Talk:Hua–Yi distinction/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Famous quotation from Tang

“天可汗”唐太宗曾宣称：“自古皆贵中华，贱夷狄，朕独爱之如一，故其种落皆依朕如父母。”---“古以来都以汉族尊贵 看不起其他民族 只有我待他们一视同仁，所以各民族都视我为他们的父母亲人NB. To be translated when I have time. Arilang ^talk 21:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Bueller? — LlywelynII 09:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Confucius said

Confucius said "微管仲，吾其被发左衽矣."(If there was no Guan Zhong, we might well be wearing our hair down and folding our robes to the left (i.e. in the fashion of the barbarians )《论语·宪问》) It is key to 华夷之辨.--刻意(Kèyì) 19:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Why? — LlywelynII 09:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup

See Talk:Barbarian. I have organized the "barbarian" articles into Barbarian, Barbarian (Western cultures), and Barbarian (East Asian cultures). Barbarian (East Asian cultures) was previously under a Chinese name for the term, but the article was on all of East Asia, so I moved the article title to better represent the content.--Quicktool (talk) 03:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hua Yi Distinction (Chinese:华夷之辨) is more than a "Chinese name", it is a term adopted by all the East Asia countries, Japan, Korea, Vietnam included. The writing of this article took months of hard work by many Chinese/English bilingual editors, me included. You came along, without getting any consensus, moved it and give it a highly inappropriate new name. Please moved it back into it's old name. Arilang ^talk 08:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is a cultural idea that exists in all East Asian countries, so why use the Chinese name for it? Why not call it Nikkeijin-I Distinction or Hanguk-I Distinction? Why Chinese, if the Japanese use it just as much? The previous title was too sinocentric. The name has to be in English, this is not the Chinese Wikipedia.--Quicktool (talk) 14:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

To start with, "Barbarians in East Asian cultures" is just plain wrong, it does not convey the full meaning of "华夷之辨", nor Nikkeijin-I Distinction, nor Hanguk-I Distinction. This article, with it's original "Hua Yi Distinction", had went through a very rigorous AfD debate. I am sure if we use the current English name, it will not survive another AfD assault.I know this is an English encyclopedia, but if names like Kowtow, Yumcha and Dangguo can have a place, so shall Hua Yi Distinction. Arilang ^talk 06:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

But why use Chinese? This is also used in Korea and Japan. And titles like "Kowtow" are WP:COMMONNAMES. The previous Chinese name for this title is not a common name, so let's use English.--Quicktool (talk) 11:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

：If you insist on the current English name, it will not survive another AfD debate, unless that is your intention? Arilang ^talk 12:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the last AfD debate was started because the title included "difference between," which makes the title sound like a personal essay and not a serious article, not because it used the word "barbarian." English names are always prefered, and with all the sources in the article, I don't think anyone will nominate the article for deletion.--Quicktool (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok the Yi term has many meanings. This article is suppose to deal with the original Hua-Yi distinction. Basically what makes Yi different from Huaxia. Another words, the foundation of what makes Huaxia eventually chinese around the time of Xia and Shang. Even if Yi is a loose term meaning:

1. short for different types of (Dong)yi people (mentioned loosely in article before)
2. a group of people occupying what is known as formosa later (not really mentioned)
3. term for barbarian centuries later in China (mentioned loosely in article before)
4. term for barbarian later in other parts of East Asia (according to user Quicktool)

Moving "Hua-Yi distinction" to the title "Barbarians in East Asian cultures" is basically running with number 4, and more or less change what this article is supposed to be about. Benjwong (talk) 05:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Benjwong, and look at Quicktool's talkpage, there is nothing there, yet he/she is doing massive rewrite of this article without any talkpage discussion, I suspect he/she is a sockpuppet of some sort. Could admin check it up on Quicktool? Arilang ^talk 05:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

If Yi (the word) really represent all of the barbarian groups in east asia, then the move should have been Dongyi instead of this article. But I am pretty sure Yi isn't the only group. Benjwong (talk) 05:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Quicktool suddenly pop up from nowhere, without understanding of this ancient Chinese concept(the difference between Hua and Yi), without any interactions with other experienced and bilingual editors, he/she should be given a stern warning. One of the most important concept of "Hua Yi distinction" is the interchangability between "Hua" and "Yi", of which the new name "Barbarians in East Asian cultures" just could not convey. Arilang ^talk 06:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Barbarians in East Asian cultures → Hua-Yi distinction — The page should not have been moved before to cover topics outside what its original term intended, strictly a China topic. There were some confusion that Yi represent all Barbarians in East Asian cultures. It is not quite the case. Moving back to the original name last used Dec 29 2010. Benjwong (talk) 05:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Strong support. --刻意(Kèyì) 01:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Move back to original name. Arilang ^talk 12:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, it has been more than 7 days now, would some admin close this case since the consensus had been reached? Arilang ^talk 05:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support. The current title doesn't accurately represent the article's contents. — AjaxSmack 02:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 21:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Though remember that the current title ("Barbarians in East Asian cultures") made sense in light of new content that has now been reverted, perhaps a little too quickly. (See the pre-revert version: [1].) If the old title "Hua-Yi distinction" is restored (as it seems it will be), a redirect should be kept at "Barbarians in East Asian cultures" because "Hua-Yi distinction" is not a very intuitive title to find in English, and because the main discussion of the notion of "barbarian" in China is here in this wiki. Madalibi (talk) 07:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Worth pointing out

[after merge] that the Chinese didn't usually take out their whims on the actual names of foreign peoples. Sometimes it could change for reasons having nothing to do with the foreign country itself (e.g., 佛国 becoming 法国) but they didn't score points with the characters:

...[since] sometimes written as if it depicted a prisoner with a rope around his neck, Qiang must be an exonym. The matter is not so simple. One has to distinguish the word and its graphic representation. Moreover, in historical times Chinese have commonly referred to foreigners, whether friendly or hostile, by names that were based on transcribing names used by the foreigners themselves. There is little solid evidence that they made up opprobrious names just to put down their enemies. The name Xiongnu 匈奴, which could be translated as “Evil Slaves” if it were written with the homophone xiong 凶 instead of xiong 胸 “breast,” is sometimes cited as an example but there can be little doubt (in my opinion) that, in spite of doubts that continue to be raised, it is, in fact, just a transcription of the name that underlies Sanskrit Huṇa, Sogdian xwn, Greek οὖννοι, Latin Hunni, etc.45 The first syllable is, in fact, written with the word for “breast” which would have had no opprobrious connotation and the second syllable, nu 奴, would have been pronounced [na] in Han times...

from Pulleybank, Edwin G. ""[http://lucian.uchicago.edu/blogs/earlychina/files/2008/07/ec25_pulleyblank.pdf Ji 姬 and Jiang 姜: The Role of Exogamic Clans in the Organization of the Zhou Polity]"" (PDF). {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)"Ji 姬 and Jiang 姜: The Role of Exogamic Clans in the Organization of the Zhou Polity". Early China, 25. 2000. — LlywelynII 10:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Hua-Yi zhibian article

Sorry, Arilang1234. I don't know how to translate the concept "Hua-Yi zhi bian". I think that you can contribute at the article Sinocentrism. Adding content to the established article is better than creating a potentially controversial article.--Neo-Jay (talk) 06:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The translation of Hua-Yi Zhibian should be: "Differences between Chinese and barbarians". However, I believe the text is best under its original context, e.g. in pinyin.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The topic will be more accessible if part of Sinocentrism. I also recommend the editors impose a discipline: "No Chinese words other than names and no Chinese characters". Stick to the concepts and avoid giving the readers a language lesson. If a phrase is hard to translate accurately, do your best. If I come across a word راوِ in an unfamiliar script followed by the Latin character transliteration, followed by the meaning, it slows me down. I just want the meaning. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

To user Aymatth2 and Neo-Jay, if you read all the external links on User:Arilang1234/Sandbox/ Hua-Yi zhi bian(temporary name), you can find out easily that "Hua-Yi zhi bian" and Sinocentrism are two different concepts. In it's essance, Hua-Yi zhi bian is about the difference of good vs evil, civilization vs barbarism, right vs wrong. Like my statements in the AfD debate, "Hua-Yi zhi bian" can be used to explain the modern time penomena such as Chinese culture revolution and Red guards burning embassy building. And Sinocentrism has no hope of doing that. Arilang ^talk 14:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

First, I quite strongly disagree that Hua-Yi zhi bian can be used to explain the Cultural Revolution, etc. This is pure speculation and no one is entitled to write an article based on the idea that this kind of thing can be taken for granted.

As for "good vs evil" civilization vs barbarism etc., that is a very strong value judgement about China (good, civilisation) vs others (evil, barbarism). The words "Sinocentrism" literally suggest that China was "at the centre", which is perhaps why User Aymatth felt that China was little different from anyone else. But in reality Sinocentrism carries precisely the connotations that Arilang suggests -- that the Chinese regarded themselves as possessing superior virtue and civilisation to the barbarians around them. These are the ideas at the heart of Hua-Yi zhi bian. I don't see that they are different.

Bathrobe (talk) 14:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Bathrobe's claim that "the Chinese regarded themselves as possessing superior virtue and civilization to the barbarians around them" is too adamant, to say the least, and I wish user Bathrobe would refrain from making such a simplistic statement towards a 3000 years(or is it 5000) old civilization with records written in difficult-to-understand-text, towards which user Bathrobe had admitted before of little understanding(please I am not trying to look down on Bathrobe's literary ability). One good example is Tang dynasty, of which the rulers were known to be non-Han-Chinese(of Turkish blood), and yet Chinese all over the world do claim the Tang dynasty as a CHINESE dynasty.

Two good examples showing that Sinocentrism(I believe it was coined by Fairbank) and Hua-Yi zhi bian are two totally different concepts:

(1) Zhu Yuanzhang using the concept of Hua-Yi zhi bian to fight off the Mongol invaders, by calling the Mongols as Northern Barbarians

(2) Sun Yatsen did the same thing, he called the Manchus as Barbarians. And he suceeded, just like Zhu Yuanzhang before him. Try using Sinocentrism to explain these two historical events, and you shall have no hope of doing it. Arilang ^talk 15:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the T'ang you will have to use Hua-Yi ZhiBian to explain the phonenmon because although the T'ang rulers had some Xianbei blood(not turkish) they regarded themselves as chinese. The Qing and Yuan rulers on the other hand, regarded themselves as non-chinese. Qing emperors frequent made statements like" We must preserve the Qing, rather than China" and so on. Teeninvestor (talk) 17:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If you guys really want to make an authentic ethnic-distinction here, then you must regard the historic reality of the so-called "turkish" identity, which is actually completely distinct from the ancient Tujue(turkic) identity, for which the nationalistic modern "Turkish" identity is a serious ethnic misnomer. The real turkic people are pre-historic and ancient blood relatives of the more historically recent "han chinese" and "mongolic", including the Xianbei(those covertly racist "hua-yi distinguishing racist make as the Altaic-Sino-Tibetan-Turkic distinctions, but all blood related mongoloid peoples). Who are the real turkic people who still retain their original mongoloid identity? For starters, you can try those Kyrgyz and Yakut people of central and northeast Asia, or even the Buryats or Han Chinese themselves, although no longer speaking a turkic language. True the Tang royalty have Xianbei blood, they may well have been the original turkic nomadic "chinamen" from heart of Asia(modern north china), but it would be inaccurate and ethnic misnomer to address them as "turkish", which sound like another euro-turkish ethno-nationalistic propaganda, or joke, to "enforce" this Wikipdedia nonsense and "Hua-Yi distinction".66.214.169.159 (talk) 05:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Untitled

These references are looking average to good by my recognition, especially if people wanted a foundation, thought it would help

• http://www.wsc.uni-erlangen.de/pdf/fang.pdf -

Pages 6 is where your hitting Nationalistic problems...lets not have blatant Manchu sympathisers this time around eh?!

• http://66.102.1.100/translate_c?hl=en&sl=zh-CN&u=http://scholar.ilib.cn/P-QCode~lndxxb-zxshkxb.html&prev=/search%3Fq%3DHua-Yi%2Bzhi%2Bbian%26start%3D10%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN&usg=ALkJrhiODR-kx-Wxo4Qgj7OeAOmsorI4Lg

Theres something in here somewhere but my lack of Hanja limits my translation.

• http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/late_imperial_china/v025/25.1robinson.html

Also, anyone with this book(ive traced through online editions/snippets)....

Pardon the Sinocentrism focus and the eventual leading to opium wars but still its hard for references, even Mao had certain views on this past , im reading thorugh my books on him(the one by Phillip Short atm) because i know i seen something somewhere. There is the problem with the naming stil mind you, it needs more than just Barbarians as your saying but im not sure what Arilang. I dont know whether your talk page, which seems to be the most visited page in Wikipedia the past 3 hours or this place would be best but anyways, get in touch anyone... bare with, as always...--CorrectlyContentious 17:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I added some content but im out of time, I'll add sources later.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding purging and the chinese perspective, maybe read up on its Tang dynasty, maybe ming and potentially Yongle_Emperor(His use of culture and exlusion of foreign bloodlines?)--CorrectlyContentious 17:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Again probably out of my league but maybe ive helped someone...--CorrectlyContentious 17:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The whole premise of this "Hua-Yi distinction" and other underhanded anti-China or Sino-phobic type of articles is flawed and discriminatory or even racist, have little value in educating readers with realistic aspects of Asian culture and history, and disregards the fact that the so-called "Han Chinese ethnicity" is not an ethnicity per-se, but really a culture and philosophical development that distinguishes itself from the more primal lifestyles and tribes, but also assimilates those people from those more primitive lifestyles and tribes. Unless one can prove him or herself as a direct bloodline descendant of the originator of Chinese civilization (Huangdi), then who is not an original descendant of a "Yi/Rong"? As a person born parents from China, I know my roots are related to the Han/Hui, Manchurian and Mongolian ethnic groups, and any Chinese fairly well versed in Chinese history are aware of the "distinctions". Even "the father of Chinese civilization" Huangdi was a semi-nomadic "Yi/Rong", and thus all Asian/Chinese people are blood related to ancient "Yi/Rong" primal tribes, or later manifestations of both "Han/Hun" people in the centerpoint of Asia. In other words, the modern day Han people are themselves a mix of ancient Di, Yi, Dong-Yi, Rong, Xi-Rong, Hu, Wu-Hu, Xianbei, Xiongnu, and so-on. The Hua-Yi distinction article here, like many other "encyclopedic Asian cultural information" propaganda, was developed not so much to address cultural distinctions, but to support racial discrimination in the promotion Sino-phobia and exaggerated Sinocentrism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.169.159 (talk) 06:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Article needs to be fixed (also addresses Requested move)

The so-called "Hua-Yi distinction" may have enough notability for an article, or at least a stub, though that remains to be proved. The main problem is that whatever merit there may be to a "Hua-Yi distinction" article, this is limited topic and not the right context for a general encyclopedic discussion of the concept of Barbarians in East Asian cultures. Note that "Barbarians in East Asian cultures" redirects to "Hua-Yi distinction". The way to fix this article is to limit it to "Hua-Yi distinction (or delete it),and to merge any generally useable material back into the Barbarian article, where it belongs. Looking at the history behind this article helps to show how and it became such a mess (despite various well-intentioned work on it): 1) it was begun 10 January 2009 by a user, who has since been banned indefinitely for activity on another article, in a process that seems to have neglected to resolve outstanding issues with this article, 2) in January 2011 user:Quicktool, in that user's only other apparent contributions to Wikipedia besides editing "Hua-Yi distinction" and a user talk page), decided to split the "Barbarian" article into a completely redundant Barbarians in Western cultures (which should be deleted with any new useful content being merged back into "Barbarian) and into an inappropriate and unnecessary Barbarians in East Asian culture, which is no longer existent: the page was moved to Barbarians in East Asian cultures, a redirect to "Hua-Yi distinction", and 3) many users, often from anonymous ip addresses seem to think that it is some how consistent with Wikipedia policy and the encyclopedic process to say that the Chinese called people "barbarians" just because various Chinese terms were so-translated into English, and that some how using quotes around barbarians somehow fixes this. "Barbarian" is a Western term and barbarism a Western concept: the "Hua-Yi distinction" does nothing to disprove this, nor should it attempt to. At the least, a "Hua-Yi distinction" would show that two ethnic groups (Hua and Yi) were conceptually differentiated -- which is tautological. At the most the existence of a "Hua-Yi distinction" -- assuming the basic proposition of this article is indeed true -- it only goes to show the existence of a certain amount of ethnic prejudice existed on the part of some Chinese people at some limited times in history, and the "Hua-Yi distinction" article should be relegated to just that. This "Hua-Yi distinction" seems to have nothing to say that couldn't and shouldn't be covered under "Barbarian" or Sinocentrism, otherwise this article just stands as another forum for wasting time and effort for a debate which basically lacks merit, and no reliable supporting references. Dcattell (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It is messy, but that's a lot of bwahhh for such a long, well-sourced article on an essential aspect of Chinese culture. The Chinese certainly differentiate their culture from others and have since remote antiquity. If anything, the violence of xenophobia and periodic purging of foreign faiths and peoples suggests the Chinese conception of barbarian is stronger than the Greek one. If yi is only a limited word for the "other", then the page should sit somewhere else. If, b/c of its appearance in Confucius or for other reasons, it was a long-standing concept (most importantly under the Qing), it should be here. — LlywelynII 09:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Although on second thought, it's hard to see what content there is here that isn't better served by developing Sinocentrism or better yet Han chauvinism (the first nationalist, the second cultural & what's under discussion here is the latter). — LlywelynII 09:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The history of this page is even more complicated than Dcattell puts it. A former version of this article, created by Arilang1234, was called "Differences between Huaxia and barbarians." I submitted it for deletion in early 2009 because it was written as if there were objective differences between Huaxia and barbarians (just like there are Differences between Hindi and Urdu) instead of describing and explaining an important cultural conception. In the deletion discussion (warning: wacky content!), though, I pointed out that I didn't oppose this topic, just the way the old article was written. I even put together an argument to defend such a topic. Then a group of editors started to work on the present page. I wrote the first two paragraphs of the "Historic context" section to show that an NPOV article on this topic could indeed be written based on what reliable sources explicitly say about it. Then I moved on. Months later Arilang asked me to help because someone had suddenly renamed the page Barbarians in East Asian cultures and changed most of the content without consulting anybody else. The move was reverted and the editor who made the move never came back to justify his or her point of view. Then Arilang1234, who was getting much better as an editor but still couldn't control his temper, got banned indefinitely. Anyway, the current page is still weak. For one thing I dislike the analyses presented in most sections, because they don't rely on reliable sources. But I still think this topic is valid! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 08:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)