| Revision as of 20:21, 20 March 2007 editSkookum1 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled89,945 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 11:53, 24 December 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,351,794 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 2 WikiProject templates. (Fix Category:WikiProject banners with redundant class parameter)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion | ||
| (175 intermediate revisions by 25 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{talkheader}} | {{talkheader}} | ||
| {{WikiProject banner shell| | |||
| {{WikiProject China}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Disambiguation}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{archive box|auto=long}} | |||
| == Vandalism == | |||
| User Empiredragon was responsible for putting profanity in this article and messing up the title. How do I put the title back on it from before, which is 'chinaman'? Thanks. | |||
| == inappropriate edits == | |||
| ] 00:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| This is a disambiguation page. See ]. Unsourced edits adding POV motivated text to the page is inappropriate. Given the wider context detailed in this report, http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&action=edit§ion=18 , such edits may be seen as disruptive. ] (]) 15:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Origin of term == | |||
| == Cherrypicking cherrypicking dictionaries == | |||
| When was this term first used? | |||
| First of all I am new here and I apologize for the newbie mistakes I made earlier. I hope what I am doing now is in compliance with the practice of this board. If not, your suggestion and comments are greatly appreciated. ] (]) 19:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :It's not documented so far as I know; it was the generic term for a Chinese person by the early 1800s, and the word "Chinese" was more of an adjective to refer to objects and state and culture etc. It may have originated in sailor pidgin, or a derivation of Chinese-English pidgin's variation on "Chinese", i.e. "Chinee". So as with Frenchman, Dutchman etc. there is a natural form in English for the "Chinese-man", which with the pidgin form becomes Chinee-man, and so contracted to "chinaman". It remains the word - for both people and in the adjectival sense - in many Northwest Plateau and Coastal languages, from Ktunaxa to Tshilhqot'in, but does not have a derogatory sense (as indeed in English for a long time, and still so in some areas, i.e. not derogatory). | |||
| IMHO, dictionaries are far better source and authority on information when it comes to the use of words than any he-say-she-says. If dictionaries were not to be trusted, a significant percentage of Wiki contents would have to be removed or revised because their information are based on dictionaries one way or the other, in which case what do the readers have left to believe when it comes the use of words? Believe the posters/admins of this board? How can we assert that we are superior than the linguistics who edited Webster, Oxford and so on? Therefore any claims that the dictionaries are " all written "off each other" " are serious charges which warrant backing of concrete evidences. The only possible way out of this difficulty seems to be discrediting the dictionary ONLY on the part on Chinaman, which may be called "Cherrypicking cherrypicking dictionaries" :-) ] (]) 19:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :I used to think an alternative origin might be in the Chinook Jargon; where the country/concept+man formation is common (Boston man, King George man, Dutchman; nb if man+{concept} it means the male of something.); but the term was in use in California during its gold rush, and appears to have originated by usage in maritime English, which was spread to the American West and British Columbia via ships' crews; it might be certainly at that time (1780s-1790s) that it first entered the native languages of the North American Coast; but I can't speak for its date of provenance on the Atlantic Seaboard or in England; I would image it was pre-extant when Australia was settled, as it's very old. I have heard of one place in northern BC named for a (wait for it) "John Chinaman", who supposedly was an Englishman whose family had made their fortune in the China trade, or dealing china anyway, or making it or something; political correctness has renamed a lake named after him as Chinese Lake, because of the modern sensitivities towards the term. | |||
| Discrediting dictionaries as well as denying the fact that "Chinaman" was indeed used mainly in contemptuous and racially derogatory contexts, especially in late 19th and throughout most of 20th centuries, rather than people being taught to, or seek to see the word as objectionable, as claimed by some on this board, IMHO, is irresponsible and misleading to online audience at the minimum. I do form the same impression as several authors on this topic did that there has been a conscious effort to mitigate the derogatory aspect of the term... Any comments are greatly appreciated.] (]) 19:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Contrary to popular allegation it was NOT "invented by whites to degrade Chinese people with", as someone posting on UseNet railed long ago; it appears either to have been derived from English as spoken by Chinese people and/or some kind of hybrid form among peoples of the North American Pacific Coast (where true enough it may have only been borrowed from English). So that's my two bits; someone may take offence but there's a difference between how a word originates and what it comes to mean, or can become to be used for, over time. In my experience it can be and is used both ways; in older frontier or native areas it's used quite casually, without overtones of how it's taken elsewhere, and not meant derisively (unles said a certain way, as with any ethnic tag). Sorry I can't document this but it's just what I've picked up; I don't know what the OED Online says about its provenance; might be interesting.] 06:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :In response to '''Dwarm12345''' above. First, be aware that dictionaries are useful, but often serve a limited purpose and have a limited context. Wikipoedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. But more important, this page is no longer an article, which has texts and references, but a disambiguation page ] where it is inappropriate to have text beyond that which may be necessary to clarify the nature of a link. It is a succinct ''list'', not a comprehensive article. ] (]) 18:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == "Chinaman" the slang == | |||
| ::I totally agree with you that an encyclopedia should have a broader scope than dictionaries. However the reality of this page is the opposite of that, it has a small scope than the dictionary. While the respectful dictionaries acknowledge the derogatory aspect of the term, this page fail to do so. It also fail to "clarify the nature of a link" as you stated for the same reason.] (]) 19:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| If we really wanted to, I'm certain that we can find sources on both sides of the derogatory/not derogatory argument. Maybe it deserves its own article. | |||
| :::Misplaced Pages has various types of pages. This is a disambiguation page, not an article. You can learn about disambiguation pages here: ]. (Links like that that begin with ''WP:'' link to policies and guidelines.) Disambiguation pages are supposed to be barebones lists of links with text neutrally worded text ] provided only when what is to be found at a link might not be clear. | |||
| But I'd like to stress to the other editors that acceptance of usage hardly equates to it being not derogatory. It's historical acceptance merely reflects the rampant racism that existed in the past. | |||
| Racism has not ''increased'' since the 1800s and early 1900s. The reason that it's not acceptable now is because we're more educated about racism. The racism was always there in the past. We ''know now'' that it's racist. We did not ''make'' it racist, because racism was always there. | |||
| :::You may be confused by the presence of old arguments here into thinking that this is an article about "Chinaman" or that it is appropriate to discuss the issue of the contentiousness of the ''term'' here. But these are old discussions left over from the time when this was indeed an article. At some point there were enough separate articles using the word Chinaman that the decision was made, for matters of wikipedia policy, to change this from a main article to a disambiguation page. Continuing your argument about the issue here is like sending letters to the Soviet consulate. History has moved on, and these arguments are . ] (]) 20:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| To argue that it was not a racist term back then, would imply that there was ''less'' racism in the past, because in modern society, it is definitely a racist term. Acceptance of usage does not mean it was not racist. ] 23:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Maybe you have a personal interests in sending letters to the Soviet consulate but IMHO it is irrelevant to our discussion here. Or are you suggesting this page is prehistoric? Then what is the point of posting outdated information? Maybe I am mistaken... ] (]) 13:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Especially in China. {{unsigned|Skookum1}} | |||
| :::::What Medeis means is that the content in this article was all moved to ]. Looking at the logs, this was done on 15 June 2010. Discussion before that date is about the article ], not this one. <span style="font-family:Palatino, Georgia, serif;"> — ] <sup>]</sup></span> 14:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| : ] has a fascinating theory worked out here: Words are found objects, like rocks, with set, non-alterable properties in and of themselves. Human linguistic hunter-gatherers forage around and find these objects (words) and then start using them. Sometimes the full meaning of the word isn't at first clear to them, but eventually the true nature of these unchangeable things asserts itself. Hence, his conclusion that "Chinaman" was always a racist term, but people in the past were too ignorant to see this. Society has now come to recognize the nature of the word, and put it away. Similarly, no doubt, we only now realize that it is offensive to call a woman a "dame" or a "wench." When Shakespeare has Mark Antony reply to Cleopatra: "Fare thee well, dame, whate'er becomes of me," he is obviously insulting her, because it has ''exactly'' the same meaning as when a 1930s American gangster calls a woman a "dame." Let us join hands in prayer and condemn our Elizabethan ancestors who were too ignorant to recognize the immutable properties of so many words. They used words ''so'' wrong back then, but we now use them correctly. | |||
| : There is only problem with this theory, of course: It is insane. Words don't change society, society changes words. The cheapest way of gaining a false sense of superiority over another ethnic group or time period is by judging one group of cultural or linguistic practises by the standards of another. Society changes the meanings and connotations of words. The words "China" and "Man" are different though. They were ''never'' inherently offensive, and they ''still'' are not inherently offensive. If "China" and "man" were inherently racist, both words would be shunned now. They are not. "Chinaman" is ''not'' an inherently derogatory term, but it has ''acquired'' derogatory meaning by association with the history of racist treatment of the Chinese in the United States. | |||
| : Let me make myself clear: "Chinaman" is an offensive term in the United States today. It was in common use in the past as a term for people of Chinese descent, but has become associated with racism against Chinese and Asians in general. | |||
| : I have had my fill of mad-hatter logic from ], and no real interest in mulling over topics that are so often used to separate people rather than unite them. Hopefully someone else does, or one more corner of Misplaced Pages will have been absorbed by activists out to broadcast their Orwellian twisting of words and their history. ] 20:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, this page isn't the right place for these remarks - really this should be discussed at ], although most of the arguments have already been made there, I think. <span style="font-family:Palatino, Georgia, serif;"> — ] <sup>]</sup></span> 03:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Let me reiterate - your logic basically renders ] as harmless as well. The current wording right now is borrowed from the ] article - that it's a derogatory term, and it was used casually in the past. | |||
| ::Also, your problem seems to have more to do with me personally than the articles in question. ] 20:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::IMHO, any page, as long as it is posted on Misplaced Pages and visible to readers, it is subjected to scrutiny for its accuracy and truthfulness. Even though this page is quite short, I see at least one piece of misinformation of the term "contentious" which is, IMHO, a watering down of its racially derogatory nature when it is used to referred a person of Chinese origin, which as been an established notion of all respectful dictionaries as well as the personal experience of many Chinese/Asian Americans. Arguing against such demands strong backing of concrete evidences and credentials, unless this page is solely a reflection of the personal opinions of a few. Therefore I make a motion to restore "contentious" to "often racially derogatory" ] (]) 13:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm going to have to agree with HF here. He seems to be making a coherent logical argument, and it's certainly not rendering "nigger" or "chinaman" as "harmless". ] 15:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::What I mean is that the issues surrounding this have already been discussed at ]. Trying to argue them again here is not very helpful. Rather, the thing to do is read all the other arguments first, and then only make a comment if you have a new point to add. So, what you should do is first read ], then read the talk page at ], and then at the bottom of the talk page there if you are not satisfied with the arguments that other editors have made. Thank you for your understanding. <span style="font-family:Palatino, Georgia, serif;"> — ] <sup>]</sup></span> 14:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::His logic makes an important mistake that I've mentioned above already. He equates general acceptance of a word to that it was not derogatory or racist. ] 16:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::The term ''contentious'' is objective and describes the fact that some people do indeed find it offensive. But ''often racially drogatory'' presents the POV as a fact, and the word ''often'' makes a claim we do not know. If, per ], we were to change ''contentious'' to ''sometimes considered offensive'', that would be acceptable from the point of view of ], but it is unnecessarily wordy for a DAB page. ] (]) 15:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You were replying to Skookum1, as far as I can tell. "To argue that it was not a racist term back then, would imply that there was ''less'' racism in the past, because in modern society, it is definitely a racist term." This is quite the fallacy, as HF described. ] 17:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I respectfully disagree with the notion that "it is unnecessarily wordy for a DAB page". As I stated earlier, as long as a page is visible to reader, it should be subjected to scrutiny and possible revisions, which is the correct practice of a scholar as well as to the best interest of Misplaced Pages's reputation. ] (]) 02:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::To Heqs: Inane arguments have long been part of the "Chinaman controversy"; the idea that because it was not a racist term back then somehow means there was less racism is typical of the faulty and (to me) deliberately obfuscating logic used by the tub-thumpers. Never mind that the Chinese term China+person uses the same characters as would be used if you translated China+man, the "logic" is that "chinaman" is "inherently racist". There is a response I have coming (but just haven't had the stomach to bother with yet) on his talk page concerning Chinese racism and exclusionism in my city (Vancouver) in which he announces that because I'm saying that Chinese-only condo marketing is in Chinese, that ''I'm'' being racist because English-only advertising is theoretically also exclusionary; even though long-term Chinese-Canadians all speak English, and many of my generation in fact to do not at all ''and also are discriminated against by the New Chinese'' (post HK-influx). It's a long, sorry tale, but full of the twisted logics and one-sided allegations that are par for the course in culture politics; and in my city, it's not about race and never was; it was always about culture and social differences, which are not "race" unless that word is tossed around with a loosey-goosey meaning, as it all too often is.] 17:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I agree with you on the meaning of the term "contentious". I also agree that it correctly describes PART of the attributes of the word Chinaman. However, being correct is not automatically being accurate, nor being most suited. For instance, if I were to say "Chinaman is a noun", this is a CORRECT description but very likely not BEST SUITED for this page. I also agree that not all use of Chinaman is offensive, as in the case describing the dealer or a salesperson of chinaware. However the sentence currently reads "Chinaman (term) is a ??? term referring to a Chinese person whether of Han Chinese ethnicity or a citizen of China, Chinese people." So the question becomes, when the term Chinaman is used to specifically describe the people as stated in the sentence, is it SOMETIMES or OFTEN offensive? From respectful sources of information such as Webster, it should be OFTEN. I understand some earlier posts questioned the validity of these dictionaries. However I would consider such questioning valid ONLY if such claim can be RELIABLY verified, otherwise we fall back into the he-say-she-say situation which is in violation of Misplaced Pages's policy. Therefore I move to change the word "contentious" to "often offensive". ] (]) 02:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Hi Skookum, I understand where you're coming from on this, just remember to try and ], and not say something you might regret. ] 17:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| This is all very repetitive. Stradivarius has given you a source which specifically says it is rarely used maliciously, and the difference between something being inherently offensive and sometimes being found offensive has been explained at length. Contentious covers those who find it offensive while itself being a neutral term which no one will dispute. "Often" is unsupported and "offensive" is a POV. I don't intend to repeat myself. ] (]) 02:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: I think you get a drift of the mad-hatter logic that I've been encountering from this editor: He says that because I say "Chinaman" is not derogatory, I am also claiming "nigger" is not derogatory... Only one problem with that: I explicitly ''do'' say "Chinaman" is derogatory in contemporary US English, as is "nigger." The editor is also trying to muddy the issue by equating "Chinaman" with the more historically and emotionally loaded term "nigger." Still, it is not only a red herring, but a fallacy to claim that "nigger" was ''always'' as derogatory as it is in the US today (when used by whites). I'm old enough to state from personal experience that it ''wasn't'', but that borders on unacceptable personal research. Skookum1 has pointed out how in other dialects and languages, the word or close cognates are still acceptable today. And obviously, between African-Americans the term has a different connotation than it does when used by whites. Again, society uses words, not the other way around. Also, look at US/English literature. To claim that "nigger" had the same social function today as it did a century ago and further would be to claim that two of the most anti-racist, anti-colonialist writers of their age (] and ]) were nothing but racists. Forget their actual beliefs and their actions, they were ignorant racists because the words they used ''then'' are considered unacceptable ''today''. But apparently those who ban '']'' and '']'' from libraries agree with this up-is-down logic. Presumably '']'' is allowed because (to my knowledge) it doesn't use the word "Chinaman" or "nigger." Who reads for meaning today? Just run the spell-checker through for banned words and it passes or fails. -- ] 18:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Calling it all very repetitive is POV IMHO :-) . And I did go to Stradivarius' source and I found it quite in sync with my reasoning. I will write something on it. In addition, I acknowledge that you are NO LONGER rejecting dictionaries as reliable source of information. So I hope all of my reasonings based on dictionaries be convincing to you now. So following the descriptions of the dictionaries, it is more suited to use "offensive" rather than "contentious" ONLY for that particular sentence. I have no objection to the fact that in many other usage of the word, there is no insulting meaning, as those among the list following the sentence and I do not move to change them. ] (]) 04:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :I also respectfully disagree on your assessment that ""Often" is unsupported and "offensive" is a POV". The notion of this word being often offensive is well verifiable by modern respectful dictionaries. To the contrary, the repetitive claims of this notion being POV are themselves POVs without verification.] (]) 13:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Honestly, what this guy is saying (and now having lived in the Midwest for 4 years I can somewhat understand), is that the people who often use the term "Chinamen" these days aren't being intentional or ironic, just ignorant: they're usually old men (or people from very insulated areas, i.e. Northern Minnesota) just blurting out a term for whatever Asian person they see in the same way I heard a Regent of the University of Minnesota call all Asians "Oriental" and people from the Middle East "Arabians" (which would be a horse, not Arabs...)). He was a nice guy, I doubt he was that intentionally stupid, but he was old enough. Another, lesser but similar example are people who call all Asians "Chinese". --] 17:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::IMHO it is time to make the revision now. Further discussion on the TOPIC is greatly appreciated. ] (]) 06:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| =="Chinaman" should be a separate page== | |||
| == "Contentious" or "often offensive" == | |||
| Even though there's only two disambig items now the mutation of the main paragraph here, and the politics uderlying the word, suggests that there's a lot more that needs to be here than can be put in point-form for disambig pages. The problem is that the page will have more to do with the controversies rather than any rational discussion of the word and its various usages (racist and non-racist, historical and modern, comparisons to Chinese versions of the same phrase, comparisons to the many Chinese racist terms for other peoples etc). The problem is that that's not encyclopedic content; or could be, but for its endless politicization by defenders of Chinese racism and attackers of alleged white racism (alleged in this case, since in rural dialects around here it's still a common word used ''without prejudice'', just as it was a century ago; no more so than saying "he's Chinese", anyway; which can and is used derisively, which is why "Asian" has become the p.c. terms in the stylebooks. Have a look at ], which I think should be deleted, for more on this kind of double-standardism....] 17:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Regarding , I reverted it mainly because the grammar is incorrect. It also goes against the comment by Medeis that using "often offensive" would introduce unnecessary verbiage, which I agree with. These two points are related. But firstly, I should say that I can't really see what you're concerned about. Calling ''Chinaman'' "contentious", to my mind, is the same thing as saying it is "often offensive". They express the same potential to anger. ], is this different from your understanding of the word ''contentious''? <p>The grammar is incorrect because it implies that ''Chinaman'' is often a term, when in fact it is ''always'' a term. To use ''often offensive'' in this sentence correctly, you would need to use the unnecessary verbiage that Medeis was talking about. It would have to be like this: "''Chinaman'' is a term, often offensive, referring to a Chinese person". Or perhaps this: "''Chinaman'' is a term often used offensively to refer to a Chinese person", but this is even longer. If the meaning does not change when using ''contentious'', then why not stick with the simpler grammar? This page is just meant to be a quick way for people to jump between articles, after all. <span style="font-family:Palatino, Georgia, serif;"> — ] <sup>]</sup></span> 14:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)</p> | |||
| :For now, we could just expand this article and add something like this to the top: ''This article is about the term. For the cricket bowling style, see ], for the Danish film, see ].'' ] 17:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you for pointing out the grammatical issue of my reversion. I also acknowledge your concern on verbiages. But it doesn't appears to be an issue in this case, especially when compared to a mortgage contract :-) . I hereby move to change the sentence to "Chinaman is a term often used offensively to refer..." as you have suggested. I admit that I am somewhat a perfectionist. As I mentioned earlier, "contentious" is CORRECT while "often ... offensive" is MORE ACCURATE and BETTER SUITED according to modern respectful dictionaries. Even though this page is short and maybe nobody glances it for more than 10 seconds, we should still strive to make it as accurate as we can, as I have stated earlier. After all, working on things no body cares isn't what scholars are supposed to do? :-))] (]) 14:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Skookum1, no offense, but it really seems like your motivations are very biased in this case. It seems your reason for editing ''this'' article has more to do with the ] and ] articles. Look at your statement here: | |||
| :*''The problem is that that's not encyclopedic content; or could be, but for its endless politicization by defenders of Chinese racism and attackers of alleged white racism.'' | |||
| :Nobody is trying to defend Chinese racism here. The subject hasn't been brought up and it's not even relevant. And there are no ''attackers'' here of anything. It is a statement of fact that this term is derogatory, and whether or not past usage is "neutral" is debatable, as evidenced by our disagreements here. Whatever problems you may be encountering in the ] article should not have to be carried over here. Furthermore, one can very easily turn it around and say that you are "defending white racism". Should I clam that you're "defending white racism" because you disagree with me on past usage of this term? ] 17:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::That was not intended as a suggestion... in fact, looking at it again, "''Chinaman'' is a term often used offensively to refer to a Chinese person" makes it seem more offensive than the ] article suggests. More accurate would be "sometimes used offensively" or "often causes offence to Chinese people" - and using ''contentious'' captures these nuances in one word. Also, you should really be sure that you have consensus before making controversial changes, rather than merely assuming that you have it. (And I would also be grateful if you could stop using ALL CAPS in your posts - thanks.) <span style="font-family:Palatino, Georgia, serif;"> — ] <sup>]</sup></span> 15:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| I'm trying to get you to understand that generations of non-Chinese used (and use) the term without any racist content, yet get called racist simply because someone somewhere else has decided a certain and actually rather lexically innocuous terms is racist; sure, it might be that in the US it's always been derogatory; in my area it was part of the lexicon of the Chinook Jargon, which imprinted local English heavily, such that Dutchman (meaning German), Scotchman, Boston man were equivalents and, while potentially derisive, ''were not necessarily''. I realize you've taken the honourable stand about the noxious and ongoing term ''gweilo'', but they're not equivalent in any way, since ''gweilo'' is lexically derisive from its roots on up and as noted china+man (Chung ren? - or am I mixing Cantonese and Mandarin) is in fact the Chinese term for a Chinese person. Chinee-man is the source of Chinaman; which the afore-cited politicians and their associated media hacks around here publicly announced was "invented by white people to humiliate Chinese people with" (that's a quote, either from VYW or JK), when in fact it's a derivative of Chinese-English pidgin and may be a result of Chinese attempts to say Chinese-man i.e. chineeman. It spread into maritime trade jargon and thence into North America, Australia, Africa and Europe, and was not used derisively (there were other words and phrases for that, notably ''chink'' and ''yellow dog/bastard'') And, again as I've also noted, it has come into the regular lexicons of several Native American/First Nation languages ''without any derisive imputation at all''; and that is also reflected in local native-anglo patois/argots, such as in my area, especially by natives. "Hey boston!" and "Hey chinaman!" in my area have the same tone, one no more derisive respectively; and they are often, in fact, heard in the town in question; and these are natives using them; ''shama'' is REALLY bad, and any variation of the last vowel makes it WORSE). One of the most remarkable recent usages I heard was from an elderly mixed-blood lady who said about someone back up in town "that damned chinaman told me xxx"; she herself was part Chinese, part Japanese, part Norwegian, part Irish, and part St'at'imc and part something else; I asked her if she thought the word was offensive (without the "damned" modifier) and she said "no, not at all". No more so than saying "that damned Irishman told me xxx"; she was quite old so probably spoke ], but I never asked her for more (it's impolite to pester elders with questions in native/backcountry culture). Sure, we can use "Frenchman" or "Dutchman" very derisively; but we can do the same with "Chinese" equally as much as using "Chinaman". The whole politicizing of this word is, to me, a byproduct of anti-imperialist/anti-European analyses and is not rooted in history; more rooted in people's need to find things to complain about how other people talk about them. And all the more ironic because Chinese itself as a language has not purged itself of its own racist and sexist content.] 18:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Maybe I misunderstood you intention. But you had stated that you reverted it mainly because the grammar is incorrect, not "often offensive" themselves except for the concern on verbiage.] (]) 16:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::At the same time,being "often offensive" can be verified by many respectful dictionaries. Is "sometime ... offensively" or even "contentious" verifiable by sufficient number of respectful sources? If not, they clearly have violated the NPOV policy and warranted a revision. ] (]) 15:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :#You keep insisting that it was not used derisively in the past because of the roots of the word. Yet I've pointed out to you that "nigger" is simply rooted in the Spanish and Portuguese word for the colour black. The roots of a word does not dictate how the word is used. | |||
| ::::Well, you're probably right, that might be the only way that this dispute can get settled. I've got myself embroiled enough in this page that I'm willing to do the spadework. Wait right there, and I'll come back with some sources. <span style="font-family:Palatino, Georgia, serif;"> — ] <sup>]</sup></span> 15:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :#That there are people who consider the word not derogatory, whether they be white or Chinese (read: ), or any other races, does not conclude that the word is ''not'' derogatory. For every person who considers the word not derogatory, there is someone else, and quite possibly more than one, who considers the word derogatory indeed. At best this makes the derogatory nature of the word debatable. | |||
| :::::Joy of being a scholar :-))) ] (]) 15:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :#That the Chinese language has racist terms does not justify the existence of racist terms in the English language, and vice versa. Every language has racist terms, and there are racists of every colour and creed. It makes no sense whatsoever to point and say, "look, the Chinese language has racist terms, therefore it's a political byproduct of anti-European analyses to point out the racist nature of certain English words." Racist terms in any languages are detestable. | |||
| ::] 18:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == What sources say about ''Chinaman'' == | |||
| And overblown allegations of racism and racist language are also detestable. The HISTORICAL FACT and cultural reality is that Chinaman was not coined as a racist term, was used widely WITHOUT racist overtones (including by Chinese themselves) and in direct-translation terms and the characters that would be used to render it is INDISTINGUISHABLE from "Chinese person" (except for the gender qualification). To say that it was ONLY racist is entirely FALSE. Is it racist that the Ktunaxa and Nuxalk have it in THEIR languages? No - because they have no other word for "Chinese". Figure it out; it's the same with at least some regional/dialect usages of English. Your argument reminds me of the logic that, since "fanny" is obscene to the English it's inherently obscene throughout the English-speaking world. This is nonsense; and so are your arguments and ongoing counter-allegations (I'll get to the issue about the Chinese-only condo marketing on your talk page; I broke out laughing when I read what you wrote - Vancouver is a city with FOUR Chinese-language dailies and Chinese-language ads appear regularly in the English-language ones; and the reporter(s) who broke that story were themselves Chinese-Canadian, as was a realtor who blew the whistle on the discriminatory sale)] 18:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I found these by using and Google Books, along with a couple of other dictionary sites I knew of already. I have excluded very old sources (I think they are all newer than 1980), and I have also excluded duplicate entries. They are in no particular order. | |||
| :Again, you're mistaking a term's acceptance as that it is not derogatory. | |||
| :And my point remains about the Chinese-language advertising of the condos. What if condos were to be only advertised in English? Does that not exclude the Chinese? Does it not also exclude Latinos, French speakers, etc etc? You claim that the practice is racist, but really it's no more insidious than ''any'' ads that do not appear in all languages possible. So there are four Chinese-language dailies, and how many English-language dailies are there...? ] 18:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *"Offensive" - | |||
| ::''Two'', both owned by the same company...and for English-only advertising to be racist, that would assume that the French, Latinos, and non-Chinese speaking Chinese and other Asians do not speak English; which they do. What's remarkable about the "New Chinese" (post-influx) is that many of them have no intention of learning English any more than necessary, even to the point of demanding government services; and of course their disdain for the original Chinese-Canadian population as well as their historic ]-variant dialect. One agitator even wanted Mandarin to be made an official language in BC since they "shouldn't have to learn English to live here". Uh-huh. So, if I and 500,000 other anglophones moved to Shanghai and started demanding the right to take part in politics, demanding separate school boards, opening anglo-only shopping centres, saying that they had no reason to ever learn Chinese, how would that be received? Uh-huh. As racism, that's how; of course anything white people do or say is racist if you need it to be, isn't it? And you said that my comment about our own culture being "overwhelmed" was a racist statement; so again, how would the Chinese people respond if the population of Beijing or Shanghai went from 10-15% white to over 50% white in less than 20 years? Oh right - there never was 10-15% white in either city, was there? - because what few there were were either slaughtered (Boxer Rebellion) or expelled (Chinese civil wars/WWII). | |||
| *"Derogatory" - | |||
| *"Often offensive" - | |||
| *"Usually offensive" | |||
| *"May be taken as patronizing" - | |||
| *"Apparently innocent" but "provokes anger", "greatly dislike" - | |||
| *"An ethnic slur, taboo in American English" | |||
| *"Considered derogatory by many" - | |||
| *"Considered offensive", "some examples of the old naive use ... more of knowing use that is intended satirically" - | |||
| Actually, finding all of these has made me eat my words. I don't think we can realistically claim that ''contentious'' is appropriate, given all this evidence. Not to mention the fact that there is not one source here that calls ''Chinaman'' "contentious". Going by the sources, it seems we should choose either ''offensive'' or ''derogatory''. What do others think? <span style="font-family:Palatino, Georgia, serif;"> — ] <sup>]</sup></span> 17:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::And my point about the condo sale is very clear; English advertising is accessible to anyone who meets the citizenship requirements, i.e. the ability to speak one of the two official languages. But those condos weren't even advertised in Vancouver's four Chinese dailies; they were marketed exclusively to overseas Chinese. The reporter (Chinese-Canadian) who broke the story was the one who brought up how racist it was, which of course got denial after denial from Chinese cultural organizations; but also some justifications about "people wanting to live around other people who speak the same language and have the same culture"; justifications that if WE were to use them, would be called racist. This kind of posturing and ''wheedling'' we're all to used to here, and it irks Chinese who ''have'' acclimatized to Canadian society (call them "assimilated" if you wish; my family was assimilated too - French-Irish and Norwegian - and I'm no less human for it). The assumption that Canada should bend over backwards to accommodate a whole civilization is increasingly grating on the public psyche here; multiculturalism is an official policy, not a popular one; and many of the new groups (including some new Chinese) say they only want to be Canadian, to share in a common identity; not a fractured, hyphenated one. But the diehards, one of whose terms for our city (translated from the Chinese) is the utterly colonialist "New China City", are adamant in their resistance to "assimilation". Despite all the high-sounding talk when WE opened our doors to the HK influx that they didn't want to transplant their culture but were willing to adapt to Canadian society; that tune changed pretty quick once they were here, that's for sure; the worst of it, as long-time Chinese Canadians will often complain, is that the resistance to Canadian ways has increased overall resentment against ANY Chinese; including people who are utterly Canadian by culture. And it's not just whites who feel this way; it's Filipinos, Punjabis, Persians, First Nations and others who have experienced the same. Everything from driving habits/culture to pushing people off the sidewalk or aside in the transit system "because that's our culture, it's how we are in China". So what? If I go to China, I'm expected to respect Chinese customs; say the same thing back (that they should respect our culture) and the response is "oh, but that's racist" or even "you don't have a culture"; something that's all too familiar to my First Nations friends, as that's what they were told. So don't go calling me a racist for daring to speak out about the cultural arrogance and outright racism implicit in the Chinese-only policies in workplaces, shopping and housing....free speech, after all, is part of my culture, even if it's not part of China's.] 22:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Gee, Stradivarius, you are a true scholar! You are by far the most fact-seeking editor on this board I have seen (sorry about the apparent POV ). Simply based on the frequency in which it appears in your list, I stay with the motion "often ... offensive". ] (]) 17:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| This debate isn't really getting anywhere - what you guys need to do is write the article, '''citing sources''', about historical and present use of the word, and let the published and verifiable info do the talking, even if those sources might happen to contradict eachother. ] 18:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::"Since the 1980's sometimes considered offensive" would be fine, were this an article, since no one contests that it is sometimes considered offensive in recent history. But just plain offensive is not NPOV, nor from an international standpoint, especially given the number of sources which say it is used innocently and without meaning to give offense. But then you still run into the problem that this is a DAB page, and we shouldn't be describing the word ''at all'' with claims that would require sources but ''just providing a link.'' The simple word contentious covers the fact that some find it offensive, is neutral and uncontestable. Anything more than that is improper for a DAB which is supposed to be simple, neutral, and unsourced. ] (]) 17:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree with what you're saying. A seperate article would be much better as it can incorporate opposing views. But it's questionable whether or not there's actually enough content for a seperate article. And there are also other articles I'm more interested in spending my energy on. ''At the very least'', I want the current definition to reflect that the term is definitely racist in modern society, and that it was debatable whether or not it was racist in the past. The existence of opposing views on historic usage calls for that. To conclude that it was definitely not racist in the past is dishonest, when there are people who would disagree with that. ] 19:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::All the overwhelming number of respectful sources listed above do not verify your claim of "Since the 1980's sometimes considered offensive". They simply state it as "offensive" or "derogatory". If you want to make a valid objection to my motion, your must provide an equally sufficient number of verifiable sources. Otherwise it is simply a POV and should not be considered. ] (]) 17:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :: Yes ], a separate article tracing the history of the term would be quite interesting, and would hopefully help to clear up this whole debate, as long as it's done honestly, and not made a soapbox for one point of view or another. When and where did the term start? At what point did it become unacceptable in common usage? Where is it still used without derogatory intent? The Twain quote below might belong in the article. | |||
| :: ], I agree with a lot of what you say, but hope you don't let your (apparent) anger get the best of you. We're all human, and have our good and bad points. Cultural chauvinism of the type you describe is certainly not a trait unique to the Chinese. There are bound to be clashes when large cultural groups encounter each other. Let's hope the more moderate voices prevail. | |||
| :: I lived in Asia for several years, and married into an Asian family. While I experienced cultural bigotry, ignorance and chauvinism (and even occasional outright racism) over there, I was usually able to take this as a small taste of what minorities have historically experienced over here. And the good I encountered over there certainly far outweighed the bad. ] 23:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That's an interesting idea, but you need to understand ] which holds that we attribute claims to the sources making them and not one of the sources mentioned was published prior to the 1980's. Again, you have clearly expressed your understanding for the difference between saying 'something is X' and saying 'something is considered X'. BUT ALL THIS IS ''IRRELEVANT'' SINCE this is a disambiguation page, not an articel, and it is not allowed to have sourced text. The word "contentious" really shouldn't be there either, but the single neutral word seems harmless enough.<small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <p>'''Hello!''' This is a disambiguation page, not an article, and sourced statements are not allowed. ] (]) 18:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)</p><p>Please read ]:</p><p>What not to include</p>*Dictionary definitions<br />*References<p>Do not include references in disambiguation pages; disambiguation pages are not articles. Incorporate references into the disambiguated articles as needed. ] (]) 17:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)</p> | |||
| ::: Human Fetishist, we don't see eye-to-eye on some things, but I appreciate what you've said here about what minorities have experienced as far as racism is concerned. ] 04:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The sources are not just "respectful" sources - they are all the sources I could find. Just including "respectful sources" would have been biased. The sources are, however, all published after 1980, so they can't claim anything about usage before that. (They might all be published after 1990, actually, I was just saying 1980 to be on the safe side.) As for being international, they include the Oxford English Dictionary and the Chambers Dictionary, both from the UK, and which both refer to ''Chinaman'' as "derogatory". Of course I don't think we should include a dictionary definition of Chinaman here, but if we are going to call it anything, we should stick with the sources. <span style="font-family:Palatino, Georgia, serif;"> — ] <sup>]</sup></span> 18:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| My "anger" - polemical language - was because of being called a racist simply for speaking out in defense of my own culture, which Hong Qi Gong was imputing was a racist argument; and yeah, there's definitely a widespread disctontent here, disclaimed by our government and denoucned by our media monopolies who "boost" multiculturalism at every turn, while also concocting a fictional "Canadian identity" to overlay the old regionalities and the older form of "being Canadian"; we've been "revised" in order to "help the new cultures feel welcome"; to let them be whatever it is they need to be, while short shrift is given to our own. And as I said, even my First Nations (as Native Americans are known in Canada) friends sympathize and also experience the same pushing-aside that has taken place here; the idea that our culture isn't worth respecting. Uh-huh. It's pretty much unique to Vancouver and Toronto, and in Vancouver's case it also involves the older pre-influx Chinese, who find themselves equally marginalized and no longer as integrated with the rest of us, ''because'' of official multiculturalism. We just used to be Canadians; now we're a bunch of friggin' hyphens.] 00:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::First of all, Medeis, please stop posting threatening messages on my talk page] otherwise I will move to ban you. Secondly, your argument against the revision is unfounded IMHO. As I stated earlier and you also agreeed, it doesn't matter whether a page is disambiguation page or an article, the information it contains must be subjected to the same scrutiny of verifiability. It is a fact the description "offensive" is verifiable and "contentious" is not as provided by Stradivarius. You are simply ignoring the fact. Hereby I move to ignore Medeis' objection and make the necessary revision. ] (]) 18:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :What ] is referring to is the exchange we had over at my ]. This took place after my first edit of this article. Apparently to Skookum1, "speaking out in defense of his own culture" means he should dismiss disagreements as "Chinese cultural insecurity" and apparently my ethnicity automatically means foreigness to him. For those who are interested, you are welcome to read and judge for yourself. By the way, I've never told him he was racist. I only think he's biased against Chinese people. | |||
| :::::::Medeis, you are rearranging discussion texts after other editors have responded. This is a newbie mistake you should have not made. Once again, I move to make the update despite Medeis' POVs unless he can provided verifiable sources. ] (]) 18:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :And I must seriously admit that I'm having a difficult time assuming good faith here. It seems that Skookum1 is more concerned about the racism he's experienced from the Chinese people that are "overwhelming" (his own word) "his" community, and this is the motivation for his editing of ''this'' article. | |||
| ::::::::Dwarm, accusing others of "newbie mistakes" and having "POVs" is not going to help here, regardless of what has transpired. I know it has been linked to you before, but ] is essential in discussions like this. <span style="font-family:Palatino, Georgia, serif;"> — ] <sup>]</sup></span> 18:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Skookum1, I'm not sure what kind of response you expect from me with your repetitive mention of Vancouver's racial tension. Should I just agree with everything you've said because you think you've experienced racism? Or maybe you want me to share with you my ''own'' stories of racism? Since you keep mentioning the racism you're experiencing, should I also attempt fruitlessly to count the number of times I've been called a chink, a Chinaman, etc etc? The number of times I've been told to "go back where I came from"? The number of times a random stranger greets me with "ching chong ching chong"? Would that make my arguments more solid in your eyes? | |||
| :Not saying that you guys can't change anything, but the current wording is byte-for-byte identical to the first clause of the first sentence of ]. I don't see why this should change, so why don't you all discuss changing that wording at ] and then just updating this one? The DAB reflects the actual article, after all. Cheers. ]] 19:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :With all due respect: get over it. I've already said on multiple occasions that I don't condone racism in any form. Like I've said, I've never even been to Vancouver. I didn't call you a gwailo. I didn't deny you a job. I don't represent the entire Chinese population in North America, and I certainly don't represent the Chinese community in Vancouver. Your incessant mention of Vancouver is pointless to me. I can't answer for what some ''other'' Chinese person did. I can only answer for and represent myself. Should I express my frustration to ''you'' that white people have been racist against me? | |||
| ::Well, that's what I first suggested, but ] was very insistent. Also, I actually added ''contentious'' to ] based on this disambiguation page a few days ago. As for the sources, I thought we could also use them to make the Chinaman (term) article better, which is why I didn't mind doing so much work for just one word. <span style="font-family:Palatino, Georgia, serif;"> — ] <sup>]</sup></span> 19:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :] 03:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Wait, you didn't ask about the sources... <ahem> Anyway, I think that's a very good idea. Let's talk about this at ]. <span style="font-family:Palatino, Georgia, serif;"> — ] <sup>]</sup></span> 19:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::This really is getting nowhere, Skookum seems like he'll go into his rhetoric no matter what you say, even if you say something that he agrees with. He doesn't listen to anything and doesn't seem to want to reason with anyone. Chinaman is now considered offensive, period, regardless of how the term was coined. The same can be said of Negro, Oriental, Spanish (as a reference to Latinos and Latinas), Whitey, A-rab, and similar offensive words which may or may not have been coined with malicious intent. It matters not, as they are now considered offensive. You don't really have to agree with it, but it deserves mentioning.] 03:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Stradivarius, I believe we have reached a consensus of revising to "often...offensive". But I am not going to modify the page now. I've reached that dreadful 3-edits threshold when I misunderstood one of your earlier comments as a go-ahead as explained already. My understanding is that you will revise both pages. Please also remember the Dutchman addition I had suggested. ] (]) 19:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, I'm afraid your understanding is wrong. For one thing, I am still far from convinced that Medeis wants to change the wording to ''offensive''. For another, we really should do this at ] before we do it here. And for yet another, I'm going to bed. I'm sure there will be new developments tomorrow. <span style="font-family:Palatino, Georgia, serif;"> — ] <sup>]</sup></span> 20:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You might have a majority but you don't have consensus. This is a collaborative project. You can't just dismiss reasonable concerns from other editors. You might think his being wrong makes them unreasonable. It doesn't. Like it or not, we have to deal with each other so you might wanted to get started on that. --] (]) 03:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Mark Twain on 'Chinaman' == | |||
| "They are a kindly disposed, well-meaning race, and are respected and well treated by the upper classes, all over the Pacific coast. No Californian ''gentleman'' or ''lady'' ever abuses or oppresses a Chinaman, under any circumstances, an explanation that seems to be much needed in the East. Only the scum of the population do it--they and their children; they, and, naturally and consistently, the policemen and politicians, likewise, for these are the dust-licking pimps and slaves of the scum, there as well as elsewhere in America." -- Mark Twain, '']'', 1870–71 | |||
| == "Is that or is it not the wrong chinaman?" == | |||
| What a white-supremacist racist! He said "Chinaman!" ] 21:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I looked here for a reference for this use of 'Chinaman'. This is a direct quote from the book 'Remains of the Day'. It appears to be an article of furniture (maybe) Anyway several of them are discussed in the book however I am unable to find out what they are! ] ] 08:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Not sure how many times I've said this already - acceptance of usage does not mean a word is not derogatory. ] 03:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I've now added 'a nodding Chinaman' or 'nodding China-man as this (from watching the film) appears to be the right reference ] ] 20:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: Well then, I guess Skookum1 is 100% right. Guess it serves me right for trying to reason with a guy with a clearly offensive, stereotypically Oriental user name like "Hong Qi Gong." Just because you accept usage of it doesn't mean it's not derogatory, Hong. Pearls before swine... What a waste of time. ] | |||
| All your sources defining Chinaman as offensive or derogatory are out of date. Not one millennial alive today has heard it use that way, or even Gen-x ers. Only boomers and elderly heard it used that way, and mostly people who were alive in 1930 or earlier. If people today think its offensive, they probably read that it was offensive, and believed it. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ::: You're welcome to write an article on my username to say that it's a derogatory term if you can find some sources to support the claim. ] 05:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :You'd do well to read Archive 1 of this talkpage, which went over sources exhaustively about all that (except then we didn't have Gen-Xer sources then) and found all the non-derisive sources which gave all the other meanings now on this page. Well, some seem to have been edited out; there was a listing for a book called ''The Ugly Chinaman'' by ]; noting on his page seems to be another called ''The Real Chinaman"; not linkable book articles but literary (in his case social criticism and politics) titles of notable authors should be included in literature sections of dab pages, no? I haven't watchlisted this page in ages, and just now for other reasons trying to find a discussion which had passages from it. | |||
| ::::"Hong" is a derogatory term for a Hong Konger, and also has made its way into regional English in my area as a generic ethnic slur. Interestingly, once again, it was coined by Chinese-Canadians rather than white ones, although became adapted by the latter. So while it may not be derogatory in Chinese, it certainly is in English. You might want to change it. (]'s not derogatory, btw)] 08:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :As very evident in what you'll read in the archive, historically it has been inoffensive except when used in certain combinations; early census listings are generic descriptives of the common term of the time, one dictionary notes that Chinese was the adjectival form, Chinaman the singular noun, Chinamen for up to 10 (some number, can't remember), Chinese for larger numbers. The moral pretensions of current generations, particularly ''nouveau'' history and social science academics and publications, are at loggerheads with the reality they presume to pronounce judgment on and very often you find evidence that their sweeping generalizations about non-Chinese, and their avoidance of discussing events that may (or do) portray any of them negatively in their selectively-researched works is what it is. Avoidance, but not honest history, but a big problem with modern and po-mo RS: inherent POV, in this case that the word is ''only'' bad and always was, which is a blatant mistruth as a cruise through sources of all kinds from the past shows. Avoiding bias should be Misplaced Pages's goal; pandering to it should not be. | |||
| ::::: Got a source for that information? ] 08:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I see a few discussions on this page asking questions or raising issues going on here before and also going on on ] that are well-covered in the archive linked above.] (]) 15:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Try ]; I believe it was the most recent place I've seen it; where, once again, the suposedly racist term was invented by Chinese-ethnics themselves; "Honger", a harsher form, has a connotation (to anglos) something like "booger" (from "hanger", dried snot dangling from one's nose). If it's not on ] or ] any more (various recent edits, and not just by me), it'll be easy enough to find later today; but I just got up.] 15:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC) it's not there anymore so must have been edited out; I'll check around as it's been on one of the Vancouver pages recently; I'm sure you could just email S.U.C.C.E.S.S. and ask them what they think of the term, although they'll probably blame it on white people "inventing" it. (]); but "Hong" and "Honger" for sure are nasty words (in English). So therefore they must ALWAYS have been nasty, huh?] 15:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Move discussion in progress == | |||
| ::::::: Sure. But I could always "use the word amongst myself with an ''ironic sense''". ] 15:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::But ''are'' you? No, you certainly didn't choose it from knowing that it had that connotation; and while it's a common derisive in Vancouver I've never used it heard in an ironical sense by a Chinese Vancouverite (they're more likely to use "chink" when they want to be funny/self-referential); "Honger" on the other hand ''is'' used within the Chinese/Asian communities to specify Hong Kongers, whereas "Hong" is more generic (though far less common than "chink" or "gook" as a derisive; that's not citable, I'm just telling you what I've heard in usage here). But in your case, claiming now that you "could always use it with an ironic sense", when you didn't know it was a derisive before.....well, OK, use it in an ironic sense from now on; but ''here'' it ''is'' a derisive, even if it isn't in Chinese....] 20:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| There is a move discussion in progress on ] which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. <!-- Talk:Chinaman (term)#Requested move 24 March 2023 crosspost --> —] 16:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| Do you mean ]? | |||
| I find the all this about 'hongcouver' rather amusing, as I always thought it was meant to carry positive connotations, ie. growth and... success (no joke). ] 16:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I know; it was, as noted by the NGS, a "brag" about the "takeover" not the takeover of HK by the PRC, but the takeover of Vancouver by HKers; the swagger in those early days has been muted, and was actually advised against by the then-] the Hon. ]. But once it became the headline, front cover in fact, of the NGS, ] and the usual coterie of degreed-but-uneducated "intellectuals" denounced it as a "racist term invented by white people to humiliate Chiense people with" yadayada ad nauseam. Fact is, as noted in the Hongcouver article, "we" only ever used it with distaste, as we didn't need our city renamed to flatter or condemn any new group; especially when the newcomers evinced a clearly-made racist attitude towards non-Chinese, and still do. But the myth is that HongCouver, like Chinaman, is an insult to Chinese people; that it was their own who coined the terms they just can't deal with......denial is a powerful pyschological force, and also inbuilt into the political-correctness newspeak-think. Have a look at ] and you'll see much of the same crap repeated, although I'll be working on that one, as also on ]; thing is so many people are brainwashed to the "official" view now that no one reads the source materials, only the modern publications which ape the positions of SUCCESS and the CCNC. And I do find it amusing that HongQiGong has asked me for a cite for 'Hong' being derisive; that's another one that SUCCESS doesn't like; partly because it addresses the discrimiation against the long-standing Chinese-Canadian community by the newcomers for being "bananas"; "Hong" is the counter-insult.] 21:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)I have similar passages to Twain's from various contemporary writings in BC, although I recently sold a goldmine for that stuff ''Early Vancouver'' by the City Archivist Skit Matthews, p.1937, which was full of first-person narratives of the times and events in question (rare book, needed groceries and the set was worth $200...); but I still have my Morley and other early histories which give examples (see refs on BC History page); these examples SUCCESS doesn't want to admit exist, or are worth anything because the sources are white. Yeah, right....] 21:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC) The most derisive form using Chinaman, btw, i.e. when it was used derisively, was "John Chinaman", which was a generic grouping,not an individual; and individual Chinese in editorial writeups and such were often simply referred to as "Johns", or "John did this". That, no doubt, must be considered "inherently racist"; but then so would be the Vietnamese term for Americans - "Joe", "Hey, Joe". And since Chinese names were largely unpronounceable to speakers of non-tonal languages "John" was a generic, as with "Joe". Conversely, during the post-Anti-Oriental Riots strike by Chinese house servants and gardeners in 1907, well-to-do Vancouver ladies bemoaned in print the loss of their "beloved chinamen" and their indispensable skills and household knowledge; but in newspeak this is simply more "evidence of endemic racism", even though the statement was in fact a flattering one, and the Chinese were respected by their employers, so much so that hiring a non-Chinese gardener or cook was unthinkable, not for monetary/payscale reasons but because of the skill levels, and the dedication; these weren't "dirty jobs white people didn't want to do"; these were jobs white people wouldn't hire other white people for. BTW if you ever get a chance to visit the Nordic Museum in Ballard, Seattle, or for that matter Ellis Island in NYC, you'll find out that Norwegian maids were paid half what Irish maids were paid, and forced to live in small closets and taken sexual advantage of by their employers; it's not just non-whites who were underpaid and exploited in North America; another big myth that needs debunking. I look forward to the day when Chinese culture and society is as self-critical and self-examining as European/British/North American societies have become; but by the look of the cant kicking around the press, the net and Wiki, it'll be a while yet.....] 21:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Skookum, you really seem to be stuck in this mentality that all Chinese people think alike, that we all share the same opinions, and that each Chinese person should answer for what any other Chinese person did. Not only that, you are also stuck in the mentality that the Chinese are always going to be foreign. This is especially evident in your statement that you "''look forward to the day when Chinese culture and society is as self-critical and self-examining as European/British/North American societies have become; but by the look of the cant kicking around the press, the net and Wiki, it'll be a while yet...''". This is why I think it's pointless to try to reason with you. ] 02:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yeah, but you accused ''me'' or racism simply for recounting a scandal involving Chinese exclusionary business practices, i.e. racist practices, in Vancouver, suggesting even that English-only language advertising discriminated against Chinese, French, Latinos and others; but there are plenty of Vancouver Chinese who do not even speak Chinese well (these are the descendants of the original group, not the "so-called" (as you put it) "New Chinese". What you've essentially come up with here is a reason to disregard all the evidence I've put forward, without actually dealing with the evidence; and you've treated me in the mode "all white people think alike"; deal is I was raised to be a liberal, tolerant accepting Canadian and was actually very pro-Oriental in many ways growing up, partly because the town I came from as a rich Asian heritage (Chinese and Japanese) and also because I took the time to study East Asian history and philosophy; but like so many others here my views have been hardened by the negative treatment and ''slander'' directed against the history of the place I've grown up in, which isn't anywhere near as ugly or single-minded as the simplistic ethnocentric histories consistently paint it. My family only moved here in 1946, in fact, but I learned about ALL the cultures here in BC, not just my own group (which happens to be multi-ethnic, albeit white); I didn't focus on the persecution of the Irish, French and "Scandahoovians" in the course of gaining an identity; but when you're pigeonholed and insulted and you have to read rank distortions of history concocted to flatter a newly-arrived and overtly wealthy group, it's pretty nauseating. I'm not expecting you to reason with me, because many of your own responses have shown no reason at all; only reaction and redirection and evasion. I'm not saying it's because you're Chinese; I'm saying it's because you're unwilling to consider that "Chinese versions" of my province's history should be challenged as UNTRUE.] 07:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Read the last thing that I wrote in the section above this one. Once again, I did not accuse you of being racist. I only think you are biased against Chinese people - not for what you've wrote regarding what you perceive as discrimination from the so-called "New Chinese", but for the comments you've left in your edits. They are borderline racist. | |||
| ::::*''I look forward to the day when Chinese culture and society is as self-critical and self-examining as European/British/North American societies have become; but by the look of the cant kicking around the press, the net and Wiki, it'll be a while yet.....'' | |||
| ::::*''"Celestial" is in reference to "subject of the Son of Heaven" and is somewhat akin on context to "British subject", and was meant in a complimentary, even respectful fashion; but Chinese insecurities demand that it be pronounced "racist". Fix your own language's many racist and sexual biases before demanding other cultures kowtow to your need to rewrite history to suit yourselves.'' | |||
| ::::*''it was a racist response to racist times; natural enough, but don't pretend it's not based in racism and the attached insecurity; the clue here is that word "humiliation", apparently one of the driving forces of the Chinese cultural ego.'' | |||
| ::::*''gag; more sinothink newspeak distortions of reality; gag, gag, gag'' | |||
| ::::] 14:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The gag, gag, gag is because of the constant sense of vomit from the lies and distortions found on sinocentric history pages; not because I"M racist, but because they are. And as for ''what you perceive as discrimination from the so-called "New Chinese"'' you'd better give your head a shake; it's not only me, it's the "old Chinese" who "perceive" this discrimination as well as members of other non-New Chinese ethnicities. ''I'm only the messenger''. East Indians, Filipinos and Afro-Canadians have all experienced the same biases and discriminations, whether it's at Yaohan or Aberdeen or in the workplace or housing. Accusing me of "borderline racism" for pointing out that the New Chinese are more than just borderline racist is just doublespeak, and it's tiresome. Gag, gag, gag. And if "face" weren't a principle in Chinese culture, it wouldn't have had to have been mentioned; but it's not from me that the term "humiliation" keeps on being wielded like it was a crime against humanity. One postscript: at the height of the influx, a certain Chinese zillionaire who can't be named for obvious reasons got five-sheets drunk at an uppercrust party in what are called the Endowment Lands, in front of members of Vancouver's establishment and "moneyed intelligentsia" (patrons of the arts, charities etc; mostly white at the time (mid-80s) but not entirely; he got very loud and started yelling about how "we've taken over, you stupid fools. We're going to make slaves out of all you!!" (this from more than one person who was at that party); oh, and there's the off-the-cuff comments you hear about how stupid white people were for selling their country out from underneath them, and how this is a Chinese colony now, and how "lazy and shiftless" native-born Canadians (of any race) are; there's so much more that you cannot comprehend, from wherever else on the continent you are at present; my Japanese-Canadian and Indo-Canadian and First Nations and Latino friends and acquaintances have all the same experiences and have heard all the same crap; and all of this is common conversation at the city's thousands of coffee shops. Yup, borderline racist all right, as judged by a closed mind, just for daring to tell the truth. Par for the course...and we're so used to hearing it now we just don't care...given that the implicit racism of those denouncing us, all we can do is either grin or spit.] 15:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I keep telling you and you can't seem to grasp this - I or any random Chinese person can't answer for what some ''other'' Chinese person do. Some Chinese person called you a gweilo or denied you a job, or some fat cat Chinese guy got drunk and acted like a fool, etc etc. So now you're leaving comments saying, for example, that humiliation is one of the driving forces of the Chinese cultural ego. This is why I say I think you're biased. You've attributed all these things that you've mentioned to Chinese people in general. What do the above-mentioned incidents have to do with all the other Chinese people that have never done anything wrong against you? Did the entire global Chinese population get together just to call you a gweilo? | |||
| :How do you expect other editors to assume good faith when you're deleting sentences in articles because they're what you call "sinothink", or when you dismiss certain edits as "Chinese insecurities"? I'm done with this conversation. But let me remind you one thing - Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox to vent your frustration. ] 15:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| How can one reason with someone who bullheadedly leans all the way to the political far-right? Can't be done I reckon. Obviously he/she perceives all the Chinese, as a mass group, as a threat and he/she is here on Misplaced Pages to settle some vendettas against Chinese. {{unsigned|172.191.20.175}} | |||
| No; I'm preventing you from getting away with perpetrating your lies about supposed discrimination built-in to words that it's not built into. And I'm not right-wing, not in the slightest; what's right-wing is the attitude that every word that white people use for Chinese is inherently bigoted, as is anything they say. But I see Hong just couldn't keep his mouth shut; he must have missed me giving him an earful of TRUTH on his talk page. Hi Hong (now in my dialect of English, that IS a racist term but apparently you're comfortable with it, so who cares?). Anyway, be advised: white people are sick and fed up of having Chinese people rewrite our history and redefine our language for us. Either tell both sides of the story or be prepared to have your lies challenged, as they should be.] 08:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for keeping me in your thoughts, but unfortunately, that IP address is not me. Whoever he or she is, it looks like he probably followed you here from your beloved ] article. ] 09:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I am a casual browser of Misplaced Pages but not yet a full-time contributor (I'm getting turned off at this concept very quickly). I get a laugh at some of the (yawn) angry tirades by this guy as well as some of the non-related ongoing disagreements and disputes on other articles over what to call or label something. | |||
| What I wanted to say is this: If "Chinamen" or other immigrants arrive poor, they are perceived as passive and with utmost condescension. If "Chinamen" immigrants come with money and/or advanced education, they are perceived with much envy and disgust and as power-hungry. Quite the dilemma. Whites in the US (don't know about Canada) are always boasting about competition as the way to go in society, just as long they remain on top and the winner (as US society is divided between supposed "winners" and "losers"). But if they lose - or perceive to have lost - to minorities (especially by "weak" Asians), then they start complaining of unfair competition. {{unsigned|172.195.71.136}} | |||
| That still doesn't qualify the MYTH that the word is "inherently" or "obviously" racist or discriminatory, and avoids the point that it was in common usage WITHOUT DERISIVE MEANING for a very, very long time; and remains so in some areas, and also in other languages (] and ] languages). And anger is really the only response to seeing so many lies and distortions posted over and over again, and the same circular, childish justifications for "waaaaha, we were oppressed" and general falsifications of Canadian history; the whole mess of the way CAnadian history has been systematically bad-mouthed by Chinese propagandists smacks to me of the same alternate-history propagandization of Tibet (see ]). There are too many myths and outright LIES about BC and Canadian history that ethno-specific historical whining gets away with; and this being a consensual environment, if there's another side to the story it's going to get told. Whether YOU like it or not, and no matter how much you can point to SOME white people having behaved this or that way; the point is that Chinaman, Celestial and Oriental were NOT coined as racist terms, unlike more overtly racist terms like ''gweilo'' and "chink"; that they have been decided to NOW be considered racist does not mean that they always were, which is Hong's contention; as for the shoddy historical claims on so many other Chinese-Canadian-relevant pages (and not just in Wiki), they should be something that conscientious Chinese/Chinese-CAndaian historical types should consider as having merit, not dismissing out of hand on the basis of some long-gone argument about envy and resentment. Sounds to me like you've only read the modern rehashes, and none of the original materials.....] 20:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| This my last time I post here since talking to you is getting me nowhere and nothing useful and constructive is to be learned anyway, and you'll just respond with another boring, repetitve, and longish diatribe after diatribe. Hitler was denied entry into art school so he hated the Jewish people, Timothy McVeigh didn’t make the cut for the elite US Army Rangers so he hated the US federal government for good, you couldn’t get a lousy job at a hotel so you blame the Chinese (or "Chinamen" in seemingly less offensive terms). Sounds to me like a making of a disgruntled white guy. {{unsigned|172.195.71.136}} | |||
| Anonymous loser-poster: you're getting nowhere because you're refusing to consider that the much-cherished myths of Chinese history in Canada might actually be wrong; I've yet to see one of the people calling me an angry white men, in various words, actually address the inconsistences and distortions that are stated matter-of-fact, uncited, on so many Misplaced Pages pages and on many webpages; despite the existence of obvious contradictions and obvious exaggerations; like the "one dead per foot of Fraser Canyon"; or always avoiding the fact that the Chinese did well during the gold rush - better than most whites in many areas - or that the early Governors protected their rights. But of course you're just interested debunking the bearer of this uncomfortable truths, and calling me a disgruntled white man is just an easy out. The rebels of the Boxer Rebellion were disgruntled, too; and the news for you to consider about me is that I'm a relatively liberal, tolerant Canadian compared to many people out there who are genuinely hostile and don't know the history like I do; but what I know about the history is this: the politically-correct rehash of BC in the last twenty years is a near-complete fabrication as it omits so much of the full context and makes HUGE GENERALIZATIONS about whites/white politicians/white culture. But it's OK to slag white culture, isn't it? And if they speak up to defend themselves, just call them disgruntled or racists. Right, so the Head Tax Redressees weren't disgruntled, and the root causes were the same; endemic discrimination, such as you now find in modern Vancouver, whether YOU are capable of dealing with injustice and false history perpetrated by a self-serving Chinese-Canadian political agenda, or you're not. Protecting lies is by denouncing the person telling the truth is a too-familiar tactic. And the fake history about BC, as said above, is starting to smack more and more of the fake history perpetrated about Tibet all the time.] 18:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I'd suggest that if Hong Qi Gong wishes to assert that the use of the term was considered offensive in the 19th century, he or she should produce a reference to back up the claim. Note that Misplaced Pages isn't in the business of deciding whether it ''actually is'' or ''actually was'' or ''should have been'' offensive; we're only in the business of documenting things. In this case, that means we document whether it was or was not considered offensive at the time. Several sources produced here indicate that it was used as a generic term without derogatory connotations at the time, but if alternate sources claim otherwise they would be useful to know about. --] 06:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Right back at you. I'd suggest you provide references that say it ''wasn't'' offensive, instead of using your own conjecture. Note that Misplaced Pages is only in the business of documenting things. General usage is just that - general usage. Let's see some sources that claim it was not offensive. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 07:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Um, "right back at you" from Delirium's last sentence: | |||
| :::''Several sources produced here indicate that it was used as a generic term without derogatory connotations at the time. | |||
| ::Can you not read? Or do you only choose to read what you want, and decide the rest for yourself?] 20:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Literal translation of China-Man?== | |||
| HongQiGong - regarding your edit of today: Good point, but 'china-man' can also be derived from either Hua ren or Tang ren. I would include this information along with reverting to the prior entry. ] 21:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Is there any supporting evidence to say that "Chinaman" derived from 華人 or 唐人? If none can be found, we should not invent this information for the article. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 22:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==A disambig with a POV template?== | |||
| I've now used my two-out-of-three reversions to oppose Hong Qi Gong's POV edits of what had stood on this page for a very long time, to whit that it would be POV to say otherwise than that there are ''some'' who regard it as offensive and derogatory; there are others ''including North Americans of Chinese descent'', who do not share this position, and still others who use the term quite innocently because it's part of their dialect (and/or local indigenous language...as is often the case, in fact). The pretense that it is ALWAYS derogatory, and is inherently archaic, is decidedly subjective and obviously POV as an p.c.-ideology position. A wikipedian in far-away hong kong may not like it, but the reality is that not all people on this planet share his perspectives and particular subjectivity. Neutrality of POV requires neutrality of language; making a blanket condemnation in the way that HGQ's generalizing edit is doing is clearly not a neutral action, nor is it neutral language that results. But it's important enough that, failing any common sense about respecting other people's views and experiences, that this disambiguation might need a POV template; I'm surprised, given the p.c.-ism, that the "non-discriminatory" use of "chinaman" as a majordomo/batman by politivians is not considered derogatory, too, and has not yet been deleted or altered to HGQ's condemnatory POV as well.] 05:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Sources please. Otherwise it would be ] and use of ]. And as always, please don't use WP as a soapbox. Please read ]. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 06:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And since you've chosen to invoke one of your pet phrases - "weasel words", which is inherently derisive by the way, and also meant at a personal attack (as I know all too well from previous experience with you) - I decided to quote from that page: | |||
| :::::''Weasel words are words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources, lending them the force of authority without letting the reader decide whether the source of the opinion is reliable. | |||
| ::::Which is exactly what you've done by claiming that the ''absence'' of the qualifying phrase somehow obscures the verifiable resources (which as examined do not themselves say "always", and spend some time in qualifying contexts...). You're invoking "weasel words" as if you were some kind of moral/cultural judge, and the irony (as so often with you) is that you're guilty of what you're denouncing the other viewpoint/person for. Misplaced Pages is about integration, not deletion; and especially not about censorship. Maybe you should learn that, finally.....] 18:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sources for your generalization that it's ALWAYS derisive/archaic are what's required; you're asking for negative evidence, rather than offering assertive evidence of your own POV claims. Please be wary of masking soapboxed content as if it were authoritative/neutral, which your edits typically are not.] 08:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Even the sources cited by this disambiguation do not support the claim that "chinaman" is '''always''' offensive. The fact is any racial description can be offensive. "Jew" has been offensive to some for 10,000 years, but Jews don't fear or walk away from their name/appellation. Jews refuse to accept "jew" as a slur despite the fact that a wrong-headed minority that opposes the best interests of jews and all mankind believes "jew" to be a slur. Similarly there are those who think that chinaman is not a slur and to admit that it is a slur is to somehow admit that chinamen are not on par with frenchmen or englishmen. | |||
| :::The reason you won't find this long drawn out explanation in most references, is because chinaman is and always has been acceptable English. It's only a silly notion of political correctness which has somehow tainted this word. For an enlighting history of how words are banned read the respected author and Clinton-appointee Dept. of Education ]. Inform yourself about how easily words and thoughts are banned and take a quick look at the growing list of Oriental related so-called "banned" words and images before you facilitate the banishment of thoughts and words. <ref>http://www.freewebs.com/bannedwords/</ref> ] 10:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The three sources provided says that it is "offensive", "usually offensive", and "often offensive". None of them say that they are considered offensive by "some". The article also does not say that it is "always" offensive - just that it is offensive. And the fact that it is an "acceptable" term is not incompatible with that it is offensive. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 15:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Three sources are not ALL sources, and that you like those sources is fine; you know perfectly well from previous discussions here and eslwhere, and through ongoing controversy about this term (and others like it like ]) that there is NOT a consensus, except among sources that agree with each other. Pretending that this is not the case is dishonest and misrepresentational; selective approval of cites which agree with your prejudices does not make them valid. And you DO have prejudices, among them resisting the idea that YOUR definition of a word is the ONLY definition of a word. I've seen other "snips" you've made on this page, including the removal of the American comic who toured as "Chinaman" (Dave Chinaman as I recall, though I never did see his act). Rather than look for a source, you just deleted him. Rather than acknowledge that an American-Chinese could proudly, ir sarcastically, use Chinaman as a stagename, you had to actually delete him from the page because his existence offends your sense of dignity. Even in English, this is NOT consistently a derisive word, nor would the many rural/smalltown people I know who use it consider it "archaic", and in transmitted form in a good dozen native languages, where it's the ONLY word for a Chinese person, it has no derisive context at all. Fine, way on the other side of the Pacific, you've decided you have a right to pass judgement on North Americans and no North American English; you were grossly wrong (and continue) to be on various issues of Canadian history, and on this count you're playing "morality policeman", "language cop" etc., and that it is only SOME people who regard this term as derisive, and only SOME who clasify it as archaic. Pretending otherwise is making an overly sweeping and false generalzation, inheretnly unencylclopedia by dint of being implicitly subjective (being a judgement and all), and ''because you know better'', i.e that there are people who disagee, it is completely disingenuous and dishonest to pretend that the sources you like, all of which share your prejudices and perspective, are valid. They are not, not without other sources which dispute their absolutist judgement on what was originally "just a word". The choice here is between a full article on the history of the word Chinaman and whether or not it's derisive/archaic, or simply having NPOV language on this disambig page to avoid having to discuss it; pretending that there is no discussion, or that an absolute judgement can be made, is pretentious and arrogant and bigoted; either deal with NPOV language here, or be prepared to address the long and thorny history of this word and the politics surrounding it; IMO what you've done here is assert original research, i.e. pass the strict judgment as if there were no other; maintaining that it is ALWAYS derisive and ALWAYS archaic is in fact "original research", or can be shown to be so since the only sources which corroborate what you claim are dismissive (like you) towards others who do not share their values, i.e. their subjectivity. ] 18:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Again, find some sources to support that only "some" think it's offensive. It shouldn't be difficult if everything you're saying is true. Also, again, WP should not be used as a soapbox. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 18:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::No problem as soon as you find "some" sources who specifically state that "white" is not offensive when used to describe caucasians. Guess what? You won't find those sources because they don't exist. The fact that less than "all" of '''your own''' references describe the term as "offensive" is evidence that the term is not considered offensive by some and perhaps most. ] 20:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Would someone just find some non 'dictionary.com'-type sources for anything that's being asserted here (ie: sources with context)? It is getting quite nauseating around here, and seems likely to only get worse. All I can say is you wouldn't hear the term in the modern North American press (barring the . Personally I don't (and quite probably can't) consider it offensive, being Caucasian. Does that mean that only "some" do, speaking globally-- I'd say so. But of Chinese people, how many do and don't? I couldn't say with accuracy, and there are doubtless people here more qualified to. My experience has been that it is an uncommonly used term now, but I have heard it in use. Mostly from Caucasian people over 45 or so, but NOT exclusively, and not always with an offensive connotation. And I fully acknowledge that statement is original research. Perhaps "most Chinese people" consider it offensive would be a prudent wording. The term, in most instances seems obvious to be interpreted as racist, and a mere google search will verify that. I do wish people would stop throwing WP:this and WP:that around and just start doing some homework though. Either way, that's all I plan on leaving on this particular subject, regardless of the tone of any responses.--] 22:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't actually think your observation is "original research", except in the sense that discussions of differing views on certain subjects are rare in journalism and especially academia, which enjoy citability though often ignoring large bodies of opinion/observation, or just condemning them/dismissing them as is so often the case. But in ''this'' case, the existence of the controversy itself indicates that there is material, i.e. the material of the controversy, which follows this word around the internet and the media when it surfaces, that indicates that the claims in ''some'' sources that it is ''exclusively'' discriminatory and pejorative are false citations which fly in the face of the facts which they are busy admitting at the same time as condemning. And you're right that most white users of the term, are yes, mostly over 45 (except, I'd venture, in rural/native BC where it's quite common in some towns, especially among families who are part-Chinese in fact...part-Chinese, part-Japanese, part-native, part-Norwegian in one case of an elderly lady I had the pleasure of working with on a project; the lady in mind also refers to herself as "Norhoogian", which is an "archaic and derisive" but also self-humorous terms affected by/upon Norwegian-Canadians; my Dad used it, too....citations for Ktunaxa, Carrier, Nez Perce, Shoshone, Okanagan and other languages which have derivitives of ''chinaman'' can also be assembled, but I haven't bothered because those aren't English lexicons; but again, not something that academia chooses to study. You're also right that "Chinaman" is not used when derision is the intent (as with "Jew", "Chinese" works all by itself in most contexts when applied with a certain tone of voice, as is also the case with "Hey, Frenchman!" and "Hey, Englishman!", which are obviously aggressive in tone, or easily can be....and of course there's certain harsher terms than "Chinaman" available in modern English slang, also...). It's the sweeping condemnation of the term that's implicit in HQG's edit that's so shockingly POV, while pretending to, as you say, principles of WP:This or WP:That, which actually don't apply. What applies is that HQG is among the "some" who find it offensive, who are determined that ''all others'' should see their POV, and that anything less is "not cited" or "original research". It's not original research; it's obvious fact. People who play with definitions, or apply them strictly, are generally people whose positions are inherently weak and need to be backed up/promoted by application of technicalities; negative citations are among those tactics, which I view like ], the application of a fee by a service co. that you have to ask/apply to not be subject to, as happened here with the cablecos a few years ago...taking advantage of passivity, and presenting a POV with limited and only supportive citations as if it were the only POV: that's ''not'' NPOV, clearly.....] 23:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| All I ask is sources to say that only "some" believe the word to be offensive. It's not an unreasonable request. Instead of spending the time to write long and drawn out replies here, maybe one of you should look for such a source. If no sources are found, then it's an unfounded claim. Again, please read ] and ]. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 05:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Cites one and three of the second bunch say "sometimes offensive" and "often offensive". "Sometimes" and "often" are not words that are synonymous with "always"; Similarly "Chinaman's Chance" is not blanket-offensive, but "sometimes", and a read of that page's talkpage will demonstrate that it's origins are clear-and-cut-out like ethnobiased history likes to pretend it to be. And If "Chinaman's Chance" is offensive, why isn't a "chinaman" in cricket; the origin is the same, it's the same word; how can one usage be offensive when the other is ''not''. Clearly there's no supporting evidence for it being ''always'' offensive. And as for citations of modern non-offensive usage, hmm, that's nice, because when reporters visit places where the word is in use, they "edit" peoples' speech when they put it into print - substituting "Chinese" or "Chinese person" when someone might have said "chinaman", in the same way that (because of gender-neutral styleguides now in force in the CBC) they'd say "fisher" instead of "fishermen". Similarly, book editors will change things to suit modern political sensitivities (i.e. of those who bitch, who are not the majority anywhere). I can dig up historical usages that are clearly non-defamatory, non-degrading, but they're interestingly quite often accompanied by sophomoric notes from p.c.=academics tryhing to rationalize the use, i.e. if it's not clearly defamatory then what is it? What it is is the truth, which doesn't fit to the reality that ethno-historical biases have tried to rejigger it into. Back to the point - the three cites (all dictionaries) - do NOT state that it is always offensive; the words "sometimes" and "usually" are clearly stated there. Why are you pretending that they are not? Oh, never mind, I already know the answer....] 17:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::From what I'm reading, the first source says "usually" offensive, not "sometimes". Neither of which says that only "some" consider it offensive. Also, the second source does not qualify who or how often it is considered offensive, just that it is. And none of the sources qualify it to say that only Asian or Chinese people consider it offensive. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 18:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::See ], which you should apply to yourself before condemning others for same. Try picking up your little dictionary and look up "equivocation", which is what your post just above really is.] 19:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Quite simply, people who are not offended don't post articles or write references to defend standard English usage. By your standard, EVERY noun could be considered offensive because of the criteria that you have established. Namely, dictionaries and references don't explicit say which words are NOT considered offensive. The standard definition of Dutchman, Englishman and Frenchman does NOT implicitly say that these are not offensive terms. Furthermore, no one ever writes a news article about some using a noun in which no one was offended. But you better believe if a fringe minority of kookie Dutchmen slammed Ted Turner for accusing the Dutch of being smart, good businessmen and making good cigars, then you'd better believe there would an article about this cock-and-bull. | |||
| :Just to explain "Dutchman" in frontier-Northwest and old Californian/Wild West usage meant "German" or most other non-French, non-English pioneers; could be Slovak or Ukrainian as well as Dutch or Danish (there were few Dutch in the old days; Scandinavians were usually distinguished by specifics, i.e. "a Dane", "a Swede"....btw "Swede" can also be derisive, as can also be "Dutchman"). "Dutchman" from "Deutsch" y'see....] | |||
| Thus, your references are nothing more than original research to push your narrow POV. Looking back at the history of this article it appears that you've worn out the patience of a good many other editors. Since your war of attrition has work so far, I assume you will continue with your tactics, rather than submit to the consensus view. This type of "editor" is what is quickly disillusioning me with Misplaced Pages. ] 18:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm going by the "standard" of the references we have, and those references do not state that every noun is offensive. And also please read ]. Consensus in editing WP articles means ''unanimous'' support. There is no consensus here in this article. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 21:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Pretentious moralizing in edit comments== | |||
| Hong, don't pretend like you won, or keep on tossing out that "weasel words" accusation you're so fond of (like a kindergartner who's found a new word and uses it over and over - like "soapboxing" was or a while for you as well, and again ironically or pathetically it's one of your own worst habits). You've been forced to concede "usually" and "often" (which yes, aren't synonyms for "sometimes" but are IMO less accurate) and you've also been forced to live with Keefer4's observations that when it's offensive it's offensive to Chinese/Asian people (although some non-Asians do take offence, as in the tut-tut church-lady politically-correct brigade), and you haven't reinserted the POV comment about Chinaman's Chance you made a point of a while back. Claiming that citations are needed for "sometimes" is like asking for a citation on last week's weather forecast. Point is, your POV change here, and the weasel words that accompanied it, have been shot down in flames. But I imagine a few months down the line, you're going to try and do the same thing agan, when you think no one's looking, as you did this time. And while you're digging around for citations, you might want to look for that American comedian whose mention here you deleted. Who knows maybe he'll play a club in HK and you can ask him for a citation. IMO your use of "weasel words" is tantamount to calling the person you're dealing with a weasel. And THAT is a personal attack, and YOU do it all the time (while complaining about other people attacking you).] 16:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Hong:''Plus, please don't use weasel words without reference. | |||
| ::Plus, please don't delete content without reference, as you did when this whole discussion got launched; and then deleted it again, AGAIN without reference, and then did something as if the sources that were there supported it ''which they didn't'', and then accuse the other people of weasel words for pointing this out, and then weaseling around your own failure to represent the sources by again accusing the other side of weasel word and demanding something be cited but which can't be even though it's obvious fact, even within the context of things already written on the page ("chinaman" when used in cricket is not, apparently, offensive, nor in Indiana politics; that validates the phrase "sometimes"). Also your claim to be a native speaker of English is no doubt something you're very proud of; but you make basic Chinese-guy mistakes all the time, including dropping the plural in the above phrase; yes it makes sense with "reference" in the singular but it's not idiomatic English. "Please don't use weasel words without reference" - you're a laugh a minute Hong; here's one for you to try on for yourself "Please don't use weasel words". You might try repeating that a few times before every single post in Misplaced Pages you make.] 16:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==HQG deleting citations== | |||
| What's with that Hong? Elder Statesman's contribution of the Ravick book has been deleted each time it's placed here, most lately deleted by you. Weasel words, weasel edits - what's next?] 16:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I assume you're talking about Diane Ravitch as a reference. That was an accident and I've re-inserted it. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 16:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)\ | |||
| ::I don't believe you, as I just looked back over that edit and others like it, where Ravich was taken out before; there were clear syntactical changes in the surrounding sentence showing you were paying attention to what you were doing. I think you only put it back in and claimed "accident" because you got caught: I'm not prepared - not with YOU, at any rate, to "Accept Good Faith", because I don't think you have any yourself (being as you never show any to anyone else). To sum up, Hong: this latest round of nonsense from you prompts me to render a personal judgement on you: you're dishonest and also a hypocrite about what you think others should abide by when you feel no compunction to observe the very same themselves. Being unable to be self-critical is one thing, but I don't think it's just vanity on your part; I think you're inherently dishonest. That's not an attack, it's an observation, backed up by your various dodges and inconsitences here and elsewhere. Open thing that leads me to adjudge you that is that because, in my culture, it is widely recognized that those that feel the need to lecture and hector others are generally those who should be listening to their own sermons. But I don't think it's self-deception with you; I think you're deliberately dishonest.] 16:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please ]. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 16:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Hiding behind WP:This and WP:That is ''SO'' typical of you, Hong. Why don't you try ] on yourself sometime, as you should have done on this page, instead of deleting content and then defending your deletions with cites that don't even support what you say; even though clear demonstrations of "sometimes" are the other entries on the disambig page (still haven't checked that spectacles thing, yet, though, have you?). WP Good Faith? Geez, you're a terrible hypocrite, HQG, you know that? Assume Good Faith? When you have you ever done that yourself?] 17:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Who cares? It's back in there now. I think the current edit is as fair as possible. ] 14:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::None of the sources actually say that "some people" consider it offensive. I've editted it to make it more specific. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 15:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Cherrypicking dictionaries== | |||
| As I've said elsewhere, a reliance on dictionaries and definitions is the last redoubt of the morally weak, but since the game of dictionary-cites is being played, it seems that (as before) not the whole truth is being brought forth; one problem with dictionaries is that they're all written "off each other", such that what one says the other one will tend to parrot (much like academics and journalists, as well as grade nine students). That all dictionaries cited are modern ones where they have had the p.c.-ite brush go over them to make sure all sensitivities are in place, to me, invalidates them as useful cites for how people ''do'' speak, not how they ''should''. That these dictionaries cited by HQG baldly state either "offensive" or even the qualified "usually offensive" (implicitly meaning that it is ''sometimes not'', but that logic apparently doesn't satisfy HQG) ''without'' accounting for the word's origins or how it ''became'' derisive (China+man is a standard Germanic neutral-person formation, as well as being standard pidgin formation) makes them highly suspect and not representative of ''anything'' but current usage/acceptability. I tried to get into OED but I don't have a subscription so couldn't look there (and I'd expect its entry to contain a lot of etymological info as well as examples of varying usages) so I tried to google up some alternates - more than HQG's "at least four" (his preference for American dictionaries is telling...): | |||
| Most useful as been from http://www.onelook.com/?loc=pub&w=chinaman which lists various dictionary entries, including the "at least four"; interestingly there were some dictionaries (Cambridge) which didn't have the word at all. | |||
| * - "an offensive term for a man of Chinese origin (dated)" (no other definitions, e.g. cricket) | |||
| * - "noun, chiefly archaic or derogatory, a native of China." (no other definitions) | |||
| * -" noun: a ball bowled by a left-handed bowler to a right-handed batsman that spins from off to leg; noun: offensive terms for a person of Chinese descent | |||
| * 1. derog, old use, A Chinese man. 2. cricket - A ball bowled by a left-handed bowler to a right-handed batsman, which spins from the off to the leg side. | |||
| And so on; that some of these have ''only'' the "offensive" meaning and none of the other "non-offensive ones" indicates the degree to which they are incomplete ''and hence non-authoritative'' | |||
| Most interesting among these were the two vintage dictionaries, though: | |||
| * - "Chi"na*man (?), n.; pl. Chinamen (). A native of China; a Chinese." | |||
| * - "Chinaman (John), a man of China." | |||
| Neither of these historical English sources make any mention of "offensive"; if the term had been offensive in 1913, Webster surely would have said so, huh? As for the other source, it's more a lexicon than dictionary; it's interesting that it used the full-derisive form, though ("John Chinaman" - again without any suggestion of its putative offensiveness at the time) | |||
| The most full set of defintions of the lot is at; | |||
| *: | |||
| ::1. Usually Offensive.a Chinese or a person of Chinese descent. | |||
| ::2. (l.c.) a person who imports or sells china. | |||
| ::3. (often l.c.) Political Slang. a person regarded as one's benefactor, sponsor, or protector: to see one's chinaman about a favor. | |||
| ::4. a Chinaman's chance, Usually Offensive.the slightest chance: He hasn't a Chinaman's chance of getting that job. | |||
| :Note:infoplease.com is I think a derivative of Misplaced Pages, so doesn't count, but definition #2 is interesting here as another archaic usage; it was, in fact, the namesake of a particular lake in the Peace River Country of BC that had been Chinaman's Lake and is now China Lake; story is the settler on that lake had actually been a Mr. Chinaman from England, and that had been the family profession...that may even be citable but the debate where this surfaced in local papers was back in the early '90s | |||
| So we now also have the "derogatory" and "archaic" usages, and also dictionary evidence with doesn't say "not offensive" but also ''doesn't say'' "offensive". Other than that, HQG's suggestion/citation request that examples of non-derisive use by citable is a red herring, as there are no modern-era publishers or academics who could or ever do work on such a topic; in fact, it would be interesting to find out if there ''was'' an academic paper on this word's origins and how it became perceived/branded as being offensive. That there are undocumented uses that "official" sources like dictionaries and academics choose to ignore does not mean they aren't there; it's a general problem with citability issues on many topics - wrong, incomplete, or fallacious research/findings are still citable and also repeatable by other sources; dictionary listings are viral and definitions "spread unquestioningly", while whole other definitions and contexts are ignored. But, as before, dictionaries are not rulebooks, nor even signposts; they're meant to be a measure of a language, not a prescription as they're often invoked as by people with inferior lexical skills.] 20:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 11:53, 24 December 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chinaman (disambiguation) page. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
 Archives | |
|
|
inappropriate edits
This is a disambiguation page. See wp:dab. Unsourced edits adding POV motivated text to the page is inappropriate. Given the wider context detailed in this report, http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&action=edit§ion=18 , such edits may be seen as disruptive. μηδείς (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Cherrypicking cherrypicking dictionaries
First of all I am new here and I apologize for the newbie mistakes I made earlier. I hope what I am doing now is in compliance with the practice of this board. If not, your suggestion and comments are greatly appreciated. Dwarm12345 (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
IMHO, dictionaries are far better source and authority on information when it comes to the use of words than any he-say-she-says. If dictionaries were not to be trusted, a significant percentage of Wiki contents would have to be removed or revised because their information are based on dictionaries one way or the other, in which case what do the readers have left to believe when it comes the use of words? Believe the posters/admins of this board? How can we assert that we are superior than the linguistics who edited Webster, Oxford and so on? Therefore any claims that the dictionaries are " all written "off each other" " are serious charges which warrant backing of concrete evidences. The only possible way out of this difficulty seems to be discrediting the dictionary ONLY on the part on Chinaman, which may be called "Cherrypicking cherrypicking dictionaries" :-) Dwarm12345 (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Discrediting dictionaries as well as denying the fact that "Chinaman" was indeed used mainly in contemptuous and racially derogatory contexts, especially in late 19th and throughout most of 20th centuries, rather than people being taught to, or seek to see the word as objectionable, as claimed by some on this board, IMHO, is irresponsible and misleading to online audience at the minimum. I do form the same impression as several authors on this topic did that there has been a conscious effort to mitigate the derogatory aspect of the term... Any comments are greatly appreciated.Dwarm12345 (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- In response to Dwarm12345 above. First, be aware that dictionaries are useful, but often serve a limited purpose and have a limited context. Wikipoedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. But more important, this page is no longer an article, which has texts and references, but a disambiguation page WP:DAB where it is inappropriate to have text beyond that which may be necessary to clarify the nature of a link. It is a succinct list, not a comprehensive article. μηδείς (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- I totally agree with you that an encyclopedia should have a broader scope than dictionaries. However the reality of this page is the opposite of that, it has a small scope than the dictionary. While the respectful dictionaries acknowledge the derogatory aspect of the term, this page fail to do so. It also fail to "clarify the nature of a link" as you stated for the same reason.Dwarm12345 (talk) 19:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages has various types of pages. This is a disambiguation page, not an article. You can learn about disambiguation pages here: WP:DISAMBIG. (Links like that that begin with WP: link to policies and guidelines.) Disambiguation pages are supposed to be barebones lists of links with text neutrally worded text WP:NPOV provided only when what is to be found at a link might not be clear.
- You may be confused by the presence of old arguments here into thinking that this is an article about "Chinaman" or that it is appropriate to discuss the issue of the contentiousness of the term here. But these are old discussions left over from the time when this was indeed an article. At some point there were enough separate articles using the word Chinaman that the decision was made, for matters of wikipedia policy, to change this from a main article to a disambiguation page. Continuing your argument about the issue here is like sending letters to the Soviet consulate. History has moved on, and these arguments are moot. μηδείς (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe you have a personal interests in sending letters to the Soviet consulate but IMHO it is irrelevant to our discussion here. Or are you suggesting this page is prehistoric? Then what is the point of posting outdated information? Maybe I am mistaken... Dwarm12345 (talk) 13:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- What Medeis means is that the content in this article was all moved to Chinaman (term). Looking at the logs, this was done on 15 June 2010. Discussion before that date is about the article Chinaman (term), not this one. — Mr. Stradivarius 14:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, this page isn't the right place for these remarks - really this should be discussed at Talk:Chinaman (term), although most of the arguments have already been made there, I think. — Mr. Stradivarius 03:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- IMHO, any page, as long as it is posted on Misplaced Pages and visible to readers, it is subjected to scrutiny for its accuracy and truthfulness. Even though this page is quite short, I see at least one piece of misinformation of the term "contentious" which is, IMHO, a watering down of its racially derogatory nature when it is used to referred a person of Chinese origin, which as been an established notion of all respectful dictionaries as well as the personal experience of many Chinese/Asian Americans. Arguing against such demands strong backing of concrete evidences and credentials, unless this page is solely a reflection of the personal opinions of a few. Therefore I make a motion to restore "contentious" to "often racially derogatory" Dwarm12345 (talk) 13:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- What I mean is that the issues surrounding this have already been discussed at Talk:Chinaman (term). Trying to argue them again here is not very helpful. Rather, the thing to do is read all the other arguments first, and then only make a comment if you have a new point to add. So, what you should do is first read Chinaman (term), then read the talk page at Talk:Chinaman (term), and then make a new post at the bottom of the talk page there if you are not satisfied with the arguments that other editors have made. Thank you for your understanding. — Mr. Stradivarius 14:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- The term contentious is objective and describes the fact that some people do indeed find it offensive. But often racially drogatory presents the POV as a fact, and the word often makes a claim we do not know. If, per WP:ATTRIBUTE, we were to change contentious to sometimes considered offensive, that would be acceptable from the point of view of NPOV, but it is unnecessarily wordy for a DAB page. μηδείς (talk) 15:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree with the notion that "it is unnecessarily wordy for a DAB page". As I stated earlier, as long as a page is visible to reader, it should be subjected to scrutiny and possible revisions, which is the correct practice of a scholar as well as to the best interest of Misplaced Pages's reputation. Dwarm12345 (talk) 02:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with you on the meaning of the term "contentious". I also agree that it correctly describes PART of the attributes of the word Chinaman. However, being correct is not automatically being accurate, nor being most suited. For instance, if I were to say "Chinaman is a noun", this is a CORRECT description but very likely not BEST SUITED for this page. I also agree that not all use of Chinaman is offensive, as in the case describing the dealer or a salesperson of chinaware. However the sentence currently reads "Chinaman (term) is a ??? term referring to a Chinese person whether of Han Chinese ethnicity or a citizen of China, Chinese people." So the question becomes, when the term Chinaman is used to specifically describe the people as stated in the sentence, is it SOMETIMES or OFTEN offensive? From respectful sources of information such as Webster, it should be OFTEN. I understand some earlier posts questioned the validity of these dictionaries. However I would consider such questioning valid ONLY if such claim can be RELIABLY verified, otherwise we fall back into the he-say-she-say situation which is in violation of Misplaced Pages's policy. Therefore I move to change the word "contentious" to "often offensive". Dwarm12345 (talk) 02:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
This is all very repetitive. Stradivarius has given you a source which specifically says it is rarely used maliciously, and the difference between something being inherently offensive and sometimes being found offensive has been explained at length. Contentious covers those who find it offensive while itself being a neutral term which no one will dispute. "Often" is unsupported and "offensive" is a POV. I don't intend to repeat myself. μηδείς (talk) 02:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Calling it all very repetitive is POV IMHO :-) . And I did go to Stradivarius' source and I found it quite in sync with my reasoning. I will write something on it. In addition, I acknowledge that you are NO LONGER rejecting dictionaries as reliable source of information. So I hope all of my reasonings based on dictionaries be convincing to you now. So following the descriptions of the dictionaries, it is more suited to use "offensive" rather than "contentious" ONLY for that particular sentence. I have no objection to the fact that in many other usage of the word, there is no insulting meaning, as those among the list following the sentence and I do not move to change them. Dwarm12345 (talk) 04:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I also respectfully disagree on your assessment that ""Often" is unsupported and "offensive" is a POV". The notion of this word being often offensive is well verifiable by modern respectful dictionaries. To the contrary, the repetitive claims of this notion being POV are themselves POVs without verification.Dwarm12345 (talk) 13:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- IMHO it is time to make the revision now. Further discussion on the TOPIC is greatly appreciated. Dwarm12345 (talk) 06:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
"Contentious" or "often offensive"
Regarding this edit, I reverted it mainly because the grammar is incorrect. It also goes against the comment by Medeis that using "often offensive" would introduce unnecessary verbiage, which I agree with. These two points are related. But firstly, I should say that I can't really see what you're concerned about. Calling Chinaman "contentious", to my mind, is the same thing as saying it is "often offensive". They express the same potential to anger. Dwarm, is this different from your understanding of the word contentious?
The grammar is incorrect because it implies that Chinaman is often a term, when in fact it is always a term. To use often offensive in this sentence correctly, you would need to use the unnecessary verbiage that Medeis was talking about. It would have to be like this: "Chinaman is a term, often offensive, referring to a Chinese person". Or perhaps this: "Chinaman is a term often used offensively to refer to a Chinese person", but this is even longer. If the meaning does not change when using contentious, then why not stick with the simpler grammar? This page is just meant to be a quick way for people to jump between articles, after all. — Mr. Stradivarius 14:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for pointing out the grammatical issue of my reversion. I also acknowledge your concern on verbiages. But it doesn't appears to be an issue in this case, especially when compared to a mortgage contract :-) . I hereby move to change the sentence to "Chinaman is a term often used offensively to refer..." as you have suggested. I admit that I am somewhat a perfectionist. As I mentioned earlier, "contentious" is CORRECT while "often ... offensive" is MORE ACCURATE and BETTER SUITED according to modern respectful dictionaries. Even though this page is short and maybe nobody glances it for more than 10 seconds, we should still strive to make it as accurate as we can, as I have stated earlier. After all, working on things no body cares isn't what scholars are supposed to do? :-))Dwarm12345 (talk) 14:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- That was not intended as a suggestion... in fact, looking at it again, "Chinaman is a term often used offensively to refer to a Chinese person" makes it seem more offensive than the Chinaman (term) article suggests. More accurate would be "sometimes used offensively" or "often causes offence to Chinese people" - and using contentious captures these nuances in one word. Also, you should really be sure that you have consensus before making controversial changes, rather than merely assuming that you have it. (And I would also be grateful if you could stop using ALL CAPS in your posts - thanks.) — Mr. Stradivarius 15:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe I misunderstood you intention. But you had stated that you reverted it mainly because the grammar is incorrect, not "often offensive" themselves except for the concern on verbiage.Dwarm12345 (talk) 16:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- That was not intended as a suggestion... in fact, looking at it again, "Chinaman is a term often used offensively to refer to a Chinese person" makes it seem more offensive than the Chinaman (term) article suggests. More accurate would be "sometimes used offensively" or "often causes offence to Chinese people" - and using contentious captures these nuances in one word. Also, you should really be sure that you have consensus before making controversial changes, rather than merely assuming that you have it. (And I would also be grateful if you could stop using ALL CAPS in your posts - thanks.) — Mr. Stradivarius 15:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- At the same time,being "often offensive" can be verified by many respectful dictionaries. Is "sometime ... offensively" or even "contentious" verifiable by sufficient number of respectful sources? If not, they clearly have violated the NPOV policy and warranted a revision. Dwarm12345 (talk) 15:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well, you're probably right, that might be the only way that this dispute can get settled. I've got myself embroiled enough in this page that I'm willing to do the spadework. Wait right there, and I'll come back with some sources. — Mr. Stradivarius 15:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Joy of being a scholar :-))) Dwarm12345 (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well, you're probably right, that might be the only way that this dispute can get settled. I've got myself embroiled enough in this page that I'm willing to do the spadework. Wait right there, and I'll come back with some sources. — Mr. Stradivarius 15:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- At the same time,being "often offensive" can be verified by many respectful dictionaries. Is "sometime ... offensively" or even "contentious" verifiable by sufficient number of respectful sources? If not, they clearly have violated the NPOV policy and warranted a revision. Dwarm12345 (talk) 15:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
What sources say about Chinaman
I found these by using OneLook and Google Books, along with a couple of other dictionary sites I knew of already. I have excluded very old sources (I think they are all newer than 1980), and I have also excluded duplicate entries. They are in no particular order.
- "Offensive" -
- "Derogatory" -
- "Often offensive" -
- "Usually offensive"
- "May be taken as patronizing" -
- "Apparently innocent" but "provokes anger", "greatly dislike" -
- "An ethnic slur, taboo in American English"
- "Considered derogatory by many" -
- "Considered offensive", "some examples of the old naive use ... more of knowing use that is intended satirically" -
Actually, finding all of these has made me eat my words. I don't think we can realistically claim that contentious is appropriate, given all this evidence. Not to mention the fact that there is not one source here that calls Chinaman "contentious". Going by the sources, it seems we should choose either offensive or derogatory. What do others think? — Mr. Stradivarius 17:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Gee, Stradivarius, you are a true scholar! You are by far the most fact-seeking editor on this board I have seen (sorry about the apparent POV ). Simply based on the frequency in which it appears in your list, I stay with the motion "often ... offensive". Dwarm12345 (talk) 17:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- "Since the 1980's sometimes considered offensive" would be fine, were this an article, since no one contests that it is sometimes considered offensive in recent history. But just plain offensive is not NPOV, nor from an international standpoint, especially given the number of sources which say it is used innocently and without meaning to give offense. But then you still run into the problem that this is a DAB page, and we shouldn't be describing the word at all with claims that would require sources but just providing a link. The simple word contentious covers the fact that some find it offensive, is neutral and uncontestable. Anything more than that is improper for a DAB which is supposed to be simple, neutral, and unsourced. μηδείς (talk) 17:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- All the overwhelming number of respectful sources listed above do not verify your claim of "Since the 1980's sometimes considered offensive". They simply state it as "offensive" or "derogatory". If you want to make a valid objection to my motion, your must provide an equally sufficient number of verifiable sources. Otherwise it is simply a POV and should not be considered. Dwarm12345 (talk) 17:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- "Since the 1980's sometimes considered offensive" would be fine, were this an article, since no one contests that it is sometimes considered offensive in recent history. But just plain offensive is not NPOV, nor from an international standpoint, especially given the number of sources which say it is used innocently and without meaning to give offense. But then you still run into the problem that this is a DAB page, and we shouldn't be describing the word at all with claims that would require sources but just providing a link. The simple word contentious covers the fact that some find it offensive, is neutral and uncontestable. Anything more than that is improper for a DAB which is supposed to be simple, neutral, and unsourced. μηδείς (talk) 17:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- That's an interesting idea, but you need to understand WP:ATTRIBUTE which holds that we attribute claims to the sources making them and not one of the sources mentioned was published prior to the 1980's. Again, you have clearly expressed your understanding for the difference between saying 'something is X' and saying 'something is considered X'. BUT ALL THIS IS IRRELEVANT SINCE this is a disambiguation page, not an articel, and it is not allowed to have sourced text. The word "contentious" really shouldn't be there either, but the single neutral word seems harmless enough.— Preceding comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs) 18:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello! This is a disambiguation page, not an article, and sourced statements are not allowed. μηδείς (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Please read WP:DABNOT:
What not to include
*Dictionary definitions
*ReferencesDo not include references in disambiguation pages; disambiguation pages are not articles. Incorporate references into the disambiguated articles as needed. μηδείς (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- That's an interesting idea, but you need to understand WP:ATTRIBUTE which holds that we attribute claims to the sources making them and not one of the sources mentioned was published prior to the 1980's. Again, you have clearly expressed your understanding for the difference between saying 'something is X' and saying 'something is considered X'. BUT ALL THIS IS IRRELEVANT SINCE this is a disambiguation page, not an articel, and it is not allowed to have sourced text. The word "contentious" really shouldn't be there either, but the single neutral word seems harmless enough.— Preceding comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs) 18:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- The sources are not just "respectful" sources - they are all the sources I could find. Just including "respectful sources" would have been biased. The sources are, however, all published after 1980, so they can't claim anything about usage before that. (They might all be published after 1990, actually, I was just saying 1980 to be on the safe side.) As for being international, they include the Oxford English Dictionary and the Chambers Dictionary, both from the UK, and which both refer to Chinaman as "derogatory". Of course I don't think we should include a dictionary definition of Chinaman here, but if we are going to call it anything, we should stick with the sources. — Mr. Stradivarius 18:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- First of all, Medeis, please stop posting threatening messages on my talk page] otherwise I will move to ban you. Secondly, your argument against the revision is unfounded IMHO. As I stated earlier and you also agreeed, it doesn't matter whether a page is disambiguation page or an article, the information it contains must be subjected to the same scrutiny of verifiability. It is a fact the description "offensive" is verifiable and "contentious" is not as provided by Stradivarius. You are simply ignoring the fact. Hereby I move to ignore Medeis' objection and make the necessary revision. Dwarm12345 (talk) 18:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Medeis, you are rearranging discussion texts after other editors have responded. This is a newbie mistake you should have not made. Once again, I move to make the update despite Medeis' POVs unless he can provided verifiable sources. Dwarm12345 (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Dwarm, accusing others of "newbie mistakes" and having "POVs" is not going to help here, regardless of what has transpired. I know it has been linked to you before, but WP:AGF is essential in discussions like this. — Mr. Stradivarius 18:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Not saying that you guys can't change anything, but the current wording is byte-for-byte identical to the first clause of the first sentence of Chinaman (term). I don't see why this should change, so why don't you all discuss changing that wording at Talk:Chinaman (term) and then just updating this one? The DAB reflects the actual article, after all. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well, that's what I first suggested, but Dwarm12345 was very insistent. Also, I actually added contentious to Chinaman (term) based on this disambiguation page a few days ago. As for the sources, I thought we could also use them to make the Chinaman (term) article better, which is why I didn't mind doing so much work for just one word. — Mr. Stradivarius 19:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Wait, you didn't ask about the sources... <ahem> Anyway, I think that's a very good idea. Let's talk about this at Talk:Chinaman (term). — Mr. Stradivarius 19:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Stradivarius, I believe we have reached a consensus of revising to "often...offensive". But I am not going to modify the page now. I've reached that dreadful 3-edits threshold when I misunderstood one of your earlier comments as a go-ahead as explained already. My understanding is that you will revise both pages. Please also remember the Dutchman addition I had suggested. Dwarm12345 (talk) 19:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I'm afraid your understanding is wrong. For one thing, I am still far from convinced that Medeis wants to change the wording to offensive. For another, we really should do this at Chinaman (term) before we do it here. And for yet another, I'm going to bed. I'm sure there will be new developments tomorrow. — Mr. Stradivarius 20:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Stradivarius, I believe we have reached a consensus of revising to "often...offensive". But I am not going to modify the page now. I've reached that dreadful 3-edits threshold when I misunderstood one of your earlier comments as a go-ahead as explained already. My understanding is that you will revise both pages. Please also remember the Dutchman addition I had suggested. Dwarm12345 (talk) 19:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- You might have a majority but you don't have consensus. This is a collaborative project. You can't just dismiss reasonable concerns from other editors. You might think his being wrong makes them unreasonable. It doesn't. Like it or not, we have to deal with each other so you might wanted to get started on that. --JGGardiner (talk) 03:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
"Is that or is it not the wrong chinaman?"
I looked here for a reference for this use of 'Chinaman'. This is a direct quote from the book 'Remains of the Day'. It appears to be an article of furniture (maybe) Anyway several of them are discussed in the book however I am unable to find out what they are! 2829 VC 08:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I've now added 'a nodding Chinaman' or 'nodding China-man as this (from watching the film) appears to be the right reference 2829 VC 20:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
All your sources defining Chinaman as offensive or derogatory are out of date. Not one millennial alive today has heard it use that way, or even Gen-x ers. Only boomers and elderly heard it used that way, and mostly people who were alive in 1930 or earlier. If people today think its offensive, they probably read that it was offensive, and believed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.48.247 (talk) 01:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- You'd do well to read Archive 1 of this talkpage, which went over sources exhaustively about all that (except then we didn't have Gen-Xer sources then) and found all the non-derisive sources which gave all the other meanings now on this page. Well, some seem to have been edited out; there was a listing for a book called The Ugly Chinaman by Bo Yang; noting on his page seems to be another called The Real Chinaman"; not linkable book articles but literary (in his case social criticism and politics) titles of notable authors should be included in literature sections of dab pages, no? I haven't watchlisted this page in ages, and just now for other reasons trying to find a discussion which had passages from it.
- As very evident in what you'll read in the archive, historically it has been inoffensive except when used in certain combinations; early census listings are generic descriptives of the common term of the time, one dictionary notes that Chinese was the adjectival form, Chinaman the singular noun, Chinamen for up to 10 (some number, can't remember), Chinese for larger numbers. The moral pretensions of current generations, particularly nouveau history and social science academics and publications, are at loggerheads with the reality they presume to pronounce judgment on and very often you find evidence that their sweeping generalizations about non-Chinese, and their avoidance of discussing events that may (or do) portray any of them negatively in their selectively-researched works is what it is. Avoidance, but not honest history, but a big problem with modern and po-mo RS: inherent POV, in this case that the word is only bad and always was, which is a blatant mistruth as a cruise through sources of all kinds from the past shows. Avoiding bias should be Misplaced Pages's goal; pandering to it should not be.
- I see a few discussions on this page asking questions or raising issues going on here before and also going on on Talk:Chinaman (term) that are well-covered in the archive linked above.Skookum1 (talk) 15:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Chinaman (term) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Categories: