Misplaced Pages

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot (talk | contribs) at 11:53, 24 December 2024 (Maintain {{WPBS}}: 2 WikiProject templates. (Fix Category:WikiProject banners with redundant class parameter)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

China This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related Disambiguation This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Misplaced Pages. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation

Archives

Archive 1

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&section=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)

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)

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)

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
*References

Do 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)

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)

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)

• Disambig-Class China-related pages
• NA-importance China-related pages
• Disambig-Class China-related articles of NA-importance
• WikiProject China articles
• WikiProject Disambiguation pages