![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Now that it is translated from Chinese, we need to discuss the relavance of some of the points here. Any comments on how to improve it? -- Charlie Huang 【遯卋山人】 14:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I just added hanfu.info link as an English external link. Hope you all agree.
Heres a comment to improve this article.
I think there are better pictures in of Chinese wearing hanfu in China with Chinese Architecture buildings (i.e. red/dragon clad pillars (not the fluted stuff here in this pic). green ceramic tiles (rather than the stone bas relief), 5 animal eaves (rather than the simple edges) etc..) in the background. The picture should be in Beijing NOT London. This is a ridiculous choice that is subtly politically incorrect. Implies that the Chinese only remember their Hanfu clothes and not their buildings! If aliens were to chance upon this page, they'd miss the incredibly ornate style of Chinese buildings and mistake London for being the capital or inventor of hanfu! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.137.64.104 ( talk) 15:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
@ 1.32.70.151: It is important that articles adhere to the manual of style and standards of Wikipedia. We cannot add an empty section and write "to do". Also, please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources as the two cited sources in your writing are blogs that do not appear to adhere to the standard. Also, typing THIS IS RELIABLE in your edit summaries doesn't really prove that; you want to take issues to the talk page to discuss with other editors. Ogress smash! 17:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
— LlywelynII 08:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
This article almost exclusively describes the Hanfu movement to be racial and Han supremacist in nature, and I have to be skeptical that this doesn't stem from one-sided sources. Certainly, any racial implications of the movement is relevant to the article, but it's hard to imagine that a sentiment towards reviving just the fashion necessarily has to be exclusionistic, "utopian", or dismissive of ethnic minorities. It heavily relies upon the views of a single individual, Kevin Carrico while another source it cites in Beijing Review [1] actually presents arguments on both sides of the movement, even noting that Chang Mengfei of Jiangnan Times asserted that no Hanfu supporter has ever called upon minorities to abandon their clothing, and yet the article uses information from the source selectively to present only one perspective of the movement. Sol Pacificus ( talk) 02:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
The claim that to be pure racial and Han supremacist in nature, is literally a made-up story. The movement was stimulated by a common folk in Henan 2003. The background was that numerous interest groups in China are trying to eliminate the awareness of 'Han' in China. Sadly, the Wikipedia list is demonizing this movement by ignoring any possible arguments.
I have just started revising the article for its neutrality issues since this has not been addressed. Thus far I have only trimmed down and reorganized the bias, an endeavour that has already taken me hours, and I have not had the time to introduce new points which are neutral in tone. I wish to clarify some of the changes I have made.
Finally, I want to point out that there is so much information about this movement given in even three of the sources cited, Alice Yan, Hua Mei, and Beijing Review which gives different perspectives and arguments about the movement not covered by this article at all which would make it so much more informative. Sol Pacificus ( talk) 19:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Forgot to mention this, but the introduction, background, and history sections definitely need expansion since there's a lot of context given in even the sources that have been cited, but definitely sources that we haven't cited which shed more light on the diverse motivations behind the movement. Sol Pacificus ( talk) 20:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
The cited source that I can verify, Rhoads, says that Manchu clothing, unlike Manchu hairstyle, was only obligatory for officials and scholars, and it was adopted by the Han population of its own accord. This article, on the other hand, asserts that Qing originally mandated it for everybody and later compromised, and includes a lot of stories about this imposition of Qing clothing and resulting rebellions - these occupy much of the historical section of the article. However, all of these stories and almost all the sources cited about this (all that are accessible online) seem to be about the hairstyle, not the clothing. All of this makes me suspect that the stories about violence and rebellions are irrelevant here and are simply used as a rhetorical device in order to present the story of the adoption of Manchu-style clothing as a story of violence, to delegitimise Manchu-style clothing and thereby legitimise 'Han clothing' in opposition to it.-- 79.100.149.219 ( talk) 01:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Now that it is translated from Chinese, we need to discuss the relavance of some of the points here. Any comments on how to improve it? -- Charlie Huang 【遯卋山人】 14:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I just added hanfu.info link as an English external link. Hope you all agree.
Heres a comment to improve this article.
I think there are better pictures in of Chinese wearing hanfu in China with Chinese Architecture buildings (i.e. red/dragon clad pillars (not the fluted stuff here in this pic). green ceramic tiles (rather than the stone bas relief), 5 animal eaves (rather than the simple edges) etc..) in the background. The picture should be in Beijing NOT London. This is a ridiculous choice that is subtly politically incorrect. Implies that the Chinese only remember their Hanfu clothes and not their buildings! If aliens were to chance upon this page, they'd miss the incredibly ornate style of Chinese buildings and mistake London for being the capital or inventor of hanfu! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.137.64.104 ( talk) 15:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
@ 1.32.70.151: It is important that articles adhere to the manual of style and standards of Wikipedia. We cannot add an empty section and write "to do". Also, please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources as the two cited sources in your writing are blogs that do not appear to adhere to the standard. Also, typing THIS IS RELIABLE in your edit summaries doesn't really prove that; you want to take issues to the talk page to discuss with other editors. Ogress smash! 17:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
— LlywelynII 08:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
This article almost exclusively describes the Hanfu movement to be racial and Han supremacist in nature, and I have to be skeptical that this doesn't stem from one-sided sources. Certainly, any racial implications of the movement is relevant to the article, but it's hard to imagine that a sentiment towards reviving just the fashion necessarily has to be exclusionistic, "utopian", or dismissive of ethnic minorities. It heavily relies upon the views of a single individual, Kevin Carrico while another source it cites in Beijing Review [1] actually presents arguments on both sides of the movement, even noting that Chang Mengfei of Jiangnan Times asserted that no Hanfu supporter has ever called upon minorities to abandon their clothing, and yet the article uses information from the source selectively to present only one perspective of the movement. Sol Pacificus ( talk) 02:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
The claim that to be pure racial and Han supremacist in nature, is literally a made-up story. The movement was stimulated by a common folk in Henan 2003. The background was that numerous interest groups in China are trying to eliminate the awareness of 'Han' in China. Sadly, the Wikipedia list is demonizing this movement by ignoring any possible arguments.
I have just started revising the article for its neutrality issues since this has not been addressed. Thus far I have only trimmed down and reorganized the bias, an endeavour that has already taken me hours, and I have not had the time to introduce new points which are neutral in tone. I wish to clarify some of the changes I have made.
Finally, I want to point out that there is so much information about this movement given in even three of the sources cited, Alice Yan, Hua Mei, and Beijing Review which gives different perspectives and arguments about the movement not covered by this article at all which would make it so much more informative. Sol Pacificus ( talk) 19:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Forgot to mention this, but the introduction, background, and history sections definitely need expansion since there's a lot of context given in even the sources that have been cited, but definitely sources that we haven't cited which shed more light on the diverse motivations behind the movement. Sol Pacificus ( talk) 20:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
The cited source that I can verify, Rhoads, says that Manchu clothing, unlike Manchu hairstyle, was only obligatory for officials and scholars, and it was adopted by the Han population of its own accord. This article, on the other hand, asserts that Qing originally mandated it for everybody and later compromised, and includes a lot of stories about this imposition of Qing clothing and resulting rebellions - these occupy much of the historical section of the article. However, all of these stories and almost all the sources cited about this (all that are accessible online) seem to be about the hairstyle, not the clothing. All of this makes me suspect that the stories about violence and rebellions are irrelevant here and are simply used as a rhetorical device in order to present the story of the adoption of Manchu-style clothing as a story of violence, to delegitimise Manchu-style clothing and thereby legitimise 'Han clothing' in opposition to it.-- 79.100.149.219 ( talk) 01:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)