Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 11:57, 7 September 2022

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that this is unsalvageable WP:OR,  Sandstein  16:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Differences between Huaxia and barbarians

Differences between Huaxia and barbarians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This page should be deleted because its entire content constitutes original research. This wiki has countless problems, some of which are unsolvable: 1) it presents a racist POV despite claims to the contrary; 2) the topic is not discussed in these terms in any reliable source that I know of; 3) the POV lead paragraphs are an editor’s interpretive claims about a mixed bag of primary sources (in violation of Misplaced Pages:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources); 4) the rest of the article mixes topics that are not discussed together in any reliable source that I know of (an obvious case of SYNTHESIS); 5) the rest of the article also has nothing to do with the article's title; 6) apart from the lead paragraphs, the article is actually about Sinicization, a notion that already has its own wiki; 7) finally, the wiki’s title is not "recognizable," as per Misplaced Pages:Naming_conventions#Use the most easily recognized name. All in all, an extreme case of a bad wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madalibi (talk • contribs) 06:11, 3 January 2009

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 06:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Original research. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Obvious case of WP:Synthesis.
  • First half of intro is copied-and-pasted from article Huaxia. Second half of the intro attempts to define "Differences between Huaxia and barbarians" but the definition is unsourced.
  • The section "The Differences between China and Minority Nationality in the Ancient Chinese Frontier Conception" is a direct copy-and-paste from the abstract of the source that is given, and is an assertion without any explanation or elaboration, making it utterly pointless.
  • The section "Famous foreigners followed Confucius teaching" is completely unsourced and what more, readers are left wondering what the relevance is.
  • The first half of section "Jesuit missionary helped to spread Confucius teaching" is completely unsourced. The second half is given one source that does not back up its claims. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 09:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Would this fall under any speedies? Maybe nonsense, attack page, vandalism, or notability? So many issues with the article, WP:OR, WP:V, WP:N, WP:NAMING, WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:INDISCRIMINATE.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 09:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, and rename or merge. This article talks about the concept 華夷之辨, which is of course not original research. But it should be rewritten and renamed to a more common title. Currently zh:華夷之辨 has a interlanguage link to Sinocentrism#Cultural Sinocentrism. I think that this article can be renamed to Cultural Sinocentrism or merged to Sinocentrism.--Neo-Jay (talk) 11:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Most of the article is irretrievable. Possibly some of the material (or even the great Chinese "debate" about Huaxia and barbarians) should go in a separate section in the article on barbarians. The fact that Chinese at one stage in their history were highly interested in the difference between themselves and barbarians, and whether the barbarians were "improvable" or not, is a historical debate. It should be written that way. Whether enough sources can be found is another issue. Bathrobe (talk) 15:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep, and rename or merge. I agree with Neo-Jay's suggestion that the article either be renamed to Cultural Sinocentrism or otherwise merged into Sinocentrism. It really needs to be fleshed out, though, and explained in such a way that non-Sinologists and/or Chinese readers can understand. L (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I don't think this is an article title we want to keep, and the content is so poorly written that I don't think we want to keep it either. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: The article is a mess. The title is poor. The initial concept is well described in Sinocentrism. The remaining content, only vaguely related, is covered under Li Keyong, Matteo Ricci and Giulio Alenio. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - thios article seems to have the grounding for an academic essay or study; the actual phrase or whatever the title really is is not really the subject of this essay. In order to become encyclopaedic, the article would have to be rewritten completely, in order to focus entirely upon the title; not an analysis of the two cultures. Perhaps some of the content could be merged with Huaxia or Confucianism - if any of it is notable enough. Sorry, but this article just isn't an encyclopaedia entry. – Toon 22:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. An abomination. Can't see how a rewrite could save it. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. I've already explained my reasons in detail in the talk page and in the deletion paragraph. Just a few more points. Despite the creator's claim the "Hua-Yi zhi bian" 華夷之辨 ("The 'China-barbarian' distinction"?) was purely cultural, some ancient Chinese writers (like Wang Fuzhi) occasionally emphasized the racial aspects over the cultural ones. Asserting that "Hua-Yi zhi bian" was (as opposed to "claimed to be") a purely cultural conception and discussing it in a separate article would mean creating a content fork, and even arguably a POV fork. We should discuss the dual aspect of "Hua-Yi zhi bian" (culturalism sometimes mixed with racist conceptions) in the article on Sinocentrism, which already discusses some of these issues. That wiki is not perfect, but because it's already clear and substantial, it forms a much better basis for expansion than the current article. Neo-Jay and L have generously suggested that the article should be kept and renamed. But they also agreed that the article should be "rewritten." The problem is that almost none of the current content can be salvaged: the article would therefore need to be rewritten from scratch. Why save a page when 1) it still lacks a proper title; 2) it needs to be blanked before it can be "rewritten"; and 3) its best hope is eventually to get merged into a better article? Deletion is much simpler. Madalibi (talk) 08:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as non salvagable content and inherent POV. Usrnme h8er (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete not sure if I'm supposed to vote here or after the tl;dr block below. This article is fundamentally hopeless as the topic has many things wrong with it. "Barbarians" is nowhere close to being NPOV, and they aren't even a real race of people, only a generalisation. A hurtful generalisation at that. Perhaps the word was a mistranslation, but still the content of the article reads like original research. This would require a fundamental rewrite to achive anything encyclopedic and it would be easier to start over from scratch. Themfromspace (talk) 04:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete OR --Bejnar (talk) 05:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete After reading the debate on this page, I conclude that the article itself is an attack page. In addition, it contains too much original research where the required supporting material is not forthcoming. Albert584 (talk) 10:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Arilang provide new references ;

• Keep, as this is an ancient Chinese concept, which has its own Chinese wiki. To understand this ancient concept it is preferable to have the ability to read Chinese; if not, it shall take a bit more time to understand it. I first present two external links here to let other editors to have a bit of idea.

= (Ref 1) ;=

New Element in International Politics and Debate over China and Foreign Country in Late Ming Dynasty is the title of an essay by Mr.PANG Nai-ming of Nankai university, published in a journal called Seeking Truth. Googl on-line translation is here A new international political factors and the late Ming Hua Yi Zhi Bian (Chinese: 華夷之辨), because the title of the essay is 国际政治新因素与明朝后期华夷之辨. That shows that Hua Yi Zhi Bian (Chinese: 華夷之辨) is a very serious academic subject, and is not racist at all. If you google 華夷之辨, 205,000 articles turn up. I shall come back with more reference. Arilang 09:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

= (Ref 2) ;=

Humanistic philosophy of Hong Kong's website http://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/ ~ hkshp has published an article in Chinese:香港人文哲學會網頁http://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/~hkshp 夷夏之辨對中國佛教的影響，主要體現在儒釋道三教關係中。 ... 綜而觀之，華夷之辯的基本精神主要有兩個方面：其一是，夷夏有別，華夏文化高於四夷文化，中國是禮儀之....The google online English translation is here: Distinction between夷夏and Buddhism (China)刘立夫(Philosophy Department of Nanjing University, Dr.) Hengyucius (France "World Hongming Philosophical quarter Journal "Editorial Board President, Nanjing University Ph.D., Jiangnan Institute of Culture Studies, Professor of Philosophy

From the above essay, Hua Yi Zhi Bian (Chinese: 華夷之辨) is a very important concept, well worth the place of a wiki article. Arilang 10:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

= (Ref 3) ;=

Another essay on Hua Yi Zhi Bian (Chinese: 華夷之辨)

http://www.zisi.net/htm/ztlw2/lxyj/2005-05-10-19729.htm has an essay on Chinese nationalism. Quote:Ancient China on the concept of the nation, mainly "Hua Yi Zhi Bian." 而“华夷之辨”主要是文化上的区分。 And "Hua Yi Zhi Bian" The main thing is to distinguish between cultural. 华，是华夏，指以汉族为主体，生息繁衍于中原地区的人民。 Howard is the Chinese, refers to the Han Chinese as the main body, the Central Plains region live and reproduce in people. 夷则指周边民族。 Yi refers to the surrounding peoples Unquoted.

The google online translation is here:

= (Ref 4) ;=

Google online translation

找论文网 > 文化论文 > 文化学综合论文 > Find papers Network> Cultural Papers> Cultural Studies Comprehensive Papers>

“

The so-called "Hua Yi Zhi Bian" is actually a comparison between different cultures. 因为文化包含甚广，有器物层面、制度层面、思想伦理层面等等。 The reason is that culture are very broad, there are artifacts level, the system level, the thinking of the ethical dimensions and so on. 故此惟有将“华夷之辩”认同为文化的比较才显得妥当。 Hence they can be "Hua Yi Debate" identity as a cultural comparison seems only appropriate. “华”者，中华也；“夷”者，西夷也。 "China", the Chinese have; "Yi", and also西夷. “华”展示了国人对本土中原文化的认可与坚持。 "China" demonstrates the Central Plains culture of the indigenous people the recognition and persist. “夷”代表的是国人对非中原文化的否认与轻视。 "Yi" is the Chinese people on behalf of the Central Plains culture of non-denial and neglect. 可以说自轴心时代确立了中华文化的主旨之后，“华夷之辨”（或被称为“夷夏之辨”）便一直是备受关注的焦点。 Axial Age can be said that since the establishment of the Chinese culture after the keynote, "Hua Yi Zhi Bian" (or known as the "Distinction between夷夏") has been a focus of concern. 中华文化在近代以前缺乏与其它文化的竞争，造成了停滞与僵化，到了近代与西方文化一旦交上手，才蓦然发现处于了危险的境地。 Chinese culture in modern times before a lack of competition with other cultures, resulting in a stagnant and rigid, to the modern Western culture and once the settlement overnight, it suddenly found in a dangerous situation. 古老的中华文化势必要吸收新的文化元素，以驱动自身的进一步前行，可是这对自身缺陷由认识到克服的历程却是痛苦的。 Ancient Chinese culture is bound to absorb new cultural element to drive their own further before, but the shortcomings of their own to overcome by understanding the process is painful. 近代以前中华文化的主旨不曾发生大的变迁，但这也就造成中华文化自身过于自大的心理。 Modern ago the main thrust of the Chinese culture has not been a big change, but also resulted in the Chinese culture itself too arrogant mentality. 即所谓有“以夏变夷”，而未闻有“以夷变夏”，进而发展成了“道历千载而不变”的观点，将“中华文化”直接与“道”这个最高的哲学范畴划上了等号。 That is, the so-called "razed to the summer of change", but I have heard that the "change Patinopecten Summer", the development of a "Road calendar and you're the same" point of view, the "Chinese culture" with the "Road" is the highest Philosophy designated areas on the equal sign.

”

= (Ref 5) ;=

The evolution of modern Chinese way of thinking, a thinking 来源：中国社会科学院院报2005-4-21 作者：王中江发布时间：2005-04-28 Source: Chinese Academy of Social Sciences Institute reported 2005-4-21 Author: Wang Zhong Jiang Published :2005-04-28

Google online translation

= (Ref 6) ;=

Google online translation from China Surveying and Mapping is reported that China Surveying and Mapping Forum

“

Ancient China is the world outlook and concept of Huayi linked. 所谓君临天下，这天下包括了华和夷，从观念上说，四面八方的外族外国，都在其中。 The so-called Dominating position, which includes the world, and Yi-hua, from the concept that all the foreign countries, all in one. 这个华夷观注重华夷之分、华夷之辨。 Hua Yi focus on the concept of sub-Hua Yi, Hua Yi Zhi Bian

”

= (Ref 7) ;=

Google online translation

Borderland History and Geography Books: Ancient Chinese System of Central passenger Museum

• Blockquoted references from User:Arilang1234 to increase readability of AfD. If someone knows a better markup to accomplish this please feel free. Usrnme h8er (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments;

• This is why the article is Synthetic. None of these sources actually discuss 華夷之辨 in and of itself, but use the idea to discuss other topics. Just because there is a Chinese WP article on it, and just because there are X Google hits on it, does not necessarily mean an article can be created on it. I'm well aware of the concept of 華夷之辨, but it's not the first, and surely won't be the last, concept that has not been thoroughly researched such that there is an authoritative and academic definition for it. Which means that an attempt to write an article about it ends up looking like the mess of an article that we're voting on to delete. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

(Ref 8);

• To answer user HongQiGong:A source that entirely discuss Hua Yi Zhi Bian 華夷之辨.

Google online translation:Hua Yi Zhi Bian 华夷之辨 ，或称“ 夷夏之辨 ”，区辨华夏与蛮夷 。 Hua Yi Qi, or "Distinction between夷夏",distinguish the Chinese and living overseas. 古代华夏族群居于中原，为文明中心，而周边则较落后，因此逐渐产生了以文明礼义为标准进行人群分辨的观念，区分人群以文化和文明程度，而不以种族，合于华夏礼俗文明者为华，或称夏、华夏、中国人，不合者为夷，或称蛮夷、化外之民。

The above source is from baike.baidu.com (Chinese:百度百科 ), a online free Chinese encyclopedia which has more than 2 millions articles.

I am using this reference to answer all those critics saying the article is racist(including user Bathrobe), no, this article is not racist, if you just read this reference from baike.baidu.com Arilang 21:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

For more on the origin of this Baidu entry, see this section below. Madalibi (talk) 08:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

(Ref 9);

Google online translation正确理解儒家华夷之辨理论，兼谈“华夏复兴衣冠先行”口号的问题作者:泰山 转贴自:儒教复兴, this is a very serious and academic discussion about Confucius teaching and 华夷之辨

(Ref 10);

The above quote is an essay of solid and academic discussion on "Hua Yi Zhi Bian".

Google online translation

Racism ;

The whole article disturbs me greatly. It as if an anti-Papist were to write an article on the question of whether the Pope is the Anti-Christ -- and instead of stating that this was a debate with a specific background (anti-Papism), the person creating the article simply wrote a summary of his own view that the Pope is indeed the anti-Christ, with a few links thrown in.

The whole issue discussed in this "article" is highly racist. It is about whether non-Chinese can ever come up to the level of (Confucianist) Chinese. And it was an issue in China precisely because there were plenty of Chinese who believed that the barbarians could NOT become refined and civilised. That is, the enlightened types who believed in the "improvability" of barbarians were only one camp in the argument.

I also find it difficult to accept the creator of the article's condescending attitude to those who can't read Chinese, to whom he must very patient to explain what it is all about. If the creator of the article is unable to express and explain this concept so that even foreigners not familiar with Chinese civilisation can understand it, he shouldn't really be writing articles like this. The poor quality of the article is what is arousing so much unflattering comment. The fact is that, whatever the historical concept may be, the article is so poorly written as to be virtually unsalvageable. That is why it should be deleted.

Moreover, there is so much unconscious racism in there that it is difficult to know where you should start to write it as a proper article.

Bathrobe (talk) 15:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

To answer user Bathrobe's comment:

1. Yes it is about the great Chinese "debate" about Huaxia and barbarians
2. Yes it is a historical debate.
3. No, it is not racist The whole issue discussed in this "article" is highly racist this statement from user Bathrobe clearly shows that he has not read the references at all. Please give me a quote from any of the references that show racism
4. Yes the quality of the article is poorThe poor quality of the article is what is arousing so much unflattering comment. but it can be improved.
5. There is so much unconscious racism now now user Bathrobe is either acting like a Thought Police or a psychologist, instead of a plain wiki editor. Arilang 21:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm now being accused of being Thought Police! This is really off the point, but I'll try to explain briefly why I feel there is unconscious racism in the article. (1) Ancient Huaxia is equated to Chinese civilisation, non-Chinese are classed as barbarians. In other words, the Chinese were civilised, everyone else was barbarian. This predated Confucianist thought, which according to the article held that barbarians could become civilised by embracing li. (2) The concept that the Chinese are the holders of the key to civilisation, and that other people have to conform to Chinese ways in order to be redeemed from their barbaric status, is a kind of cultural (and racial) supremacism. (3) People like Ricci are mentioned, presumably to prove that barbarians could indeed embrace Huaxia culture and thus not be regarded as barbarians. The fact that these people had their own culture and civilisation does not excuse them from barbarian status -- only the embrace of Chinese culture does. All of these unconscious assumptions can be regarded as racist. The article doesn't actually try to analyse this -- it simply adds the judgement that the Huaxia/barbarian distinction was not racist!

In addition, the article fails to address other aspects of the debate, such as the existence of views that barbarians could not be redeemed, This therefore suggests that the distinction between Huaxia and barbarian was an innocuous and benevolent one. In fact, it sounds like a "whitewash" of historical attitudes. I'm afraid that whitewashing racism, past or present, is usually regarded as just as racist as out-and-out discrimination.

I hope I have made clear why I regard the basic assumptions of the article to be racist. Perhaps racism was not the intent of the article. But that is how it reads.

At any rate, this debate is sidetracking the issue. The reason that we have got onto this is because the article is so poorly written. Were the article to be written from an objective viewpoint with proper use of sources, we would not be having this debate about whether the article is racist or not. But the article merely strings together a succession of disparate paragraphs without any clear point, leaving the reader to try and figure out what exactly is going on. Perhaps a background in Chinese culture is needed -- let's face it, who but a Chinese is going to associate a bald paragraph on Confucian li with the Huaxia/barbarian distinction?

In addition, while making the value judgement that the Huaxia/barbarian distinction was not racist, the article fails to actually include material that has a bearing on the issue, such as the fact that Chinese characters for the names for these barbarian peoples included the radical for "dog".

Stringing together a few paragraphs copied from somewhere else and pretending that they are giving an encyclopaedic view is not the way to write an article. If you wrote all the background text and explanations needed to make this muddle into a coherent and intelligible article, you could trash 95% of what is there now. In other words, this is not an article!

Bathrobe (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Bathrobe's analysis. Another reason why this wiki seems to present a racist POV is the article's title. Other articles titled "Differences between X and Y" (there are about 20 of them on the wiki) are about objective differences between X and Y, as in Differences between Hindi and Urdu, Difference between a butterfly and a moth, or Differences between Dano-Norwegian and Standard Danish. By its very formulation, the current title implies that the article will tell us about inherent differences between Huaxia ("a great civilization," says the lead paragraph) and "barbarians." Translated back into long-hand Chinese, the title would read something like "Huaxia yu yemanren zhi jian de qubie" 華夏與野蠻人之間的區別, clearly not an acceptable concept. Madalibi (talk) 05:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I am going to backtrack here. The very poor language and structure of the article gave an impression of great arrogance and racism. But Arilang does have a point, that is obscured by his poor editing. The point he was trying to make is that Confucianist thought, rather like French culture and American corporate culture, has universalistic pretensions. That is, while it believes itself to be an inherently superior system of thought or culture, theoretically at least, it leaves open membership to anyone who wishes to adhere to its cultural norms. Thus, French culture was a universal culture open to those who wished to become immersed in it, including black Africans. American corporations are open to anyone who is able to master its norms, walk the walk and talk the talk, whether they are American or not. In the same sense, Confucianist China believed that it was a universal culture that anyone could become a member of, provided they mastered its culture and its norms. In that sense, the article is probably not racist in the way that I earlier pointed out. But that does not stop it from being insufferably arrogant, and that is unfortunately the dominant impression that the article conveys.

So I am going to take back my simple accusation of "racism". The article is not racist per se, but it is based on assumptions of cultural arrogance.

However, this is a side issue. The fact is that the article is so poorly written as to be almost worthless. I still support deletion, and hope that one of the millions of Chinese netizens can come along and do a better job.

123.121.238.37 (talk) 13:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC) (Bathrobe, not logged on)

The Chinese wiki called "Hua-Yi zhi bian" 華夷之辨 ;

Some editors have argued that this topic is legitimate because there is a page for it on Chinese Misplaced Pages, so I went to check what that source says. The page history shows that this wiki was created and written almost entirely by a single editor (中華國, now banned). Different editors proposed mergers with the Chinese article on "Sinocentrism," and later "Han chauvinism," but the page creator removed these proposals without any explanation . Someone re-inserted a proposal to merge with "Sinocentrism" , but the creator of the page removed it again, simply asserting that "Hua-Yi zhi bian" is "completely different" from Sinocentrism , even though the page then contained several interlanguage links to pages on Sinocentrism that he had himself inserted.

For a long time, the page was also tagged for "original research" (原創研究). An editor (not the creator, who had been banned by then) eventually removed the tag after adding three external links, but no inline citation.

Finally, another editor added the current notice that this article is about "Cultural sinocentrism" (literally, "China's cultural-centrism" 中国的文化中心主义), and that discussions of "Racial sinocentrism" (literally "China's racial-centrism" 中国的种族中心主义) are found elsewhere. On the same edit, the editor inserted the current interlanguage link to Sinocentrism#Cultural sinocentrism and removed the old links to articles on Sinocentrism in four different languages, which had been there since the beginning.

In my opinion, this entire Chinese wiki constitutes "original research," because not a single synthetic claim or claim on primary sources is referenced. I also found that the article takes for granted the unreferenced POV that the peoples around Huaxia were backwards and uncivilized (古代華夏族群居于中原，爲文明中心，而周邊則較落後，因此逐漸產生了以文明禮義爲標準進行人群分辨的觀念). In other words, this wiki is very weak by Misplaced Pages standards.

Interestingly, the "Baidu Encyclopedia" article on "Hua-Yi zhi bian" (Arilang's "Ref 8" above) is a mirror page of the Chinese Misplaced Pages page. It cannot in and of itself confirm that the topic "Hua-Yi zhi bian" deserves an entry in an encyclopedia.

Regards, Madalibi (talk) 07:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Baidu's encyclopedia is as reliable as Misplaced Pages is - its contents are contributed entirely by anonymous users. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 09:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Baidu has far more articles than Chinese Misplaced Pages, and its articles are usually of better quality. "Hua-Yi zhi bian" is one rare case in which the Baidu page was copied directly from Chinese Misplaced Pages! Madalibi (talk) 10:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hua-Yi zhi bian" 華夷之辨 and China's 200 million netizens ;

Editors please read (ref 10), before making any judgement.
In (ref 10), the essay explains the origin of Hua-Yi zhi bian" 華夷之辨" in great depth and details. The idea of Hua Yi zhi bian actually was formed thousands of years ago by Confucius. A 3000 years old ideology formulated by Confucius, and this idea, is very much alive among millions of Han Chinese. Editors can use all kinds of reasons to refuse to keep it as an article, that is OK. But please keep in mind that the number of Chinese netizens is about 200 millions plus. And then 300 millions, 400 millions, 500 millions. I believe that in not very distant future, English wikipedia will have many more Chinese editors, and they will create many more Chinese-related articles, including Hua-Yi zhi bian" 華夷之辨".

What I am saying is, no matter we like it or not, Chinese is coming onto the world stage, in every aspects, internet included. Arilang 11:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is opposed to Chinese editors coming on to edit. The problem is the quality of the articles that are written. Please don't try and pretend you have the support of millions of Chinese netizens when people try to have substandard efforts deleted. The problem is not the topic. It's the quality of the writing and the quality of the editing.

123.121.238.37 (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)(Bathrobe, not logged in)

Arilang - under that argument, we can literally create an article for every single Chinese idiom there ever was. But like I've said on more than one occasion, just because a concept exists, doesn't mean it has been well-researched and defined, enough so that we can make an entire article out of it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

HongQiGong, you and me(and possibly Madalibi) know that there are many pro-Han people on Chinese blogosphere, and editors the like of Madalibi and Bathrobe are in the minority, who do not enjoy much popularity, to say the least. Just go visit those pro-Han forums, and read those pro-Han blogs, you can feel the pulse, the power, the potential. Yes, at the moment you guys can twist the wiki rules original research and "POV" and insert you own interpretations, fair enough, you can do whatever you like. Now if only 10% of the 200 plus millions of Chinese netizens decide to learn English and become wiki editors, who shall win at the end of the day, pro-Han people or pro-Manchu people? You tell me. Arilang 19:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Come on Arilang, let's try and stay civil; nobody is trying to twist any rules, the consensus is just that this article isn't appropriate in its current incarnation. I know it sucks when an article you wrote gets nominated for deletion, but it really is nothing personal. – Toon 20:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Could someone tell me the relevance of "pro-Han" and "pro-Manchu" to the issue of the Huaxia/barbarian distinction? Or is there a hidden agenda or secret subtext that we are not being told about?

Bathrobe (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Arilang - you are truly ridiculous. About 90% of the article is a direct copy-and-paste from the following articles: Huaxia, Li (Confucian), Matteo Ricci, Giulio Alenio, Li Keyong. And you still refuse to acknowledge that you've basically thrown together a bunch of peripherally related topics to try to piece together an article. Instead you choose to accuse others of being biased against Han Chinese people. Maybe you are just inexperienced to the stricter standards of English Misplaced Pages, but I'm fairly certain that if 10% of the 200 plus million Chinese netizens become experienced English WP editors, they will agree that this article ought to be deleted as well. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hua-Yi zhi bian" 華夷之辨 being used as political and racist weapons;

@ user Bathrobe:No, there is no hidden agenda nor secret subtext, and your were partly correct(not 100%, may be 10%) when you commented that Hua-Yi zhi bian" 華夷之辨 is about racism. The anti-Manchu slogan in Revive China Society says it all:

This slogan was derived from Hua-Yi zhi bian" 華夷之辨, the English word by word translation is the title of the article with AfD tag:Differences between Huaxia and barbarians. Arilang 02:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Arilang, you ask who (Han or Manchu) shall win at the end of the day "if only 10% of the 200 plus millions of Chinese netizens decide to learn English and become wiki editors". Neither. Wiki's neutrality philosophy would need to have collapsed, meaning Wiki would disappear. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 01:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Arilang's opinion of the Manchus is that they were "the most murderous barbarians of them all" and that "barbarians are barbarians, like it or not" . Everybody who disagrees or who says that this kind of POV is inappropriate on Misplaced Pages is "anti-Han" and "pro-Manchu." I can't believe Arilang still refuses to consider even the possibility that this page is flawed. You're not the victim of "pro-Manchu" rule twisters, Arilang. The only two editors who have voted to keep this article came here at your invitation , and even they said the article should be rewritten. When will it click? And I've had enough of your ad hominems and insinuations. I have no problem with you if you remain civil and you assume good faith, but the next time you respond to good-faith criticisms with an ad hominem (as when you accused me of "Gestapo-style of Thought Police action" , of being "Dr. Fu Manchu's reincarnation," and even of "denying the holocaust"!), I will report you to an administrator. Madalibi (talk) 02:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

On my response to Bathrobe, I mentioned that a famous Han Chinese Dr. Sun Yatsen's anti-Manchu revolutionary slogan: Expel the northern barbarians, revive Zhonghua, and establish a republic. (驅逐韃虜，恢復中華，建立合眾政府), meaning that Hua-Yi zhi bian (華夷之辨) can be both political and racial.

Well, I forgot that there was another famous Han Chinese Zhu Yuanzhang (though there was gossips saying that he was actually a Hui) wrote on his manifesto of fighting off the Mongol Barbarians, thanks to user Bathrobe Talk:Sinocentrism#Is this Sinocentrism or Han Chauvinism?

To user Bathrobe and other editors, this is a battle call to get rid of the murderous and genocidal Mongols, and is definitely not a Come to my birthday party invitation. Just read this: Quote:Mongols' raids and invasions are generally regarded as one of the deadliest to human life and ranking in third after the deaths from World War II and the An Shi Rebellion Unquoted.

There are many other cases of East Asia nations using Hua-Yi zhi bian" 華夷之辨 as a weapons to fight each other.

And one more comment to user Bathrobe, Ming Taizu is a hero of many pro-Han netizens, I bet you would receive all kind of abuses from them if one day you decide to go into their territory and post something nasty about Ming Taizu, and you probably get booted out by them in a very short time. Arilang 03:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Should we remind Arilang about WP: ATTACK or would this be "twisting the rules"? Here's what this official Misplaced Pages policy says:

Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Misplaced Pages. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Misplaced Pages community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about another contributor must be supported by evidence, otherwise they constitute personal attacks and may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks.

Madalibi (talk) 03:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Formal apology to user Madalibi and any other editors whom I may have offended;

I take back my comments on calling other editors (including user Madalibi) twisting the rules, if ever other editors think that my comments were of personal attacks, I am sorry if I have hurt anyone's delicate feelings and I shall apology to them with all my sincerity, and I solemnly promise that there shall not be a second time. On me calling User Madalibi various names, "Gestapo-style of Thought Police action"Dr. Fu Manchu's reincarnation,"denying the holocaust all these names calling are just jokes, although I really really wish I could be a re-incarnation of something, or someone(may be as yet another Dalai Lama), how wonderful life would be if one can come back again and again and again, into perpetuity. How nice, you can give it to me anytime. Arilang 04:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we now delete the page?;

Shame on you, user Madalibi, for not getting the joke. And to all those users who have spent so much time and effort seriously discussing the question of whether this substandard article should be deleted, you should be ashamed for letting your pro-Manchu leanings get in the way of an objective judgement. You should know better!

Now that we know that the real motive for this article is to identify the Manchus as the most murderous barbarians of them all, can we take another vote? Should Differences between Huaxia and barbarians be deleted? And this time please keep your pro-Manchu feelings out of it.

Bathrobe (talk) 05:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment This has been one of the most ridiculous AfD I've seen (conduct wise, not the nomination), I'm sure sarcasm helps the discussion. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer the term "facetious".

Bathrobe (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment Bathrobe, now you know that Arilang is not a boring kind of guy. Arilang 04:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the last few comments, I think whatever "discussion" we were having has pretty much ended. I'm not sure which admin is in charge of this AfD, but I think it may be time to pull the plug. Madalibi (talk) 07:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

AfDs don't have particular admins in charge of them. Rather, any non-involved admin can close an AfD if consensus has been reached after five days (or a shorter period under limited circumstances). Thus, this AfD could potentially run for another three days, although I would rather it were cut short. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I see. Thank you for the information. If the page creator has nothing to add and if he has no objection to ending this discussion before the five days have elapsed, I see no reason to argue further. What do other editors think? Madalibi (talk) 09:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

May be Barbarians too racist?;

I know that this article will be deleted, but I refuse to throw in the towel. Some editors mentioned that Barbarians not suitable for a wiki, Barbarians comes in too strong, too controversial, too racist. But editors seem to have forgotten the article in question is about a pre-modern historical term, or rather an ancient historical term. And in ancient times, not only barbarians a plenty, lots of foreign devils too. The Clash of Empires By Lydia He Liu

Publisher: Harvard University Press Pub. Date: September 2004 ISBN-13: 9780674013070

Example of Hua-Yi zhi bian 華夷之辨 gone wrong;

Boxer Rebellion is a classical example of Hua-Yi zhi bian 華夷之辨 gone wrong .

Quote:The Boxer Rebellion, or more properly Boxer Uprising, was a violent anti-foreign, anti-Christian movement by the “Boxers United in Righteousness,” Yihe tuan or Society of Righteous and Harmonious Fists in China. In response to imperialist expansion, growth of cosmopolitan influences, and missionary evangelism, and against the backdrop of state fiscal crisis and natural disasters, local organizations began to emerge in Shandong in 1898. Unquoted Arilang 09:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The best arguments we can make for this topic;

Hi Arilang. I think we can make a fairly strong case for a topic like "Hua-Yi zhi bian" (though under a different title and better translated than "Diff. betwee Huaxia and barbarians") if we argue like this:

• This topic is notable: for centuries (and even millennia), the distinction between Huaxia and "foreigners/barbarians" was central to China's view of itself as the center of human civilization. The same conception also guided China's foreign policy in many important dynasties, and it was crucial to the conflicts that opposed the Qing dynasty to foreign powers in the second half of the 19th century.
• This topic is discussed in reliable secondary literature. These sources are mostly in Chinese, but this is to be expected for a Chinese topic. It is also discussed under different names in English-language scholarship.
• The term "barbarian" is not neutral, but it doesn't matter as long as we are not the ones using it to refer to other people. We can discuss Chinese conceptions of barbarians as legitimately as we can discuss Greek and Roman conceptions of barbarians.

If you manage to write a page like this that summarizes reliable secondary sources (including Lydia Liu, whom you just cited), then great! We could then see if it looks like Sinocentrism, but this is another issue. In any case, if someone tagged this hypothetical page for deletion, let me know, and I will defend it as forcefully as I can, because I think this is an important topic that deserves to be discussed. But this is unfortunately not what the current page is about. For it to be neutral and grounded in reliable sources, the current article would have to be thoroughly reconceived and rewritten, and this is why I am arguing for deletion. I am not opposing the topic: just the page as it stands now. Madalibi (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Kowtow to you;

Madalibi, you are great! This time my Kowtow is for real, no more sarcastic. I shall leave the writing to you, because my vocabulary is limited. I think not only you can use it in your doctorate thesis, may be you can even write a book on it, and don't forget to put my name down as a co-author. Arilang 10:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Thanks a lot, Arilang! You definitely know how to entertain. This page is way up there with cow tipping! Madalibi (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

More examples of Hua-Yi zhi bian 華夷之辨 gone wrong;

Hua-Yi zhi bian 華夷之辨 manifest inself in diifferent forms throughout China's long history. Especially Cultural Revolution, not only we can use Hua-Yi zhi bian 華夷之辨 as a tool to explain its formation and its development. For example, during the Cultural Revolution, the Embassy of Great Britian was burned, this incidence can be easily expalined using Hua-Yi zhi bian 華夷之辨 as a tool, because Confucius said, people who refuse to follow Li (Confucian) will become barbarians, so those red guards were barbarians. Likewise, Hong Kong 1967 Leftist Riots can be explained in the same way.

Because Han Chinese have Hua-Yi zhi bian 華夷之辨 for thousands of years, its society is not governed by rule of law, instead, it is governed by morarity, which in itself is abstract and vague. Have I make myself clear? Arilang 20:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yet another example of Hua-Yi zhi bian 華夷之辨 gone wrong;

user Madalibi stated that,during the Manchu conquest of China proper, massive amount of Han Chinese were killed by Manchu soldiers. Because a lot of the soldiers were surrenders from former Ming Army, naturally these were Ming soldiers. A lot of historians could not explain this historical fact, that is, how do you explain, Han soldiers turned around and massacred their own Han people? Well, me explaination is, again, Hua-Yi zhi bian 華夷之辨 gone wrong, because Confucius said, barbarians and civilized people are interchangeable, because when people rejected Li (Confucian) teaching, they would become barbarians. So the Ming soldiers/turned Manchu soldiers had become barbarians, regardless of their ethnicity. Arilang 00:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Most recent example of Hua-Yi zhi bian 華夷之辨 gone wrong;

I was lucky to be a major contributor of 2008 Chinese milk scandal, so I can claim a bit of authority on the subject. At the beginning I could not believe the fact that this poisoned milk problems could be so wide-spread and persistent problem. I mean in the West, this case would be quickly resolved with the resignation of government ministers(or probably the whole government) and then everything is over. But not in this case. This case is far from over, and it just drag on. Why? Again, Confucius already said, thousand of years ago. Han Chinese did not have Ten Commandments, so Thou shall not kill is not in their vocabulary. Arilang 00:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Positive manifestation of Hua-Yi zhi bian 華夷之辨;

In 2008 Summer Olympics opening ceremony#Attending heads of state, there is a list of heads of states and dignitaries, which looks like a who-is-who of United Nations. Some critics claimed that the Communist China government was spending hundreds of millions of US$ to recreate the falsified dreams of the past glory of dynasties like Tang, Song and Ming, of becoming the Celestial Dynasty (天朝) again, yet another manifestation of Hua-Yi zhi bian 華夷之辨. Arilang 01:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be semi speculative/close to OR (read:belonging somewhere else, diff article, or subsection)? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Support user Madalibi's position;

Despite being a notorious Manchu sympathiser :), I support User Madalibi's suggestion. The entire question of how Chinese regarded themselves vis-à-vis "barbarians" is a very serious topic. It deserves much better treatment than the current article, which really isn't an article at all.

As for the role of Hua-yi zhi bian in the additional contexts that Arilang has mentioned (such as Ming soldiers massacring Han Chinese), we would again require some serious scholarly backup. Anyone can come up with theories as to the reason for certain behaviour. Yes, it's tempting to say that the Ming soldiers reverted to barbarism under 華夷之辨 gone wrong. You could just as easily explain it by resorting to the theory that "human nature is inherently evil (性恶)", which is an ancient Chinese theory. Or the theory that "life is cheap in the Orient". (This last one is quite ridiculous, but until quite recently there were many Westerners who would quite seriously put this forward as a philosophy of life in eastern countries.)

I think that any rewriting of the article must try to stick to introducing conventional views on 華夷之辨, not theorising how it might explain this or explain that.

Bathrobe (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Three words: reliable secondary sources. Otherwise, we're back to WP: OR. Madalibi (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't this belong say elsewhere, like a sandbox on a user's page instead of AfD? This is page planning, not AfD'ing! ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest?;

I believe that some users here may have a conflict of interest. I hope that the editors here are well aware that continuing to edit after knowing that they have a conflict of interest could lead to fairly severe restrictions under some circumstances. For example, a couple of editors here appear to have condescending views of certain ethnic groups. In this case, the editors involved probably should not be editing this page or the article itself at all. Albert584 (talk) 10:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.