It is a far more sophisticated illustration.
:The ] looks more like two people going to a ] party. Yes, if the photo is well-taken or the clothing they are wearing is interesting, then that's another story. But the picture is simply of two random people, and the clothing they are wearing I'm afraid looks like they bought it at a costume shop. Not to mention the anachronistic accessories (backpack, hat, the shoes, etc.). Anyhow, I moved them to the gallery.--] (]) 01:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

::It's unnecessary to use so called "complex and detailed" pictures. In addition, Hanfu today has huge differences from Hanfu in thousands years ago. This article talks about Hanfu, not about history, so it is better to use pictures in modern ages which can show what Hanfu currently looks like. Hanfu is not a history remaining, it's still alive. It's okay that people in the pictures are random people if they can show the feature of Hanfu. In addtion, ] and ] can be purchased from a custome shop as well and there are many pictures of random people in those two articles, do you think we should turn them into ancient paintings? Finally, I cannot understand why you think they are in a cosplay party, there are some parties for Hanfu lovers in China especially on some traditional festivals, maybe you should learn something about that.--<b>]</b> 12:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

:::It would be better if someone used a photo of a photo without the modern day hats, leather boots, and sportsbag. It makes it look like those modern-day accessories are part of a typical hanfu (modern or not) -- at least for men. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 11:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::::The modern hat, backpack and boots spoil the photo. ] (]) 14:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
:::::Based on the discussion, I have switched back the lead photo for the article. Someone's Moving Castle, if you think another modern Hanfu photo (preferably without modern accessories) is more suitable for the infobox, we can then discuss it here.--] (]) 14:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

== Images ==

There seems to be a bombardment of images, and not in a useful way. There needs to be some tidying up, cutting out of some less than appropriate images and some general reworking. Someone with some time and effort might want to make all the sections look at least consistent with each other in style and layout. --] ] 23:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

== Hanfu is a "non-academic, non-official noun to define" blablabla ==

What's with this fluff?

Firstly, hanfu is the common name. Unless this "non-academic, non-official" nonsense is reliably verifiable and is the consensus among academic sources, this is just original research. Secondly, this article's topic is about the clothing and NOT about a dictionary entry (i.e. a noun). It is certainly not a suitable and succinct lead sentence, so cite it and put it in a etymology section or something. --] (]) 10:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you. ] did this, he is a shit rubbish.--] (]) 07:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

== Severe Violations of Neutrality ==

As some users have noticed, this article contains severe violations of neutrality. I understand that there are people in opposition with Hanfu activists' ideas, but that does not justify the violations in which "Hanfu" is defined as a merely historical dress (since the definition of Hanfu is still controversial, yet the current Wiki's definition does not reflect the supporters' idea at all). The article also makes almost no reference to the Manchurian genocide in China; it is absurd to say that most Han Chinese people wore Manchurian attire by their free wills. As a matured traditional dress, Hanfu has a highly sophisticated structure; however, the zhiju in the photo is not consistent with such structures. The article also does not talk about the movement in which Han Chinese people attempt to recover their traditional dress since the downfall of the Manchurian Qing Empire.

Therefore, I hereby suggest to KEEP ALL THE OPPOSITE IDEAS in which Hanfu is defined as merely a historical dress and all the relevant citations. However, I would add the photos in which modern Chinese people wear Hanfu and the sources defining Hanfu as a traditional dress, in historical context or from contemporary perspectives. I would also adding sources verifying the Manchurian killings (e.g. the accounts on the massacres in Jiangyin) and the appeals for the revival of Hanfu since the beginning of the 20th century (e.g. the Hanfu with the character "Han" wore by Zhang Taiyan). Finally, I strongly advice to change the photo in the infobox (we can also keep the photos in which Chinese wore Hanfu in the past in the article's body. --] 9:17, 23 December 2016

:Of course, it's a traditional dress. Still, therein lies the problem... What's the authenticity of the hanfu as depicted in the images of modern Chinese people, because it's still a traditional clothing and thus has a historical foundation of development. To me, I like to see a indication of that authenticity and foundation rather than just modern representations of home-made tailoring trail-and-error and messing around.

:A propos, are "Hanfu activists" a good authority on that subject? I like to wager that most are not schooled or trained for it, and thus the likelihood for inauthenticity (of what's supposed to be traditional) rises. --] (]) 20:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

::{{AGREE}} ] is the person who caused these eventsthat those contents. I checked all ] did in Hanfu. He was canceled many ] of the Manchurian conquer of Ming deliberately, and try to make Hanfu a "Internet made clothes". I don't know why ] did it. ] start to puthis own thoughts into the article from 22/10/2016. I'm sorry to say that, but I have to say. In support of his opinion, he pinged the “third party” and professional wiki editor to only satisfy his purpose, and he disguised himself as an innocent victim to deceive the “third party”.--] (]) 20:26, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

== Please don't edit content farm sources to this page ==

Baidu Tieba, blogs and kknews are obviously not reliable sources (please read ]). Also "However, some Han and Manchurian scholars didn't support it, and try to start offsetting the revival of Hanfu in an academic way." is not ]. --] (]) 08:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you. But what I cared is that you can just cancel the content farm sources, not the whole article. And why couldn't you find the reliable sources for Hanfu? I checked all you did in Hanfu. You were canceled many facts and links of the Manchurian conquer of Ming deliberately, and try to make Hanfu a "Internet made clothes". I don't know why you did it. You start to put your own thoughts into the article from 22/10/2016. I'm sorry to say that, but I have to say.--] (]) 09:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

:The only thing matters is that you are the one who has been editing unreliable sources to this page YET you know exactly they are from content farm. You seems to know the law but break it anyway. Also the contents I have edited to this page are all related to reliable sources. Please stop making false accusation. You are the one who is "putting your own thoughts into the article". --] (]) 09:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I will find what you did so horrible. wait.--] (]) 10:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

<nowiki>Just likes other Chinese words which have ''"Han"'' such as ''"Hanzi<nowiki>'''' (the ]) and ''<nowiki>''Hanyu''</nowiki>'' (the ]), when an old dynasty was perished, the new dynasty would also use the name of ''''Han'''' to continuing the ]''.''<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://120.101.70.2/history/history1/newpage617.htm|title=天命思想|website=120.101.70.2|access-date=2017-12-12}}</ref> After four thousand years of development, Hanfu became the national costume of the whole ].<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://kknews.cc/zh-tw/culture/bgbp4m.html|title=漢族有民族服裝嗎？有！漢服，即華夏衣冠，是漢民族的傳統服飾|access-date=2017-12-12|language=zh-tw}}</ref> <nowiki/>

*The article "天命思想" has nothing to do with "hanfu";
*"漢族有民族服裝嗎？有！漢服，即華夏衣冠，是漢民族的傳統服飾" is from kknews, a well-known Chinese content farm;

<nowiki>In the 1644 ], the historical clothes of the ] worn up to the end.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://kknews.cc/zh-tw/culture/aoyj99x.html|title=恥辱？漢服是這麼消失的！|access-date=2017-12-12|language=zh-tw}}</ref> The prior Hanfu was prohibited by the ], and ] people were imposed to change their national clothes into Manchurian clothing style called ].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.zhihu.com/question/25531199|title=清军入关后为何要汉人剃发易服？ - 知乎|website=www.zhihu.com|language=zh|access-date=2017-12-12}}</ref>
<nowiki/>

*"恥辱？漢服是這麼消失的！" is also from kknews.
*清军入关后为何要汉人剃发易服？ is from zhihu known as "Chinese Quora".

According to website of ] which the Chinese government has been admitted officially, ''Hanfu a clothing system include various styles of clothing during the Han, Tang, Song, and Ming dynasties in their respective time periods.''</nowiki><ref name="华梅2007">华梅《汉服堪当中国人的国服吗？》，〈人民日报海外版〉，2007-06-14</ref><ref name="Zhang2009">{{Cite web|url=http://www.cnki.com.cn.dincheng.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZQNZ200904016.htm|title="汉服运动":互联网时代的种族性民族主义--《中国青年政治学院学报》2009年04期|accessdate=2005-09-01|author=|date=2016-08-04}}</ref><ref name="carrico">Kevin Carrico, </ref><nowiki/>

*"According to website of Baidu Baike which the Chinese government has been admitted officially" ];
*the article "汉服运动":互联网时代的种族性民族主义 doesn't mention a thing about "the Chinese government admit the definition of Hanfu from Baidu Baike.

<nowiki>Qian Wenzhong (钱文忠), a professor of ], awarded two students who wore Hanfu in the name of the ] on a TV show called <nowiki>''Chengyu Yingxiong (成语英雄)''</nowiki>, and thank them for the efforts to rejuvenate traditional culture.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://tieba.baidu.com/p/2725507412?red_tag=1271061164|title=【图片】《成语英雄》复旦大学教授钱文忠鼓励支持汉服爱好者的华夏梦！！【明朝吧】_百度贴吧|website=tieba.baidu.com|access-date=2017-12-12}}</ref><nowiki/>

*] is a Chinese communication platform.

However, some Han and Manchurian scholars didn't support it, and try to start offsetting the revival of Hanfu in an academic way.<nowiki/>

*]]

The only content from a reliable source can be keep is:

<nowiki>In 2008, 100 scholars suggested that <nowiki>''Hanfu should be used as the national dress of China and debuted in the ].'' In the end, Hanfu haven't been the national dress of China, it still be abundantly displayed in ].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://news.qq.com/a/20070405/000062.htm|title=百名学者倡议汉服为北京奥运礼仪服装(组图)_滚动新闻_新闻_腾讯网|website=news.qq.com|access-date=2017-12-12}}</ref></nowiki>


--] (]) 09:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
{{talkref}}

== About ].... ==

With a heavy heart I have to say... ] were canceled many facts and links of the Manchurian conquer of Ming deliberately, and try to make Hanfu a "Internet made clothes". You guys can check all the revision history of ], and you will know what he did. I don't know why he or she did so many his own thoughts into Hanfu. He start to did it from 22/10/2016.--] (]) 09:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

== “Third party“ required ==

{{ping|Kautilya3}} Hello Kautilya, I need your help here. As you can see I’m trying pretty hard to explain to User:冏 that those contents he has been editing to this page are from blogs, content farms, communication platforms and other unreliable sources (as mentioned above). As a “third party” and professional wiki editor, I believe that we can use your help here. —] (]) 13:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
: I am pressed for time at the moment. So I won't get into the discussion. However, I am happy to confirm that only ''published sources'' are ] for Misplaced Pages. Online sources are not not reliable sources in general, unless they come from a reputable publisher/magazine/journal etc. If in doubt, please ask at ] (reliable sources noticeboard). For history, we need more. ] says the sources should be scholarly sources (journals or academic books), and preferably by historians. -- ] (]) 15:43, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

#] 你不需要搬救兵，我已經預料到結果了『我把其他權威的資訊加入，你不服氣，你退回了編輯，我趁機可以會叫你呼叫過的人。』因為現在在英文維基百科上最大的問題是你找了一些荒唐無稽的資料來佐證你的觀點，我完全可以找到更多好的資料。等資料的量足夠了，你就無法繼續這樣專制獨裁下去了。--] (]) 20:10, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

As you can see I’m trying pretty hard to explain to ] that those contents he has been editing to this page are from blogs, content farms, communication platforms and other unreliable sources (as mentioned above). But he does not allow me to do the same thing. I checked all ] did in Hanfu. He was canceled many ] of the Manchurian conquer of Ming deliberately, and try to make Hanfu a "Internet made clothes". I don't know why ] did it. ] start to puthis own thoughts into the article from 22/10/2016. I'm sorry to say that, but I have to say. In support of his opinion, he pinged the “third party” and professional wiki editor to only satisfy his purpose, and he disguised himself as an innocent victim to deceive the “third party”.--] (]) 20:18, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

==Sources for future article expansion==
*
* , including a section on "Chinese National Dress" (ie, Hanfu)
&nbsp;—&nbsp;] 08:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080306210603/http://www.eng.taoism.org.hk/religious-activities%26rituals/rituals/pg4-6-11-4.asp to http://www.eng.taoism.org.hk/religious-activities%26rituals/rituals/pg4-6-11-4.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081205005716/http://www1.chinaculture.org/library/2008-01/28/content_28399.htm to http://www1.chinaculture.org/library/2008-01/28/content_28399.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081205015611/http://www1.chinaculture.org/library/2008-01/28/content_28394.htm to http://www1.chinaculture.org/library/2008-01/28/content_28394.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081205015326/http://www1.chinaculture.org/library/2008-01/28/content_28364.htm to http://www1.chinaculture.org/library/2008-01/28/content_28364.htm
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://classiques.uqac.ca/classiques/doolittle_justus/social_life_chinese_t2/doolittle_sociallife2.do

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 23:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

#Thank you! You are so helpful.--] (]) 11:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

== Hanfu problem... again?==

Do you know the
:『During an interview, an advocate of ] said that: "The word 'Hanfu' is not included in the ]. The definition of 'Hanfu' was, in fact, created by internet users."<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://newsweek.inewsweek.cn/magazine.php?id=3223|title=《「漢服」先鋒》|last=羅|first=雪揮|date=2005-09-05|work=《中國新聞周刊》|accessdate=}}{{dead link|date=October 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref>』
is a broken and useless link? Don't put source which are not allowed.--] (]) 10:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I researched all these sources which you find,
:『In 2003, some people in China has began a movement called the "Hanfu Movement". The advocates of the movement claim that the term "hanfu" only refers to the vanished, pre-17th century historical clothing worn by the Han people. Some research published after 2003 claim that the meaning of Hanfu in the movement is the same from what it was in the historical records,<ref name="李冬青">{{cite journal|title=汉服的文化意義及傳承方式研究|author=李冬青|journal=遼寧絲綢<!-- |accessdate=2014-09-21 -->|issue=|year=2014|volume=2014(2)|pages=18–20 |author2=刘涛}}</ref><ref name ="zhou2012" /> yet scholarly research indicates that the "modern definition of Hanfu" was created on Chinese-language, collaborative, web-based ] ] and Chinese ] ''“hanwang”'' by internet users.<ref name="华梅2007" /><ref name="Zhang2009">{{Cite web|url=http://www.cnki.com.cn.dincheng.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZQNZ200904016.htm|title="汉服运动":互联网时代的种族性民族主义--《中国青年政治学院学报》2009年04期|accessdate=2005-09-01|author=|date=2016-08-04}}</ref><ref name="carrico">Kevin Carrico, </ref>』
but there are NO evidence can prove that Hanfu started at the 2003! So... why did you write the sentences that even didn't exist? Do you have any special attempts?--] (]) 10:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

#First of all, thank you for reporting that there is a broken link.
#Secondly, I have no idea what you are saying, of course those sources don't say anything about "Hanfu started at the 2003". If you were talking about "Hanfu (movement) started at 2003", then I believe that you can find the reference from all of those Chinese sources above. You may also check out Kevin Carrico's work: "From 2003, Han Clothing associations have sprung up, most particularly in coastal cities, but also in the interior."
--] (]) 11:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
##Little baby, No1lovesu, look what you did.... so horrible. You should look at the psychiatrist. I am very sympathetic to you. I hope you will be released and free from hatred. There is not only hatred in your life, but also love. My boy, God bless you.--] (]) 14:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

#{{ping|No1lovesu}}
##Thank you for doing this. It is very good to acknowledge your mistake, please keep it my good boy.
##I have found all your sources, no sentences, no words that appeared "Hanfu started at the 2003". You said "Kevin Carrico's work", so where can I find it? I know you want to do something well, but please say it clearly so everyone can understand! Especially in Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 11:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

#Broken links happen since websites shut down all the time (I believe every internet user knows that), see ]. There is nobody's mistake since this is unlikely that someone in Misplaced Pages is responsible for shutting that website down and cause a "broken and useless link".
#I have already made it very clear that there is NO such reference state that "Hanfu started at the 2003", but "Hanfu (movement) started from 2003".
#I had already quoted Carrico's words and posted the link to his article above clearly. There is no way anyone could miss that.
#I took offense from being called "a good boy". You had my warning. --] (]) 12:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

##You should stop that. You should a apologize to everyone for the thing you did. You created so many fake sources, and say many reasons for it. Your personality is so bad. In this world, especially WIKIPEDIA, you have to follow the rules. But you break it, again and again. OK, I will be first person to interrupt you. How dare you.--] (]) 04:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

== Talk Page reference==
{{reflist}}

== Merger proposal ==

1) Misplaced Pages needs a solid article about Chinese clothing 2) It's obvious that the term Hanfu is a debated term. 3) It seems clear that ']' and 'Hanfu' are talking about topics that are pretty similar. 4) There are some major problems on this page. Therefore, I propose merging the two articles in some way. My first impulse is that everything should go onto the 'Chinese Clothing' page because 'Hanfu' is a technical term that not many English speakers know about. 'Chinese clothing' will include everything worn in China by anybody, regardless of ethnicity. Probably people are going to get angry about this proposal. This may not be the best idea, let me know what you are thinking. I think this process will help us fix the problems on these pages. ] (]) 12:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
:Oppose. This is ethnic-specific topic. --] (]) 20:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
:Oppose. but you may change or stop the Vandalism of user No1lovesu.--] (]) 02:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
:Oppose. Even if the term Hanfu is a modern construction, it's still relevant in the modern day and deserves an article, even though this article needs a lot of work. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Requested move 12 April 2019 ==
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. ''

The result of the move request was: '''page moved'''. ___'']<small>]</small>'' 12:50, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
----


] → {{no redirect|Ancient Chinese clothing}} – For ] and ] I propose changing the title and moving modern Hanfu related materials to the article ]. Using "Hanfu" to refer to the traditional clothing of the Han Chinese is far from universally accepted because of its associations with the nationalistic movement. The overwhelming majority of scholarly articles also avoid this term in favor of neutral terms such as "traditional Chinese garment" or "ancient Chinese clothing". For example, such results of and at JSTOR. ] (]) 06:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
:I opposed a move '''but now support'''. Hanfu refers to the traditional Chinese clothing like ] refers to the traditional Korean clothing. There is only one authentic name that is Hanfu. It literally means: 'Han clothing'. There is no need to change that. It is not "universally accepted" that this term is linked to a "nationalistic movement". This seems more like a ideological motivated move request. The ] is more like a ]. Possibly some members have a nationalistic ideology, but the majority seems to be only fond of the traditional clothing. Similarly in Korea there is the "Hanbok day". It is cultural part of Korea. I think the Hanfu is the same for China. Hanfu should stay Hanfu. Like Hanbok should stay Hanbok.--] (]) 12:15, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
::Also the name "ancient" is not a good term. Hanfu (like Hanbok) is still a used clothing. Also in Japan ] or ] are used clothes. Not to mention the many other traditional clothes of East-Asia, North-Asia and Southeast-Asia. It is part of the culture.--] (]) 12:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
:::I see now that there is more dispute than i thought before. I am not sure if it would be better to merge it with ] and create a own "Han-Chinese section about Hanfu". I still disagree with a move to "ancient Chinese clothing". But I agree that the Article has multiple issues.--] (]) 14:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
::::Yes, the point of this move request is that "Hanfu" is not used in the same way as "Hanbok" or "Kimono". As for why I proposed "ancient Chinese clothing", it is because this page only deals with the Han clothing before the Qing dynasty. The very different styles developed during the Qing and ROC period such as ] or ], which are the only ones still in use today, are not in the scope of this article. "Ancient" may not be the best term but at the moment I can't think of another title. ] (]) 04:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
:::::Yes, i agree. I think it would be a good idea to merge this article (Hanfu) with ] and to overwork or imporve that article. So we would have one article about all traditional clothings of the Han-Chinese (and maybe a subsection about ethnic-minority groups or something, if that is necessary).--] (]) 12:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
::::::Actually I would prefer that there remains a stand-alone article about pre-Qing Han clothing, but merging would still be a huge improvement over its current state so I'm not against that. ] (]) 13:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
:::::::We could also mention the pre-Qing Han clothing (Hanfu) in ] in a own little section and link to a own sub-article. Thus we would have a own article and a small section in the main article. I think that this would be a good idea and is good for the sake of clarity. What do you think about that?--] (]) 19:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
::::::::Agreed. That would have the best clarity. ] (]) 00:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
*<s>'''Oppose'''</s>. The ] for Ancient Chinese clothing is "Hanfu". Some members of the Hanfu movement have sought to appropriate the term "Hanfu" for a specific type of modern clothing, but it doesn't change the generally accepted academic definition of "Hanfu". ] (]) 04:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
::That isn't correct. The use of "Hanfu" for pre-17th century traditional clothing did not exist before 21st century and even now academic publications predominantly use other terms. Evidence is listed in the article and I also linked JSTOR search results above. ] (]) 06:37, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
:::The zhwiki article is entitled 汉服, not 中國朝代服飾. I guess I can '''support''' the move to reduce ambiguity, but not because it is the commonly used term. ] (]) 04:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support ]'''. The current article is a ] which starts off purporting to be about a modern neologism before delving into straight coverage of ancient Chinese clothing. I don't have any strong preferences on exact format but will note that my suggestion is in line with ], ], etc. Tidbits which become no longer relevant as a result of the move can be merged to ] or ] as appropriate. -- ] ] ] ] &spades; 04:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
----
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this ] or in a ]. No further edits should be made to this section.''<!-- Template:RM bottom --></div>

This will eventually need to be moved again. The posters above apparently did not see the discussion about about the inaccuracy of "ancient" in reference to fashions from 100 years ago. If we're not going to use "hanfu" (which is fine: this can be a broader topic), we need to use something inclusive of the medieval and modern eras like "traditional".&nbsp;—&nbsp;] 06:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

== ] is not related to ancient Chinese clothing ==
Please stop adding Korean ] to the list ''other traditional clothing'' that was influenced by ancient Chinese clothing. Please take note of ]. ] originated from a different tradition of clothing style, and has important differences to ancient Chinese clothing. The basic composition of Hanbok is an upper garment, ''jeogori'', and a lower garment, ''baji''. The lower garment, ''baji'', are trousers, introduced to ancient Korea by steppe cultures that is adapted to horse-riding. This style is called ''hu'' clothing in China, which means barbarian clothing, and it was first introduced to China by ], who decided that Chinese clothing was not fit for horse-riding, and adopted clothing of northern nomadic cultures, ''hu'' clothing, for his cavalry forces. Chinese style clothing either consists of a robe without pants or uses skirts as the slower garment. This distinction is clearly made in this very article, where it says Han Chinese use skirts called ''chang'', and Manchu use pants called ''ku''. Japanese ] is an example of clothing that is stylistically related to traditional Chinese clothing, which consists of either a piece of robe or a two-piece garment with the lower garment being a skirt. If you wish to add some traditional Korean clothing, please add a valid type of clothing based on reliable sources and common sense. By common sense, I mean confusing a clothing style that uses trousers and a clothing style that uses skirts. I think a good candidate is ] to mention as a type of traditional Korean clothing related to traditional Chinese clothing. According to the Encylopedia of Korean Culture, ''dopo'' is a type of overcoat commonly wore by Confucians during Joseon dynasty. It originated from the Buddhist monk clothing ''jangsam'', which itself came from China, reflecting China's climate and clothing style. ] (]) 14:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:38, 23 September 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hanfu article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 6 months 
This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconChina High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconFashion High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

is Hanfu really modern chinese traditional dress??

Baizerman, Suzanne, Joanne B. Eicher, and Cathleen Cerny. "Eurocentrism in the Study of Ethnic Dress." Dress 20 (1993): 19–32. Blumer, Herbert. "Collective Behavior." In An Outline of the Principles of Sociology. Edited by Robert Park. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1939. Boas, Franz. "The Social Organization and the Secret Societies of the Kwakiutl Indians." Report of the U.S. National Museum for 1895. Washington, D.C.: U.S. National Museum, 1897. Ellwood, Charles. An Introduction to Social Psychology. New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1918. Frater, Judy. "Rabari Dress." In Mud, Mirror, and Thread: Folk Traditions in Rural India. Edited by Nora Fisher. Santa Fe: Museum of New Mexico Pres; Ahmedabad: Mapin, 1993. Freeman, Richard. Travels and Life in Ashanti and Jaman. New York: Frederick A. Stokes Co., 1898. Harrold, Robert, and Phylidda Legg. Folk Costumes of the World. London: Cassell Academic Press, 1999. Hendrikson, Carol. Weaving Identities: Construction of Dress and Self in a Highland Guatemala Town. Austin: University of Texas, 1995. Kennett, Frances. Ethnic Dress. New York: Facts on File, 1995. Lentz, Carola. "Ethnic Conflict and Changing Dress Codes: A Case Study of an Indian Migrant Village in Highland Ecuador." In Dress and Ethnicity. Edited by Joanne B. Eicher. Oxford: Berg, 1995. Mera, H. P. Navajo Women's Dresses. General Series Bulletin No. 15. Santa Fe, N.M.: Laboratory of Anthropology, 1944. Sapir, Edward. "Fashion." In Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Vol. 6. New York: Macmillan, 1931. Sumberg, Barbara. "Dress and Ethnic Differentiation in the Niger Delta." In Dress and Ethnicity. Edited by Joanne Eicher. Oxford: Berg, 1995. Tarrant, Naomi. The Development of Costume. London: Routledge, 1994. Underhill, Ruth. The Navajos. Norman: University of Oklahoma, 1956. Weir, Shelagh. Palestinian Costume. Austin: University of Texas, 1989. Welters, Linda. "Introduction." In Folk Dress in Europe and Anatolia. Edited by Linda Welters. Oxford: Berg, 1999. Westermarck, Edward. Marriage Ceremonies in Morocco. London: Macmillan and Co., Ltd., 1914. Wilcox, R. Turner. Folk and Festival Costume of the World. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1965.



according to reference like upward, Hanfu is not traditional dress of modern china. their revived Hanfu is like roman Toga and greek Kiton . accordinf to definition of tradition. Hanfu is nor traditional dress of modern chinese. 175.213.48.82 (talk) 05:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Hanfu is the traditional clothing of the Han Chinese, because they are 100% restored according to the clothing of the ancients 63.157.97.218 (talk) 21:37, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
according to your funny logic, hanbok is not the traditional dress of south Korea, since south korea was established in 1948. It has nothing to do with Ancient Korea. 63.157.97.218 (talk) 22:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The word 'Hanfu' didn't even exist before 2000. It's a made up 'modern word' by Chinese government's cultural propaganda. Plus, what is transitional clothing? Doesn't it mean continued generation to generation? Clothes that Chinese people call 'Hanfu' is forgotten and discontinued clothing at least hundreds years ago. So how Chinese revived so called Hanfu? Easy. Good references were there. Korean Hanbok and Japanese Kimono. 199.175.128.1 (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
It’s even funnier to use western materials to talk about Chinese culture. Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece have perished, but China has always existed. 63.157.97.218 (talk) 22:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
It is very likely that those sources are outdated by many decades. Back in the days, there were not much critical studies of non- American/European clothing. This was reflected in the literature of that time when authors did not see non-Western countries as having fashion and believed that non-Western (traditional) clothing was static and unchanged with time, which was itself a bias view on clothing, apparel, jewelleries, garments of others non-American/European people. Because they were not familiar with the clothing of others, they could not neither observe nor record differences in fashion. For them, traditional clothing became something static when it was not.
Hanfu cannot be compared with the roman toga and the greek kiton; the ancient greeks and romans are old civilization which do not exist anymore. Same with ancient Egypt, the ancient Egypt civilization does not exist. Chinese civilization is remains one of the oldest civilization with a continuous history; hanfu still existed in the 20th century but showed a decline at last from the mid-20th century. The early 21st century shows a progressive return to popularity. As such, hanfu has never ceased to exist. Hanfu also falls in the Webster's Third International Dictionary definition, "an inherited or established way of thinking, feeling or doing: a cultural feature preserved or evolved from the past" . Regardless of how the forms, styles, fashion have changed with time and socio-historical contexts , it still follows an established way of thinking, feeling, and doing, being a cultural feature which has been preserved and evolved from the past. Gyuligula2 (talk) 12:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Exactly, you admitted. 'Hanfu' is a modern word that didn't even exist before 2000. It was created by Government led cultural operation. The question is why it is different from Roman Toga and Greek Kiton while Chinese has stopped wearing their old clothes for at least hundreds years? 199.175.128.1 (talk) 20:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Traditional dress may be defined as the ensemble of garments, jewelry, and accessories rooted in the past that is worn by an identifiable group of people. Though slight changes over time in color, form, and material are acknowledged, the assemblage seems to be handed down unchanged from the past.Traditional dress or costume is a phrase used widely both by the general public and writers on dress.

It conjures up images of rural people dressed in colorful, layered, exotic clothing from an idealized past in some faraway place. This notion of traditional dress has been scrutinized and found inadequate by many researchers and scholars, but its uncritical use continues into the twenty-first century.

"traditional costume." In Webster's Third International Dictionary, tradition is defined as "an inherited or established way of thinking, feeling or doing: a cultural feature preserved or evolved from the past" (1993, p. 2422; italics by author).

Often made in the family for personal use, traditional dress uses materials commonly available where the maker lives. These materials and styles are often assumed to have evolved in response to environments-wool in cold climates, cotton in warm. But traditional dress often also incorporates imported materials obtained by trade. Exotic fabrics or notions can be incorporated into a people's dress and become "traditional," as Indian madras has for the Kalabari Ijo of the Niger Delta. Although no one knows where it originated, a print cloth called ondoba, said to have arrived with the Portuguese in the fifteenth century, "belongs" to the Nembe Ijo of the Niger Delta. 


The word "tradition" refers to an old culture that has been passed down to the present, because it is difficult to see that Hanfu is already a tradition the moment you substitute this word. A tradition is called a tradition if it has been passed on for at least three generations from the old days, and it can be recognized as a tradition if there are no interruptions or forgotten things in the middle. This similar concept is also used for UNESCO World Heritage listing. No matter how much they restore the lost Tang music, it cannot become a World Intangible Heritage. Even though relics excavated from tombs in the past are restored, restoration or re-creation does not conform to the concept of tradition. The form of hanfu they speak of differs from dynasty to dynasty, and it is not known how the masses wore it or how it was made.

Thats why,does not conform to the concept of tradition.

For example, it can be seen that the traditional clothing of modern Italy and Greece is different from the toga of ancient Rome and Greece. In other words, Italy and Greece do not define traditional culture that has been passed down to the present by excavating ancient relics that have not been worn until modern times, restoring what the ancient Romans wore, and wearing them. Even if the ancient Egyptians are unearthed and worn by modern Egyptians, they cannot be their traditional attire. In fact, the traditional clothing of the Egyptians is only recognized as the traditional clothing worn by the Egyptians in Galabe. In case of Hanfu, there is no evidence like photo and other record to proove that Chinese people had have worn Hanfu in modern periods

Citations about Influencing other Cultural Dress

I just checked the citation regarding Hanbok being influenced by Hanfu—the one from the National History Museum of Korea in its issu digitized magazine form.

I understand many nationalists from China, Korea, and really whatever other country’s cultural dress is in question get riled up and HEATED about this discussion on origin. Regardless, I must point out that having actually read the magazine no where in it does it support the claim Hanbok was influenced by or descended or associated with etc etc. with Hanfu.

I’m sure there’s a credible English source out there somewhere that acknowledges connection or influence from Hanfu. But nowhere in the Hanbok section is China or any Chinese dynasties even mentioned. Ergo, this citation is pointless, it does not support the assertion made. Should the citation be removed or some sort of tag placed indicating the need of a stronger citation? It’s kind of like no one actually read the magazine. I feel like this also prompts a round of review on the other citations for clarity. Hopefully they all support what is being said in the article as written, but it is clear the current source for Hanbok is insufficient. Maybe some fashion studies journal article about Hanfu/Hanbok would have the line needed? 2601:14D:8600:2E30:254A:11FA:7FF0:C116 (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Categories: