![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
“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)
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)
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)
: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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
[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
(
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)
|title=
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)
These references are looking average to good by my recognition, especially if people wanted a foundation, thought it would help
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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
“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)
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)
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)
: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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
[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
(
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)
|title=
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)
These references are looking average to good by my recognition, especially if people wanted a foundation, thought it would help
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)
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)