Talk:Hua–Yi distinction/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Moved discussion from Arilang talk page

Co-editors needed for new article Hua-Yi zhi bian 華夷之辨

Please refer to: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Differences between Huaxia and barbarians

Now that the debate on Differences between Huaxia and barbarians has come to an end, I think we should start to work on a new article with the temporary name Hua-Yi zhi bian. Instead of one editor, I think it is better to form a small task force to handle this very important subject, which played a pivotal role in ancient(and modern) China's politic, culture, foreign policy, frontal border policy, plus everything else.

I like to issue an open invition to following editors to join the Hua-Yi zhi bian co-editors task force, to work out the remaining issues:

• Naming of the article.
  
• Structure of the article.
  
• Translation of relevant Chinese sources.
  
• Collecting relevant English secondary sources
  
• Whatever other issiues I have not thought of.
  

Lists of invited editors(random sequences):

Madalibi (talk) Hong Qi Gong ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers -Neo-Jay talk Bathrobe talk L talk Metropolitan90 (talk) Aymatth2 (talk Toon^(talk) Bejnar talk

This list is open to any other editors who are keen on East Asia history. Arilang ^talk 22:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. My first comment would be: Should we be using this title? I know that User Arilang is quite attached to this term, but as User Madalibi has pointed out, this may be better subsumed under Sinocentrism, which is a well-known (if fuzzy) concept in English. It could also be subsumed under barbarian. Since the concept of barbarians is, however, Greek in origin, and has only been later applied to the Chinese situation, and the current article on "barbarian" very much reflects that, it might be advisable to have an article on "barbarian (in Chinese culture)". Quite frankly, I'm not too keen on the use of Wikipedia to propagate Chinese terminology that isn't already current in English to some extent. This is a little like original research -- making Wikipedia a "cutting edge tool" in expanding human knowledge. This is somewhat at odds with what Wikipedia is supposed to be doing. Wikipedia should be collating and summarizing, not leading the way in creating new perspectives or categories of knowledge in English, tempting as it may be to do that.

Bathrobe (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation, but (on qualifications) I must point out that although I am a Chinese National/Citizen (dual citizen actually due to a citizenship law loophole), I know almost zip about Chinese History from the Chinese perspective (besides WWI/II, and some treaties of humiliation), as I have not studied in China (I do know more than the average american, as my 9th grade history teacher was 1/4th Chinese), and my parents aren't history majors (although my grandparents are retired teachers, but they are in China, and I'm schooling in the US...) so I can't help much with content contributions that can't be found via google. With that disclaimer aside, I'd be happy to review neutrality, and I do think some modification on the naming might be required. I do think that this warrants its own article if it isn't subsumed under "barbarian" as it is much closer to Sinocentrism than "barbarian". Lastly, I agree with the temporary naming, although it would need to be moved/redirected to a better English translation (despite the fact that things are lost in translation). Best of Luck. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 23:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've made a somewhat generic start at User:Arilang1234/Sandbox/ Hua-Yi zhi bian(temporary name) for those with more knowledge on Chinese History. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 03:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. I am a chinese canadian who has, however, a great deal of knowledge about chinese history and has studied it extensively(Being one of my three hobbies, other being stock investing and halo 3, strange for a teenager not?) but I do believe this article is notable; the difference between Hua Xia and Yi(Chinese and barbarians) is a very important concept in chinese history. Also in this case, Yi(foreigner) basically means the same as barbarian used in this concept. I have read your edits, Arileng, and you have done some good work! However, I wouldn't be so sure about your views of the PRC supporting the barbarian dynasties; the prevailing mood in china is against them. Check HanMinZu.net. Also, PRC is not communist anymore; It is probably now the most free-market economy with schools, hospitals, bus lines, privatized.Teeninvestor (talk)

It would be more fruitful to make an article about "barbarians" in Chinese history to cover everything in general about them, rather than trying to make an article from the simple phrase 華夷之辨 and writing an article only on the difference between barbarians and Han Chinese. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Arilang. At this time I am going to wait before attempting to contribute to the draft article on Hua-Yi zhi bian because I need to wait and see what other editors are going to write first. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I was surprised at the storm of comments about racism in the AfD discussion on Differences between Huaxia and barbarians. All people whether they live in Borneo, Burundi or Bolivia feel that they are at the center of the world, their culture is the true culture and the strangers encroaching on are them inferior and probably a threat. Given the huge importance of the Chinese culture and civilization, an article that discusses how this universal concept developed and evolved within China is certainly legitimate. It is clearly quite different from the political concept described in the article in Sinocentrism. But I have little understanding of the subject. I would be happy to edit/review, but do not think I could contribute useful content. One concern I have is that this is an English-language version, and preferably all content should be supported by English-language sources. In this case, that may be tough. Aymatth2 (talk) 04:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite and ive currently read through the transcripts of what was a long 30 minutes worth i must say! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arilang1234/Sandbox/_Hua-Yi_zhi_bian(temporary_name), seems the place to be and hopefully you shall see some Korean additions to the cause. Bare with me however, as references are few and far between in Korean history. P.s careful of nationalistic areas and apologies but my Hanja knowledge is poor... Hangul i can deal with--CorrectlyContentious 16:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

To understand Hua-Yi zhi bian, one needs to be able to read classical Chinese

I like to ask user Bathrobe one question:Please explain 夷狄之有君,不如诸夏之亡也. This is a famous saying of Confucius, only by understanding this phrase, then one can really understand Hua-Yi zhi bian. Again, I am not trying to make fun of user Bathrobe(because Bathrobe admitted before of unable to read classical Chinese). I am trying to show that one's words would be weak in authority if one is lacking in understanding of the primary source, because sometimes secondary source can be inaccurate. Arilang ^talk 15:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Please explain:Confucius said:夷狄入中国，则中国之，中国入夷狄，则夷狄之. Arilang ^talk 15:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

夷 狄入中国，则中国之，中国入夷狄，则夷狄之. This means if barbarians move/are conquered into China, then they will be assimilated into chinese. If the reverse happents, then chinese will be forced to adopt barbarian ways.

夷狄之有君,不如诸夏之亡也. This means that a barbarian nation with a government is worse than China in anarchy.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Also more phrases to demonstrate the Hua-Yi Zi Bian concept: 华夷之分，大于君臣之义; 夷狄异类，詈如禽兽;

Although I believe Sinocentrism and Hua-Yi Zi Bian are similar, Hua-Yi ZI Bian should have its own article as it is a crucial concept that needs to be explained. Sinocentrism merely puts CHina at the centre, while Hua-Yi Zi Bian means "Chinese are different from foreigners" which is a crucial concept to sinocentrism. For example, if we have an article on keynesianism, does that mean we should not have an article on the labor theory of value, which is a part of keynesianism?Teeninvestor (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You have analysis on Hua-Yi Zi Bian in other Asian countries that was within the chinese cultural circle. However, You're missing one important country; CHINA! Also, I have to agree with BathRobe that sinocentrism and Hua-Yi Zhi Bian are quite similar. Violence durign the culutral revolution was just Maoist fury, not related in any way to Chinese culture.

Also some links to the belief in china that Qing Conquest of Ming and Mongol conquest of Song were comparable to German conquest of Roman Empire and Mongol destruction of the Abbasid Caliphate, though they may not be reliable resources<http://bbs.huanqiu.com/zongluntianxia/thread-104527-1-118.html><http://www.hanminzu.com/bbs/TopicOther.asp?t=5&BoardID=9&id=238675>. They are articles from hanminzu.com, a site in china that promotes traditional dress. They also discuss sinocentrism in Japan and Korea.Teeninvestor (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

As a person of English origin living in Canada, I certainly consider that I possess superior virtues and civilization to the barbarians around me. But seriously, the article on Sinocentrism discusses a political concept - "a hierarchical system of international relations" - then discusses Cultural Sinocentrism, Sinocentrism today and related concepts. Surely there is room in this general article to add further observations on the Hua-Yi zhi bian concept, derived from reliable sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I find the title of this section quite disheartening. I was anxious to have the full meaning of Hua-Yi zhi bian explained to me, and now I find I will have to learn classical Chinese before I can grasp the concept. If this is really true, there is no place for an article on the subject in the English Wikipedia - few readers will be able to make sense of it. But perhaps the title is just a humorous illustration of the concept? Aymatth2 (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the meaning of the original text has been debated and is truly ambiguous. The crux of the problem is the phrase '不如', which in Modern Chinese is translated as "is inferior to". However, in Confucius's time, it could also have meant the more literal "is not like". The Chinese linguist/classicist Yang Bojun (楊伯峻) cites Yang Yufu's (楊遇夫) interpretation that the "princes of the Yi-Di" referred to the enlightened sovereigns of the Chu, Wu and other kingdoms in the periphery of the Chinese sphere at the time. Thus, an alternate translation would be "The Yi-Di still have princes, unlike the Central States". Given Analects 9.14, such an interpretation is not impossible. Yang Bojun himself states that both are tenable. (Source: Translation and Annotation of the Analects (論語譯注): Zhonghua Shuju, 1980.)Ymwang42 (talk) 07:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Why this topic is so controversial

Yes Aymatth2, not only you would find it puzzling just to understand the true meaning of it, many so-call China Experts, or sinologist as they prefer to be called, would also experiencing hard times, and all of these difficulty was created by Manchu emperors when they started to burn books and modify texts. Please check Siku Quanshu and Literary Inquisition, then you know the reason. Arilang ^talk 22:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This sounds a little too easy. Most editors here don't read classical Chinese, and Western historians and sinologists (who do read classical Chinese) have somehow been "tricked by Manchu book-burning." So who you gonna call? People of Chinese descent who have no historical training, but who will "understand the true meaning of it" simply because they're Chinese. This makes little sense. First, professional Chinese historians, Western historians, and amateurs of all countries all have access to the same historical sources. So Manchu book-burning is irrelevant, because it had the same effects on everybody. It's a level playing-field. And a Chinese ethnic background doesn't give magical access to historical knowledge about China (even when one can read classical Chinese). There is nothing more esoteric about Chinese conceptions of barbarians than about Greek conceptions of barbarians. Do we need to understand classical Greek in order to understand ancient Greek conceptions of barbarians? Of course not. And it's the same with Chinese conceptions of barbarians. So everybody is welcome to contribute to this page as best they can.

But even all of this is irrelevant, because Wikipedia editors are supposed to summarize secondary sources, not translate primary sources.

--Madalibi (talk) 04:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It helps if you can read Chinese

@Madalibi, please don't get me wrong, I am not advocating only Chinese-reading editors are qualified to edit this article. My statement:To understand Hua-Yi zhi bian, one needs to be able to read classical Chinese was really referring to the discussion I was having with Bathrobe when he said:Quote: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. Unquoted. Bathrobe made a claim that Sinocentrism and Hua-Yi zhi bian are two of the same thing. Then I quote Confucius:夷狄之有君,不如诸夏之亡也 and ask for a translation. This quoting of Confucius, like I had explained, is not to ridicule Bathrobe's inability to read classical Chinese, but to present Confucius's explaination of Hua-Yi zhi bian in his own words, of which user Teeninvestor volunteer an translation, which is quite close, but not quite right.

Because Bathrobe's claim and Confucius' statement are two completely different things, and someone else have to explain Bathrobe's error to him, that is the reason behind my statement:To understand Hua-Yi zhi bian, one needs to be able to read classical Chinese. My statement do not have any other implication, and I am not trying to push other editors away, that include user Bathrobe. Arilang ^talk 04:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if I misunderstood you, Arilang. I would still like to disagree with you respectfully. I agree that reading Chinese helps when you edit articles about Chinese history, because it gives you access to more secondary sources, and it helps you remain critical of claims you find in the secondary sources (simply because you can read the primary sources too). But a few points:

• I don't think it's very hard to understand the notion of "Hua-Yi zhi bian." It's a Chinese view that "Hua" or "Xia" (two words that are loosely translated as "China" in English, but that don't refer to a state and don't have to refer to an ethnic group) is different from "Yi" (a term that could mean "foreigner" or "barbarian" depending on who used it). That difference was said to be mainly cultural, but it was sometimes used in an ethnic sense as well. Simply put, people labeled as "Yi" were supposedly less civilized than "Hua," but they could become integrated into Hua/Chinese civilization if they learned the Chinese ways. I think anybody willing to learn and ask a few questions can understand this concept. We can further explain this concept's origins and its changing historical uses, but this is just knowledge of more facts, not esoterica. But this is actually good news: it means we can write a clear and good article about the Hua/Yi distinction!
• The citation from the Analects (子曰:夷狄之有君,不如諸夏之亡也) sounds like another manifestation of sinocentrism to me! The classical commentaries on this passage explain that the difference between Xia and Yi is on the level of rituals (夷狄雖有君長而無禮義,中國雖偶無君若周召共和之年而禮義不廢).
• I agree with Bathrobe that the "Hua/Yi distinction" is a sinocentric concept. Any conception saying that Hua/China is the only center of civilization is by definition sinocentric. Of course "Hua-Yi zhi bian" cannot be translated as "Sinocentrism," but this is a different question. But I agree that this page can still be turned into a distinct article with a "See also" to Sinocentrism and Sinicization. Let me explain what I mean in a new section at the bottom of this talk page...
• Finally, I don't think this topic is inherently controversial. It becomes controversial only if we write as though the concept was natural or if we sound like we're defending this concept as true.

Cheers,

Madalibi (talk) 08:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh and one last detail: where exactly is the sentence 夷狄入中国，则中国之，中国入夷狄，则夷狄之 from? It's not from the classics, and it sounds a bit like a modern Chinese imitation of classical Chinese. Any info? Madalibi (talk) 08:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

@Mabalibi zh:中國稱呼 韓愈有言：「中國而夷狄也，則夷狄之；夷狄而中國也，則中國之。」 But I think 韓愈 was quoting Confucius, I am not sure, will come back with more info. Arilang ^talk 10:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

@Madalibi:孔子作《春秋》曰：“夷狄入中国，则中国之，中国入夷狄，则夷狄之”. So the original quote is from 《春秋》, book of Spring and Autumn Arilang ^talk 11:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

韓愈 《原道》:子焉而不父其父，臣焉而不君其君，民焉而不事其事。孔子之作《春秋》也，诸侯用夷礼则夷之，进于中国则中国之. Arilang ^talk 20:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking, Arilang. I looked up the phrase in all the 13 classics (including the Spring and Autumn Annals 春秋 and all its commentaries), but the sentence is not in there, and this is why I asked. Maybe the sentence is Han Yu's paraphrase of something he found in a commentary to the Spring and Autumn Annals (maybe the Gongyang 公羊 commentary?). But I don't have any good search engine to search through Han Yu's works. Well, let's keep looking! Madalibi (talk) 12:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

Can we please move this off Arilang1234's talk page as talk is meant to inform him, not debate him on the talk page? perhaps move it to a subpage.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC) Also, I don't think Manchu were most muderous barbarians in chinese history. That honor belongs to the Jie, who massacred chinese en masse. If Ran Min did not kill them all, "chinese" might today be caucasian blondes, and we would be talking about the "ancient Chinese Empire"(Not that we would exist).Teeninvestor (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arilang1234/Sandbox/_Hua-Yi_zhi_bian(temporary_name)

And its relevant talk page to be used! thanks. --CorrectlyContentious 17:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion about anti-Qing sentiment Page

You will need to show that China stagnated during Qing and Yuan and progressed during the Ming and Song(not very hard to do) in order to overcome complaints about anti-Qing sentiment page. Examples could include: harassing merchants; reverting to feudal system(Banner system); suppressing of various chinese inventions(firearms, clocks, navigation, etc..). Also McCartney's embassy has a very strange comment in which he describes china as having stagnating since Marco Polo's visit and that they were conquered by the "Tartars" for a long period; however, he must have been aware of Dutch and Pourtgese contacts with the Ming dynasty, which was by no means a "Tartar" dynasty, and much more advanced than Europe(at the time).[User:Teeninvestor|Teeninvestor]] (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

We need reliable sources

Hi everyone. Citing "www.hanminzu.com" is as precise as citing "books.Google.com." How can anyone be expected to find the origin of claims so referenced? And Hanminzu.com can be fun to read, but it's definitely not a reliable source, which Wikipedia defines as (this link contains Wikipedi's definition of "reliable source". For historical topics like this one, what we need is "academic and peer-reviewed publications," the likes of which can be found on Google books. Madalibi (talk) 03:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Madalibi, we need to quote wed site ended with .edu. Jstor is a good source, unfortunately I do not have Jstor account.

Arilang ^talk 04:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of good books on Google Books. I've even found some that speak of the "Hua/Yi distinction."

• Lydia Liu's The Clash of Empires: The Invention of China in Modern World Making (which Arilang has cited elsewhere) mentions the "Hua/Yi distinction" on pp. 83, 84, 87, and 271 (note 77).
• Liu Xiaoyuan's Frontier Passages: Ethnopolitics and the Rise of Chinese Communism, 1921-1945 translates "Hua-yi zhi bian" as the "distinction between the Hua and the Yi" on p. 11.
• Ross Terrill's The New Chinese Empire: And what it Means for the World also says something on the "Hua-yi dichotomy (Chinese barbarian distinction)" (this is the term he uses in the index, p. 368) from p. 41 to p. 44, and again on p. 48 and 53. There are a few mistakes, and Terrill is a specialist of modern China, but he's still a published academic source that could be cited in our article.

But these are the only sources I've found that discuss "Hua-Yi" directly. The main topics are "the Chinese world order" and "Sinocentrism." I'll post another message later on what I think we should include in this article. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

What this article could be about: a few proposals

Hi again. I think the main way in which this article can stand on its own is if it's called "Barbarians (Chinese conception)" or something like that. Using reliable secondary sources, we should explain (in rough order of importance):

1. the origin of Chinese notions of "barbarians" (Yi);
2. the way the notion of "barbarian" was defined (in opposition to Hua, Xia, or Huaxia);
3. the mostly cultural but sometimes also ethnic meaning of the distinction between Hua and Yi;
4. how this notion of "barbarians" was used throughout history;
5. how other countries like Japan and Korea eventually adopted this distinction for their own purposes.

Also, instead of starting from a long list of countries and places, I think we should start from a good historical definition of Yi. If we don't have this kind of strong core, the page just won't hold together. And this page would not be about the people that the Chinese called "barbarians," but about the Chinese notion of "barbarians". This is a very important distinction. Any thoughts? Madalibi (talk) 08:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I support Madalibi's suggested structure of the article, with one suggestion: The five main dynasties of China Tang (ruler with Xianbei ethnicity), Song (ruler with Han ethnicity), Yuan(ruler with Mongol ethnicity), Ming(ruler with Han, may be Hui, ethnicity) Qing(ruler with Manchu ethnicity). All these different ethnicities have been at the center stage of Chinese empire with one thing in common: To rule the Heaven under Sky(天下) using Confucianism, for 3000 years, only disrupted by the Opium Wars.

Is this a fair description? Arilang ^talk 10:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Arilang1234, you forgot Zhou dynasty, Han dynasty, Qin dynasty and Sui dynasty.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to make sure: are you suggesting we should have one individual section for each dynasty, or that we mention them together in one section on the ethnic background of imperial rulers? Madalibi (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

One section enough

Madalibi, one section is enough, this way we know that Chinese is actually a mixed of many different blood. Arilang ^talk 07:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"Sources"

The "Sources" at the bottom of the article are actually "External links," and they're all illegible "bot" translations. Arilang: since you're the one who found them, could you post links to the original sites (in Chinese) to help us see what we have? Thanks! Madalibi (talk) 08:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Madalibi, OK, may be I put the original Chinese websites alongside the bot translations? I know the translation is terrible, but it is better than no translation at all. Arilang ^talk 09:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the original sources with links called "translation" next to them would be good. Thank you. Madalibi (talk) 09:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, will the "source" pools be "inlined" or will they stay at the bottom (question of formatting in final re-release)? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

English Please!

I ask the editors to minimize use of Chinese symbols in this article. They will be a distraction to English-speaking readers, the main audience. If they must be used, please use only classical Chinese symbols, with a format like:

... the Kang Qian Golden Age (康乾盛世) during which ...

Do not introduce the transliteration, which is an even greater distraction:

... the Maurya civilization (आचारशिष्टता - ācāraśiṣṭatā) lasted between ...

Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I support re-adding in the chinese text for Hua Yi Zhi Bian because, well, it is the word in chinese, and there is precedence of adding in chinese characters for the subject of the page. Either that, or adding in proper accents for the pinyin.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Done - I was inconsistent in using pinyin here rather than characters. To me, Chinese characters (if they must be used - and sometimes there is good reason) are better than pinyin because not everyone pronounces them the same. And to the English reader, the logograms are less distracting than pinyin since they will make no mental effort to understand them. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Aymatth2, pinyin can be very confusing because many Chinese words sound the same, the only difference is in the tone. So I agree with using Chinese logograms Arilang ^talk 07:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Simplified or Traditional?

Should we use Simplified Han Yu, or Traditional? There's both in the current form, and I think that we should decide either on a standard throughout the page, or use both. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Chinese text not supported by Simplified

Simplified Chinese is useless when dealing with Confucius text. I suggest we use Traditional throughout this page. Arilang ^talk 07:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say traditional characters are "useless" when dealing with the texts of Confucius, but I do strongly support the use of traditional characters for discussing historical topics like this one. Madalibi (talk) 07:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

South Korea(Joseon) section

I think it needs some rewording/expansion on the last part as it remains confusing. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ive added a bit and re-worded, im going to sort out the best WP page linking Joseon and pre Qing hopefully--CorrectlyContentious 07:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok done some, can i please have a bit of help finding the place showing how Qing dynasty held pretty much control of the Korean penninsula through the Qing until the Japanese annexed the land late 1800's? We could show how the resentment of the Koreans of Manchu's now moved to the Japanese i hope...--CorrectlyContentious 07:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Please talk English

Very often I talk Chinglish, but I still try my best to talk proper English. I am calling all editors on this page to talk English, so that we can all understand each other. Mobil phone text message talk is not suitable on wikipedia. Again, user CorrectlyContentious, please try to talk so that we do not have to guess, thank you. Arilang ^talk 18:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought my English is bad

Help needed to tidy up the English at Joseon Korea section, I feel that reader have to guess what is actually being discussed. Arilang ^talk 18:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I can handle English language clean-up on all content, no problem. I might add some introduction / background bits to each section - I may see missing information that everyone else take for granted (sometimes ignorance is useful). I may be able to help track down references. But I can't contribute examples of the concept. Everyone, please, correct any ridiculous errors of fact or interpretation I put in. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, however the section title is a bit sarcy Arilang, my edit states ill come back to it and its been edited since. Ill correct the English in it today. thanks. --CorrectlyContentious 13:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

No more SMS mobile phone talk

User CorrectlyContentious, what is sarcy? Please, we are not here to guess at your comments. Arilang ^talk 14:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

No guesswork needed, if you dont want me to help on this article ill happily leave it, i just thought you may appreciate help based on my existing knowledge. To write "I thought my English was bad", is to joke at anothers poor English construction. Secondly "sarcy" is to mean Sarcasm in an active sense, i do beleive its more an urban phrase rather than a dictionary term. Howevers its not Wikipedia:Foul_language. Ill update my section shortly as currently at work. Thanks again. --CorrectlyContentious 15:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

@ CorrectlyContentious, if you read talk page of Qing and Boxer rebellion you shall find out that my English was(and still is) a topic that is being constantly picked at. But I am trying very hard to improve, and I hope you can do likewise, and I do not think you show enough care when you type. For example, ill, Ill, dont, anothers, Howevers all these silly mistakes should not pop up at all. What is the use of Great knowledge if you can't fix simple typing errors? I may sound harsh to you, but the fact is you are editing an Encyclopedia, not writing your personal blog. Arilang ^talk 16:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

All i wanted to do was use the talk page to comment, its more my grammar on the actual article which i apologised for above. I have noticed your English is not 100% but at least you have an excuse unlike me and i wont pick at these errors on talk pages as i dont wish to seem condescending to you. I just tend to disregard small errors on a talk page as you've highlighted. Im well aware of the WP:NOT and its statement of not to blog, and accordingly, i will not Arilang. I do really want to contribute to this article as yourself. Hugs all around perhaps?

• P.s - Attempted edit at the English on the Korean section to occur in 30minutes or less --CorrectlyContentious 16:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

My apology for being harsh

My apology to you user CorrectlyContentius. In fact, I very much appreciate your contributions, and I need your help:

朝鲜“不忍背弃大明，凡祭祝之文及公家藏置文书皆书崇祯年号”。青原府院君沈器远准备起事反清，试图事成后“用崇祯年号，书示八方”，但事败被杀，其中另一个为首的权斗昌被捕受刑后说，“国事艰危，为清国所侵辱，百姓皆思中国，欲趁此时内清朝廷，外攘夷虏”。

朝鲜肃宗:“自古匈奴之入处中华者，皆不能久长。而今此清虏据中国已过五十年，天理实难推知也。大明积德深厚，其子孙必有中兴之庆。且神宗皇帝于我国有百世不忘之恩，而搆于强弱之势，抱羞忍过，以至于今，痛恨可胜言哉!“

Could you provide Korea reference for the above two quotes? Arilang ^talk 20:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment Confusing is one thing, that's lost in translation and can be fixed. Bad grammar is also easily pardoned as, if it doesn't hinder understandability, then it will be fixed by other editors who noticed it upon moving over to mainspace. An article doesn't need to be perfect. In fact, I would think that the current article in its condition can make it back to mainspace and will survive any AfD's (although its not to the level that I would want to see the article on mainspace as it does a disservice to the subject on its detailedness. It has established notability and provides a overview of the subject). I usually edit things I write >5 times, and I still find bad grammar/verbiage wording, everyone makes mistakes. I do agree that urban language should be avoided (neologisms, web slang, any other names for it). ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

PS I read your talk page somewhat, and I'd like to assure you that there is no cabal on wikipedia set out to delete Chinese articles . ;) Inline citation is preferred, but a lack of it won't end up on a successful AfD. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Exact page?

Can someone please provide the exact page link for "A Ming official when asked to join the "barbarian" Qing dynasty, of Manchu origin, said respecting the difference between Huaxia and barbarians is more important than performing one's duty to the state (華夷之分，大於君臣之義)" (citation no. 9) Thank you.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

@Nojan, 抗清义士吕留良曾说过“华夷之分，大于君臣之义！” Arilang ^talk 05:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay....I understood like 5% of what you said (I think it was so and so said"quote"). Again, only high schooler Chinese national (not fluent speaker) who's studied in USA since 2 years old, only reason I don't put Zh-1 on my userpage is that out of most of the same age group american residenting asians I know, I understand more Chinese than average (mostly listening/saying, I was taking Chinese 4, but I moved, and my new school doesn't offer Chinese as a curriculum).

So after reading what Google translate made of your phrase I ask you based on a variety of possible meanings:

1)If you are saying that is the exact quote and it is on the main page of Han Min Zu .com (which is what is referenced on the inline citation), and will remain there (as in its not a rotating news site which I think it is), then it is my fault for coming up with a "not found" under Firefox search for the main page. Otherwise, a direct citation to the exact web page is required.
2)If you are saying it is under the "Additional Sources" section, then I will fix that.
3)If you are quoting something, the please provide a written cite, or web cite (doesn't need to have a web page, see {{cite book}} for example).
4)If you are saying why it is in traditional, that was because I thought there was consensus to use traditional Chinese throughout the page? This was the exact reason why I asked (basically what if some sources use simplified, some traditional) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

@ user Nojan: 吕留良字庄生，又名光纶，字有晦，号晚村，浙江崇德人（康熙元年崇德改名石门，故又称石门人，其地即今浙江桐乡县西南部）。此人先曾参加抗清斗争，顺治量 应试为诸生，后来懊悔，抛弃科举，隐居著书。康熙博学宏词科吕留良被荐举，他誓死不赴，乃至削发为僧（法名耐可，字不昧，号何求老人），康熙二十二年卒。 吕留良平生抱守程朱性理之学，尤重“华夷之辩”，宣称“华夷之分大于君臣之义”，著作中处处表露憎恨满、思念明朝的思想感情。他的高卧事迹和所著《四书讲 义》、《语录》、所评选的八股文等，广为流传，在士人中影响很大，人胶尊称他为“东海夫子”，死后立祠祭祀，连浙江总督李卫上任之初也前往瞻仰，题匾颂 扬。 Arilang ^talk 06:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

So, assuming you didn't get the hint: please speak in English..........please? There's a reason I'm not editing on zh.wikipedia.org. I somewhat got what you were trying to say based on what little I know on Chinese, and google translate, but still not quite clear. I'm not saying "we should remove this statement if not cited", I'm asking this more of "why not get a potential problem resolved now?" (I think you are listing a bunch of history behind the person/quote, which I don't know if it is brainstorming, or misreading my motives....so... If this is all true (and probably is), why not cite it/the book? The book/wherever this is from is fine if its cited/if it already is, then please replace citation 9 with that one as part of inline procedures, which are preferred, no mandatory, but still preferred.)ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

@Nojan. I am sorry if I have created more confusion. What I am saying is this quote is from this guy by the name of 吕留良, a famous kind of Anti-Manchu hero, but I have not found out which book was this quote based on. Your experience on wiki is properly much more than mine, so please go ahead and do what you think best. I am sincere, I may know more about Chinese language, but I know less about Wiki rule. Arilang ^talk 12:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Even if we find where this citation from Lü Liuliang comes from, we will still have only a primary source. What Wikipedia calls "reliable sources" are secondary sources. So we need to find what a reliable secondary source says about Lü's words, otherwise original research threatens to rear its ugly head again... Madalibi (talk) 13:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I would think that if we can find the primary citation, at least a translation of the phrase is in order, since that can't possibly require a secondary source. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 15:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Doing It By the Book

When this article is released, I will immediately flag it for deletion, with a pointer to the previous AfD debate. This is just standard etiquette. I hope the article will go through the second AfD with flying colors and will be kept. But it will get fairly intense scrutiny - as it should. The best way to avoid any negative votes will be to closely follow Wikipedia content standards: WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:OR. With a broad subject like this, there should be many well-documented events or statements by well-known people that illustrate the concept. Apart from short introductions to each section giving historical background, most of the content should consist of these events or statements, with sources. I recommend minimal discussion of recent events, which are likely to be controversial. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I support sticking to Wikipedia's content policy! And I think the second AfD is a good idea too, but if we don't want to waste too much time on it, I think we should strengthen the article further. For one thing, the lead paragraph is completely unreferenced. I'll see what I can do tomorrow... Madalibi (talk) 13:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Erm, why not do a RfC instead of a AfD...I don't see why we should use AfD as a "verification process" (furthermore, aren't there enough sources right now to pass any AfD regardless? An article open to improvement but which establishes notability will not pass AfD, so using AfD as a "verification" check would be pointless.) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 15:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Could do an RfC instead, I suppose, but an AfD may be faster.

I don't think that at this stage there is much real content, referenced, that talks directly to the subject.

• I would discount the "additional sources", which are mostly very poor auto-translates. To me, it is o.k. to include "additional sources" for readers interested in finding out more about the subject, but they do not establish WP:V. That is done through citations that back up the content itself.
• We have some content with citations for the historical background, but that does not establish notability of the concept. An article about development of incendiary missiles could have much the same historical background.
• There is very little well-referenced content that directly illustrates the concept: writings on the concept itself (e.g. the Analects, but there must be more) or on events that show how people interpreted the concept.

At this stage, I would say the article fails notability. I am sure there is plenty of material out there, but it is not yet in the article. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Notability

Zhu Yuanzhang in his manifesto was calling the Mongols barbarians when he was organizing military campaign against the Mongols, clearly he was referring to Hua-Yi zhi bian, and clearly Mongols were THE Yi. Likewise, during Xinghai revolution, Hua-Yi zhi bian was used again by Sun Yatsen, in his famous slogan:Lets get rid of the northern barbarians. When these two famous revolutions are incorporated into the article, I don't think there should be anymore notability problems.
But then I might be wrong again, like I said before, I really do not know much about wiki rules. Arilang ^talk 18:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, ideally the article would be like: The attitude that barbarians had an inferior culture was typified by ABC when he said "...", by EHJ when he said "...", and later by DEF when he said "...". The concept that there could be danger from their influencing Chinese society was discussed by ... The difficulty of absorbing the barbarians ... Although the Mongol princes who took power with the Yuan dynasty ... During the struggle against the Manchu ... said "..." When the first European traders ... a common misconception was ... ... the emperor decreed that ... etc. etc. Plenty of examples with citations. A full and balanced discussion of all aspects of the subject, and all content that could possibly be disputed backed up by independent references. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That's over referencing Ayamatth2, you only need to cite potentially controversial claims line by line, otherwise, you can use a ref that encompasses a section/paragraph. Also, if you are intending to use AfD for the purpose of a RfC, only because it is "faster", that is abusing AfD. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 23:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean every phrase or sentence needed a reference. I saw my "..."s as being quite long, a sentence or maybe a paragraph or two. Look at my outline as if a new paragraph starts after most of the references. For each bullet below, imagine a paragraph:

• The attitude that barbarians had an inferior culture was typified by ABC when he said "...", by EHJ when he said "...", and later by DEF when he said "...".
• The concept that there could be danger from their influencing Chinese society was discussed by ...
• The difficulty of absorbing the barbarians ...
• Although the Mongol princes who took power with the Yuan dynasty ...
• During the struggle against the Manchu ... said "..."
• When the first European traders ... a common misconception was ... ... the emperor decreed that ...

If two or three quotes or incidents are covered in one reference, it just needs at be given at the end of the discussion covered by that reference. But a good article on this broad concept spanning many centuries should cover the main aspects: what people said at different times, how their actions reflected their belief etc. - and the discussion of each aspect should have sources. It will not be short.

If you like, we can use RfC. But I don't want any hint that we are trying to slip an article back in under a different name when it has been rejected through a massive AfD debate. This should be done in the full light of day, and the article should be very high quality, with clearly no original research. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

@Aymatth2, I think your idea is quite good, because throughout this extra long Chinese history, everyone is telling everyone he is the follower and student of Confucius, and everyone else is a barbarian. So Barbarian has become just a label, or a hat, rival forces would try to put the hat onto somebody else's head. Arilang ^talk 23:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I see the Chinese civilization as dynamic, one that has constantly evolved, never "closed" or "static". You cannot look at any century and say "nothing changed". I also think there has always been an understandable sense of an advanced civilization surrounded by barbarians. The article should present the facts about this cultural concept, discuss how it evolved and was applied over the years through all the upheavals, and let the reader make their interpretation. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

More on notability

You are right again, your comment like hitting the iron nail right on the head. Indeed this is how many Han Chinese see it. This 3000 years old civilization is crying out loudly, please, come and understand me, I learn from you, and you can also learn from me, together we shall work towards a better future for the whole Human civilization. But how to bring this message across, let the whole world know that Confucius-based-civilization present no threat to any other civilizations, because there is 3000 years old tract record to prove it. Arilang ^talk 03:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposing new section for HYZB

Different viewpoints of different rulers and leaders

Han dynasty

Han Wudi successfully staged a long military campaign to push the Xiongnu into today's Siberia. During those time, Han-Chinese and barbarian-Xiongnu were head-locked in a live-or-die situation.

• Scale of 1-10, the severity of HYZB would rank at 7?

Sixteen nomadic kingdoms

Wu Hu#Collective term for nomads, BCE 304－439, periods during which nomads set up kingdoms cloning Han administration.

One of the historical name coined by Han Chinese historian(who else?) for it is 五胡乱华,(translation: 5 nomadic tribes creating havoc at Huaxia).

Scale of 1-10 on severity of HYZB:?

Tang dynasty

http://www.chinaknowledge.de/History/Tang/tang-religion.html

“ Chang'an was not only the capital of the vast Tang empire, but also a center where different cultures of whole Asia came together. It was the eastern end of the long caravan ways that led to the Near East ("near" from the European standpoint). Buddhism once came along the Silkroad to China, and during the Tang Dynasty merchants brought Islam (Yisilanjiao 伊斯蘭教) from Arabia and Persia. But even Zarathustrian (Xianjiao 祆教) and Manichean thought (Monijiao 摩尼教) from Persia and Nestorian Christianity (Jingjiao 景教) reached China and found followers and believers. Even Jews were found under the foreign merchants that came to China. ”

Arilang's remark:In Chang'an there were Arabs, Iranians, Jews, Japanese, Koreans, Muslims, ancient Christians, all living under one roof, doing business or study, turning Chang'an into a mini-UN headquarter, so I think in Tang Dynasty no one cared much about this HYZB thing.End of remark.(Another of my POV?)

Tang celebrities of non-Han origin

1. The emperors
2. Li Bai, a Central Asian.
3. zh:李商隱, another famous and love poet.
4. An Lushan was a military leader of Sogdian-Turkic or Iranian-Turkish origin during the Tang Dynasty in China.

• Scale of 1-10, the severity of HYZB would rank at 1?

Five Dynasties

Five Dynasties: Later Liang 後梁 (907-923) Later Tang 後唐 (923-936) Later Jin 後晉 (936-946) Later Han 後漢 (947-950) Later Zhou 後周 (951-960)

Arilang remarks:I think a lot of rulers in those times were non-Han, no sure how they class themselves, Hua or Yi?

• Scale of 1-10, the severity of HYZB would rank at?

Song dynasty

http://www.chinaknowledge.de/History/Song/song.html

“ The Song Dynasty did not rule over whole China - the north was occupied by the empires of Liao 遼, Western Xia 西夏 and Jin 金, all empires founded by Non-Chinese peoples (Khitans, Tanguts and Jurchens). A power balance with the northern empires of Liao and Jin made it possible for the Song rulers to peacefully develop a blooming urban economy with new technical instruments. ”

Arilang remark:So I think in Song times this HYZB debate would be turned into top gear, because Han-Chinese would be facing powerful neighbors like Khitans, Tanguts, Jurchens, and needless to say, Mongols, who managed to topple this Han-Chinese dynasty.

• Scale of 1-10, the severity of HYZB would rank at 7?

Yuan dynasty

Yuan Dynasty#Rule of Kublai Khan

“ In essence, society was divided into four classes in order of privilege: Mongols, "Color-eyed" (Central Asians, mostly Uyghurs and Tibetans), Han (Han Chinese in northern China, Khitans, and Jurchens), and Southerners (Han Chinese within Southern Song and other ethnic groups). ”

Arilang remark:In comparison to the Confucius-based-Han-civilization, these measures of racial classification would be the manifestation of racial discrimination to the extreme?

• Scale of 1-10, the severity of HYZB would rank at 8, or 9?

Ming dynasty

When Zhu Yuanzhang was rallying support for his military campaign to oust the Mongols, he was clearly using HYZB concept as a rallying point.

Quote:Ever since ancient times, rulers have governed the empire. It has always been a case of China occupying the interior and managing the barbarians, and the barbarians being outside and submitting to China.....I fear that the heartland has long been stained with the stink of mutton and the people are troubled. Therefore I have led forth armies to make a clean sweep. My aim is to chase out the Mongol slaves, to do away with anarchy and assure the people of their safety, to cleanse China of shame. Unquoted.

During those war times, on a scale of 1-10, the severity of HYZB would rank at 8,or 9?

File:Zheng He's ship compared to Columbus's.JPG.jpg

A display at the Ibn Battuta Mall in Dubai purports to compare the size of ships used by Zheng He and by Christopher Columbus.

But once the Ming empire was up and running, Zhu's descendants(emperor Yongle) had turned into a World citizen by sending Zheng He as his embassador, commanding hundreds of ocean-going ships, visiting hundred of small countries(small when compared to Ming's), with no intention of conquering or colonizing, just hope to turn them into tributary states, maintaining a peaceful co-existence kind of situation.

During time of peace ,

• Scale of 1-10, the severity of HYZB would rank at 2?

Qing dynasty

Manchu emperors were mostly anti-foreigners, one good example is Qianlong requesting Lord Mackartney to perform Kowtow to him.

Boxer rebellion is an obvious example of extreme manifestation of HYZB. Taiping Rebellion is another one.

• Scale of 1-10, the severity of HYZB would rank at 8?

Xinhai revolution

• Scale of 1-10, the severity of HYZB would rank at 6?

Republic of China

• Scale of 1-10, the severity of HYZB would rank at 3?

Above is my humble suggestion, other editors please feel free to add comments. Arilang ^talk 11:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow

Hey, I've just taken a look at the article, and I have to say it looks good! The main problem with the deleted ersion is that it lacked focus; if you can keep focussed on the topic here, I thinkthis'll be a great article. One comment I would make is to avoid using words such as "great" to describe people. Confucious may seem great to you and I, but it's not encyclopaedic, and when it comes down to it, is entirely opinion. You might want to explain the notabilty more in the intro, i.e. is the theme present in a lot of Chinese literature? etc. Best wishes, – Toon^(talk) 01:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Page numbers needed

We need exact page numbers for the first 8 references, because we can't expect readers to go through all these books or websites to find the one sentence we're referring to. Maybe whoever added these references (which are very good, by the way) could find the specific page numbers? Thanks! Madalibi (talk) 05:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The references

I have thoroughly cleaned up the Chinese references. Now we should decide on a format for the footnotes. Should they be in full length (as most of them are now), or should we just use the "Liu (2004), 84" format throughout? If we're thinking of writing a long article (and I think this is where we're heading), I think the second option is better. Madalibi (talk) 08:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Lead section needs to be rephrased

I strongly feel that the word Chinese in the lead section should be changed into Hua, or Xia, or Huaxia. At the moment, Chinese, as a noun, in everyday usage is for reference to the Chinese People(most of the time anyway). If we visit CNN, BBC, or NBC, all those international news sites, Chinese, majority of the times, means Chinese people. In our article, Hua-Yi, is more about culture, not people, not ethnic, and not racist. I am afraid if we keep on using Chinese in our article, a wrong impression might be created unintentionally. Just a thought. Arilang ^talk 04:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we have to be careful with these terms. It's hard to make a clear distinction in English between Han, Hua, Zhongguo, Zhonghua, and Huaxia. It would be very confusing if all these terms ended up being translated as "Chinese."

As for whether the Hua-Yi distinction is about culture or also about race, I think we should let good scholarly sources dictate what we will say. I have found sources saying that Yi should be translated as "foreigners" (because it didn't really mean "barbarian" in a pejorative sense), and others saying that the Hua-Yi distinction could easily become an ethnic distinction. Both cite solid evidence. In other words, I think all points of view deserve to be mentioned as long as they're not too marginal.

What we must be careful to avoid is unreferenced statements that reflect our own opinions. If you want good examples of non-NPOV statements that are completely unreferenced, check the article on Han chauvinism! It seems to reflect some editors' perception that Han people often make self-aggrandizing claims, but these statements are unreferenced. And the label "Han chauvinism" is applied not on the basis of reliable sources that use it, but on the basis of some editors' subjective feeling. We should of course avoid this here. This advice applies to all points of view, of course. Madalibi (talk) 07:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's stop using the English word Chinese

I agree with Madalibi, this English word Chinese is too vague, and confusing in the context of this article. I suggest, at the moment, we only used pinyin Hua Yi Zhi Bian, followed by 華夷之辨. Other than that, I don't see any alternative. Arilang ^talk 08:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't saying we should get rid of the word "Chinese" altogether, just that we should be careful to explain what we mean by it in contexts where it can be ambiguous. And although "Hua" and "Yi" are ancient categories that may deserve to be cited as such, I think "Hua-Yi zhi bian" is a term that modern Chinese scholars use to label the ancient distinction between Hua (or Xia, or Zhuxia) and Yi (or Fan, or Hu, etc.). That's why I don't think we should use "Hua-Yi zhi bian" all along. "The Hua-Yi distinction" is much clearer, but even that may be unnecessary. I think the article should start by saying that the Chinese, like the ancient Greeks and Romans, sometimes labelled culturally different people as "barbarians." We should then explain the terms that were used to mean "barbarian" (Yi, Man, Di, Rong, Qiang, Hu, Fan, etc.) while pointing out that the main one (Yi) could simply mean "foreigner." We should then explain what these "barbarian" terms were defined against: sometimes it was Hua (and the Hua-Yi distinction was therefore a cultural distinction), but sometimes it was more ethnic (as when Song people discussed the Khitan or Jurchens, when early Ming sovereigns discussed the Mongols, and early-Qing thinkers discussed the Manchus). All this should be explained clearly and in non-controversial language, and of course grounded in reliable secondary sources. Then I'm sure we can do something great with this article! Madalibi (talk) 08:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You are a real scholar

I agree with you 100%, Mabalibi, I hope you get your PHD soon. This is exactly what I have in mind, like I said before, these Hua-Yi things changed constantly through the centuries, every different dynasty treated this issue with their own perspectives. But it is very difficult to put down in English, because Han-Chinese is based on Pictogram, as the old saying go, A picture says a thousand word.(another Han chauvinism POV?) Arilang ^talk 10:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Arilang. I hope I get my Ph.D. soon too. My advisor would kill me if she knew how much time I spend on Wikipedia instead of doing my own research! In a sense, translation is easy (since people do it all the time!), but it often creates new meanings instead of just transmitting the old ones. To avoid confusions and misunderstandings, we need a lead paragraph explaining that the Hua-Yi distinction was adaptable and ever-changing, then we can work on explaining historical changes. I wish I had more time! Madalibi (talk) 11:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No, you are not wasting your time

HYZB is both an ancient, and an important historical topic. Once we iron out all the nicks and kinks, I can assure you that this article will be highly valued by your professor, I have no doubt of it.

As we dicussed before, I have removed all the vague and confusing Chinese word. As you also know, the word Chinese has no hope of conveying the message contained in words such as Huaxia, Chong Hua, Chongguo. We wouldn't have this problem if we are using 漢字 ! Arilang ^talk 14:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

In danger of becoming another Han chauvinism kind of article

Main page: Talk:Han chauvinism § A blatant racist attack on Han civilization

Put it differently, editors should be aware that we do not need another Han chauvinism in disguise. What I am saying is focus should be put on the evolution and adaptation of Confucianism-based civilization, which is adopted, and practiced today, among many East Asian nations. Only then, this article will shine in it's 3000 years old glory, in spirit, at least. Arilang ^talk 05:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I sincerely don't think the purpose of this article should be to let Confucianism-based civilization shine in its 3000-year-old glory. An encyclopedic article shouldn't praise (or denigrate) anybody or anything in such obvious terms. If this is what we do, other people who think their ethnic group has been wronged will inevitably come here to start an edit war. There is good scholarship on Chinese conceptions of barbarians: I suggest we just stick to it! Madalibi (talk) 07:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Mabalibi, I am fully aware of Chinese like to call other people barbarians, in fact, I think everybody like to call everybody else barbarians. But we should also remember the multiculturalism practiced during Tang and Ming, especially Tang, which was regarded as the Golden Age of Chinese history, surely the Tang people did not regard all those Arabs, Jews, Muslim, Turks, Japaneses as barbarians . Arilang ^talk 08:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course, I have no problem with that. And I wasn't saying that "the Chinese like to call other people barbarians." I was only saying let's not turn this article into a praise of Confucian civilization, and let's not let our editing be guided by this purpose. Nothing else was intended. Madalibi (talk) 08:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, put it this way, Tang being the Golden Age is of no doubt, everybody knows that. I shall begin to add contents to the article, if I am stuck, may be need your help to provide references, I hope it is OK with you. Arilang ^talk 08:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want a good source on ethnic relations in the Tang dynasty, you should check Marc Abramson's Ethnic Identity in Tang China or an article by the same author called "Deep Eyes and High Noses: Physiognomy and the Depiction of Barbarians in Tang China". Unfortunately, the second one is very incomplete on Google Books, but these are two excellent scholarly sources on the Tang. Good luck! Madalibi (talk) 09:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks buddy. Arilang ^talk 10:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome, Arilang. Madalibi (talk) 11:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Name still temporary

I have changed the name of the title into:Hua-Yi zhi bian and the Unification of All-under-heaven. My reasons:

• Unification of All-under-heaven.(Chinese:天下一统) is both the goal, and the dream of every pre-modern East Asiatic rulers since the adoption of Confucianism.
• HYZB is a ruler's ideology(帝王思想), kind of them and us
• Song was a struggle between them and us
• Yuan was a period when barbarians turned rulers by killing and suppressing Han people of Southern Song. Mongols twice tried to invade and dominate Japan but failed.
• Ming people reversed the role, they did look at the world through Zheng He, and opened the door and let those western missionary to come to China.
• Qing closed its door to everything foreign(閉关鎖國) Arilang ^talk 08:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Finished? I was off-wiki doing some other articles, and i came back to this. It looks pretty good so far. I'm pretty sure this can survive a deletion AFD.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

An Lushan

I don't know about you, but putting An Lushan in there is pretty controversial. He basically lead another "Wu Hu" uprising in China. Check out List of wars by death toll: Anshi Rebellion is high on the list. As such, including him would incur a debate about whether Tang multiculturalism was good or bad(let the barbarians in some times) and I'm sure we don't want to go through that. http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%AE%89%E5%8F%B2%E4%B9%8B%E4%BA%82#.E5.B0.87.E7.9B.B8.E4.B8.8D.E5.92.8C Talks about how An's army was made up of barbarians and he invaded because T'ang multiculturalism led them all in!(in reality Tang militarily is not much stronger than Jin, as barbarians had psychological fear of Han because of Wu Ti at that time.). Teeninvestor (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

actually there was a massive chinese nationalist response against multiculturalism during tang dynasty, with the massacres of minorities like muslims and a massacre of jews in canton, with the stamping out of foreign relgions like mazdaism and buddhistm. they also passed a law forbidden chinese and colored people to marry.22:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)~

Story of Ran Min may be false?

I did some searching on internet regarding Ran Min's story, my conclusion is (1) There is very little official records of him (2) Massive amounts of info on him was unverifiable, or were pure fabrication. I would like to remind user Teeninvestor to act cautiously in dealing with internet contents on Ran Min. Arilang ^talk 03:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ran Min did organize large-scale massacres of non-Han people (the background of these multiple massacres is documented in books like the Jinshu 晉書), BUT the Baidu encyclopedia is not a reliable source. Can anyone cite scholarly sources that discuss these events? And can someone find a reference for the claim that Ran Min invoked the Hua-Yi distinction to justify the massacres? Madalibi (talk) 03:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

And now that I see the section on the Wu Hu massacre, yes, this story sounds exaggerated, or at least very selective. And once again the sources are not reliable: they're Internet essays based on blogs. Also, I'm not certain if the claims made in the wiki appear in those essays or if they originate in the editor who added them. If the former: lack of reliable sources; if the latter: original research. In both cases, we have a problem. But I'm afraid this kind of problem applies almost to the entire article! Madalibi (talk) 03:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Madalibi, we do have problem of original research. I think we should be thinking of deleting some contents, or try to get secondary reliable sources, before another AfD tag is applied again. Arilang ^talk 04:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:OR removed

Madalibi, I have removed some contents( which I think have problem WP:OR), and would encourage other editors to use more inline citing with reliable secondary sources. Please have a look and suggest other ways to improve the article, before someone else put another AfD tag on it. THanks. Arilang ^talk 04:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I just added two new paragraphs to the section called "Historic context." They are well-referenced, i.e., they cite several books that discuss these topics directly, and they add not claims that are not made in these books. This kind of paragraph will ensure that the page survives another AfD.

Arilang: if you delete Teeninvestor's section on Ran Min, you open yourself to having most of your sections deleted in the same way, because most of them also don't cite reliable sources, and most of them include your claims instead of those of reliable scholars. In my view, the following sections are OR or have other problms (mostly relevance):

• "Confucius and the Middle Kingdom Emperors": irremediably OR
• The lead paragraph of the "China" section: OR, but some sources can be found
• Han dynasty: irrelevant to the problem of Hua-Yi distinction; the current text discusses Han policies toward non-Han people, which should not be the topic of this article
• Northern Wei: not well contextualized; cites no sources
• Sui dynasty: the claim "Hua-Yi zhi bian" ceased to be an issue is not referenced; this is OR too!
• Tang dynasty: general description of Tang should be a context for something else; here it becomes a justification for saying that HYZB was not an issue during the Tang: also unreferenced; the link to modern Chinatowns is irrelevant
• Tang celebrities: irrelevant to the topic of the article
• Song celebrities: also irrelevant; just sounds like a glorification of Yue Fei; and scholars now think that this poem was actually written in the Ming dynasty
• Yuan dynasty: 正统 is a different problem from HYZB; reverse HYZB is an editor's subjective claim; Yuan division of society into 10 groups is irrelevant; "little regard for Confucianism" is an OR claim (after all the Yuan re-established the examination system in 1313 based on Zhu Xi's itnerpretation of the Confucian Classics)
• Ming dynasty: here what some Ming people said about the Mongols and the Manchus (as barbarians) would be relevant to HYZB, but claims concerning that are thin and unreferenced
• Qing dynasty: discussions of what some Han Chinese are saying now about the Manchus are irrelevant to HYZB (we have to discuss HYZB as a historical phenomenon, not as something we take part in); could say things about Wang Fuzhi, the Dayi juemi lu 大義覺迷錄, Qing attempts to ban the use of terms like Yi 夷 and Di 狄, Western protests over use of the term Yi to refer to Westerners in diplomatic documents, the anti-Manchu rhetoric of late-Qing revolutionaries, etc. Qing-Yuan Legitimacy debate and Great Divergence have nothing to do with HYZB, except as it is adopted today by bloggers and some individual editors, but this is not what this wiki claims to be about.
• Japan: proving that Japanese civilization was influenced by China is irrelevant to HYZB
• There are a few good things on Korea, but it's too messy
• Manicheism and Christianity: OR, and sounds mostly unrelated to HYZB
• 20th century: sounds unrelated

Anyway, I think it's better to have a short and well-referenced page than a sprawling page full of vaguely related claims. Gotta go eat, now, but I hope we can keep discussing this! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 04:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Madalibl, Wikipedia is not a blog

Your opinions very valuable Madalibi, we should all stick to Wiki-rules, otherwise it serves no purposes. Arilang ^talk 04:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I have removed contents that seem to be WP:OR, so that we are not going to get another AfD tag. Arilang ^talk 05:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Move page?

The current title sounds very long and heavy. I suggest we move this page to Hua-Yi distinction, insert redirects at Distinction between Hua and Yi and Hua Yi zhi bian, and add a link to this page at the top of the Barbarians wiki. Reasons: the "zhi bian" part says nothing than the term "distinction" doesn't already say, and "unification of all under heaven" is not directly related to the central topic of this article, so I think it shouldn't be in the title. Thoughts? Madalibi (talk) 08:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hua-Yi distinction sounds OK, there are reasons I add Unification of All under Heaven(天下一統) together:

1. Hua-Yi distinction and Unification of All under Heaven are both 帝皇思想, and they are interrelated. Only put these two ideas together, CHina's 帝皇思想 is more complete.
2. We need Hua-Yi distinction and Unification of All under Heaven put together to explain 小中華思想 Small China thought, which in turn can be used to explain Sino-China War, because at times Japan considered itself to be 中華, or 中國.
3. Many be the article should be called:帝皇思想,華夷之辨, and 天下一統 ? Arilang ^talk 09:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

帝皇思想,華夷之辨, and 天下一統

With such a Big title, many terms can be grouped under one roof:

1. 尊王攘夷: Respect, or protect the King against the barbarians.
2. 成王敗寇: Another variation of them and us
3. 逼上梁山: Any one who oppose the King would be prepared to be hunted down and killed.

The bottom-line is, this Confucius-inspired ideology do not have room for a healthy opposition to co-exist with the King, or Emperor. For 3000 years, the opposition is either Barbarians(夷), or Bandits(寇, or 匪), an extreme form of them-and-us. Until now, it is still the same. Isn't time for this old and outdated ideology to have a transfusion of new blood? Arilang ^talk 09:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

What you say about political opposition may be very true, but this sounds like more unreferenced original research to me! Right now, all the referenced sections of the article discuss the distinction between Hua and Yi, not the other concepts you mention. 成事為王,敗事為寇 can refer to any kind of political opposition. It doesn't seem related to the Hua-Yi issue. Same thing with 逼上梁山. And 尊王攘夷 is just an expression: I'm not sure why it should dictate the content of this wiki.

And to respond to the point you make in the previous section, I don't agree that the Hua-Yi distinction is only a 帝王思想. Sovereigns used it a lot, but the conception originated in classical Chinese texts (written neither by nor for emperors), and it was used throughout history by all kinds of people not affiliated with the imperial throne (Wang Fuzhi is a good example). "Xiao Zhonghua" 小中華 should be mentioned in the appropriate sections (the section on Korea, for example).

If we mention any of these notions in the wiki title, we imply that the entire article will be about these multiple topics, but that's not the case. And if we want to include this kind of name in the title of the article, we have to find a lot of reliable sources that consistently discuss the "Hua-Yi distinction" together with the "unification of All-under-heaven," but I don't think we have that so far.

I suggest we stick to the Hua-Yi distinction, because this is really what the article is about (right now) and this is what we can most easily find reliable sources about.

Madalibi (talk) 10:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Madalibi, I agree with you, it is better to stick to one issue at a time, even though I still think it is basically a 帝王思想, which come from 尊王攘夷, as oppose to 平民社會, or 公民社會.

May be Confucius had never advocate a 公民社會, since he encouraged people to 修身, 齐家, 治國, 平天下. That means every scholars was trying to become King!

Arilang ^talk 10:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Restoration of old sections removed for "OR"

Most of the material comes from a Chinese history treatise i have "5000 years of Chinese history". Some of the details about Ran Min is from blogs, but if you check "book of Jin"(available online, Guoshui website) its verifiable. As to earlier Han, Jin, Northern Wei, Sui, T'ang, Song, Yuan, Ming, Qing sections are sourced from this and any other chinese history, you can find, it is not original research. Original research is defined as making your own assumptions. As logn as you link the claims for the source it is good. I had a long debate about this in Comparisons between Roman and Han Empires. I suggest we restore the above sections, and I'll add citations, which I forgot to do after the initial edits and rephrase. However, I won't be working a lot on this as I am now trying to revamp Economic history of China.

Confucian scholars could not have high status in Yuan, if their status is below prositutues in the Yuan division! HYZB is related to Zhengtong as HYZB is a reason used in Chinese history ot deny zhengtong to say the Later zhao, Liao, Jin, etc...Teeninvestor (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

My apology to Teeninvestor

The reasons why I removed large chunks of content:

1. I am nervous about AfD
2. I think this title 'HYZB' is too important a title to risk another round of AfD. What I am saying is, any section is dispensible when compared to the title alone. If you play Chinese chess, you would understand the term 棄卒保車
3. As user Madalibi and PoA mentioned before, primary source is non-reliable source,(晋書) is a primary source. We can use it, but we need secondary source to back it up. Baidu is not good enough, we need .edu, research papers, academic people, not just bloggers on internet, because we are basically writing Encyclopedia here.
4. On Ran Min, I did read the 晋書 and 資治通鑑 on him, he did proclaimed to be King, and he did issued the 殺胡今, and a lot of 羯族,鲜卑 were killed. I still think we need at least a research peper from a .edu website to back it up, in order to make 100% sure.
5. I disagree with the Without Ran Min, Han people would have vanished bit of argument, and I think internet bloggers try to cook up kind of storm-in-a-teacup. Don't forget, 盛唐 rulers were 50% to 80% of 鲜卑 stock. What I am saying, is the Han exist in the cultural sense, not in the ethnic sense. Anybody can be Han, as long as they follow Confucianism. White hair, black hair, white skin, brown skin, Muslim(回回), Arabs, Jews. Han civilization would absorb them, and together a great civilization would just move forward. This is how I understand HYZB.
6. Zhu Yuanzhang(朱元章) wife is reputed to be a Muslim and Hui 馬皇后, in China, 馬 is a popular surname used by Muslim. If that is a fact, then all his children(all the later Ming emperors) were Muslim and Hui 回回, and it did not stop the Ming to become another great Han Chinese dynasty. Arilang ^talk 20:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Arilang makes a lot of good points, here. Jinshu is indeed a primary source: citing it constitutes WP:original research, unless we are just citing uncontroversial facts like the dates of a chancellor, or something. But even when we are citing facts, referring to Jinshu 晉書 alone is not enough: we need a juan 卷 number, and preferably even a page number in the standard Zhonghua shuju 中华书局 edition. Otherwise we're telling readers: "trust me, it's in there, now you go find it." (Same things with the "5000 years of Chinese history" survey, by the way: we need page numbers!)
• Not all of the deleted (and now restored) sections are "original research": some of them just sound irrelevant to the topic of this article, which (in my view) should be the Hua-Yi distinction and Chinese conceptions of barbarians. "China's relations with 'barbarians'" is a different topic that would deserve its own wiki (or many wikis: Han-Xiongnu relations, Song-Jin relations, Song-Liao relations, etc.). Also, when we switch to that topic ("China's relations with barbarians"), we sound like we're using the word "barbarian" as our own. Wikipedia editors shouldn't use this kind of pejorative term as a natural label. Let's stick to scholarship.
• I agree that zhengtong 正統 has something to do with the Hua-Yi distinction. My point was that they're not the same thing. This page can't be a mixed discussion of HYZB and zhengtong together as if they were the same topic.
• If we say that some act was made "in the name of the Hua-Yi distinction" (like Ran Min's massacres), we need to back this up with a citation. I'm sure some knowledgeable people could come here and say: hey, Ran Min's massacres were mostly political! References to what scholars say about this would cut the controversy. In other words, we need a reliable reference to convince the reader that this Ran Min business had to do with the "Hua-Yi distinction," not with later-Zhao court politics or with Ran Min's personal hatred for people with long noses.
• If you need a scholarly source on Ran Min, check out David Andrew Graff, Medieval Chinese Warfare, 300-900, p. 63. This doesn't mean leaving the paragraph as it is and adding a new inline citation: it means reshaping the content of the paragraph according to what Graff says, and then refer the new statements to Graff's book.
• A good example of relevant data: the information we have on Lü Liuliang is directly and explicitly about the Hua-Yi distinction, and Lü's citation is referenced to a reliable secondary source that also discusses the Hua-Yi distinction.
• I'm taking a few days break from Wikipedia, so I can't go on forever on this, but it would be great if someone could go through the sub-sections one by one and judge if they're relevant. It doesn't matter what point of view these sections express. The question should be: are they related to the HY distinction? Information on various massacres (regardless of who massacred whom) should serve as background for discussions of the Hua-Yi distinction and Chinese conceptions of barbarians. It shouldn't be in the foreground, because this wiki is not about inter-ethnic atrocities.
• To start the test of relevance right away: the Yue Fei citation is not "original research" in and of itself: it's just an orphan citation that has nothing to do with the page's topic as it is presented now. Reliable sources will also tell you that this poem was written in the Ming dynasty, not by Yue Fei himself (see Man Jiang Hong), so it has no business appearing in a section on the Song. Delete?
• In the section on the Yuan dynasty, what Zhu Yuanzhang said about the Mongols is relevant, because this is part of how Chinese conceptions of barbarians were deployed in different times. But the section on the Yuan social structure is irrelevant because it tells readers nothing about the Hua-Yi distinction or Chinese conceptions of barbarians. I don't know why this info was added, but it can't be included here because some editor wants to show "what the barbarians did to Chinese society" (just speculating, here). If this kind of claim is unreferenced, it breaches WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV (Wikipedia's three basic content policies) all at the same time.
• Adding content first and references later can be good if the content is relevant in the first place. Adding references to irrelevant content would just be a waste of time.

--Madalibi (talk) 02:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I fully support Madalibi's comments, as we are working on Encyclopedic material for other readers, not for our own personal ego. Wikipedia has its rules, we should try to stick to its rules, otherwise we might as well as go start our own Wikipedia. That say, I would urge user Teeninvestor to clean up a bit. I think this phrase 棄卒保車 should be enough reason. Arilang ^talk 07:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I restored some of it

I think we should do what happened in compariso between roaman and Han empire; first get content, then find it. Instead of deleting it, we should find the sources. I have already added some back.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The Jie, Xiongnu, Qiang, are not the type of "garden barbarians" that came in like the Manchu. The Manchu and Mongols(k, maybe the Mongols did not) had no intention of killing off the Chinese. They just wanted to rule the richest country, and get rich. Even you could argue that if Japan had conquered CHina and killed 50 million(similar to British rule in India) "China" would technically still exist. But Jie, Xiongnu were not CIVILIZED. their goal is get the land, and kill off the chinese, and that's what they DID. Wu Hu are not your garden variety. Ever read the history of the Roman Empire? in the end, the barbarians came in and KILLED off all the Romans in the cities they captured. That's what the Wu Hu were doing, until Shi le(Jie leader) saw that chinese were too numerous to kill all, so he promoted people like Ran Min to the Jie. But, who was to say that his descendants would not continue his earlier policies? Wu Hu was breeding much faster than Chinese(being enslaved); this is a point that never happened in Chinese history; a point in which the population of the Barbarian conquerers exceeded the Chinese. The Manchu, Mongol, did not even come close to this. But Wu Hu came very close.(Jin population was about 40 million when Wu Hu came in, by Ran Min North CHina has like 12 million, half Chinese, half Wu Hu). When Ran Min took over, the population of Wu Hu and Chinese are about same; thats why he had to fight lots of battles to get rid of all of them. The point is that we can absorb people into Huaxia culture, but if the HUAXIA PEOPLE don't exist anymore, neither can Huaxia civilization. That's why there's no "Roman civilization" now, that's why there's no "Assyrian civilization".

Now, I don't like genocide(and most people don't) but who was to say what would happen if the Wu Hu weren't killed off? maybe they would outbreed Chinese, and at one point kill them off. That's what happened to the Roman Empire.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Teeninvestor: do you realize how frighteningly violent a sentence like "now I don't like genocides, but..." can sound?! Madalibi (talk) 02:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I never said his actions are a good thing, but they should be subject to the standards of the times.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Wu Hu in HYZB

Whatever your view, Wu Hu needs to be mentioned in HYZB, as it is basically the point where HYZB reached its height.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The not so bad, the bad, the worst

In this case we can have another wiki:The good, the bad, the worst Barbarians, or something like that.(not a joke) List of Barbarians:

1. Those destroyed Roman Empire
2. Those destroyed Assyrian civilization
3. Those destroyed Babylon civilization
4. Those destroyed ancient India civilization
5. Wu Hu barbarians.
6. Mongols barbarians
7. Xianbei barbarians
8. Jurchen barbarians
9. Manchu barbarians

And give them classification. What you think?

LOL. Maybe.( By the way Jur'chen is Manchu).Teeninvestor (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I am serious Teen, please go to search for reliable sources, this can be another good wiki article. Arilang ^talk

Too many problems

To put a list of barbarians is to go into tiger's den to get cub. It will have several major problems. For example: Xiongnu Are they "A" class civilization destroyoign barbarians(Destoryed Roman Empire) or "B" class(Part of Wu Hu, Defeated by China). It will be hard to classify as they did more damage to one civilization than other. Problem 2: Strength of civilizations How does Germans compare with Wu Hu? According to your strength Germans is worse, but who knew? If there wasn't a Ran Min, would Wu Hu have killed all chinese and chinese are now all white people? part of white race? very likely. Just because china survived/rome didn't doesnt mean WU Hu is better. China was stronger, Wu Hu divided, etc.. other reasons. Problem 3: barbarians that have become civilizations:

For example, westerners today are all descended from very vicious barbarians(From POV of India, Africa, etc.., they still are.) that killed off 50 million Romans. But is west worst barbarian race? all the english people will disagree. Is west barbarian?

Another example: Turks. they started off as barbarians, later established the Ottoman Empire, not so barbaric. Are they barbarians or not?Teeninvestor (talk) 00:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this kind of list is indeed a really bad idea! Even if we had objective standards by which to assess "barbarians'" level of "barbarity," this page would reightly be considered an attack page, and it could also be shut down as original research, because this kind of comparison doesn't appear in reliable sources: it would be a collection of subjective judgments by individual editors. So it would be worse than going into the tiger's den: it would be like inviting tigers to make their dens in your backyard and then feeding them cans of worms. I suggest you stay off this one! Madalibi (talk) 01:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ya that's what i suggested to Arilang1234;Teeninvestor (talk) 01:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Li Bo and Zheng Yin (2001)

Hi everybody. I just noticed that almost all the re-instated paragraphs have an inline citation to "Li Bo and Zheng Yin, 5000 years of Chinese history, Inner Mongolian People's publishing corp , ISBN 7-204-04420-7, 2001"! And not a single one of them has a page number. This won't do. Even if Wikipedia readers can find this From Plato to Nato kind of survey on their own (without the Chinese title), we can't then ask them to find the page numbers for every single claim this wiki makes. Actually, I strongly doubt that all the claims made in the paragraphs so referenced really come from Li Bo and Zheng Yin. This looks more like cosmetic footnoting than actual citing of sources! And can we keep the references short, as in "Li Bo and Zheng Yin (2001), p. #"? This will save space. Thank you! Madalibi (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Madalibi, user Teeninvestor need to present more reliable secondary source, otherwise this article run the risks of yet another AfD tag. Like I have said before, all sections are dispensable when compared to the main article. Arilang ^talk 05:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Page numbers added.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hua-Yi Distinction

I have moved the name into Hua-Yi Distinction, following Madalibi's advice. Arilang ^talk 07:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Page numbers for Li Bo, zheng Yin, coming

Just that I was working on the economic history page last night.Teeninvestor (talk) 12:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)