Talk:Sinicization

An old-fashioned term?
This is a very interesting topic on Taiwan and it appears the term "sinasization" is losing ground in academia. The reasoning is that because Chinese were new to Taiwan and encountered a different cultural and natural environment, the stresses of frontier life changed the immigrants as much as it changed the aboriginal inhabitants, the "export theory". American culture is exported all over the world, but translated in different ways by the local cultures, in effect, becoming local. The Qing treatment of frontier regions was exclusive to each region and Taiwan was governed on terms that the Qing felt were pragmatic for the Taiwanese situation and not duplicated on the continent. The receeding use of sinasization arises from its inability to nullify and simply replace the native cultural and social values without the native culture going to China. A good example in Taiwan is the Holo language is peppered by nursery words from earlier languages, much like an American family of German ancestry might continue to use the word opa for grandfather. Aboriginal religious customs have also combined with religions from China and become Taiwanese practice. The other quirk is the determination of what Chinese culture is. There are different cultures which came from China and if they are not part of the current Chinese cultural continuum are they Chinese? The debate is ongoing... User:211.72.233.19 01:44, 26 Jun 2003

the Holo language in taiwan(taiwanese) is strongly influenced by japanese due to Japan's rule for more than half an century. there are many words borrowed from japanese. It is like modern english after norman's rule which is different from old language(I mean the language anglo-saxons brought from Continent). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.75.91.2 (talk) 06:23, July 18, 2004 (UTC)

Jiang's Edits
Jiang, re: your edit at 0400 on 15/01/2004.

Do you think it worth mentioning that Mainland China has indicated that it would like to assimilate (economially, if not culturally or politically) Taiwan, have they categorically denied it, or have they remained silent?

More pedantically, are you sure "on" is more clear than "about"?

MrJones 11:32, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's a specific statement in line with the word "assimilation". The situation is closer "free trade". Does "They feel it is part of a strategy by the People's Republic of China to sinicize Taiwan, thus making reunification inevitable." do the job?


 * Yes, I misread that sentence and "about" is more correct. However, "about Taiwan" is a very vague statement. It needs to be changed to something more specific. --Jia ng 23:21, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Mons
I don't know much about the subject, but should "Mons" be changed to "Hmong"? "Mons" currently links to a Belgian city. Easytoremember 12:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Untitled
Hello! Xinjiang anybody?!!!... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.60.1.125 (talk) 12:27, January 5, 2007 (UTC)

Deleted various parts
The paragraph regarding the expulsion of Vietnam from the Han dynasty really doesn't belong here. Intranetusa (talk) 18:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

A modern meaning is the process by which other peoples like the Koreans, Japanese, and the Vietnamese are strongly influenced by Chinese culture and working practices??
quite sure japan influence in modern east asian practices is higher. i always thought Sinicization of east asia occur prior to the european arrival. i cannot really agree with the statement without seeing the usage in an article. agree? Akinkhoo (talk) 11:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I dont really understand what you are trying to say. Are you suggesting that Japanese culture has a stronger influence in east asian cultures than Chinese culture? this is debatable, and most importantly, not related to what we are discussing here. also. yes, Sincization started MUCH earlier than european arrival. Bwang12 (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking of adding my own definition of Economic Sinicization that briefly discusses China's Foreign Direct Investment and how its integration in African, European and other Western Markets has impacted foreign economies. Do you think that Chinese firms' investment in foreign economies has contributed to sinicization in a way that would be significant to the scope of this article? I was just thinking it might be worth exploring since the best way to understand cultural conquest is to follow the money! Tyson (talk) 01:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Change to unification
because that is what both sides on the dispute in Taiwan call the position. Roadrunner (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Also revert to Mainland China. People disagree as to whether or not Taiwan is part of China and what that means, but everyone agrees that Taiwan is not part of Mainland China. This makes it politically neutral. Roadrunner (talk) 16:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Sinicisation -- the old "what is Chinese?" debate
The comment on the Sinicisation of Tibet is quite at odds with the definition given at the start of the article. "Sinicisation" refers to the culture and civilisation of the "Han Chinese". It's therefore quite possible to talk of the Sinicisation of Tibet.

The greater issue, of course, is the issue of what constitutes China. The modern Chinese ideology is that all ethnicities within the boundaries of China are "Chinese", are an inalienable part of China, and have always been an inalienable part of China. This politically motivated ideology introduces all kinds of contradictions and complexities into the definition of what "Chinese" is. To claim that "Tibetan culture" = "Chinese culture" may be politically correct if you want to make a point -- namely, that Tibet is part of China, therefore you shouldn't use terminology that suggests otherwise -- but in cultural terms it is nonsense. Tibetan culture is quite different from (Han) Chinese culture, and it is quite proper to point out that there are people who are opposed to the assimilation of Tibetan culture to (Han) Chinese culture. Only the most rabidly politically correct would insist that a Westerner who embraced Tibetan Buddhism (and was, for argument's sake, virulently hostile to Han Chinese culture) was being "Sinicised".

The fact is that the insistence on the modern sense of "Chinese = the 56 ethnic groups" is actually a distortion of the historical concept. Prior to 1911 or thereabouts, no one would have seriously suggested that the Tibetans were Chinese. It's the modern political ideology that is giving rise to the nonsensical paragraph on the Sinicisation of Tibet.

I therefore suggest that the paragraph should be either deleted, or the quibble over the meaning of "Sinicisation" should be removed.

Bathrobe (talk) 03:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The current text of the "Sinicization of Tibet" section seems to contain an individual editor's analytical claim, a good example of original research. According to WP: NOR and WP: V, an analysis of this sort should be grounded in a reliable secondary source that makes this claim "directly and explicitly" (these words are from No_original_research). In the absence of such a reference, and since the paragraph contradicts the definition of "sinicization" proposed at the beginning of the article, I agree with Bathrobe's proposal to delete it. The question becomes: if we delete the paragraph, should we keep an empty section called "Sinicization of Tibet"?
 * For reference: "Sinicization of Tibet" was added as an empty section by Rédacteur Tibet on October 23, 2008 (here). The current text of the section was inserted by PalaceGuard008 less than a month later (here).
 * --Madalibi (talk) 04:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Quite right. I've replaced the existing text with the leading paragraph from Sinicization of Tibet, to which the reader is already directed. Bertport (talk) 05:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Madalibi (talk) 06:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Taiwan
I think we can continue the neutrality discussion from Talk:Republic_of_China here.--pyl (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

NPOV noticeboard
Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Readin (talk • contribs) 15:46, June 6, 2009 (UTC)

Adding information from a new source
When adding information from a new source, it is not ok to simply remove or misstate information from sources that already exist. Readin (talk) 19:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

"sinicize" vs "re-sinicize"
We only have one source that puts the "re" in there, and it does so somewhat haltingly: "resinicizing" them, one might say. Whether or not the sinicization is a "repeat or not, it is a sinicization, and that is the more neutral way to say. It also matches the sources better.  Readin (talk) 19:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually two. But I don't think this is a compeittion based on source count. It is actually more neutral to do "resinicizing" unless the Han Chinese who arrived in Taiwan before the Japanese period were considered by a major POV not to be Chinese at first place. Logically it is:-


 * Chinese -> "Japanization" -> "Resinicizing"


 * The intention of the government (the primary source) was "resinicization" as well, the quote says "..... making Taiwanese customs, thought, and language gradually return to that of Chinese people".


 * If you still consider me doing "POV pushing" after using sources, then I guess I will have to return your favour in the future. You are proven to me to be unable to refrain from making personal comments.--pyl (talk) 06:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Manchus
A paragraph in the article Chinese nationalism reads


 * "After the 1911 Revolution, the official definition of "Chinese" was expanded to include non-Han ethnicities as part of a comprehensive Chinese nation (Zhonghua Minzu), although some historians argue that this was due mainly to the realization that a narrow definition of "Chinese" would result in a loss of Chinese territory, and that the Manchus were too sinicized to be considered an outside group."

But this article says nothing about the sinicization of the Manchus! Instead, there are contemporary and contentious allegations of the sinicization of Tibet and Taiwan! Covering what linked articles refer readers to would be a good start for making this article useful and neutral. The Homosexualist (talk) 03:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Sinicization of yunnan
Purblio (talk) 23:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Need for balance and up to date coverage
I tagged the article for "need for expert" because the coverage is haphazard and not comprehensive. The definition in the lede is "non-Han Chinese societies come under the influence of dominant Han Chinese state and society," which seems to be political, but the general usage is more cultural. The following examples are confusing. To take only a few examples, the section "Integration" is a good idea, but does not address the current or historical policies of the PRC. The section on the Ming is two sentences on military expansion, not on sinicization, and the Qing section leads by saying that the Manchus "began to sinicize," and gives the example of taking Chinese names. There is much more to be said on this fascinating topic! ch (talk) 18:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that this article does need attentions from experts. The section on the Ming is indeed more about military expansion than sinicization, and thus requires major rewrites (and I have added a cleanup template to this section). The section on the Qing has major problems too, although I have tried to change the first paragraph of this section a bit in order to mention there exist different views on this issue. --Evecurid (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

"Chinalization"
In this article, someone added a cleanup tag for the word "Chinalization", which you added to this article's lead section several years ago. Is "chinalization" a commonly used word, or is it a neologism? Jarble (talk) 00:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * English is not my major language, but I has read this word, by example this one and this. china and chinese are obvious words, because they have many different definition. --Alfredo ougaowen (talk) 02:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems to be uncommon common Chinglish. The actual English term would be Chinafication or Chinification, but it's not terribly common either. — Llywelyn II   06:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sinicization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090712112116/http://www.tibet.com/HumanRights/poptrans.html to http://www.tibet.com/Humanrights/poptrans.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Two sentences on sinicization are poorly sourced and don't mention a time period
''The KMT pursued a sinicization policy, it was stated that "the time had come to set about the business of making all natives either turn Chinese or get out" by foreign observers of KMT policy. It was noted that "Chinese colonization" of "Mongolia and Manchuria" led "to a conviction that the day of the barbarian was finally over".''

I'm removing these two sentences from this article (and the article on Kuomintang) because it doesn't reference a time period and the sources are problematic. The Open Court and Frontier History sources do not support the sentences at all, or at least, the links provided for these sources don't support the sentence. Instead, I had to manually search for "day of the barbarian" in the Open Court source to find the exact same writings as in the first source. But even searching for that in the Frontier History source does not provide any relevant results. So this is not actually three independent sources, but rather the same singular source simply being published in two different journals, and the third source doesn't mention it. Searching for "KMT sinicization" on Google Scholar only provides results that talk about their post-1945 policies in Taiwan. The other issue with these two sentences is that they are both in violation of WP:WEASEL by using passive voice. I can't find the name of the author who actually wrote what is being quoted. If someone objects to this removal, please respond here on this talk page and explain your reasoning. --JasonMacker (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)


 * OK so
 * I know nothing about the subject matter, apart from vague awareness of the queue (hairstyle) being decreed by law, which amuses me because the hairstyle is stereotypically Chinese and yet originates from 17th century invaders.
 * I'm here because I saw the argument on Reddit which inspired this edit. Would it be alright if link to that? Might be good context.
 * WP:WEASEL is just a guideline, so "violation" is putting it a bit strong. You can see there that it says views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if those expressions accurately represent the opinions of the source. The author of the weasel words in this case is Owen Lattimore. It would be alright to keep them as a quote from the source: perhaps mentioning the author, like this: Owen Lattimore, writing in [wherever], asserted that "The Kuomintang urged that the time had come to set about the business of making all natives either turn Chinese or get out".
 * Card Zero (talk) 08:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)