Talk:Chinaman/Archive 3

Historic Usage
First, HongQiGong, my apologies for the wholesale reversion, I did not object to the edits you restored, but I simply did not see a way to restore the deletions without mangling your other edits in the process.

As for the current state of the article, I have a few concerns.

First, you have again deleted "derogatory" as a subhead. As a title it is indeed awkward. But my concern is that the article show the historical development. The article needs to address that the word developed a negative modern connotation not because (like "Chink", which has no valid use, and has always and everywhere been seen as insulting) it was inherently derogatory (no English man objects to being called an Englishman), but because of its association with the actions of racist people, primarily in nineteenth and twentieth century California. Can you tell me, HongQiGong, if there was some underlying concern in removing the word "derogatory"? I would break up the Historic usage section to show the innocent origins, the temporally and geographically local rise of the racist connotation, and the fact that the word is even now in use.

Second, the current tag mentioning that the article is written from an American viewpoint is indeed correct, but it could even be made more specific, to indicate that the viewpoint is localized even moreso to the west coast. When, for example, in a discussion to which I was party at Rutgers University at the time of the Tiananmen square crackdown, the word Chinamen was used to refer to one Chinese individual, (The "Chinaman" who stood in front of the tank) the lone Chinese man in the class was mortified and brought to tears. The rest of us were clueless as to his distress, that he thought we were intentionally using a racist insult. He explained that he had been taught in his English class at UCLA that the word was racist. But to us east coast speakers the word was simply plain old standard English, no different from my calling myself an Irishman.

To remedy this I would suggest renaming the article Chinaman (political correctness) or with some other suitable qualifier and redirecting Chinaman itself to a disambiguation page just as is done with Dutchman currently. But I realize this will perhaps be controversial. In which case if a move is unacceptable I would suggest at least putting a comment that this article deals with the political correctness of the term and putting redirects to the articles Chinese people and Han Chinese at the top of this article. Are there any comments on this? μηδείς (talk) 18:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

1. The fact that the "Derogatory" section heading was removed doesn't do anything to diminish your concerns. All the content of the paragraphs are still there. I removed it because all that content actually fall under the context of Historic Usage. But I would ask this - who exactly said it was not inherently derogatory in the beginning of its common use in the 1800s and even before? Is this your personal opinion? If you read carefully, you'll see that the article was purposely structured to be neutral as to whether its use is derogatory, regardless of past or present usage. It only states specific sources' commentary on whether or not it is derogatory. For example, you'll see that the article states specifically that Emma Woo Louie thought the use of "John Chinaman" was not derogatory. It avoids simply stating that it wasn't derogatory. The article itself should not be stating, whether directly or by implication, if the word is derogatory or not as a matter of fact. It needs to remain neutral and only state the opinions of reliable sources.

2. I don't feel strongly about the American viewpoint tag. I thought it was pretty obvious to any reader that the subject matter deals mostly with the US, and that's why I thought the tag was unnecessary. I have no opposition to it if you feel strongly about it.

3. I'm against renaming this to Chinaman (political correctness), because it's not a subject of political correctness at all. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

But this article is not about Chinamen. It hence violates naming policy. It is strictly about the POV regarding modern regional opinions about the word itself. Would the article Fish, for example, be about how that word is viewed as a pejoritive towards women, with not even a link to an imagined article Biological fish?

This article has to be named for its content. The American tag points that necessity out as well. If the name Chinaman (political correctness)) is unacceptable, then maybe Chinaman (pejorative) or Chinaman (connotation) would be better. That's why I asked for your suggestion.  A search on the word Chinaman needs to lead to the disambiguation page which should carry the unqualified title Chinaman.  That page can be edited to note that the word is viewed as pejorative and the link to this article can be first on the list.  But that disambiguation page should also direct to the articles Han Chinese and Chinese people to which it does not currently link.  You removed the word derogatory because you yourself see the entire article as about the pejorative nature of the word.  That is fine, if that is what the article is about that is what its name should be.  If Chinaman (pejorative) is unacceptable, please suggest another name. μηδείς (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's like saying Negro should be an article about black people. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The point I have explicitly made is that among other difficulties and inconsistencies, which have been pointed out in the archive by other editors, the naming as it stands is in violation of the policy on disambiguation.

Besides being unhelpful and without regard to wikipedia policy on naming, your comment that "That's like saying Negro should be an article about black people" is disingenuous and a borderline imputation of anti-Black racism on my part.

I have not said that the article Han Chinese should be named Chinaman. (No article should be named Chinama. Only the disambiguation page should.)

Nor, for that matter, does there exist a page Negro (disambiguation) in any policy-violating competition with the article Negro, nor are there four articles with the qualified name Negro (cricket), "Negro" (politics), "Negro" (porcelain), Negro (ship) in the way that there do exist the articles Chinaman (cricket), Chinaman (politics), Chinaman (porcelain), and Chinaman (ship).

And the page Negro (1) states explicitly in its disclaimer that it is solely about the usage of the term and (2) provides a link for the article Black people.


 * Hence, I intend (1) to apply the wikipedia policy on disambiguation, and shortly rename the disambiguation page properly as Chinaman, following the analogy of the page Dutchman, and (2)  to rename this page [as neutrally as possible upon further reflection] to  Chinaman (term) if there are no further suggestions as to a better name to fit its content.

I understand that as the creator of this article you may naturally feel a proprietary interest in it. I have no intention to further alter the content, and I intend, after the name change, to remove the American tag since the article's name will then better reflect its scope. μηδείς (talk) 01:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Believe it or not, I've had this discussion with other editors already. The current naming complies perfectly with the disambiguation policy because the content of this article is the primary topic associated with the term "Chinaman".  Please read WP:DABNAME.  A second problem with "Chinaman (term)" is that there is hardly any neutral term to apply to the title.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have read that discussion, and the policy, and all archives on this article and checked the articles which link to this one in preparation for moving it to Chinaman (term). This article was previously named Chinaman (racial term) which I too would have agreed to change, since "racial" is ambiguous, but not to an unqualified title, and certainly not to a main title, since it comes nowhere near being a main or comprehensive topic.  The title Chinaman (term) itself is perfectly neutral and accurate.  (The article as currently written uses the term term 37 times!)  So I am not sure why you either think Chinaman (term) is not neutral or why it would need to be further qualified. The article Shina (word) is a perfect model for this article.  That article deals with the word's connotation, not the subject it denotes.  That article parallels this one in form, dealing with the history and the evolution of racist associations to it.  There is no main article Shina, just a DAB such as I am suggesting be the case here.  The only way that this article could stay Chinaman without qualification would be if it were to deal with all the denotations of that word, which is simply ridiculous.  This article deals with the connotations of the term, and given the significance of the history and the crimes committed by people who used the word as if it were a way to differentiate Chinese men from good old ordinary Causcasian "mankind," [irony] there should be such an article.  But that doesn't mean that a derivative, local usage of a certain historical period should have pride of place ahead of such articles as that which deals with the ethnicity or nationality itself.  The broadest meaning of Chinaman is Chinese man and people who type in that word should be directed to the disambiguation page, not a page dealing with one locally and temporally limited aspect of the usage of the word.  So long as the title of this article reflects that it deals with the term per se it will be an useful integrated unity.  Disclaimers and tags can be minimalized.  Users will more swiftly find the article relevant to their search.  I cannot see a single drawback to the change.  μηδείς (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, so what is your best suggestion for a rename? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Since the article is concerned with theterm Chinaman, the exact and literal title Chinaman (term) seems best. I suppose Chinaman (word) or Chinaman (connotation) or perhaps Chinaman (usage) would be acceptable, although "word" (compare Shina (word)) seems inelegant and "connotation" seems a bit too narrow.  I had abandoned the idea of Chinaman (pejorative) which, at first glanced seemed relevant, but upon reflection is not neutral in the same way that Chinaman (political correctness) would not be neutral.  So, after some thought, again, the best title I can come up with for an article about the term "Chinaman" would literally be Chinaman (term). μηδείς (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok I see. I am not opposed to that.  I would consider this a non-controversial move.  Maybe let the idea float on the Talk pages for a day or two and then just move it yourself  You'll need to file a file move request to move the current disambig page over to this title though, because it needs to be first deleted.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Very good. I will make the move when I have the time to do everything at once, including changing links on pages linked here if necessary.  There has been notice both here and on Chinaman (disambiguation) for a few days of a pending change.  Unless someone objects or insists some other name is better I will do it soon. μηδείς (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll help with the re-linking. I don't think there are very many links to the article anyway.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)\

Thanks for the offer. I have changed the name of this article, and, for now, simply redirected Chinaman to Chinaman (disambiguation). Given that, at this point editing the links is not of immediate concern since they will for now go to disambiguation. Having Chinaman -> Chinaman (disambiguation) may actually be a reasonable state of affairs so long as no one decides to change it from a redirect to a main article. I'd like your comments on that. As for editing the links, I do think that most should stay as are and hence go to disambiguation but any that deal with explicitly racist or condescending usage such as the nickname of the Devo band member should link directly here given they are meant as wordplay and not literally. That is the only link I will change for now. I am at my attention limit, and will leave for actions after there has been time for me to think and others to comment. μηδείς (talk) 03:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * When moving a page, please make sure to move the talk page archives, too. WP:MOVE. Chicken  monkey  03:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, can you do that for us? If not, I will figure it out tomorrow. μηδείς (talk) 03:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I moved them. In the future, be sure to check for talk subpages. It's easy to forget that step. Chicken  monkey  04:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 04:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

These are the pages which link to or very recently linked to Chinaman
Devo (links)

Pekin, Illinois (links)

Tōgō Heihachirō (links)

Demonym (links)

Roy Bean (links)

Chink (links)

Gweilo (links)

Ching chong (links)

Shina (word) (links)

Talk:China/Archive 7 (links)

Talk:Orient (links)

User talk:Mandarax (links)

James Ah Koy (links)

Talk:Gweilo (links)

Ah Beng (links)

Bobby Clampett (links)

User:Ta bu shi da yu/Ozemail (links)

Talk:Chinaman (disambiguation) (links)

User talk:24.250.162.120 (links)

Chinaman's chance (links)

List of Little Britain characters (links)

Chinese American history (links)

Takuji Yamashita (links)

The Bookstore (links)

User talk:209.101.124.130 (links)

User talk:Empiredragon (links)

Talk:Ching chong (links)

User talk:HongQiGong/Archive 1 (links)

Stereotypes of East Asians in the Western world (links)

User talk:Bobsuruncle44 (links)

The Ballad of Little Jo (links)

User talk:152.7.46.68 (links)

User talk:HongQiGong/Archive 2 (links)

Rock Springs massacre (links)

Talk:Old China Trade (links)

Tetsu Komai (links)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Asian Americans (links)

Ha Ling Peak (links)

Talk:Mokolii (links)

List of ethnic slurs by ethnicity (links)

User talk:CindyBo (links)

Talk:Orient/Archive 1 (links)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive216 (links)

Talk:Chinaman (term) (links)

User talk:Steel359/Archive 9 (links)

User talk:Johnlp/Archive 1 (links)

Talk:Chinaman (racial term)/Archive 1 (links)

Talk:Chinaman/Archive 1 (links)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 April 3 (links)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/English language names for Chinese people (links)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2007 March 31 (links)

User talk:Coredesat/Archive 8 (links)

User talk:75.0.176.101 (links)

User talk:71.141.124.245 (links)

List of ethnic slurs (links)

User talk:Zeus1234/Archive 1 (links)

User:Andrew Robertson/names (links)

User talk:Manwithhorse1 (links)

Akhil Patel (links)

User talk:Mafmafmaf/Archive 2 (links)

Babman (links)

The Maker of Moons (short story) (links)

User talk:70.132.12.78 (links)

Talk:Polack (links)

Talk:List of ethnic slurs/Archive 4 (links)

User talk:Skookum1/Archive 4 (links)

User talk:98.213.108.181 (links)

Talk:L. Ron Hubbard/Archive 9 (links)

User talk:69.225.158.39 (links)

User talk:98.243.177.66 (links)

User talk:Yfgoweurfgo4i2gf (links)

User talk:132.216.227.14 (links)

User talk:67.177.127.187 (links)

User talk:79.69.93.183 (links)

User talk:70.65.102.134 (links)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2009 June 12 (links)

User talk:Skookum1/Archive 9 (links)

User talk:75.80.181.29 (links)

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Asian Americans articles by quality/1 (links)

User:Quartermaster/Books/Gentle art (links)

User:WebCiteBOT/Logs/2009-10-31.log (links)

User talk:70.187.149.153 (links)

User talk:Nemogbr/MANAA (links)

User talk:98.242.42.152 (links)

Characters of Father Ted (links)

Talk:Chinaman/Archive 2 (links)

Term Chinaman used for non-Chinese East Asians.
The use of the word Chinese, and hence Chinaman, to refer to any person of East Asian race, regardless of actual nationality is a widespread symptom of ignorance, whether due to carelessness or lack of education. The derogatory use of a term requires the intent to insult, "showing a disrespectful attitude." We cannot simply assume that any confusion by a speaker is intentionally insulting. Surely some usage is intentionally inaccurate. But not all use of the term is derogatory, much is simply confused.

The word ignorant (from Latin, in-gnos-ant, literally un-know-ing) has two senses. The primary sense is "lacking knowledge information or awareness" and the secondary sense, based on ignorance of proper manners, is "discourteous or rude." Ignorant is the perfect word. The primary sense covers careless usage and loose thinking and simple "not knowing any better" while the second sense covers derogatory usage.

As an aside, the term derogatory is no more and no less academic than the term ignorant. Both are perfectly cromulent borrowings from the Latin. I suggest Reverend Walter William Skeat's A Concise Etymological Dictionary of the English Language available at Amazon and elsewhere. It is a perfect introduction to the original meaning and origin of English words. μηδείς (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree. "Ignorant" has strong pejorative connotations, indeed suggesting the rude, uneducated and questionably unintelligent. See WP:LABEL. Its use, except in the appropriate context (e.g., "... due to ignorance of ..."), strikes me as rather unprofessional. I'm somewhat in agreement that "derogatory" may not be appropriate either, but I don't see a clear solution, and see "ignorant" as the far worse choice. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 20:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a note, my edit to take out "ignorant" doesn't have anything to do with whether or not it implies "pejorative" or "derogatory". The word "ignorant" has pejorative connotations mostly colloquially, which is why I would prefer not to use it. But I would suggest we come up with something that avoids making a judgement call on the intent of the usage. I think just stating that it is considered derogatory would suffice. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * One on hand I still maintain that ignorant in its exact dictionary senses is the perfect word.  The word being used here is ignorant with three syllables, not "ignant" with two.  The primary and historical meaning of ignorant is "lacking knowledge, information or awareness" (Oxford American dictionary.)  The context here is indeed exactly "due to ignorance of" the difference between Chinese and other ethnicities.  I will be happy to use any other word such as my previous careless or perhaps inaccurate which includes this wider meaning.  (Although we wouldn't merely call a person who refers to Europeans as "Irishman" as inaccurate)  But using derogatory begs the question of whether the term is inherently meant as an insult, and gnores (disregards) the fact that some ignorant (uneducated) people simply use it out of plain ignorance (lack of awareness).  We cannot chose a blatantly POV and derogatory word like derogatory merely because a perfectly accurate word such as ignorant might have a derogatory connotation when used in vulgar non-academic speech.


 * But on the other hand I think the word indiscriminate is a very good choice, since it applies more to the word choice than the speaker himself, and I will make the appropriate edit.


 * If people still object they should suggest an alternative. Otherwise perhaps the clause should simply be dropped and we can let the reader decide why certain people use the term to refer to non-Chinese. μηδείς (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

What does that even mean, "indiscriminate racial term"? It really would be best if we stay away from stating as a matter of fact what the nature of the word is, and how people use it. This is what I propose the intro should read:
 * Chinaman is an English language term that denotes a Chinese man or person. While the term is not listed as derogatory in older dictionaries, it is noted as offensive by modern dictionaries, dictionaries of slurs and euphemisms, and guidelines for racial harassment. Currently, usage of the term Chinaman is strongly discouraged by Asian American organizations and others. The term has been used by Chinese and persons without stated offensive intent, and has also been used as a self-referential archetype by authors and artists of Asian descent.


 * I took out the part that reads "whether by Han Chinese ethnicity, or as a Chinese national" because we don't actually know if it was only used for one or the other or both.
 * I also took out "an indiscriminate racial term for any person of East Asian descent" because here we are trying to state as a matter of fact whether or not it was a derogatory term, and how people meant to use the term. All we really need to state is that it is considered derogatory by the parties that object to it, and how sometimes no ill intent is meant.  A lot of this is covered in the body of the article.
 * Took out everything else that borders on WP:SYNTH and is basically unsourced. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 13:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not opposed to removing the clause "or, in some cases, an indiscriminate racial term for any person of East Asian descent." But I oppose removing the refeerences to Han Chinese and to Chinese nationals. It is proper for an encyclopedia article to identify the real world subject denoted by a term under discussion. I oppose the wording " While the term is not listed as derogatory in older dictionaries, it is noted as offensive by modern dictionaries" since adding the while implies the comparison that the older dictionaries lacked something that they should have had. The simple statement without the conjunction "while" relfects the facts.

Feel free to remove the bold clause above. As for "racial" in "indiscriminate racial term" I take it to mean the obvious, that it is a term used to identify people by (presumed) race as opposed to by sex, dress, language or so forth. But I am removing it since unsophisticated people might conceivably take it to mean "discriminatory racist term" even if it does not. It disturbs me to have to write an article as if the target audience is the lowest common denominator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs) 16:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem with the reference to either Han Chinese or Chinese nationals is that none of the online dictionaries we have linked to the article actually makes the reference specifically to either. The most common definition is "native of China".  So that statement is a construction that was imagined by the editor who added that bit, and not something that is backed by credible sources.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Dictionary references
The last link, to the American Heritage Dictionary onder dictionary definitions is broken. I am reluctant to simply delete it, but it appears Bartleby is no longer hosting their reference. Perhaps someone can fix this.

Also, while the lead states that "the term Chinaman is noted as offensive by modern dictionaries, dictionaries of slurs and euphemisms, and guidelines for racial harassment," no refs are provided for the bolded resources. I also think the word euphemism may be the wrong choice, sincee Chinaman is consider not the polite but the pejoritive word choice.

I am mentioning the above here rather than make deletions or add ugly tags since I think the situation should be rectifiable.μηδείς (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed the "dictionaries of slurs and euphemisms..." part. I've also removed the comparison with "Englishman, Irishman, etc" because none of our sources make the comparison either.  That's an analysis that an editor came up with on his own.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't like to be so quick to delete. I know I saw a reference somewhere for a style manual which isn't exactly racial harassment but which would be relevant.  I do think that dictionaries of slurs and euphemsism will have to go just because except for on line sources I can't find anything and euphemisms as I said above seems to have been sloppy editorializing.  As for the compounds, I think there may be something about it in Pinker but there are other sources and I have listed a prescriptive grammar for learners of English which compares them.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs) 03:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added some references for modern dictionaries, found using OneLook.  — Mr. Stradivarius  ♫ 04:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)