| Revision as of 15:25, 31 May 2011 editDwarm12345 (talk | contribs)132 edits →"Contentious" or "often offensive"← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 11:53, 24 December 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,672,628 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 2 WikiProject templates. (Fix Category:WikiProject banners with redundant class parameter)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion | ||
| (44 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{talkheader}} | {{talkheader}} | ||
| {{WikiProject banner shell| | |||
| {{WPCHINA|class=Dab}} | |||
| {{WikiProject China}} | |||
| {{DisambigProject}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Disambiguation}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{archive box|auto=long}} | {{archive box|auto=long}} | ||
| == inappropriate edits == | |||
| ==Cherrypicking dictionaries== | |||
| 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) | |||
| 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...): | |||
| == Cherrypicking cherrypicking dictionaries == | |||
| 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. | |||
| 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) | |||
| * - "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. | |||
| 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) | |||
| 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'' | |||
| 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) | |||
| Most interesting among these were the two vintage dictionaries, though: | |||
| :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) | |||
| * - "Chi"na*man (?), n.; pl. Chinamen (). A native of China; a Chinese." | |||
| * - "Chinaman (John), a man of China." | |||
| ::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) | |||
| 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 | |||
| :::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. | |||
| 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/logical skills.] 20:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::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) | |||
| :Saying that there are no modern-era publishers or academics who would publish works on non-derisive use of words considered to be slurs is a huge assumption. Also, without any published works, it may simply be that there are no non-derisive use of this particular word. There are four dictionary sources in the article itself, and you have provided four more. None of them say that only "some people" consider it offensive. They all say "derogatory" or "offensive" without qualifying ''who'' considers the word so. Are we to summarily dismiss '''8''' dictionaries on how the word is defined? I would hope not. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 20:50, 20 March 2007 (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) | |||
| Hmm. So you're intent on dismissing two dictionaries which do NOT say that the term is offensive and somehow the ones you've cited, which do not include the ''other'' meanings (which are implicitly non-offensive, or held to be), are valid while the others are not? THAT is ]. I have indeed provided four more, which use ''other'' terms ("derogatory", which does NOT mean the same as "offensive" any more than "usually" does not, but can, mean "sometimes").] 21:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::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) | |||
| :The existence of the inoffensive political and cricket meanings is, again, ''further proof'' that there are uses of the word which are not even "usually" offensive, i.e. that ''sometimes'' the word does not have a derisive/offensive context (not directly anyway, as these terms are obvious adaptations of the older sometimes-not-derisive meaning which you say was always-offensive), as clearly evidenced by the ''other'' disambiguation entries. Again, that these secondary meanings (including the "dealer in chinaware" meaning) are not mentioned by your dictionaries is a demonstration of their essential inadequacy as incomplete and therefore not reliable.] 21:14, 20 March 2007 (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) | |||
| ::The two dictionaries which do not say it is "offensive", they say that the word is "derogatory". We can certainly include that wording as well. | |||
| :::They DO? You must have better reading skills than I do, Hong: | |||
| :::: - "Chi"na*man (?), n.; pl. Chinamen (). A native of China; a Chinese." | |||
| :::: - "Chinaman (John), a man of China." | |||
| :::::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) | |||
| ::Now where, exactly, do those two citations say "offensive" or anything resembling that? ] 21:52, 20 March 2007 (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) | |||
| As for other usages of the term, the statements about the term being offensive is explained in the bulletpoint as it is used to refer to a Chinese male. I don't really think it's absolutely necessary, but I've inserted specifically that the term is offensive when used to refer to a Chinese male. Also, earlier I put a "citation needed" tag on the statement that the term "to some still is" a standard English term for Chinese people. If no reference can be provided for that in several days, I'll remove that qualification as it is yet another instance of ]. | |||
| :::::::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) | |||
| ::No, it's not; it's an example of the fallability of the citations-only format, which leaves all the stuff that academia/journalist ''won't'' document as non-extant; that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. maybe you should take a road trip to Prince George or Kamloops next time you leave HK and listen to how people talk; that the most common modern usage I know of for this term is by non-whites (First Nations) I also find rather ironical (and I'm not talking about in ''their'' languages, where as noted it's in their lexicons as the ''only'' word for Chinese, both adjectivally and as a noun).] 21:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::You might also try talking with 4th of 5th generation Chinese here and see their reactions when you raise the issue of the word, or ask them if they use it in a humorous/ironical sense (they do); if you ever leave HK, that is.] 21:57, 20 March 2007 (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) | |||
| I know you disagree with what "weasel words" are, but right at the top of the guideline, it specifically says, "This page in a nutshell: Avoid "some people say" statements without sources." ] <small>(] - ])</small> 21:36, 20 March 2007 (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) | |||
| :Well, it seems to me that the standard-bearers of the "Chinaman is a racist term" agenda (a big feature of political/cultural tirades from CC politicos here in the early '90s) would also deride the political and cricket uses as inherently offensive simply for using the term at all. All other uses derive from the original use, which was NOT offensive (even if modern-era dictionaries can't grapple with that fact). Whatever; Hong, go ahead, rewrite the page as you see fit; I'm bored with you, but I'm also not going to let your inconsistencies and your willingness to completely overlook/deny/misread the sources stand. and I know others will follow in my path long after I've become bored with you and Misplaced Pages (actually I'm already bored wth you).] 21:52, 20 March 2007 (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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| N.b. New comments have been moved to ]. <font face="Palatino, Georgia, serif"> — ] <sup>]</sup></font> 03:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::IMHO it is time to make the revision now. Further discussion on the TOPIC is greatly appreciated. ] (]) 06:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==Use as census surname, maybe English surname== | |||
| == "Contentious" or "often offensive" == | |||
| I already knew this was the case, as during the 'Chinaman debate' in the BC media/political arena in the early '90s one of the placenames that p.c.-ism insisted on revising was a Chinaman Lake in the ], where it was named after the English settler who had originally homesteaded at the lake, a Mr. Chinaman of Hartford or Leicester or wherever whose family trade had been the chinaware business, hence the name; there are it seems a large number of people whose legal surname was Chinaman, as has just revealed. | |||
| 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> | |||
| Now, it's true that among these there are US census records which would most probably be a Chinese person, and the same would be true in BC, where for example ships' passenger records and other registries, including censuses, would summarize "four Chinamen" instead of listing names, and in census records you'd have situations where the guy was known as "Bob" or "Charley" and for purposes of the census he'd been written down as, in the following example from Hawaii in 1900, "Charley Chinaman": | |||
| :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) | |||
| http://www.genealogy.com/cgi-bin/wizard_results.cgi?&SPF=16340685668945 Genealogy.com for "Charley Chinaman"] | |||
| ::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) | |||
| But note the second entry on that page, in Wisconsin: Charles Chinaman, also 1900 (there are others on which go to 1880, 1870, 1860 but only one of them has specific data because I need a subscription to see more, in that case origin:China). Now by then, it's true that Chinese were more common west of the Rockies than earlier, but the more formal personal name indicates that this doesn't seem to be a "generic surname" as might be the case with "Charley Chinaman" (and others in the genealogy.com listing, though not all by any means) and this was actually a ''real surname''. Whether adopted by a Chinese Mr. Chinaman in the course of Americanization or this guy wasn't Chinese, which is also a possibility; but if it's not an English surname in that case, it does suggest that the defamatory usage of chinaman wasn't as harsh farther east, where the term had enough acceptability to be ''considered'' as a legal surname, rather than ust a generic appellation; this may even be the case with Charley Chinaman, who in the local polyglot/multiracial culture of the Islands might have just made his nickname in the local community his legal name; an example of standard-bearing use, not even ironic, but proud (as also with Lee Poon Peak and Ha Ling Peak, which had been Chinaman('s) Peak before p.c.-izing (and were named as Chinaman('s) Peak by the guys who climbed them but were since renamed for ''them'', instead of as an Ha Ling's case - near Canmore, Alberta - he had explicitly stated he was naming it for "all chinamen". That I don't know where to cite; it came up in Usenet long ago during the debates but was probably in the Canmore or Calgary papers - which I don't see, being in BC. A local history may have his exact words - but again, I don't get to see much in the of Alberta history; there's more than enough to read in BC - as again maybe one of the local papers in the Peace River Country might have old newsfiles on Chinaman Lake/China Lake about the purportedly English homesteader namesake, rather than the name having been in reference to a Chinese person at all (as elsewhere, there were few Chinese east of the Rockies until much later; the Peace is the part of BC east of the Rockies; there ''was'' a gold rush there, but much further upstream than the farming area in question (nearer Fort St. John I believe, and would have to be as what's upstream from ] is now inundated). | |||
| :::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) | |||
| Back to the genealogy.com evidence of legal, i.e. non-offensive, surname use: | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| * | |||
| :::::Joy of being a scholar :-))) ] (]) 15:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| * - there are also a * | |||
| * | |||
| * - also Cowlitz County, 1890, perhaps someone with a name the census official was incapable of transcribing, and who had no English appellation like Davis or Chris. | |||
| * | |||
| *Hathi caught my eye, as that's conceivably Scandinavian personal name, but I suppose it's also conceivably an adaptation of a Chinese one; Humpy, Humfry, Fluny, Cook - all seem to be nicknames that were acceptable enough as personal names as to be given for census use; but did they also give their surname as "Chinaman" or was it, in some cases, their usual local name? As in, the one that would be in the phonebook, if there was a phonebook. | |||
| So far, I've been cherrypicking more 'regular' sounding first names, as others are obviously Chinese (Oh Chinaman, Yee Chinaman, whose real surnames were probably "Oh" and "Yee" of course), but continuing to poke around (without yet finding a British link, as I admit to hoping...) there are some others of interest, simply for their location; and again for the apparent acceptability as a legal surname, and also the likelihood that some may have been naturalized/adopted names: | |||
| * | |||
| * - this one certaily raises some questions, doesn't it? A creole/cajun person perhaps, and perhaps also an appellation rather than a legal surname, even though this is a marriage index (which in Louisiana, especially then, would be clerical in nature rather than census/legal usages) | |||
| * - unusual personal name to have more than one entry, if there is more than one entry in the subscriber-view source | |||
| * | |||
| == What sources say about ''Chinaman'' == | |||
| There are numerous records for the generic-derisive form "John Chinaman"; probably J Chinaman, Joe Chinaman, Jack Chinaman etc - and certainly "A Chinaman" and "Many Chinaman" are doubtless generic usages; many are clearly Chinese. But others like Rose and Lefro and Pearle and even Charles and although I haven't looked at Henderson and Hampton and Ben and William, those don't indicate any kind of negative or even passive-bigoted (as with China Chinaman, John Chinaman) as in census use, but self-accepted names; or not? Even if Census custom at the time was to render Rose Kwok as Rose Chinaman, that's not a derisive use despite its discriminatory origin; it's a legal use, a census use; but it would also seem to be, especially in the case of marriage records, or census records from areas where Chinese were not numerous (and where the term Chinaman could/would be hence a lot more innocuous, and for various reasons self-acceptable); ''or'' again, if those records were fully visible, Rose and Pearle and others in east-of-the-Rockies areas were not of Chinese origin; something is certainly "up" with Lefro, I'd say, but even there it could be someone of Eurasian ancestry who had "earned" the name as an appellation in local society, such that it had ''become'' his surname. That's also an extremely early usage, in the very earliest days of the ], and rather long before derogatory associations had developed; and also socially distinctive anywhere west of the Indian Ocean to have such a bloodline (as whoever was in Louisiana most clearly came there via the sea, and not overland, not in those days anyway...). | |||
| 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. | |||
| Now, genealogy.com is purely an American-based site, evinced by all the source coming up being those in the US (not even Canada, interestingly, despite the longtime family/bloodline overlap on the continent); I just looked up but as far as I can tell it's not digitally searchable; I'll see what else I can find. If nothing else, the genealogy references provided above, original research or not, clearly demonstrate that there was at least another, more passive and not explicitly derogatory usage, in census-taking procedures, and it also points to this being a ''naturalized'' surname in some cases; even if there was a formal policy saying "don't use Wong/Ip/Kwok but put Chinaman instead", the existence of that policy is an example of a non-offensive but rather official use; those it was applied to, and certaily their successors, find that to be an offensive use, but in the sense of it being a legal-registry name it's certainly something more than "offensive"; exactly what is hard to say; doubtless on this particular subject, the use of Chinaman in US census registries, there ''may'' be an academic paper out there somewhere which would be of interest; but still, it points to a use that was not overtly offensive; like so many others in all the early sources I get to read of the history of this part of the world, where the word is used in passing without any pejorative tone at all; unless you're looking for one, you won't see/hear it...I'll be back with whatever other genealogical/legal registries stuff I might find, and also gonna check with other languages (First Nations or Scandinavian) use or used the term (in modern Chinook Jargon, it's been supplanted by "China tillikum(s)" - China person/friend/kin - but that was done for reasons of p.c.-ism; the modern dialect from Oregon also regards the word Siwash (for a native male, adopted from fr. ''le sauvage'') as derogatory, while other surviving-speaker groups do not, while their non-derogatory form Sawash is regarded as being just as derisive by still some others).] 22:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *"Offensive" - | |||
| City directories and provincial directories in Canada tend to give full Chinese names, by the way; normal enough for any businessman; but they also might say, among the entries listing other Chinese by occupation/status: | |||
| *"Derogatory" - | |||
| *Kwok Oh, labour contractor and shipping agent [a rich guy) | |||
| *"Often offensive" - | |||
| *Ang Chee, labourer | |||
| *"Usually offensive" | |||
| *Jack Ah, a Chinaman | |||
| *"May be taken as patronizing" - | |||
| Generally that last usage wouldn't appear in Business directories, more like news reports of somewhere, as the business directory listed only people who wanted to be listed and had a business or service to promote; some Britons and others were also listed generically, whether "squatter" or "remittance man" or whatever was what else wasn't being said; those of stature could at least enjoy the use of "Gentleman" or "Esq." in lieu of a business-title listing (too declassé for some...); it wasn't a postal directory in other words, of everybody; just those someone in business might have some reason or other to want to contact; there's no point in looking in parish registers, at least not in Canada, because very few early-era Chinese converted, and nearly none were Christian to start with, i.e. births, marriages etc would have gone unrecorded)] 23:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *"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) | |||
| ==Proposed addition in light of the above== | |||
| :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) | |||
| "In official uses such as census records , Chinaman was often used as a generic surname or descriptor without a derisive context. | |||
| ::"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) | |||
| :A bit harder to add "and in some cases may have become a naturalized surname" without citations of specific examples of that, i.e. not census records, or somehow citable demonstrations that Charley Chinaman, Henderson, Rose Chinaman or Lefro Chinaman were/maybe naturalized/adopted surnames./ | |||
| :::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) | |||
| ::::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> | |||
| Also add-able should be: | |||
| :''A derisive tone was created by the jingoistic compound form "John Chinaman". | |||
| :::::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) | |||
| But I suppose you'd want a cite for that; it's certainly in Morton, but I don't know if he explicityl defines it as more derisive than Chinaman; and like other BC historical authors (e.g. the Akriggs, even publishing in 1975) the casual use of "Chinaman" for "Chinese person" is very common, even when not quoting from historical sources; a no-no now but again evidence of a more casual context to the word than the hard-line one that you are so intent on entrenching here; with the aid of dictionaries which are, as noted, incomplete in their definitions and do not themselves, in fact, provide citations.] 23:51, 20 March 2007 (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) | |||
| == New article == | |||
| :::::::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) | |||
| It's pretty apparent that this DAB page has become inadequate in explaining the usage of the term to refer to a Chinese man. I'm going to create a new article specifically for such usage of the word, using the sources already in the article . It shouldn't take me too long, and I'll simply this page when I'm done. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 00:15, 21 March 2007 (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 ] is essential in discussions like this. <span style="font-family:Palatino, Georgia, serif;"> — ] <sup>]</sup></span> 18:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :There are ''lots'' or archival newspaper copy and various official-esque records, as well as 20th Century "pop histories" (truckstop histories and kitchen histories I call 'em, depending on which series and who wrote 'em) in casual use, as well as in nearly any older history or other publication; this is the "general descriptor" sense, said passively in the same context as "there were three Swedes working at the mill" (which could also be derisive, and just as harshly in some areas). In the course of a biography of a homesteader or miner, the passage might to " was no longer acceptable to the other Chinamen around Dease Lake because they regarded him as a demon who had come to occupy their former friend's body" - that's a paraphrase from a story from Dease Lake, British Columbia, in ''Ghost Towns of British Columbia'' by Ramsey, about a guy who had been so drunk that his long hangover led people to begin his funeral rites; which he sat up in the middle of, fresh as a daisy. That passage I'll dig out if you like; Ramsey may use "Chinese" unless he's quoting a period source; but it's one of countless examples of casual/passive use where offensiveness ''is not intended''; it may be repeating an error, but it's still innocuous use (the way Britons may use "Red Indian" without realizing how offensive that would be in North America, on either side of the border, to First Nations/Native American people; the rest of us would find it awkward). Celestial and Oriental (no longer acceptable, either one, although most BCers I'd venture have heard an Asian refer to themselves that way) were the polite forms, and "Celestials" in particular was part of the popular argot as much as "Chinamen", although you'd never see "chinamen" relative to the formation "celestial gentleman", or the even more assiduous "Son of the Flowery Kingdom", which also appears in local histories/accounts. Some period source-texts may be online; I'll see what I can find; I know there's passive/casual uses in the local histories in the references section on ] and other BC history pages.] | |||
| :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) | |||
| I've been maintaining the need for a separate article for a long time, because of the range of uses that exist that I know the dictionary definitions don't and perhaps encompass; the legal context of the censuses and other official records is just one to add, as is the nature of passive use both in historical sources as well as in popular use in the 20th Century; it's not enough to simply say "it's offensive" and leave it at that when there's so much conflicting evidence around; much of it obsolete academia and publishing that while it may no longer be acceptable wording, for a very long time it was. The humourous/nickname context of, maybe, Charley Chinaman or Humpy Chinaman, is maybe like the affectionate-use category of the common local-smalltown nickname in rural places I've lived in "Frenchie" (there was inevitably a guy who went by that or might say "it's Jean-Pierre, but you can call me Frenchie"), as is also suggested by Rose Chinaman or Pearle Chinaman; unless those ladies were, perhaps, descendants of whomever Lefro Chinaman was...There's a lot more to some words than dictionary definitions are useful for.....] 00:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :::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) | |||
| Ok, I've made the new article, and have simplified this page according to ], which basically says that DAB pages should be as short and to-the-point as possible. Three uses of the term have their own articles, two have references, and two others do not have references or their own articles. I'll be deleting them in several days if references are not provided or if articles are not created for them also. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 03:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == "Is that or is it not the wrong chinaman?" == | |||
| Also, FYI, I've kept the different usages of the term to a minimum definition. If editors would like to expand upon them, please create articles for the terms that do not have articles themselves. ] states that we should keep DAB entries short and to-the-point. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 03:47, 21 March 2007 (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) | |||
| :Articles don't have to be created for items to be on DAB pages; only the meaning; just un-link them; they still stand as alternate meanings; the politics one has more "carriage" for content, but the other is still a usage, if not a fully-article worthy one (unless you'd like passages from Early VAncouver and other sources quoted as yet another article...); the politics one seems like there will be lots of citations. The cricket one is citable; the eyeglasses "made in the UK and mostly exported to Asia" is, I'm pretty sure, a Prince Philip-style bad joke. There's also, I believe, valid reason to mention the arch-pejorative "John Chinaman", which is the ''real'' derisive form (as was also the short form "John", used in a third-person-y sense rather than as a form of address); it's plain-Chinaman that has the range of neutral/non-offensive usages/applications, while John Chinaman is exlpicity derisive and intentionally jingoistic (like Thatcher's infmaous "Argies", but really not much worse than that).] 03:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::That written while you posted your previous; as for "If editors would like to expand upon them, please create articles for the terms that do not have articles themselves" I think your proposed return to delete things in a few days if no one does anything further is more than over-hasty.] 03:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Those usages that have their own individual articles don't need citations, as their articles attest to the existence of such usage. That would include usage as a slang, as the cricket term, and as the Anglicised name of the movie Kinaman. I only think the one about the glasses and the figurine should be deleted because with no references, we're not providing the readers any evidence that those usages actually exist. And at any rate, they can always be re-added if they do end up getting deleted, when references can be provided. As for "John Chinaman", that probably ought to be added to the new article about the slang itself instead of this DAB page. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 04:09, 21 March 2007 (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) | |||
| ==OED entry (Shorter Ed.)== | |||
| 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--> | |||
| A friend just emailed me this, transcribed from his Shorter Oxford's (OED): | |||
| :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. | |||
| ::Chinaman n. PL -men. M18 [f.CHINA n2 (branch I) or | |||
| ::CHINA n3 (branch II0 + MAN] I 1 A dealer in porcelain. | |||
| ::Now rare or obs. M18 II 2 A chinese man. Now arch. or | |||
| ::derog. M19. 3. Cricket A left-handed bowler's | |||
| ::off-break of googly to a right-handed batsman. M20 | |||
| :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. | |||
| ::Phrases: Chinaman's chance US colloq. a very slight | |||
| ::chance (usu. in neg contexts.) | |||
| :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) | |||
| == Move discussion in progress == | |||
| ==Source for porcelain figure meaning== | |||
| Will be, I'd say, in antiques catalogues/books, even maybe via Antiques Roadshow; there were certain series of figurines and certain generic models made by various different makers; I know I've seen it on Antiques Roadshow, whether as "porcelain chinaman" or as "chinaman figurine" or in some context where the commentator might say "these were called chinamans because of their subject matter".] 03:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :it's like "a skookum", which is a type of souvenir doll made to emulate stories of "the skookum", something like a sasquatch/bigfoot (] has other meanings also, those just two) Different objects, one named as its subject is the other. Makes sense to me, even if not to you; the figurines in question might have been one of the Four Immortals for all buyers in the UK might know, but more likely they were guys with coolie hats and pole-carry outfits in peasant tunics, with nicely done caricature; the porcelain meaning, while not immediately citable, is I'm certain valid, as also the obsolete meaning of a dealer in porcelain (maybe that Mr. Lefro Chinaman in Louisiana, for instance).] 03:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Disambiguation pages are not content pages == | |||
| I think everyone who is responsible for the disambiguation pages out there where the red links outnumber the blue links by almost two-to-one and especially those who actually introduced a '''references list''' to the page need to read ], because clearly a central factor has either been missed or perhaps has been ignored by someone trying to make a ]. | |||
| That factor is this: ''Disambiguation pages are not content pages.'' | |||
| They are not there to explain things. They are not there to prove things to you. They are there for one purpose only, and that is to straighten out confusion between ''articles we already have'' or ''articles we will almost certainly have''. Tell me, are we likely to ''ever'' have an encyclopedic article devoted to a single derogatory epithet whose use seems to have been solely in 19th century British Columbia? No? Then it ''doesn't belong here''. Period. If we could somehow give every article a completely distinct article so that no one ever typed in just plain "Mercury" when they specifically meant "Mercury, the planet" or "mercury, the metal" then disambiguation pages wouldn't even exist. They are not content pages; if you are ''fighting over'' the content then you need to step back, re-read what disambiguation pages are for, and start cleaning up the mess. -- ] 01:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Lots of DAB pages have unlinked entries; I only redlinked "North Aemerican Chinaman" because Hong had gone and redlinked other entries, which say in the case of the bureaucratic chinaman, may or may not come to exist; that North American Chinaman is a slur on Ontarians (rather than Chinese) means it shouldn't be on the new separate page about the use of the term for or by Chinese people, in the same way the bureaucratic meaning wouldn't be there. But both are meanings, both existed; they may not need articles, but they need to be here (esp. since they're citable).] 01:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Also IIRC this wasn't originally a DAB page but got turned into one.] 01:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :No, that's exactly the point: just because something ''exists'' does not mean it has to be on a disambiguation page. Disambiguation pages are purely for resolving confusion between entries that ''exist'' in the project. If I call someone on the phone and ask to speak to "Steve", and there are two Steves in that office, asking me "Do you mean Steve Taylor or Steve Jones?" is reasonable. By contract, asking whether I mean Steve Phillips, Steve Stone, Steve Baker, Steve Brubeck, or Steve Hill, where those are all people ''who cannot be reached at that number'', is only wasting my time and the time of the person I'm talking to. That's pretty much what adding entries that will never have corresponding articles to a disambiguation page does. -- ] 02:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::You wouldn't call a number looking for someone you know isn't there. You would, however, search an encyclopedia for a term that could be there. A disambiguation page shouldn't be used to list just the articles that do exist, but also the articles that don't exist that people may search for. Disambig pages are not "purely" for resolving confusion between entries that exist in the project. It is possible that a subject that warrants an article just doesn't have one yet (which is, in part, what you're saying, I just wanted to clarify it). ] 22:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Disambig pages are full of redlinks all over Misplaced Pages, including on the surname disambigs/list pages and on various lists summarizing notable people/events/things of one kind or another; redlinks are the way people are motivated to write new articles, for one thing; they're a sign that something may be worthy of an article but no one's had the time to write one on it yet. I could name thirty pages easily where such listings or massed redlinks can be found; there's nothing to make this one any different except the desire, it seems, of some people, to keep as many definitions off this as possible.] 23:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Citations/Examples for ] - pick one:== | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| *: | |||
| **''Mexico – lacquer boxes; Roman bust (Joluca); dyestuffs; Jacutacato shroud; | |||
| Copper ornaments; Chinese vases (Azacapotazlo and Hue Hutitlan). | |||
| Little Chinaman (Teotihuacan) terracotta figurines of S E Asian people (Niven); Chinese bronzes (Romeo Hristov); Chinese totems (I B Remsen). | |||
| * - | |||
| **"A gay Filipino man goes home with a non-Asian man that he meets at a club. When he finds a chinaman figurine and other Asian knicknacks he's confronted with the issue of how race affects desire." | |||
| **It's interesting that a Google Search will refer to various EBay pages where old texts mention "Chinaman"; those same pages now have been pc-ized though they show up in google the same as before. | |||
| Most tellingly, a crystal and antiques dealer in the UK: | |||
| * - no sign on their pages if the proprietor is chinese, or the reference is to the figurines. On second/third thoguht this is ''probably'' from the British usgae for a dealer in chinaware, and leads me to wonder if the pronunciation in that should be "China Man", i.e. with the two words pronounced separately. I suppose emailing the store and asking the provenance of their name might be the way to go, partly to establish the British usage, if that's what this is. | |||
| * (3 items listed at present) | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * e.g. | |||
| **''"SUNDERLAND LUSTRE. Gorgeous ancient 1820 cups and saucers in pristine condition.The Chinaman pattern is very fresh and bright with no rubbing of the lustre.The London shape to the handles,the deep saucers,the superb depth of the lustre,and the date they were made was c1820 --GEORGIAN." | |||
| **''"Chinaman patterned trio made in Queen Victorias Reign. Staffordshire,England.Very good condition | |||
| **''"Chinaman large breakfast cup and saucer in excellent condition,Victorian. " | |||
| * | |||
| *many search items are turning up references to ], a Hawaii landmark - as it used to be known anyway (Ebay and other items coming up are postcards/views of it from the 1890s and so on); it should be added | |||
| * | |||
| **:''FIGURINE - ROYAL WORCESTER FIGURINE 'CHINAMAN' #3073 SIZE: 2 1/4''H X 1''W X 1 3/4''D CONDITION" GOOD | |||
| **which suggests that the Royal Worcester catalogue's #3073 is entitled "Chinaman" after its subject; I might just have to stop in at the porcelain section of the local department store and ask to the see the Royal Worcester catalogue. I believe the Royal Doulton catalogue may also have figurines titled "Chinaman". No doubt those, too, are offensive usages according toe the harline POV even if the shops selling them would be mortified to be told that they were ignorant and being offensive. But the catalogues, ad naueam (ane there are more, all over the web) on Chinaman figurines prove two things: one, that such figurines exist and are called that and two, that Chinaman was used to describe the figurines without derisive/offensive intent/content.] 21:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| By all means, pick the source you think is best and re-insert the entry on the term's usage for figurines. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 22:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| I didn't put "(ship)" in that redlink/nominal title because ] would normally be for a ship named ''(MV/SS) Chinaman''; the context here, which are one of the two connected to the China trade, is that of a particular kind of vessel/sailing-ship business/trade where the ship itself is called a Chinaman; I don't think this is the same as a ] (the pre-air age meaning of China clipper, that is). Anyway, although unlike the "dealer in chinaware" meaning for which we do have citations now, I haven't yet seen a ''dictionary'' definition of the vessel/ship-meaning, but I did come across two such contexts in the review of Kipling's writings I just completed on the resources page off ]. The passages are in and in .] 20:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Neither Keefer nor I appreciated having this stuff put "out of sight, out of mind" off the "racial term" talk page , although for the reasons of sheer volume we agree with the practicality of it, especially as those pages continue to grow. There's a lot of important material there which newcomers to this debate, such as David Levy and others, may not have noticed beforehand, and which others here have denounced as "irrelevant" and called us "fascists" and such for talking about. Whatever; ], which I'm re-posting here because the original notice, low-key as it was, is now archived and semi-invisible. No doubt there are some who would prefer that it was invisible, but that's just not the case; a link on the ] page to this debate page, also, as it's been the main arena for debate of what is now the article page ''here''.] 00:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==New visitors please see ]== | |||
| A main arena of debate on this page and its contents has been at ]; its discussion may or may not shift over to here.] 00:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Cricket== | |||
| Just had a look at ], which is a redirect to ]; there are two versions of how the term became applied to cricketing (looks like a curve ball to me) and neither of them comlimentary, unless it may be that ] was also nicknamed "the Chinaman", but no, it's a comment from someone being done in by his left-arum unorthodox spin saying "Fancy being done in by a Chinaman" (I can hear the old-boy colonialist in that, can't you?); the other version is more abstract. Whatever; just turned out to be interesting; one account only is in Achong's article but it refs the other one.] 02:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Chin, Holcombe, French comicbook== | |||
| These notes are on the archive page at ] and are given here to back up the titles just added overleaf; | |||
| ** | |||
| ** | |||
| **, by the ] | |||
| **. | |||
| *more to come, including Bo Yang....] 04:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==re the ship== | |||
| Found this in the , which isn't citable itself but the writer gives a cite: | |||
| :''On Wednesday Night some People on board one of the ChinaMen at Deptford, called a Sculler, when immediately a Waterman along side answered, and took in two Gentlewomen. | |||
| ::-''New England Weekly Journal'', January 4 1740 <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 16:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->thanks hagermanbot!! | |||
| ==Chinaman's Hat, Melbourne== | |||
| Here's the cite/quote for the Australian Chinaman's Hat: | |||
| * | |||
| :What is ‘Chinaman’s Hat’? Chinaman’s Hat near the South Channel was originally built as part of the defence system for World War II. The building was octagonal in shape and resembled a Chinaman’s hat. A photo-electric beam was mounted on the structure to detect incoming ships by a break in the beam. It was employed largely for the evenings when enemy ships might try to quietly enter Port Phillip Heads and take Melbourne by surprise. Today, Chinaman’s Hat is little more than an outcrop, and home to a group of Australian Fur Seals who can be regularly seen in the warmer months lounging on its rocky surface. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 17:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->thanks hagermanbot!!] 17:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Saw your edit Chickenmonkey - please note, Chinaman Island in Australia is not the same thing as Chinaman's Hat in Melbourne, even though they're both in Victoria (?). The multiple Chinamans/Chinaman's Hats in the United States should all somehow be referred to, although that implies a listing of all "Chinaman" placenames from USGS if we detailed them one by one; I'm thinking of just a general reference as to how many others there are. Also I don't think Chinaman's Hat is properly a "nickname" for Mokolii - it's the ''old'' name, before it was "corrected" and of course the Hawaiian name is the proper name anyway; Chinaman's Hat/Mokolii features in a lot of old postcard views it seems, so we should also be able to dig up an image for it.] 22:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I didn't mean to remove the Chinaman's Hat of Melbourne. The only reason to list the multiple Chinamans/Chinaman's Hats in the United States would be if they are notable enough to have an article. If you feel they are then add them. If many are added it would be good to put them in a "See also" section (as per ]). As for ], the Mokolii article says it is "also known as" Chinaman's Hat and linked on the Mokolii article states that the island is "better known as" Chinaman's Hat and ''Mokoli'i'' is the original name. ] 23:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Chinaman's Arch, Utah== | |||
| Finally looked it up somewhere other than the USGS/geonames index; links and quotes compiling here for now, will migrate to ] talkpage once created, but provided here also to prevent deleteion of the Chinaman's Arch entry by those who might claim it's unimportant. Interestingly, the caption , is: | |||
| *''Chinaman's Arch - It has been said that without the Chinese labourers the transcontinental railroad could not have been built. It was at Promontory Summit that the two railroads met and the final - golden - spike was driven on 10th May 1869. This arch was named in recognition of these labourers. It is located at Golden Spike National Historic Site. The span is 11 feet and the height is 12 feet. | |||
| Hmmmm, very much like the hidden story behind Ha Ling Peak and Lee Poon Peak, which were both renamed to get rid of the Chinaman name, even though that's waht Ha Ling and Lee Poon chose to the mountains they climbed......hmmmmmm.....] 18:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :The arch was renamed "Chinese Arch" as of February 2006, so if you're going to create an article for it, make sure you use the correct name. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 18:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Holcombe and Bo Yang== | |||
| Here's a quote from Holcombe's wiki page: | |||
| *''He was the author of The Real Chinaman (1895) and The Real Chinese Question (1900), which attempted to expose myths concerning China, Chinese culture, and the issue of Chinese immigration to the United States. | |||
| Like Bo Yang, that kind of topic is ''NOT'' "literature". It's properly called "criticism" but if there's something more descriptive (both are cultural critiques) then use that instead; but they're NOT "literature" any more than Maxine Kingston's press releases attacking Jerry Seinfeld are "literature", except in the sense of "political literature" or "promotional literature", but the context/meaning of "literature" in those idioms is not what it means when it's a title. It means works of creative nature - novels, poetry, short stories etc. Sure, you see phrases like "the historiographical/historical literature on this subject" or such, but again, that's a different context from what it means when it's standalone in a title.] 18:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Bo Yang's work is a book. Since when is a book ''not'' literature? ] <small>(] - ])</small> 18:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::A cookbook is not "literature", and neither is a history (although it ''is'' or can be called PART of a "historical literature"). Nor a book on sociological analysis/critique either, nor a travelogue, unless by someone like ] or ] or other literary-travelogue writers. Literature is not just a book, Hong. And neither Bo Yang nor Holcombe are Capital-L Literature. They are "cultural criticism". If you go in a library or bookshop you'll also see "Literature and Criticism" as a section/department heading, and also in subject catalogue categorizations.] 19:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Perhaps "Literature and non-Fiction" might suffice, or two separate sections "Literature" and "Non-fiction" as there are other works like Bo Yang's and Holcombe's that have Chinaman in the title that are also in the "criticism" category (I'll have to hunt through the resources page to find them, but I know there are ''some'' more).] 19:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Hasty deletion of ] article== | |||
| No sooner than ] created this article a speedy delete template was placed on it; within less than two minutes I saw this and tried to add the "hangon" template, but the article had already been deleted. I've left a comment about this on the deleting admins talkpage, and asked him to restore/recreate the article, and directed him to the article page here as to why.] 19:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, that hasty deletion was deplorable and the work of an overzealous admin, whom I will report. Thank you. --] 19:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Mark Britten == | |||
| Just to prove the validity of my rm of the entry on Mark Britten which was subsequently rv, I created the ] article with all the info that was here ("American comedian, stage name The Chinaman"). The article was very quicly tagged for speedy deletion, on grounds of lack of assertion of the notability of the subject. See ] for the full text. | |||
| The point here is that DAB pages are not content pages - nor dictionary pages nor micro-stub pages. Mark Britten may well be a very famous comedian but, if he doesn't have his own article or section, he doesn't need to be disambiguated. By the way, there are a number of other entries on this DAB that should go the same way, unless they are spinned off to their own articles or to the Wiktionary. --] 19:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I just got the reply from ] about this - it's on my talkpage. If you'd created the article with something more than just the one sentence, e.g. with birthday/place, stagename, links to his bio pages, it wouldn't have been deleted. And as for cutting things off this disambig page because there's no articles on them (yet) to me that's just censorship, as there are LOTS of disambig pages which have unlinked entries and don't get trimmed by the propriety hedge-clippers.] 19:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :And you're suggestin that ] doesn't deserve an article, but why him less so than other comedians and entertainers of even only local or small-nation/community repute whose bios abound in Misplaced Pages. Again, there's enough on him to warrant even a short article, as much as any other entertainer bio, even as a basic (but valid) stub. Seems to me there's an awful lot of haste in trimming THIS page......] 19:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Just create a bio article with a little more meat to it and make sure to assert how the person is notable. Most of all, make sure he actually meets the notability guideline. Problem solved. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 19:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Things are happening very quickly here. First: the ] article was hastily deleted. The explanation is not satisfactory and I will still report the admin on ]. Second: the "censorship" word is always very dangerous. I don't care about the subject, I came here to cleanup some real DAB mess, following ] and nothing else. Third: please go ahead and add content to the article. Then you can dab it. That's what dabs are for! --] 19:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==] again== | |||
| This is sort of a note to Hong: I've got life to lead today out of the house so am "unplugging", so you can have a field day here and on the main Chinaman page, too. Who knows, my quoting from Bo Yang on the AFD may even get me blocked, and then you'd be happy I'm gone, huh? Yeah, I think so will I; it's a big world and I'm tired of arguing with small minds. I've had browser/connection problems this morning but was going to start/write ] (I think it should have the "comedian" tag on it as there are other Mark Birketts; whether notable or not I can't say but the Rochdale UK councillor might very well be one); but I did have a look at his myspace pages and there's no doubt he's VERY notable, with several film credits to boot: | |||
| * | |||
| * (I haven't been able to get the youtube clips on either page to work; maybe they work better directly through the youtube page directly, but he's a highly-rated performer and apparently a great mock-rock singer so they're probably great clips...) | |||
| * | |||
| *other googles are club reviews/bios although somewherre out there there's another more lengthy bio or maybe it's in his "press" section on his webpage. Yeah, this guy is notable all right. You may not like his choice of stagename, but at least ''he'' has a sense of humour. Even if he is, no doubt, to some a "banana". I'm thinking of letting him know the initial attempt to write an article on him in wikipedia got deleted within two minutes. I'm sure he'll find that quite funny.] 18:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *necessary google string is chinaman+comedian; I tried "Mark Birkett"+chinaman but got no results, although "Mark Birkett"+comedian does work, just not as well as chinaman+comedian.] 18:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm happy for you. Go on buddy, go lead your life. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 18:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==<del>]</del>== | |||
| See the discussion on the page <del>]</del> ]. ] (]) 02:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)] (which article is about views of the word, rather than Chinese people) about renaming that article and its relation to this DAB.] (]) 21:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :The name ] was chosen.] (]) 02:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==pending rename to '''Chinaman''' per DAB policy== | |||
| Following the policy on disambiguation I intend to change the name of this article to '''Chinaman''' shortly, and to rename the article currently bearing the unqualified name '''Chinama''', which deals with contemporary North American views of the term itself as a word as a racist epithet as <del>]</del>. ] was chosen instead.] (]) 02:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)] See the relevant discussion on the current talk page for the current article ]. ] (]) 00:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :The article about the historic usage of the term Chinaman itself, which had simply been named '''Chinaman''' has been renamed to ] and the heading ] has now been redirected to this disambiguation page instead. Until further discussion reaches a consensus, it seems reasonable to leave this as the state of affairs, with the unqualified heading as a redirect to the disambiguation, but there is no opposition to renaming this page ] unqualifiedly if there is any rationale to do so. Do please see the discussion at ] for other comments on the issue. ] (]) 02:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==Style== | |||
| As it stands the list of articles is accurate, if inelegant. That for ] is particularly ugly, but this may have to stand due to the policy of using the exact name of the article for the link. | |||
| Given that policy, I also question the propriety of the use of scare quotes for the link to ] and italics in the link to ]. I intend to remove that extra markup myself if there is no objection. | |||
| Whether ] should be merged into ] is another issue I will mention but not pursue at this moment.] (]) 02:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==contentious== | |||
| My personal opinion is that people who find the word Chinaman itself offensive (rather than particular usage) are actively looking to be insulted. After all, no one takes offense at Englishman, Frenchman, etc. But the fact remains that regardless of my own opinion, the word is controversial with some people in some contexts and people have even lost their jobs for using it. Whether it should be contentious is a different question from whether it is - and it is. I don't have a problem finding a better word than contentious. But if it were not contentious there would not even be an article about the term - see ] for example. So I am reverting the deletion of the word contentious, util such time as better alternative can be found. ] (]) 02:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :How 'bout "a largely archaic but offensive to some" or some such construct; simply having "contentious" winds up taking the 'offended party' side.] (]) 02:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::For the record "Frenchman" ''can'' be derisive, and often is...though often also with a humorous bent. Not as derisive as "Frenchie" but ''that''term is also often a local nickname/term of endearment. I agree with you; people who need to have their noses out of joint will always find a way to be insulted, and someone to blame. Er, not just someone, but everyone.] (]) 02:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Perhaps: "sometimes contentious" or "to some contentious"? ] (]) 02:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I respectfully disagree with the points made here. ALL nouns are simply combination of alphabet letters, including K*ke, N*gger and so on and there is nothing inherently offensive in those letters themselves. I think everyone would agree that it is the contexts and the history in which the words were used influence how people feel about them in current days. I am sure if the words Chinaman, K*ke and N*gger had been used in flattering or admiring manners in the past, people today would love to be called upon by them. But unfortunately history cannot be rewritten. A fashionable arguments made today is to blame people being over-reactive or seeking insults themselves. Even though I am sure some uses of the words in these days are simply out of ignorance as in the case of an European politician using the N* word because in that country the word N*gger did not have a history of racially derogatory usage and is totally neutral there. However, blaming the receivers of the words being over-reactive and self-victimization, IMHO, is insensitive and is losing the historic aspect the words. Misplaced Pages is a good platform to educate readers and to reduce ignorance if it truly stands by what it claims. Therefore I make a motion to restore "contentious" back to "offensive" or "often racially derogatory"] (]) 13:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==What happened to Fowler's link?== | |||
| That used to be a link to an online version of Fowler's; is that off-line now or did someone just unlink it for some reason?] (]) 02:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == inappropriate edits == | |||
| 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) | |||
| == 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. ] (]) 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" :-) ] (]) 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.] (]) 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 ] 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) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :::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. | |||
| :::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) | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| :::::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. <font face="Palatino, Georgia, serif"> — ] <sup>]</sup></font> 14:58, 30 May 2011 (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. <font face="Palatino, Georgia, serif"> — ] <sup>]</sup></font> 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" ] (]) 13:17, 30 May 2011 (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. <font face="Palatino, Georgia, serif"> — ] <sup>]</sup></font> 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 ], 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) | |||
| ::::::::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) | |||
| ::::::::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) | |||
| 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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::IMHO it is time to make the revision now. Further discussion on the TOPIC is greatly appreciated. ] (]) 06:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == "Contentious" or "often offensive" == | |||
| 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. <font face="Palatino, Georgia, serif"> — ] <sup>]</sup></font> 14:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)</p> | |||
| :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) | |||
| 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) | |||
| ::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.) <font face="Palatino, Georgia, serif"> — ] <sup>]</sup></font> 15:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::Maybe I misunderstood you intention. 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 violate the NPOV policy and warrant revision. ] (]) 15:12, 31 May 2011 (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: