Talk:Chinaman (disambiguation)

message: 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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&action=edit§ion=18 , such edits may be seen as disruptive. μηδείς (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  inappropriate edits 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Joy of being a scholar :-))) Dwarm12345 (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Contentious" or "often offensive" 

message: 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[d]" - 
*"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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  What sources say about ''Chinaman'' 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress