This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Horse Eye Jack (talk | contribs) at 15:29, 16 August 2020 (Undid revision 973312438 by 旺旺洋洋 (talk) Highly offensive, should probably be scrubbed entirely). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 15:29, 16 August 2020 by Horse Eye Jack (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 973312438 by 旺旺洋洋 (talk) Highly offensive, should probably be scrubbed entirely)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hanfu article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 6 months  |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hanfu article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 6 months |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Merger proposal
1) Misplaced Pages needs a solid article about Chinese clothing 2) It's obvious that the term Hanfu is a debated term. 3) It seems clear that 'Chinese clothing' and 'Hanfu' are talking about topics that are pretty similar. 4) There are some major problems on this page. Therefore, I propose merging the two articles in some way. My first impulse is that everything should go onto the 'Chinese Clothing' page because 'Hanfu' is a technical term that not many English speakers know about. 'Chinese clothing' will include everything worn in China by anybody, regardless of ethnicity. Probably people are going to get angry about this proposal. This may not be the best idea, let me know what you are thinking. I think this process will help us fix the problems on these pages. Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. This is ethnic-specific topic. --Cold Season (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose. but you may change or stop the Vandalism of user No1lovesu.--Wind aoi Blue (talk) 02:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. Even if the term Hanfu is a modern construction, it's still relevant in the modern day and deserves an article, even though this article needs a lot of work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torneberge (talk • contribs) 17:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Requested move 12 April 2019
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: page moved. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:50, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Hanfu → Ancient Chinese clothing – For WP:NPOV and WP:COMMONNAME I propose changing the title and moving modern Hanfu related materials to the article Hanfu movement. Using "Hanfu" to refer to the traditional clothing of the Han Chinese is far from universally accepted because of its associations with the nationalistic movement. The overwhelming majority of scholarly articles also avoid this term in favor of neutral terms such as "traditional Chinese garment" or "ancient Chinese clothing". For example, such results of Hanfu and ancient Chinese clothing at JSTOR. Esiymbro (talk) 06:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- I opposed a move but now support. Hanfu refers to the traditional Chinese clothing like Hanbok refers to the traditional Korean clothing. There is only one authentic name that is Hanfu. It literally means: 'Han clothing'. There is no need to change that. It is not "universally accepted" that this term is linked to a "nationalistic movement". This seems more like a ideological motivated move request. The Hanfu movement is more like a social movement. Possibly some members have a nationalistic ideology, but the majority seems to be only fond of the traditional clothing. Similarly in Korea there is the "Hanbok day". It is cultural part of Korea. I think the Hanfu is the same for China. Hanfu should stay Hanfu. Like Hanbok should stay Hanbok.--AsadalEditor (talk) 12:15, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Also the name "ancient" is not a good term. Hanfu (like Hanbok) is still a used clothing. Also in Japan Kimono or Yukata are used clothes. Not to mention the many other traditional clothes of East-Asia, North-Asia and Southeast-Asia. It is part of the culture.--AsadalEditor (talk) 12:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- I see now that there is more dispute than i thought before. I am not sure if it would be better to merge it with Chinese clothing and create a own "Han-Chinese section about Hanfu". I still disagree with a move to "ancient Chinese clothing". But I agree that the Article has multiple issues.--AsadalEditor (talk) 14:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, the point of this move request is that "Hanfu" is not used in the same way as "Hanbok" or "Kimono". As for why I proposed "ancient Chinese clothing", it is because this page only deals with the Han clothing before the Qing dynasty. The very different styles developed during the Qing and ROC period such as Qipao or Tangzhuang, which are the only ones still in use today, are not in the scope of this article. "Ancient" may not be the best term but at the moment I can't think of another title. Esiymbro (talk) 04:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, i agree. I think it would be a good idea to merge this article (Hanfu) with Chinese clothing and to overwork or imporve that article. So we would have one article about all traditional clothings of the Han-Chinese (and maybe a subsection about ethnic-minority groups or something, if that is necessary).--AsadalEditor (talk) 12:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- Actually I would prefer that there remains a stand-alone article about pre-Qing Han clothing, but merging would still be a huge improvement over its current state so I'm not against that. Esiymbro (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- We could also mention the pre-Qing Han clothing (Hanfu) in Chinese clothing in a own little section and link to a own sub-article. Thus we would have a own article and a small section in the main article. I think that this would be a good idea and is good for the sake of clarity. What do you think about that?--AsadalEditor (talk) 19:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed. That would have the best clarity. Esiymbro (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- We could also mention the pre-Qing Han clothing (Hanfu) in Chinese clothing in a own little section and link to a own sub-article. Thus we would have a own article and a small section in the main article. I think that this would be a good idea and is good for the sake of clarity. What do you think about that?--AsadalEditor (talk) 19:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- Actually I would prefer that there remains a stand-alone article about pre-Qing Han clothing, but merging would still be a huge improvement over its current state so I'm not against that. Esiymbro (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, i agree. I think it would be a good idea to merge this article (Hanfu) with Chinese clothing and to overwork or imporve that article. So we would have one article about all traditional clothings of the Han-Chinese (and maybe a subsection about ethnic-minority groups or something, if that is necessary).--AsadalEditor (talk) 12:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, the point of this move request is that "Hanfu" is not used in the same way as "Hanbok" or "Kimono". As for why I proposed "ancient Chinese clothing", it is because this page only deals with the Han clothing before the Qing dynasty. The very different styles developed during the Qing and ROC period such as Qipao or Tangzhuang, which are the only ones still in use today, are not in the scope of this article. "Ancient" may not be the best term but at the moment I can't think of another title. Esiymbro (talk) 04:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- I see now that there is more dispute than i thought before. I am not sure if it would be better to merge it with Chinese clothing and create a own "Han-Chinese section about Hanfu". I still disagree with a move to "ancient Chinese clothing". But I agree that the Article has multiple issues.--AsadalEditor (talk) 14:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Also the name "ancient" is not a good term. Hanfu (like Hanbok) is still a used clothing. Also in Japan Kimono or Yukata are used clothes. Not to mention the many other traditional clothes of East-Asia, North-Asia and Southeast-Asia. It is part of the culture.--AsadalEditor (talk) 12:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. The WP:COMMONNAME for Ancient Chinese clothing is "Hanfu". Some members of the Hanfu movement have sought to appropriate the term "Hanfu" for a specific type of modern clothing, but it doesn't change the generally accepted academic definition of "Hanfu". feminist (talk) 04:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- That isn't correct. The use of "Hanfu" for pre-17th century traditional clothing did not exist before 21st century and even now academic publications predominantly use other terms. Evidence is listed in the article and I also linked JSTOR search results above. Esiymbro (talk) 06:37, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- The zhwiki article is entitled 汉服, not 中國朝代服飾. I guess I can support the move to reduce ambiguity, but not because it is the commonly used term. feminist (talk) 04:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- That isn't correct. The use of "Hanfu" for pre-17th century traditional clothing did not exist before 21st century and even now academic publications predominantly use other terms. Evidence is listed in the article and I also linked JSTOR search results above. Esiymbro (talk) 06:37, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support Clothing in ancient China. The current article is a WP:COATRACK which starts off purporting to be about a modern neologism before delving into straight coverage of ancient Chinese clothing. I don't have any strong preferences on exact format but will note that my suggestion is in line with Clothing in ancient Rome, Clothing in ancient Greece, etc. Tidbits which become no longer relevant as a result of the move can be merged to Chinese clothing or Hanfu movement as appropriate. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
This will eventually need to be moved again. The posters above apparently did not see the discussion about about the inaccuracy of "ancient" in reference to fashions from 100 years ago. If we're not going to use "hanfu" (which is fine: this can be a broader topic), we need to use something inclusive of the medieval and modern eras like "traditional". — LlywelynII 06:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Hanbok is not related to ancient Chinese clothing
Please stop adding Korean Hanbok to the list other traditional clothing that was influenced by ancient Chinese clothing. Please take note of Hanbok#History. Hanbok originated from a different tradition of clothing style, and has important differences to ancient Chinese clothing. The basic composition of Hanbok is an upper garment, jeogori, and a lower garment, baji. The lower garment, baji, are trousers, introduced to ancient Korea by steppe cultures that is adapted to horse-riding. This style is called hu clothing in China, which means barbarian clothing, and it was first introduced to China by King Wuling of Zhao, who decided that Chinese clothing was not fit for horse-riding, and adopted clothing of northern nomadic cultures, hu clothing, for his cavalry forces. Chinese style clothing either consists of a robe without pants or uses skirts as the lower garment. This distinction is clearly made in this very article, where it says Han Chinese use skirts called chang, and Manchu use pants called ku. Japanese kimono is an example of clothing that is stylistically related to traditional Chinese clothing, which consists of either a piece of robe or a two-piece garment with the lower garment being a skirt. If you wish to add some traditional Korean clothing, please add a valid type of clothing based on reliable sources and common sense. By common sense, I mean not confusing a clothing style that uses trousers and a clothing style that uses skirts. I think a good candidate is Dopo (clothing) to mention as a type of traditional Korean clothing related to traditional Chinese clothing. According to the Encylopedia of Korean Culture, dopo is a type of overcoat commonly wore by Confucians during Joseon dynasty. It originated from the Buddhist monk clothing jangsam, which itself came from China, reflecting China's climate and clothing style. VeryGoodBoy (talk) 14:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Requested move 28 July 2020
 | The request to rename this article to Hanfu has been carried out.
If the page title has consensus, be sure to close this discussion using {{subst:RM top|'''page moved'''.}} and {{subst:RM bottom}} and remove the {{Requested move/dated|…}} tag, or replace it with the {{subst:Requested move/end|…}} tag. |
Ancient Chinese clothing → Hanfu – The current topic cannot describe this page correctly. First of all, Hanfu itself has nothing to do with ethnic-minority groups or someting like that. If you say a costume named after nationalities will have a race problem, how about Kimono and Hanbok, or Việt Phục? Secondly, Hanfu is not just an ancient clothing, many people wear it nowadays just like Kimono. Third, Hanfu is much more commonly used than the so called ancient Chinese clothing. 芄蘭 (talk) 02:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC) —Relisted. P.I. Ellsworth ed. 03:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
- No, because hanfu 漢服 is a neologism afaik.
- Clothing in ancient China might be a better title.--RZuo (talk) 01:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that your reason doesn't make sense. Hanfu (what it means today) is widely used in China and abroad, just like the term ″Pirates of the Caribbean″. Both of them have been used for nearly two decades.芄蘭 (talk) 08:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, we make it clear in the article that we are only talking about hanfu at the expense of the other minority groups. Chinese =/= Han Chinese and the current title seems to continue a history of racism and han supremacy. TBH I would feel comfortable calling the current title racist, it needs to go. Example: "The style of historical Han clothing can be summarized as containing garment elements that are arranged in distinctive and sometimes specific ways. This is different from the traditional garment of other ethnic groups in China, most notably the Manchu-influenced clothes, the qipao, which is popularly considered to be the de facto traditional Han Chinese garb. A comparison of the two styles can be seen as the following provides:” Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree with you. There are many ethnic groups in Chinese(such as Korean, Mongolian and Tibetan). Their costumes are very diverse.芄蘭 (talk) 08:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)