Talk:Han nationalism

message: Since there are no references in the article, it is difficult to ascertain if the POV is neutral or not.  --Viriditas  | Talk 21:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: article's changed substantially since whoever it was lifted it from the journal. most of the inflammatory/unsupported material has been removed. see history. --Sumple (Talk) 03:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV check and references 

message: I removed: "In recent years, some young people tried to revive traditional Han Chinese clothing using internet based forum. They had organized quite a few Han Chinese clothing gathering both in China and overseas. This picture on the left side is one of example. Han Chinese clothing was lost in China for 360 as a result of Manchus invasion and the resulting occupation of the whole of China from 1644 to 1911."
This does not have anything to do with Han chauvinism. It has to do with Han cultural revival, which is not necessarily chauvinistic. I do not think the Hanfu movement has any significant to warrant any mention in this encyclopedia.--Jiang 06:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed text 

message: I removed "The Dongyi are said to form the main part of the Han Chinese today."
Han Chinese is considered mainly Huaxia.
I removed the subsequent claim that Shang is Dongyi.  [] Basically proposes all 8 directions, including the Xia Dynasty territory itself, as possible origins of the Shang.  In short, origins of the Shang are disputed, and therefore cannot be attributed to Dongyi. Hanfresco 21:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: DongYi

message: The controversy seem to have ended and a number of academic sources have been added, so I have removed the POV tag. On the other hand, the article is not very elegant, so it might need a clean-up.--Niohe 01:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV and Reference tags removed and replaced with clean-up tag 

message: I cleaned the article up a bit. However, I am not sure if everyone likes it. Please someone help me with my reference. I do not how to add a reference to this article. I have used another way so I am not sure how to do it according to this site. Thanks! Platinumkaiser (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean up and mess up

message: the statement on nanman on this article was deliberately aimed at making the han chinese race seem "fake" by claiming that southern chinese are only descended from the orgiginal non han inhabitanats of the region. that is not true, in fact they were descended from a mix of chinese colonists and the original inhabitants. sentence is corrected.ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 21:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  nanman 

message: #"Nanman" (traditional Chinese: 南蠻; simplified Chinese: 南蛮
#"Xirong" (西戎)
#"Beidi" (北狄)
#"Dongyi" (traditional Chinese: 東夷
These are ancient derogative and racist terms used in the past. Han(漢) Chinese( or Huaxia) were, but now will never be the dominant race in China Proper, the dominance were broken twice in the past(a) Mongols (b) Manchus. After 1911, when Republic of China(ROC) was established, all ethnicity except Han, have entered the Modern Time, and nowadays this terms are hardly being used at all, except on the Han. To put all these terms here under the name of Han chauvinism, is an attack on Han (漢), and I happen to be one.
For thousands of years, Han people(or Huaxia people) were having wars with all those nomads, herdsman, so it was only natural to devise names and labels for their life or death enemies, to express our ignorance and blind hatred against other people. Likewise, Mongols and Manchus have derogative names for Han too, like "small little pee-pee", or "tiny brain".
The article as such, is a clear racist attack on Han, which require a outright ban.Arilang1234 (talk) 10:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me. What? — LlywelynII 09:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: A blatant racist attack on Han civilization

message: If the article as awhole has problems, or a section has problems, or specific assertions are problematic, then tag accordingly -- but I really don't see what purpose is served by indiscriminately "pockmarking" the article by adding "citation needed" tags to the end of every single paragraph. AnonMoos (talk) 13:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: What's the point of having a "citation needed" tag on every single paragraph

message: The Article is incorrectly referenced and still lacks citations... I don't know which source is for what which is VERY annoying, if anybody that knows what their doing could verify them it would be greatly appreciated... sorry about my uselessness here. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 04:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect referencing 

message: It seems we're having trouble distinguishing between "Han chauvinism," "Sinocentrism," and the "Hua-Yi distinction." Right now, this wiki is treating "Han chauvinism" as a timeless notion like "the Chinese think they're superior," which is far too vague and indeed looks strangely like Sinocentrism. I think all these notions overlap in many ways, especially in modern China, but there might be a simple way to pull them apart. I propose we treat "Han chauvinism" as a modern concept that emerged through the PRC's explicit policies on minority nationalities. Take a look at this search for "Han chauvinism" on Google Books: all the results on the first page are either about Mao Zedong's views or about PRC policy. "Han chauvinism" is actually the official translation of da Hanzu zhuyi 大汉族主义 in Mao Zedong's speeches (apart from the search itself, see also this entry in the Glossary of Political Terms of the People's Republic of China [Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, 1995]). Another justification for limiting "Han chauvinism" to modern times is that the very notion of "Hanzu" 汉族 (Han race, Han nationality, Han ethnicity) on which it is based was only created in the very late nineteenth century.
In this view, the scope of "Han chauvinism" would be narrower than (and distinct from) either "Sinocentrism" and "Hua-Yi distinction," both of which have much longer histories. Modern historians discuss the emergence of the Hua-Yi distinction in the Spring and Autumn Period (see the first two paragraphs of the "Historic Context" section of Hua-Yi distinction), but treat Han chauvinism as a modern phenomenon. Another difference: Chinese texts used the concepts of Hua (or Xia, or Zhuxia, etc.) vs. Yi (or other names for non-Chinese people) more than two millennia ago. This cannot be said of da Hanzu zhuyi 大汉族主义 (or even of Hanzu 汉族, for that matter). So I think the concepts of "Han chauvinism" and "Hua-Yi distinction" are quite distinct.
The same argument for treating "Han chauvinism" as a modern phenomenon justifies keeping this page distinct from Sinocentrism, which is also a broader notion and has ancient roots in European writings on China starting in the sixteenth century. The sources Ross Monroe cites above show that at least some reliable sources discuss "Han chauvinism" next to "Sinocentrism." This definitely deserves mention in the text of the article, but this doesn't mean the two concepts are equivalent. For one, the sources Ross cites all discuss modern China, which would tend to confirm that "Han chauvinism" is usually treated as a modern phenomenon. Second, Han chauvinism applies mostly to dynamics internal to China (Han vs. other minorities). "Sinocentrism" might be used in that context too, but it also applies to relations between various East Asian polities (China as distinguished from Korea and Japan, for instance) or to comparisons between entire civilizations (Sinocentrism vs. Eurocentrism, for example). I think Sinocentrism therefore has a broader scope than Han chauvinism.
Conclusions: 1) I think "Han chauvinism" should be treated as a post-1949 concept with roots in early-20th-century debates on the relative place of Hanzu and other ethnic groups within China; 2) understood like that, Han chauvinism deserves to exist independently from both Hua-Yi distinction and Sinocentrism. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 04:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your assessment. However, the article has to be rewritten. As of now, this article is a retread of the Sinocentrism article. "Han chauvinism," as a concept, originates in the 20th century, as part of the Zhonghua Minzu ideology. It was supported by the Communists, and applied anachronistically to the past to emphasize that that China has always been a "multi-ethnic nation," despite the fact that the notion of nationality didn't even exist among the ancient Chinese. This article tacitly accepts the PRC's take on history, and must be changed to describe, as you have suggested, the history and context of Han chauvinism as a 20th century phenomenon.--Ross Monroe (talk) 11:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

text: I'm reviving this discussion which is almost ten years old, but I think it's relevant. Most of the sources in this article reference Chinese nationalism in particular and not specifically Han nationalism. As a result this article currently risks reading like a personal essay on Han nationalism, with the content being a repeat of Sinocentrism and doesn't feel too different from Han chauvinism -- in fact, the infobox on the right with its term written in Chinese is literally identical. This is obviously a complex topic rife with academic discussion that spans Chinese history, national identity, and its revisionism from the PRC, so I don't think mining stories of racism from the New York Times and ABC News is as germane as serious sociological and historical academic research. This article is not going to get to where it needs to be without help from an expert. quin 04:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A different proposal 

message: I am contesting your move/merge, you will now need to self-revert and get consensus before moving the page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Draft:Han Chinese nationalism may be of interest here. Zoozaz1 talk 03:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is better to merge Han Chinese nationalism into Han chauvinism. It is not a wrong option, besides, it is more helpful. Han chauvinism can be included here, as part of wider Han Chinese nationalism. ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 17:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

text:  I change my mind now. It's better to merge Draft:Han Chinese nationalism into this page, while not discrediting Han chauvinism in respect to the original root of the page. ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

text: Don't challenge my feeling. You should learn to discuss before talking and shouting. ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 17:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

text: Besides, if you demand reverting to original name, you should go to Requested moves, instead of shouting on me. I won't back down from my decision and I'll fight to protect what I believe is right. ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please review Wikipedia:Merging, you are allowed to make a WP:BOLD merge but if its challenged you have to revert. The other option would have been to seek consensus from the beginning but you chose not to do that. Also please review WP:BATTLEGROUND... There is not place on wikipedia where its appropriate to "fight to protect what I believe is right” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll never revert what I did. Besides, I expand the page, and I realize the poor scope of this article, and so I want to change and move to what I found is perfect. I did not delete Han chauvinism, but it is better to become "Han nationalism" since Han chauvinist attitude has a tendency of following nationalist traits, and chauvinist attitude has never been far away given Chinese history. I won't revert and I stand protecting it! ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 04:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thats not really how wikipedia works, we do thing by WP:CONSENUS. If you’re here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS this probably isnt the place for you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:   Chauvinism is a subtype of nationalism. So, since Han nationalism is not long enough, Han chauvinism could be merged into it.--Geysirhead (talk) 05:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No it isn't... Chauvinism is closer to racism, doesn't actually have much if anything to do with nationalism. The term itself is also independently notable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger