Talk:Anti-Chinese sentiment

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Albanophobia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 06:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Sinophobia. 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/20140910053902/http://news.jkn.co.kr/article/news/20080428/7395781.htm to http://news.jkn.co.kr/article/news/20080428/7395781.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030228140831/http://www.discovervancouver.com/GVB/vancouver-vietnamese.asp to http://www.discovervancouver.com/GVB/vancouver-vietnamese.asp/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130621153929/http://www.onwar.com/aced/chrono/c1900s/yr50/fthailand1952.htm to http://www.onwar.com/aced/chrono/c1900s/yr50/fthailand1952.htm
*Added  tag to http://bbs.huanqiu.com/shidaizhongguo/thread-2715-1-1.html
*Added  tag to http://po-qianjun.woku.com/article/4663688.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120630094452/http://www.tongatapu.net.to/tonga/news/briefs/20000819.htm to http://www.tongatapu.net.to/tonga/news/briefs/20000819.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071104024039/http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/news/infocus/s1842245.htm to http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/news/infocus/s1842245.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.todayszaman.com/anasayfa_demonstrators-throw-eggs-at-dutch-consulate-in-protest-against-russia_404929.html
*Added  tag to http://www.newsunited.com/demonstrators-throw-eggs-at-dutch-news/19852180/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080414023129/http://www.victoria.ac.nz/atp/bookreviews/Young_07.doc to http://www.victoria.ac.nz/atp/bookreviews/Young_07.doc
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/673FgoIBG?url=http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?category=2 to http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?category=2&id=1220
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120220085617/http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060621/head_tax_060622 to http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060621/head_tax_060622
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131229042103/http://gladstonemedia.ca/soufan/tsg-intelbrief-rising-sinophobia-in-africa/ to http://gladstonemedia.ca/soufan/tsg-intelbrief-rising-sinophobia-in-africa/
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) 03:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Please add about Sinophobia and Tibet and East Turkestan other region of China--Kaiyr (talk) 10:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tibet and East Turkestan 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . Community Tech bot (talk) 23:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: Would anyone object? Donkey Hot-day (talk) 04:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes... Hong Kong isn't in mainland China. Citobun (talk) 06:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  True, but it's part of China and not unanimously considered its own nation, unlike the others. So if the section was simply changed to 'Within China', I guess. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 10:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hong Kong is not mainland China, but it makes sense to group it with Tibet and Xinjiang under a section named "Within the People's Republic of China" or simply "Within China". -Zanhe (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Zanhe, it would be confusing to group it under "Within mainland China.” It seems we are working towards a consensus of moving it and renaming the section "Within China” which I would support. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  The only reason to do this is to emphasize Chinese sovereignty over Hong Kong. It is appropriate to show Hong Kong separately since the fundamental context (e.g. legal system) is different. It is more common to display Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, etc. separately in international contexts, although less so since Chinese have started bullying airlines and other entities into underlining Chinese sovereignty over such places. Citobun (talk) 01:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmmm I see the context argument, they do have separate public healths system, judicial system, etc but I’m not convinced that the context here warrants that. I think there are a few reasons to do “this” with that possibly being one of them, but I don’t think a move would confuse people. Nobody is arguing that we put Taiwan under a theoretical “Within China,” that would be completely ridiculous. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

text: It would be nice to see a HK section that included something about the Sinophobia that Hong Kongers themselves often experience from the international community. Right now it seems a bit too focused on Hong Kongers as the perpetrators of Sinophobia rather than it being a more nuanced situation. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hong Kong section should probably be moved down to 'Within mainland China' 

message: In the table Results of 2017 Eurobarometer poll there are missing several minus signs in the last column, notably for Belgium, Finland and Slovenia till United Kingdom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.145.170.227 (talk) 06:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Done!  GoingBatty (talk) 02:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing minus signs in table  

message: :In ukraine section earlier. It makes alot of sweeping claims based on little evidence or weak sources to support it. It says the country has growing sinophobia among the Ukrainian population. Based on what? NO studies, survey or research are given for the proof of such specific claims. Also stating MOST Ukrainians have sympathy to the Hong Kong protesters? Based on what evidence to make that kind of claim?
And one poster writes ukranians are angry  over the "subsequent accusation of Ukrainian Nazis from Azov Battalion being sent to Hong Kong to assist protesters in Chinese state media" as if they had no right to do that. In what article or source stated that ukiranians are specifically mad at china for that? And is just arbitrary since western media like Vice news etc HAD also published those exact same accusations of the actual Ukrainian nazis in hk protest because they were based on actual facts. The author was making his own conclusions and they aren't appropriate for wikipedia. Editors shouldn't just use their own research and own conclusions but instead use only proper sources to back any statements. https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3040625/far-right-ukrainian-activists-say-they-were-only-hong-kong
One of many reasons I found wrong about the whole section is ie, two sources the editors uses were of an insignificant individual Chinese nationalist blogs accusing the nazis in hk for making trouble for china, https://www.guancha.cn/internation/2019_12_03_527229.shtml  and then goes to use them as his source to make up his own narrative that it makes a large Ukrainian population angry. That is beyond ridiculous and why I am deleting such abusive editing. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/956146263  It's okay to say there are nazis in Ukraine or a hundred Ukrainian activists are supporting HK protest. Tho the latter wouldn't really be actually sinophobia. As it's nothing to do with them being Chinese technically. Sinophobia is more about prejudice for simply being Chinese. If there are legit hate crimes against chinese in Ukraine, then it would be alright to put that in here. 
If others feel that my deletive edits are unwarranted - feel free to reverse it but would appreciate if you give your reasons here first.
49.195.164.176 (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your removal, it appeared to be sourced entirely to unreliable sources. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 04:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review on Ukraine and why it's okay to make own bold  conclusions based on nothing substantial -  

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: "Chinese government retaliated by issuing warning travel to Czech Republic, using the lament of rising COVID-19 infection and racism in the country."
Doesn't sound very encyclopedic. It should be clarified what exactly is meant by this sentence. More importantly, there is no mention in the referenced article of China "using" the "lament" to retaliate. Looks like WP:NOR. --217.24.224.34 (talk) 14:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. The retaliation or even connection between between the two wasn't mentioned in the article, so I removed it. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 03:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "using the lament" 

message: Xx236 (talk) 06:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: As the vast majority of those in Taiwan are Han Chinese, I would say there has got to be some overlap.--SinoDevonian (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is anti-Taiwanese sentiment anti-Chinese? 

message: This article makes the assumption that sinophobia is congruous with anti-CCP sentiment. The pew poll linked refers to worldwide sentiment vs CCP not ethnic chinese people. Many people in the world distinguish between chinese people and chinese government in their opinions and negative attitude. This article needs serious rewriting. 98.216.50.110 (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Far too many statements of fact on this page reference state run media, opinion pieces and news articles phrased as rhetorical question as sources. It is misleading to casual readers and undermines the credibility of the topic to more analytical readers. I am certain there are better sources out there. The  Depiction of China and Chinese in media is an example I was going to post about, but I may as well just leave this here instead. Prime examples are: A definitive statement is lacking a reference, a CCP run newspaper as the only source for criticizing Hollywood, and someone's denial of sinophobia being used as a reference for their sinophobia. Llamageddon (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: ME too, the hate against the goverment vs the people is not defined properly. The CCP for example has concentration camps while most of the people is innocent. This article should be split into two with one as "racism against chinese people" and "criticism of the CCP" Rynoip (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

text: ME too, the hate against the goverment vs the people is not defined properly. The CCP for example has concentration camps while most of the people is innocent. This article should be split into two with one as "racism against chinese people" and "criticism of the CCP" Rynoip (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading Article 

message: The off-topic section in this article, which started a confusion between prejudice towards ethnic Chinese versus criticism or feelings against the PRChinese government or state (there's currently essentially no distinction of govt vs state - it's a dictatorship) was started in  by a user who has been blocked indefinitely since two days later - 29 July 2018. Unfortunately, later editors didn't seem to have noticed the confusion, and didn't tidy up.
If there are enough sources of material in this article to split off Criticism of China, or to override the current 'redirect' which is anti-China sentiment, then I recommend that anyone willing to should go ahead and WP:SPLIT on the grounds of these being two different topics. The fact that some dictionaries happen to interpret the word :wikt:sinophobia as having either or both meanings does not imply that scholars of racism and scholars of China agree that these are a single topic. Obviously, there are likely to be some relations between the two, but that doesn't justify a merger between distinct topics. Racism is not political criticism or opposition.
I was going to try a split myself, but it turned out that the off-topic material started with a copyright violation 4.5 years old. That also puts the rest of the section under a bit of suspicion for copyvios, making it not so easy to start the split article. Boud (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I am neutral on splitting, although if done, I hope it'd be a solution to solve the current excessive length of the article. More importantly, I think the polls are relevant here, just like how similar polls are cited in the Anti-Russian sentiment, Anti-Americanism, and Anti-India sentiment articles among others. And surveys like those of Pew Research seem to suggest there are discrepancies on favourability of Xi, the CCP leader, compared to favourability of China (e.g. from the 2022 data, it seems some Greeks and Israelis distinguish between views of "China", which may include culture/people, and views of the CCP). So I disagree with your recent addition of the WP:OFFTOPIC template there. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Precedents ("other stuff exists") can be considered, but can apply in both directions. There is a section Anti-Americanism#Interpretations that includes Noam Chomsky's arguments about the meaninglessness of the term: Chomsky is a prominent US dissident, criticising the governments of his own country, but describing him as being prejudiced against the US people would be ridiculous: so he's anti-American-government and pro-American-people (though even 'anti-American-government' is misleading: he's in favour of having a government, but criticises it based on evidence). Per Chomsky's argument, insisting on Anti-Americanism or Anti-Russian sentiment or Anti-India sentiment as a single fused racism against X-ians and criticism/negative sentiment against state X, is using this encyclopedia in a way "characteristic of totalitarian states". It's in the interests of states to avoid criticism, and racism is a bad thing, so conflating criticism (or negative sentiment) against a state with negative sentiment against the inhabitants of that state is in the interests of states (to imply that anyone criticising state X is racist). That doesn't make it a sociological reality, except that the totalitarian project of conflating racism with criticism of a state is a frequent sociological reality, but in Wikipedia, it should be described that way - as propaganda (historically, including today, often very effective propaganda). In any case, on this article, we don't have to solve the problems of the other three articles; those ones can follow this one if editors there wish.There's also plenty of evidence that identifying anti-citizens-of-X or anti-biggest-ethnic-group-of-X with anti-X-the-state is part of governments' propaganda programs to justify war and human rights violations more generally. If we misleadingly contribute to governments' propaganda, then we're not only doing bad encyclopedic coverage, but we're also indirectly increasing the likelihood of war.Whether the polls are relevant or not is fundamentally linked to the scope, which is currently undecided. If under the triple split (see below), this article remains limited to the prejudice part of the three articles, then polls on sentiments towards the PRC (or Xi Jinping) are off-topic, since the PRC is a state, and Xi Jinping is its dictator - feeling bad about them is not prejudice. Boud (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Off-topic material: racism versus criticism of a state 

message: Problem: In , the scope was . (I modified that but we don't yet have clear consensus for my modification.) This definition and title equate (1) Anti-Chinese sentiment, which will generally be interpreted as prejudice against people who are perceived as ethnic Chinese, with the more ambiguously defined word (2) Sinophobia, which appears to include both anti-ethnic-Chinese prejudice and criticism or negative sentiment against the People's Republic of China. The scope statement of 16:12 20 March 2023 makes the scope unclear, and risks readers thinking that sentiment or criticism against China as a state is a form of racism. The sources appear to support deliberate confusion of the two distinct topics by state actors (Ratuva 2022, East Asia, 39, 13). We need to clarify what the scope of this article should be. Luke Cornish (a notable artist) distinguishes criticism of China from anti-Chinese racism and was subject to a well-known censorship incident related to the distinction, or lack of distinction between racism and state criticism.
Scope proposal:
# Anti-Chinese sentiment, in the sense of prejudice against people who are perceived as ethnic Chinese
# Sinophobia, in the sense of both anti-ethnic-Chinese prejudice and criticism or negative sentiment against the People's Republic of China, and the way that states have used/encouraged/generated the prejudice as a geopolitical tool (and also fear or dislike of Chinese culture)
Please add * Support 1 or * Support 2 or * Oppose 1 or * Oppose 2, with reasons and sources (which do not have to be already present in the article). 
Clarification: this is not formally a move request, but if consensus is obtained for 2, then an informal move request, after closure of this scope proposal, would be likely to achieve easy consensus. Boud (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support having separate articles for Anti-Chinese sentiment, Sinophobia, and Criticism of China/Anti-China sentiment with some caveats. There are obvious overlaps between the three and interconnecting points. For example it is not clear where the anti-China part or anti-Chinese people part of the China Initiative beings and ends as it affected both Chinese Americans and Chinese nationals ostensibly to combat Chinese state objectives. A non-insignificant number of its victims could make an argument that they were targeted solely for being Chinese. In this instance how would such a topic be categorized or would it just appear in all articles? What is the degree of overlap that is appropriate? Certainly many items could belong solely in one category and not the other but many also would fit in either categories. What is the threshold here? Qiushufang (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like your idea of breaking it into three, maybe Criticism of China should be Criticism of the People's Republic of China so that the scope doesn't for instance include criticism of the Ming dynasty, the early Republic, or the KMT's corrupt rule? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It would make sense to me for Sinophobia to cover broader and more general history of anti-China/Chinese sentiment over the centuries and for a dedicated article to focus on only criticism of the PRC/CCP. Under such a re-categorization, anti-Chinese sentiment would be focused on anti-Chinese people sentiment. Qiushufang (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

text: I suspect that a high proportion of editors who have worked on this article would have no idea what Wumao is. HiLo48 (talk) 00:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Scope proposal

message: (Space for longer discussion, as opposed to support/oppose, sources and main arguments) Boud (talk) 19:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support having separate articles for Anti-Chinese sentiment, Sinophobia, and Criticism of China/Anti-China sentiment with some caveats. There are obvious overlaps between the three and interconnecting points. For example it is not clear where the anti-China part or anti-Chinese people part of the China Initiative beings and ends as it affected both Chinese Americans and Chinese nationals ostensibly to combat Chinese state objectives. A non-insignificant number of its victims could make an argument that they were targeted solely for being Chinese. In this instance how would such a topic be categorized or would it just appear in all articles? What is the degree of overlap that is appropriate? Certainly many items could belong solely in one category and not the other but many also would fit in either categories. What is the threshold here? Qiushufang (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like your idea of breaking it into three, maybe Criticism of China should be Criticism of the People's Republic of China so that the scope doesn't for instance include criticism of the Ming dynasty, the early Republic, or the KMT's corrupt rule? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It would make sense to me for Sinophobia to cover broader and more general history of anti-China/Chinese sentiment over the centuries and for a dedicated article to focus on only criticism of the PRC/CCP. Under such a re-categorization, anti-Chinese sentiment would be focused on anti-Chinese people sentiment. Qiushufang (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: This entire page is Wumao nonsense. It is equating countries being against China and calling that "anti-Chinese sentiment" trying to steal the connotation of "anti-Semitic sentiment" as if it's some kind of racism thing. Despite in reality many of these countries against China hold pro-Taiwan positions (clearly showing it isn't about race/ethnicity). Shame on Wikipedia for allowing the Wumao to spread their propaganda nonsense on here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.1.253 (talk) 01:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that a high proportion of editors who have worked on this article would have no idea what Wumao is. HiLo48 (talk) 00:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: This entire page is absurd

message: if you would like to make a page for sentiments regarding the People's Republic of China you can... But thats not the topic of this page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly your deletions seem lazy. The part you removed from Japan clearly stated that anti-Chinese sentiment was also directed towards people as well as the government. If you are the one to start deleting content, it should be on you to create a new article for said content. Especially when the supported solution was an article split, not deletion of content. Qiushufang (talk) 15:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The first part was unsupported by the source, are you aware that you restored unsupported text? Would you characterize restored unsupported text as lazy or disruptive? Note that the the onus/burden is always on the one who add/restores content, never on the one doing the deleting. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not behave patronizingly and change subject, HEB, it is bad attitude and needlessly antagonizing. I did not know because I based my restoration on the reason given for deletion in your edit summary. Did you delete it knowing you had changed content that did not agree with the reason given in the summary? Nor does any of this change how or why the deletions began in the first place, which is as a result of so called consensus. I am changing my Support to an Oppose as of now, since I am not confident in the users' ability to handle such a split currently. There is no consensus now. Qiushufang (talk) 15:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Which user's competence are you questioning? Note WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS, and WP:COMPETENCE. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry if you took it to mean your ability. I described your deletions as lazy and that was the impetus for my change of mind. Since so far no one has actually shown any willingness or taken initiative to carry out the article split I proposed, resorting to simply deletion, I am also questioning the general ability to do so at this point. Qiushufang (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  You've had months and months to make other pages, you don't need anyone's permission to do that. You clearly failed to take the initiative, you have nobody to blame for that but yourself. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  What are you talking about? Even in my first proposal, I was hesitant to address said changes and my support was conditional on the concerns which I listed being addressed. I personally did not know whether or not they could, which was why I did not personally make any changes, barring voicing my opinion. Ofc I did not make any changes because I personally did not know how that would work or look like. I have changed my support since then considering our recent discussion and your deletions so the point is moot. Qiushufang (talk) 23:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stuff about the PRC but not about the Chinese people or Culture  

message: The dictionaries in notes 2-3-4-5 all  agree that the country is a target. Sinophobia = " strong dislike of or prejudice against China, Chinese people and culture" = Macmillan dictionary note 3. 
also Sinophobia is "Fear of or contempt for China, its people, or its culture" states note#2 The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.  Also Collins Dictionary = "a fear or dislike of China, or Chinese people, their language or culture".  Rjensen (talk) 15:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is we deal with the world in more nuance than a dictionary does (thats why we don't generally use them as sources). For example how does one describe the hatred of the Peoples Republic of China by someone from the Republic of China (Taiwan)? Its certainly not Sinophobia... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: the solution is to cover each country separately, which we do in the first table--one that got erased and is now back. Rjensen (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Was there consensus to return the removed table? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

text: As a Taiwanese person, the premise is false, a person of the Republic of China (Taiwan) certainly can hate only the PRC due to Sinophobia. My personal family is a testament to that. Qiushufang (talk) 16:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  If they hate the PRC and not China (a concept which is much older and larger than the PRC), Chinese people, or Chinese culture how can it be Sinophobia? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

text: Because she hates PRC because it is China and has Chinese people in it. Qiushufang (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Interesting, does she hate all places with Chinese people in them? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ya, except Taiwan, but she doesn't consider Taiwanese really Chinese I guess. I mean, this should all be pretty simple stuff for anybody clued into Taiwanese identity making. Qiushufang (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  What you're describing sounds more like Taiwanese chauvinism than Sinophobia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  No I'm pretty sure she specifically does not like Chinese people, like why else would she say stuff "there's too many Chinese people here"? Seriously this is not complicated. It can be both. Qiushufang (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  By "Chinese people" do you mean people of Chinese descent or people from the PRC? Does she for example include Canadians and Singaporeans? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Honestly this conversation is off topic, but it does show how depressingly complicated and intertwined/overlapping this subject is. There's no one interpretation on what anti-Chinese sentiment/Sinophobia is. I don't even think my original proposal works at all and I might have been too naive at the time. Someone could easily get into arguments similar to this over every piece of content added. I think I am going to move to outright oppose. But ya, she doesn't like China, PRC, Chinese people from the mainland, and other Chinese to a lesser extent. Just not Taiwanese (ROC). Qiushufang (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Its a complication inherent to discrimination in general not this context specifically, for example see the nuance of shadism within the context of anti-black sentiment/Negrophobia. And of course there is the added layer that bigots rarely have an academic understanding of their bigotry, maybe they hate China but what they express is generalized anti-Asian sentiment because to them all people of East and Southeast Asian descent  are "Chinese" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

text:  Interestingly anti-Asian sentiment currently redirect to US history, perhaps making that a stand alone page can serve as a home for some of the more generalized information? For example some of our COVID coverage. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dictionary definitions =Sinophobia = anti CHINA or People 

message: Here's a current analysis published by the Society for Cultural Anthropology at this link: " Sinophobia, Epidemics, and Interspecies Catastrophe By Christos Lynteris June 23, 2020:  "Since January 2020, the Covid-19 pandemic has been accompanied by a wave of racist, xenophobic incidents targeting people perceived by their attackers as Chinese or Asian. A source of particular alarm is the reported pattern of bullying and attacking individuals as “viruses.” ....The nineteenth century saw the establishment of China in Western imagination as the “Sick Man of Asia” and at the same time as the origin of infectious diseases like plague (Lynteris 2018) and smallpox (Craddock 1995; Heinrich 2007), which were beginning to be understood in terms of bacteriology. The outbreak of plague in the British colony of Hong Kong in 1894 and the spread of the disease across the globe in what came to be known as the third plague pandemic played a catalytic role in this identification of China as the breeding ground of pandemics (Echenberg 2007). This global pandemic unfolded at the height of the Yellow Peril, and played an important role in its development (Lynteris 2018). The identification of Chinese urban spaces, especially Chinatowns, as the “breeding grounds” of plague (Lynteris 2017; Engelmann 2018), and of the bodies of Chinese migrants, even Chinese objects (Peckham 2016), as catalysts of contagion was linked at the time with an understanding of China as an empire in decay. Associated with ideas of racial degeneration prevalent at the time, this image fostered an idea that diseases that were supposed to belong to humanity’s past, like plague, festered in China, and thus threatened the modern world with a relapse to the middle ages." Rjensen (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The China in that quote is not the PRC its a completely different social and political construct. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: same area and population,--and very similar fear 130 years ago to covid-19=China fear today.  Rjensen (talk) 18:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not the same area and population, both have fluctuated wildly over the centuries. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: the issue is the image of China held by others and why it's so negative. The area involved has a 90+% overlap and I think almost all the current PRC population is descended from the 1890s population. Rjensen (talk) 22:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Rjensen. My original proposal in the scope change discussion seems naive. The degree of overlap between how geopolitics and anti-Chinese sentiment is too significant and the threshold and difference too vague to properly separate. The PRC contains 90% of Chinese population in the world. Perceptions of the PRC not affecting Chinese people is ludicrous. Qiushufang (talk) 23:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Effecting? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why China is central to anti-Chinese sentiment: quote from Cultural Anthropology