Talk:Chinaman

message: Stradivarius, your new addition of Modern usage is generally acceptable. I would encourage you to list all the sources you have found which is a work deserving respect. However, I stay with my objection to the languages on intents. Before a consensus is reached on this matter, such language should be put on hold.Dwarm12345 (talk) 18:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Dwarm, and thanks! That sounds like high praise in a discussion that has been as tense as this one. I used all the sources I could find on the usage of the word. Sure, I did find more about its history, and I found a lot of dictionary definitions, but they don't really talk about the usage of the word. I might put the information about the history in sometime later (you're welcome to edit the article yourself, by the way). I didn't include the dictionary definitions because they are not about the usage of the word per se, and the only commentary they provide is a couple of words like "dated" or "usually offensive". In other words, they wouldn't tell the readers anything useful or new that wasn't included in the usage sources. As for the intent of the speaker, this was in the sources, and it clearly seems like useful information for the reader. As part of the neutral point of view policy on Wikipedia, we have a duty to present all sides of a debate, and I think leaving this information out would be against the spirit of this policy. However, I'm confused... what about the intent of the speaker do you find so objectionable? It would be helpful for us to know the reason so that we have the chance of working out a compromise.  — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 01:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored that material.  The addition had already been discussed and I fear that any objections to it we may hear will be original research trying to argue the incorrectness of a reliable source. μηδείς (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I still disagree. As I stated before, unless the intents have contextual or historic significance, it is simply a known fact that any adjectives can be used in different even opposite ways. Dwarm12345 (talk) 00:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are mistaking the nature of the claim here. We are not trying to guess speakers' intentions every time they open their mouths - rather, these descriptions are derived from concrete data collected by researchers. I don't think we can realistically say those researchers' efforts are irrelevant. Also, I'm still not quite sure what you're trying to argue here. To me, for example, it is far from obvious how people intend the use of Chinaman (which is a noun, by the way, not an adjective). In Britain hardly anyone uses the word at all, so when I read that the word is still used in America I have no way of knowing how it is used. Information about intent cannot be provided just by saying the word is usually offensive. Why do you say it is obvious?  — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 06:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a noun, not an adjective. But the point is, any words can be used  with all possible intents which makes such discussion meaningless. I am not saying you should ignore anybody's research work. Instead, I had encouraged you to make a full list of all the respectful number of sources you identified earlier on the subject which I believe will benefit the readers.Dwarm12345 (talk) 01:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have created a thread about this at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Chinaman (term) - whether to include information on speakers' intent.  — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 09:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Modern usage

message: I removed some playground verse which would be offensive merely for its condescension, vulgarity, and use of another racist epithet, regardless of its containing the phrase China man. μηδείς (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate that you kept the reference to the poems within the footnotes, but I'm not sure I understand why we can't include the verses themselves. Is it because of the obscenities? It seems to me that I've seen worse on Wikipedia before (the first image from Creampie (sexual act) still disturbs me). Or is it just that the verse complicated the issue by including "ching chong" as well, thus making it unclear to what extent "Chinaman" was offensive by itself? Just curious about what makes something too problematic to include within the article. Thanks. Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The big issue is that the words pee, shit, ching-chong and the intentionally derogatory tone of the poem make it patently racist and offensive--without reference to the term chinaman.  If, to make up a silly example, we had a rhyme that went "Chinaman, Chinaman, does whatever a spider can", then that would be much more relevant because it would be the use of the word Chinaman itself which would be offensive.  The poem would make much more sense posted at Ching Chong and Anti-Chinese. μηδείς (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, we have relatively few examples of offensive usage in the article, and The Cambridge Guide to English Usage (2004) says that Chinaman became seen as derogatory partly through association with John Chinaman and Chinaman's chance. I think the article would benefit from some examples of this "offensiveness through association", as long as we carefully qualify it as such. As for the example in question, it looks like user-submitted content, and I don't think it would pass the reliable source test - correct me if I'm wrong.  — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 12:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed doggerel 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Chinaman (term). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090109111227/http://www.env.gov.bc.ca:80/bcgn-bin/bcg10?name=386 to http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcgn-bin/bcg10?name=386
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050405174449/http://bartleby.com:80/61/86/C0298600.html to http://www.bartleby.com/61/86/C0298600.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Chinaman (term). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090115024255/http://www.mtv.com:80/music/artist/almond_marc/176257/lyrics.jhtml to http://www.mtv.com/music/artist/almond_marc/176257/lyrics.jhtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Chinaman (term). 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/20071212025146/http://machaut.uchicago.edu:80/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=chinaman to http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=chinaman
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071212000420/http://205.188.238.109:80/time/magazine/article/0,9171,755891-2,00.html to http://205.188.238.109/time/magazine/article/0,9171,755891-2,00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070317141108/http://www.therhymesofgoodbye.com:80/jackie.htm to http://therhymesofgoodbye.com/jackie.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080709040259/http://www.paroles.net/chanson/12571.1 to http://www.paroles.net/chanson/12571.1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071006160913/http://www.themadmusicarchive.com/song_details.aspx?SongID=6011 to http://www.themadmusicarchive.com/song_details.aspx?SongID=6011
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) 01:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Chinaman (term). 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=chinaman
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071010045849/http://www.asianweek.com/070998/news.html to http://www.asianweek.com/070998/news.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070206101157/http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JAS/is_5_30/ai_79304994 to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JAS/is_5_30/ai_79304994
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://205.188.238.109/time/magazine/article/0%2C9171%2C755891-2%2C00.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://therhymesofgoodbye.com/jackie.htm
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) 13:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Isn't a word missing after the following (in the lead)?
: accents in English-speaking
Perhaps "countries"?
--Mortense (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing word?

message: I removed a long entry for this term at List of ethnic slurs by ethnicity with this edit. Seemed like WP:Content forking, so I am moving it here in case anyone wants to merge it into this article.
Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:06, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: And I have removed your "temporary quick fix" because the word "outdated" is subjective. The word may not be as commonly used, but that does not mean it is no longer used. - Aoidh (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think "ethnic slur" and "pejorative" are needed in the first sentence. The rest of the lead paragraph makes it clear. As for links "pejorative" could be seen as a WP:COMMONWORD, but we could just link the next use of it if you think a reader will want to look at that article, but it is not really an expansive article. List of ethnic slurs is in the "See also" list at the end on the article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 15:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entry at [[List of ethnic slurs by ethnicity]] 

message: I gather this is suggesting it should be "Chineseman" (in the same way that "Frenchman" isn't "Franceman"); but is there any evidence that this was intentional bad grammar to mock the Chinese? It's probably just older English, like "Indiaman" to describe a type of trading ship that went to India. I smell revisionism here. Equinox ◑ 18:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claim of "grammatical incorrectness" seems dubious 

message: In cricket a “ chinaman” is a googly bowled by a left handed bowler. It is not a person but the ball bowled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barndog245 (talk • contribs) 
:Seems like trivia. I would think we would need not just a citation that this is so, but also that it is culturally significant. See WP:CULTURALREFS. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 14:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already in the article, with a link to the cricket article about it. The term is rarely used nowadays, especially in English speaking countries, and has been depreciated by Wisden and so on. There are a number of references, both in this article and the cricket one. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose I should have checked the article first. Thanks. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinaman 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Moved. I see consensus here in numbers as well as policy. Nobody is really challenging the primary topic claim. There is an argument that articles about terms should be clear in the title that it's about the term, but no policy basis for such guidance is provided. --В²C ☎ 05:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it should. I assume this was just an error by  in the original nomination and have changed it. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Crusader1096 (message) 00:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know what most people would do, I don't know what percentage are aware it is outdated, or even if it is outdated (I guess that might depend where you live). At any rate, "Chinese people" is a dab at the top of this page, suggesting many still end up here. So I don't want to assume what "most people" are aware of.  What I do know more certainly is that is an article about a term, and not an article about Chinese people.  So that should be clear in the title. Walrasiad (talk) 08:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 24 March 2023