Talk:Gweilo

message: I would like to change "Gweilo (鬼佬; Jyutping: gwai2 lou2; Cantonese pronounced [kwɐ̌ɪ lə̌ʊ]; sometimes also spelt Gwailo) is a Cantonese term for Caucasian people (generally men), considered racist by some people." to "Gweilo (鬼佬; Jyutping: gwai2 lou2; Cantonese pronounced [kwɐ̌ɪ lə̌ʊ]; sometimes also spelt Gwailo) is a Cantonese term for non-Chinese people (generally men), considered racist by some people." The reason is that the term "gwailo" does not refer only to "Caucasians", which is a term already rejected by anthropologists [see Caucasian race] and replaced by the term, "European". The term can also refer to African Americans as well.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.239.221 (talk) 03:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Introductory Sentence

message: Sorry. Didn't see the citation to "Intermediate Chinese" by Yip and Matthews. However, the book seems to be stretch the translation of the term to mean "Devil" as explained in the other part of the article. But I would like to revert the adjective "derogatory" to "racist" which is a more precise term.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.239.221 (talk) 03:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Translation to "Devil"

message: Is the term really borrowed by Cantonese??? it seems that the term guizi was originally used to mean the Japanese, and later used to refers to the white men (洋鬼子)...--K.C. Tang 03:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guizi 

message: I transwiki'd this article to Wiktionary and replaced the current version with a soft-redirect.  user:Instantnood reverted that edit with the comment This is more than a dictionary definition. Please discuss at the talk page. Thanks.  
I've read and now re-read the article.  The contents of this article are a detailed discussion of the meanings, origins and usage of a word.  It includes synonyms and related words.  Those are components of a dictionary definition.  It is not the content that I would expect to see in a truly great, unabridged encyclopedia.  It is, however, the content that I would expect to see in a truly great, unabridged dictionary.  I believe that the content belongs in Wiktionary, not in Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a dictionary has been established policy since long before I joined the project.
I see no possibility that this article can be expanded past a dictionary definition and into an encyclopedia article.  I would be happy to be proven wrong, though.  If you can show me what in this article is more than a discussion of the meanings, origins and/or usage of the word or if you can expand the article past that state, I will withdraw my objections.  Rossami (talk) 01:18, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been almost 4 months.  The article is still a mere dictionary definition.  It has some excellent discussion of the usage and connotations of the term but that is content more appropriate to a dictionary than an encyclopedia.  So far, there is no encyclopedia article here.  Per Wikipedia is not a dictionary, I have returned this article to it's state as a soft-redirect to Wiktionary.  I strongly encourage the participants on this page to follow the link to Wiktionary and to continue to improve the definition there.  Thanks.  Rossami (talk) 05:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How is that a dicdef!? enochlau (talk) 06:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is an article about a word.  It includes the meaning (including connotations), usage (including examples), origins, antonyms, synonyms and related words.  It is not an article about the underlying concept or thing.  In accordance with our long-standing policy that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, an acceptable encyclopedia may begin with a definition but must go beyond that.  So far, no one has described any content in this article that goes beyond the content that I would hope to see in a great, unabridged dictionary.  What's here is good content but it was misplaced.  It belongs in Wiktionary.  Rossami (talk) 12:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What's the doing here then? I think if the article contains any sort of explanation as to its cultural setting (e.g. "This reflects a transformation in which an ethnic group begins referring to itself with a term which was originally considered an ethnic slur."), it has transcended the level of dicdef. Compare the article of old to the stuff you find on Wiktionary - it's far more detailed and won't fit in there at all. enochlau (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to Wiktionary 

message: I don't know if there are any official policies against it, but personally I just find inline commenting annoying.  Can we not do this?  If you want to make a comment on specific texts in the article, just do it here in the Talk page.  Hong Qi Gong 17:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inline commenting 

message: it should be gwai because in cantonese its pronounced gwai. in mandarin its pronounced gui. so gwei is definitely wrong. i dont know who is the drunk fool that came up with that spelling.
::I've never seen "gwei" used either, so it's definitely not standard, though there are obviously many examples. Either way, "gwai" seems to be more common, and it is supported by both romanization laws and the standard Cantonese pronunciation, so if nobody objects I'm going to make the changes within 24 hours. 218.229.72.173 (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  gwei or gwai 

message: The article sounds like the author was a little resentful of us whities while writing it, but aside from the tone, there're some facts that dont jibe well, certainly not without citation.
-Never heard of 黑鬼.  I didn't they were an imposing enough presence to merit the slur.
-The mainland term is 白鬼, and only occasionally, if the context is known, 鬼子.  That's bai2 gui3.  I don't think this is an HK term.
-The term is considered by anyone I've ever met to be quite obviously offensive.  It's picked up some light-hearted intention, but still only in safe company.
-What the hell is the author citing with 紅鬚綠眼?  Is that supposed to be a reference to dragons or something?  It sounds made-up.
spetz 68.44.192.170 23:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure about 紅鬚綠眼 ("red-whisker, green-eye"), but the epithet 金髮碧眼 ("gold-hair, jade-eye") has historically often been used to describe people who (probably) had Western Eurasian genetic heritage. According to the common European understanding, "red-whisker, green-eye" would seem rather like a description of some Celtic people, whereas "gold-hair, jade-eye" seems like an epithet that would be much more appropriate for a Slavic or Germanic group. However, Chinese people (at least historically) did not make a clear distinction between "red hair" and "golden (i.e., blond) hair," and the linguistic distinction between "green" and "blue" is also a rather recent invention in most of the world's languages, including Chinese, so it is often impossible to tell whether a particular historical quotation was referring to a thing that would be labeled as "green" or rather to a thing that would be labeled as "blue" according to our modern understanding. Ebizur 17:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual errors:  鬼佬 / 白鬼 

message: There have been several instances of removal of material, much of which already has citations, from the article without discussion by User:HKYAN.  See:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gweilo&diff=193457309&oldid=192884215
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gweilo&diff=193666410&oldid=193485891
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gweilo&diff=194139904&oldid=194113613
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gweilo&diff=195330732&oldid=195237814
Although I agree that much of the article is in bad need of cleanup and that several passages appear to be uncited original research, there has been no consensus to remove such large swaths of material.  In addition, replacing it with statements saying that the term is always derogatory despite citations indicating otherwise appears to be POV.  I invite HKYAN (and anyone else for that matter) to share their concerns here before making such big changes. —Umofomia (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I will start by sharing my concerns (based on this version of the article).  I especially don't like the 3rd paragraph (the one that starts off as "Nowadays, term is often exploited by some ...") because it appears to speculate on why the term might not be derogatory and the reasons for the inaccurate foreign devil translation.  The fact of the matter is that we really don't know how the translation came about.  There are elements of this in the 2nd paragraph as well (in addition to uncited claims).  The 4th paragaph appears to be mostly irrelevant; the use of 死 isn't really relevant to the base meaning of gweilo.  The rest of the article appears to be mostly cited, and I have no big qualms about those portions, though they could always be better. —Umofomia (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent removal of material 

message: The term "gweilo" is not only perjorative, but also offensive. In addition, I would like to state that many of the links in the initial entry do not work and the references, where cited, appear to have little or no acadmic value. Furthermore, the current wording of the article also leads people to believe, or readily gives the impression, that the term "gweilo" is today a completely acceptable term to describe caucasian males. 
If such an article was written about the use of terms to describe Chinese people in the same manner, many people would label it racist. Although I appreciate that the term "gweilo" was once originally considered derogatory and that we are now told by some native Cantonese speaking Chinese that it is not, there is again very little factual evidence of this.
As such, this does not alter the fact that the original article is not only incorrect but seems to have been written by someone with a certain amount of personal vengence agianst caucasians and has therfore written it in such a ways as to convince readers that it is authentic. A poper revision of this article should be undertaken, until such time it will continue to be a matter of contention.
HKYAN (talk) 12:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello your edits were reverted earlier due to a request put in to monitor this page due to heavy deletion.  Have you ever considered "not" using English sources for this one.  The problem is that you are asking English sources whether this term is offensive to Caucasians/English speakers.  Of course the answer is always going to be yes.  This is equivalent to doing a research in Chinese asking whether Chinaman is offensive??  That answer is also going to be yes. Benjwong (talk) 04:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but as I recall from somewhere in Talk:Chinaman or its archives if any there was a discussion of the Chinese translations of Chinaman and Chinese person in various forms, with the upshot that the characters and words themselves were chosen to represent offensiveness, as if it were contained in the English syntax.  So much so that Bo Yang's book title in English has to add the adjective "uglyl" to convey the sense of the Chinese characters, as "Chinaman" clearly does not contain anything explicitly derisive in teh way gweilo is.  And while I don't mean to equivocate, only clarify, if offensiveness is to be decided by those offended, which runs the p.c. argument about Chinaman being offensive even if it was widely used without offensive intent (i.e. by non-Chinese; Chinese themselves used it without any self-derogation intended, other than humour/irony as the negative associations developed...)...anyway, if that's the case, then as one of the race targeted in the term gweilo and also raised around it, used in offensive ways, I do find it offensive and know it's used that way.  Yet rationalizations about how Chinese speakers do not find it offensive, and because of that the racist sign in Toronto was tolerated by Canada's supposedly strict anti-hate laws; yet non-Chinese opinions about and usages of "Chinaman" are dismissed as being irrelevant and an expression of ignorance.  You can't have it both ways, although both ways certainly are out there on both sides, and concerning both words.  yeah, it's hard to find cites from non-Chinese about whether or not gweilo is offensive; although passages in literature and travelogues abound, as well as in movie scripts etc.  But that's because most non-Chinese are unaware of the word; if they were, they'd be offended.  Nobody likes to be called a hairy barbarian, filthy ghost or any of the other various translations offered up over the years (since Kipling's time; I'd imagine he has a usage somewhere...but not spelled gweilo, usually I've seeen it "gwai lo" - old-style English renderings of Chinese words weren't usually bisyllabic, the syllables were all laid out seperately...except when adapted into English like typhoon....).Skookum1 (talk) 04:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Gweilo" 

message: The description, not to say denunciation, of choosing to translate Gwai Lou as "foreign devil" was a nigh-hilarious display of cultural illiteracy--whoever wrote it presumed mightily on their knowledge of the meaning of the word "devil" in the West, and the connotations of same.  Similarly, they didn't seem to have a terribly firm grasp of what ghosts are like in China.
See, the word 鬼 does mean, often, "(evil) spirit of a dead person", but the behavior and attributes are nothing like those of a Western ghost, unless vampires count.  They are, in fact, much more akin to the Western idea of "devil" (which is a very general term, anyway)--they're an unclean spirit, and they're the things you're getting rid of when you do an exorcism in Chinese traditional religion.  Hmm, what do Westerners usually exorcise? (Gee, Davy, do you think it might be devils?)
Besides which the term gwai is sometimes used for Buddhist demons that punish evildoers in the Hells...gee, what on earth  does that sound like?
Foreign devil looks like a pretty accurate translation to me.
And then there's the tendentious attempt to divine the motives of writers who died three centuries ago--"They tried to make it sound like the Chinese were racist!"  Well, A) the fact any Westerner going to China would have been killed probably did that, without any need for propaganda, and B) if someone calls you "a guy that resembles the spirit of the unquiet dead," you and he are not on cordial terms.
71.223.172.153 (talk) 07:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you mean Mogwai. Benjwong (talk) 02:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, if you'd actually bothered to read what I wrote, I was referring to the ghost-type, straight-up Gwai--who are responsible for hauntings and ill-luck and all that fun stuff, and have to be exorcised from the houses or people they're tormenting.  Mogwai are more like fairies or goblins--or, well, Gremlins, not coincidentally.  71.223.181.222 (talk) 10:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning/connotations of 鬼 

message: :It is pejorative only when the term is delibrately prefaced by the Chinese word sei (死,
What a crock; I've heard it LOTS without the 'sei' and it's just as offensive; it's offensive NO MATTER WHAT THE INTENT.  Fine equivocate all you want about how white people aren't capable of translating it and try to dodge the other Chinese who admit its origins and use are clearly derisive; go pretending it's the fault of the person victimized that they don't understand that it doesn't mean how they take it to.  The same is true historically of Chinaman but that doesn't stop linguistic-policeman from denouncing anyone who uses it as a racist pig.  Gwei lo IS OFFENSIVE it doesn't need "sei" in front of it; unless you buy the artgument that "damned Chinaman" is derisive while "Chinaman" isn't....This whole article is so full of speculations and suppositions and equivocations, plus digressions to discuss other Chinese words/characters; it's all fluff and doesn't need to be this long it also sholuldn't pander to C'hinese linguistic apologists who want to "white wash" this term...Skookum1 (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: equivocating horse apples

message: In a Bill Moyers PBS documentary about the Chinese Americans, an old Chinese American uses the term "lo fan" to refer to a white interrogator at Angel Island. Does anyone have an idea of the hanzi for this term? Badagnani (talk) 11:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My Uncle, Shing Heng Ah, would often use the term guailo and cackle.  He said it meant 'white devil'. Lo fan was a bit kinder: 'white rice'. 2603:7000:8000:3579:591E:B463:99D4:932A (talk) 12:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lo fan 

message: The reason for calling Caucasians "hateful living dead" probably arose during the 1800s, when the Chinese first saw fair-skinned Caucasians, they mistook the Europeans for dead corpses that had come back to life
Chinese people came into contact with people of the Caucasian race long before the 1800's, see the Cultural exchanges section in the Tarim mummies article, for example. --67.149.150.252 (talk) 12:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  1800's? 

message: Surely it is also important how the term is received?  As a Hong Kong-based gweilo, I use the term all the time to refer to 'our lot', as do most gweilos I know (perhaps as 'nigger' and other terms have been co-opted by the described group, as discussed at Pejorative).  The article should make more of this (it is mentioned under Cultural reference).
When it is used by Chinese, it is often in an annoying generalisation, but usually well meant.  If someone is being critical of a 'foreigner', they will certainly use the term, but along with other language and tone that make it an attack.Earthlyreason (talk) 11:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think part of the question is what ARE we to call ourselves?  I am of European ancestry but I am from HK, I am a HK'er.   There are easily explainable terms for other minority people like if you say that someone is Hakka we all know what it means.  CyntWorkStuff (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to expand on the derogatory-ness, feel free. Preferably with some sources to make this more encyclopedic. Benjwong (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Gweilos' view of 'gweilo'

message: Please not to forget that Gweilo are two words put together; Gwei + lo.
The word LO in chinese means male figure. There are sayings such as taxi-LO, bus-LO, dim sum LO, etc. Some wives call their husband my-LO.  
Gweipor are for female spieces. POR means mature women such as Ah-POR or Ah-mah.
Gweitau would mean gweilo head ie gweilo boss.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.40.137.197 (talk) 04:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Gweitau should be added to the article but I don't have the hanzi for it.174.3.111.148 (talk) 21:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese can be gwei gwei de!  

message: Removed this line from the "etymology section" until it can be properly referenced:
Hence foreigners were referred to as foreign devils.
The passage starts by saying that 鬼佬 literally means "ghost man", ignoring first the ambiguity with the character 鬼, next it mentions how it is sometimes translated as "foreign devil", stating the above cut passage as a reason (using an angle of attack I have no idea how to explain). How can "they are referred as foreign devils" be a logical explanation for how the characters for "ghost/etc." and "old man" are sometimes translated as "foreign devils"? Do the Chinese speak English when they are speaking Chinese or what? Am I the only one who sees how little sense this makes?
Later on, the article states, "The term gwei (鬼) in gweilo (鬼佬) is an adjective". So which is it, a "term", or an "adjective", and can someone please reference that? Thanks! 210.254.117.186 (talk) 08:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious edit 

message: I versed User:Kiminatheguardian's attempt to fix the anomalous title of this article by making it a redirect to Gwailo and copying all the content here to that title.  I support that title, but the move has to be done via an AFD, so the talkpage and article history is moved properly; this requires admin intervention because of the 2005-vintage re-naming of this article to the current "Gweilo".  Most common spelling of this word in English, however, is in the form gwai lo....in fact other than In Wikiepdia I don't think I've ever seen it with gwei, and I'm not sure I've ever seen it anywhere but in Wikipedia as being presented as one word; always two.  But an AFD is required to resolve this, not unilateral action without proper procedure.Skookum1 (talk) 02:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Gwailo v. Gweilo

message: The sentence referencing the footnotes states "... which some members of the Caucasian community resent.".
The link is dead right now, but I found this.  Is this link the footnote references?  Now I've read this commentary, and it's actually an op-ed.
In the op-ed, nowhere does it mention that some members of the Caucasian community resent the term Gweilo.  We need to delete the phrase or rewrite the sentence.174.3.117.120 (talk) 15:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: While it may be op-ed (it is a letter to the editor, or seems to be), it does mention that MP Raymond Chan believes it to be offensive, so it can be used to add that to the article.  While Chan may have not said white people find it offensive, I believe MLA Jenny Kwan's comments about it do make reference to whites finding it offensive, but I wouldn't know where to look for those comments on-line (not easily anyway).  As for Irene Yu's argument that because she doesn't think it's offensive and "most people" don't use it offensively, the same is very true about white users of "Chinaman", which is significantly less derogatory than "chink" (which is the comparison that Mr. Chan made).  To claim that "foreign ghost" is innocuous because white people seemed ghost-like in complexion is all too equivalent to claiming that "yellow man" or "yellow race" or more pointedly "yellow devil" is acceptable because of Chinese skin complexions (as noted by a long-ago teacher, part of the reason for the term "yellow" is that jaundice was prevalent in pre-20th Century China because of the use of night soils (human excrement) for fertilizer....Skookum1 (talk) 19:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote 6 

message: The article claims that 西人 is a more polite word for a Westerner. The citation is a book to which I don't have access, so I can't check it up, but I was always under the impression that 西人 still has derogatory connotations. I don't want to change it, because I'm not sure I'm right, and I don't have a source, but does anyone else know if that's right? 86.179.223.109 (talk) 15:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  西人 (sai1 jan4) - polite? 

message: 外國人 is a neutral word, any other authors can add it in article?--Player23 (talk) 05:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: neutral word

message: The Indians and Pakistanis call white European people Gora. I'm white and don't mind at all. Same with Gweilo. I don't mind in the least. On the contrary I rather like it - 'White ghost' has a rather exotic ring to it. Factually whether either is pejorative is clearly highly subjective.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.10.176 (talk) 10:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  And Gora Too 

message: Addition?The first entry in Literature is a 1975 reference. But I remembered clearly, and why I looked at this article, there's a possibly related term used frequently in two James Clavell novels, Tai-Pan (1966) and Noble House (1981).  
Disambiguation?Clavell uses the spelling "quai loh" in both books set in Hong Kong. This is probably the same phrase (foreign devil). This might be a disambiguation entry...? If you search the phrase: clavell tai pan "quai loh"  it can be seen that Clavell's spelling is well known.Tonedeaf1 (talk) 07:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Popular Culture, Literature: possible addition + spelling 'quai loh' 

message: The article currently defines the Mainland Mandarin term 老外 as "always foreigner". While 老 can mean always (although only with a negative sense as in "Why do you always do that?"), I think it's much more likely that it means "old" here. The 老 prefix meaning old originally was a sort of honorific like in 老師 (teacher - "old master") or 老王 (old man Wang) but in some words has lost both the "old" denotation and the honorific connotation, e.g. 老鼠 (mouse) or 老虎 (tiger). I'm not a native Mandarin speaker, but I'm pretty sure the 老 in 老外 functions identically to the 老 in those last two examples. Dsrguru (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes indeed. It is an honorific term. It means "thou who art borne before me" ie older and wiser than me. The 老 in the mouse and tiger construction is pronounced with a different tone to the 老 in "old". It remains in spoken Chinese probably because words in spoken Chinese are generally disyllabolic whereas Written Chinese uses monosyllabolic characters, so an extra sound had to be added to make it conform. 86.149.134.79 (talk) 02:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  change English translation of 老外? 

message: the article does a good job defining the term "gweilo," but it doesn't define the most frequent SPECIALIZED use of the word (the use of "gweilo" to mean a foreign actor appearing in an asian martial arts film) and it doesn't give any information on the history of the involvement of western actors in asian "kung fu" films.  i came to this article seeking information about this topic and was sorely disappointed when i didn't find any.  the use of caucasian performers (as well as african american performers) in films from hong kong and other places in asia is a time honored tradition and deserves an article all to itself.  hopefully, someone will write that article or restructure the "gweilo" article to include this information.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.127.228.117 (talk) 17:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  the real gweilos 

message: The term Gweilo is very poorly translated in this article. The Cantonese consists of two Chinese characters 鬼 and 佬, and given in the article as "ghost-man" and variations. This is in fact incorrect. The noun in this two character construction is 佬, meaning an elder, or senior, or respected man, as in the Cantonese term Dai-lo meaning "senior brother" or the leader of a gang. The character 鬼 precedes the character 佬, and is therefore an adjective qualifying the noun that follows. Therefore it does not mean ghost but ghostly. 鬼佬 is therefore a adjectival noun meaning a ghostly-looking respected man. Ghostly looking perhaps because he is white and pale- ie a northern European, or ghostly-looking because his face is covered in thick dark hair as in Southern Europeans. 鬼佬 as a Cantonese term is generally used to refer to people who are not of Mongoloid features and not just the non-Chinese, and depending on context not generally a derogatory term but an identity term. 86.149.134.79 (talk) 02:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very poor translation 

message: "For example, a 17th-century writer from Canton Qu Dajun wrote that Africans "look like ghosts", and gui nu (ghost slave) was once used to describe African slaves." This seems odd to me. I always thought the term referred to white people because they were "white as ghosts". Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 08:20, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Never understood this. Most Hong Kong people are as pale as Europeans. Often more so as Europeans generally spend more time in the sun by choice. Maybe 200 years ago when more local Chinese were working on farms or on fishing boats, certainly not now. 123.208.236.31 (talk) 13:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  White? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Gweilo. 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  tag to http://www.orientexpat.com/expatriates/gaijin-farang-gweilo.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110807090728/http://www.cbsc.ca/english/decisions/2000/000809.php to http://www.cbsc.ca/english/decisions/2000/000809.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080528114456/http://www.cbsc.ca/english/decisions/2000/000809appendix.pdf to http://www.cbsc.ca/english/decisions/2000/000809appendix.pdf
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) 17:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The use of the word "Caucasians" in this article refers to the American (USA) meaning of the term (ie. "European"), not the anthropological meaning (Caucasian (race), that is not very precise and may cover a wider group of people. It should be changed to "Europeans" or "Westerners". Regards, Şÿℵדαχ₮ɘɼɾ๏ʁ 18:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Caucasians" 

message: "Ghost" in Chinese does not solely refer to spirits. It is somewhat equivalent to the word "alien" in English. "Alien" can mean something that is foreign or unknown, not necessarily something extraterrestrial. Thus the phrase "ghost-man" is more correctly interpreted as "alien man" aka "foreigner". That is the whole of what the phrase means. But like English, "foreigner" may have discriminatory connotations associated with it, such as "invader" or "immigrant" and the sentiments towards them that individuals may hold. Most of the perceptions that the phrase gwailo may be intrinsically racist or derogatory is rooted in the misunderstanding that "gwai" literally refers to a ghost or demon. Like many classical translations of Chinese, there is a bit of double-translating that happens. The phrase "foreign devil" for example, is simply taking both meanings from "gwai" and putting them together, which in actuality is not a translation of "gwailo" but of "gwai gwai". Ham Pastrami (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old/inaccurate translation 

message: I am not a fluent Welsh speaker, but I saw the word Gweilo and thought that it absolutely looks Welsh. I typed it into Google Translate and it said: Welsh detected and gave the translation as 'Serve'
Middle More Rider (talk) 14:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Also Welsh?