Jump to content

Talk:Anti-Chinese sentiment

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Sinophobia)

Race and the results of 2019 Pew Research Center and other polls

[edit]

Just a point here about the design of this poll, look at the choice of countries. The neighbors (Korea/Japan/Philippines/etc) are reasonable choices. Most of the other countries are all Westerners or Caucasians. China is supposed to be more popular in many third-world countries where it has development projects.

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

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

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Sinophobia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tibet and East Turkestan

[edit]

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

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 23:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong section should probably be moved down to 'Within mainland China'

[edit]

Would anyone object? Donkey Hot-day (talk) 04:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... Hong Kong isn't in mainland China. Citobun (talk) 06:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
True, but it's part of China and not unanimously considered its own nation, unlike the others. So if the section was simply changed to 'Within China', I guess. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 10:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hong Kong is not mainland China, but it makes sense to group it with Tibet and Xinjiang under a section named "Within the People's Republic of China" or simply "Within China". -Zanhe (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Zanhe, it would be confusing to group it under "Within mainland China.” It seems we are working towards a consensus of moving it and renaming the section "Within China” which I would support. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason to do this is to emphasize Chinese sovereignty over Hong Kong. It is appropriate to show Hong Kong separately since the fundamental context (e.g. legal system) is different. It is more common to display Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, etc. separately in international contexts, although less so since Chinese have started bullying airlines and other entities into underlining Chinese sovereignty over such places. Citobun (talk) 01:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm I see the context argument, they do have separate public healths system, judicial system, etc but I’m not convinced that the context here warrants that. I think there are a few reasons to do “this” with that possibly being one of them, but I don’t think a move would confuse people. Nobody is arguing that we put Taiwan under a theoretical “Within China,” that would be completely ridiculous. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice to see a HK section that included something about the Sinophobia that Hong Kongers themselves often experience from the international community. Right now it seems a bit too focused on Hong Kongers as the perpetrators of Sinophobia rather than it being a more nuanced situation. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Missing minus signs in table

[edit]

In the table Results of 2017 Eurobarometer poll there are missing several minus signs in the last column, notably for Belgium, Finland and Slovenia till United Kingdom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.145.170.227 (talk) 06:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done! GoingBatty (talk) 02:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review on Ukraine and why it's okay to make own bold conclusions based on nothing substantial -

[edit]
In ukraine section earlier. It makes alot of sweeping claims based on little evidence or weak sources to support it. It says the country has growing sinophobia among the Ukrainian population. Based on what? NO studies, survey or research are given for the proof of such specific claims. Also stating MOST Ukrainians have sympathy to the Hong Kong protesters? Based on what evidence to make that kind of claim?

And one poster writes ukranians are angry over the "subsequent accusation of Ukrainian Nazis from Azov Battalion being sent to Hong Kong to assist protesters in Chinese state media" as if they had no right to do that. In what article or source stated that ukiranians are specifically mad at china for that? And is just arbitrary since western media like Vice news etc HAD also published those exact same accusations of the actual Ukrainian nazis in hk protest because they were based on actual facts. The author was making his own conclusions and they aren't appropriate for wikipedia. Editors shouldn't just use their own research and own conclusions but instead use only proper sources to back any statements. https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3040625/far-right-ukrainian-activists-say-they-were-only-hong-kong

One of many reasons I found wrong about the whole section is ie, two sources the editors uses were of an insignificant individual Chinese nationalist blogs accusing the nazis in hk for making trouble for china, https://www.guancha.cn/internation/2019_12_03_527229.shtml and then goes to use them as his source to make up his own narrative that it makes a large Ukrainian population angry. That is beyond ridiculous and why I am deleting such abusive editing. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/956146263 It's okay to say there are nazis in Ukraine or a hundred Ukrainian activists are supporting HK protest. Tho the latter wouldn't really be actually sinophobia. As it's nothing to do with them being Chinese technically. Sinophobia is more about prejudice for simply being Chinese. If there are legit hate crimes against chinese in Ukraine, then it would be alright to put that in here.

If others feel that my deletive edits are unwarranted - feel free to reverse it but would appreciate if you give your reasons here first. 49.195.164.176 (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your removal, it appeared to be sourced entirely to unreliable sources. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 04:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 May 2020

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. (non-admin closure) ~SS49~ {talk} 10:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sinophobia → Anti-Chinese sentiment – As per WP:NPOV, the proposed title follows the norm of neutrality in line with the articles such as, the Anti-Japanese sentiment, Anti-Korean sentiment and Anti-Indian sentiment etc. Also as per WP:CONSISTENT, it is in line with other articles of related subject such as, the Anti-Chinese sentiment in Japan, Anti-Chinese sentiment in Korea and Anti-Chinese sentiment in the United States. The archaic term "sinophobia" in its broader definition and the "phobia" against the East Asians is already covered in the article Yellow Peril. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 08:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - per nom. The trend of using -phopia when not in reference to an actual phobia should end. -- Netoholic @ 14:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Go tell that to the Taiwanese... Also be careful, you’re treading on thin ice re civility. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per usage of "anti-Chinese" in regional articles and the formulation of the other three Asian articles. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support consistency. An emperor /// Ave 18:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for consistency, and because being critical of a country does not necessarily mean being afraid of it. I however, echo Horse Eye Jack in that this article in its current state does not adequately differentiate between sentiment directed at the Chinese party-state and that directed at Chinese people. One can be critical of the Syrian regime while expressing support to the Syrian people by welcoming civil war refugees; the same applies to China. Anti-Chinese sentiment directed against the Communist Party of China is proportionally greater than anti-Japanese or anti-Korean sentiment directed at their respective governments. feminist | wear a mask, protect everyone 13:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi protect edit request on 9 July 2020

[edit]

If you look at the history, someone anonymous replaced 'China' with 'ching chong'! What the hell is that? Luckily I quickly undid it. With that I request a semi-protection lock. In the midst of this pandemic, this article is very vulnerable. GeraldWL 03:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC) Update: The person, who is anon and is an IP, keeps on bringing back his edit. Please quickly lock it, this article is vulnerable! GeraldWL 06:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC) Update again: the person kept on making racist edits. I don't want a revert war to happen. Please make it semi-protected. This IP user is dangerous. GeraldWL 14:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection is good, extended-confirmed protection may be even better. The article has been subject to plenty shoddy editing & unsourced editorialising since the pandemic, most recently the Kazakhstan addition, where the Reuters source does not even mention Toutiao or anti-Chinese sentiment from the locals. Many of the edits have in fact been trying to stoke racism & discrimination by justifying it as resistance to the Chinese "colonialists" and govt, which isn't surprising as even in pre-COVID times, the article had shoddily sourced content & propaganda.
See for instance how this compares to Antisemitism & Anti-Indian sentiment, which are both rightly focused on discrimination & racism, but lack mention that groups critical of the Indian or Israeli govt are sometimes called 'anti-Indian' or 'anti-Semitic'. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 03:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"using the lament"

[edit]
"Chinese government retaliated by issuing warning travel to Czech Republic, using the lament of rising COVID-19 infection and racism in the country."

Doesn't sound very encyclopedic. It should be clarified what exactly is meant by this sentence. More importantly, there is no mention in the referenced article of China "using" the "lament" to retaliate. Looks like WP:NOR. --217.24.224.34 (talk) 14:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. The retaliation or even connection between between the two wasn't mentioned in the article, so I removed it. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 03:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did not mention the real reasons why Anti-Chinese sentiment is rising

[edit]

I assure that most of you who wrote this thread are people lived in the West. Therefore, as a Hong Konger , I wanna point out the fact that china is using its economic power to bully other countries. We experience these kind of stuff almost everyday. They would threatening us, trying to cancel us and even sending death threat to us. They are doing this for years. Just take the ongoing Tokoyo Olympics as a example, numerous death threats and bullying messages was send to the Japanese Contestants just because they won. People from the west sometime have this naive thought of these Anti-Chinese sentiment must come from some sort of unfair treatment or discrimination. Maybe part of it is true but the real reason why surrounding countries have such negative views toward china is becasue china have been oppressing us for a long time.

I am not trying to blame you guys as I know the fact that most of you dont even live in Asia. So it makes sense for you guys oversimplifying things. And I just here to provide another experience and prospective.

Yes. I agree your point too. I found it strange for grouping Anti-Chinese sentiment and Sinophobia together. They are not same definition even though people can have both feeling simultaneously. This is analogues to equaling anti-Nazi sentiment and anti-German sentiment. My preference is splitting the two term and make a new page. Wefwe620 (talk) 2:57, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Let me correct my answer after further thinking. I think Anti-Chinese sentiment and Sinophobia can be grouped together, however, I still believe this page mixing "discrimination" with "legitimate concern toward Chinese government and their people's nationalistic view." So I strongly suggest make a new page to split between discrimination and legitimate concern. For example, Pew research center polls are definitely not how many people in certain countries are having discriminatory view toward Chinese. Those should move to new page, and I suggest the new page should be named such as "anti-Chinese government sentiment" Wefwe620 (talk) 3:13, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
I think Pew Research survey should not be included. If we want to be consistent here. Because I read Antisemitism in the Arab world and they does not include the view of Israel country among Arab citizens. Wefwe620 (talk) 4:04, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Agreed at heart, Wefwe620. I wouldn't word criticism of the government of China as "Anti-Chinese sentiment", though, this is a term that has usage to mean ethnic discrimination (see Anti-Chinese sentiment in the United States for instance). I think the content relevant to criticism of that government should be split off into an article called either Criticism of the Chinese government or Criticism of the government of China. I lean a bit in favor of the former as it's less wordy. This would be consistent with for instance the pages "Criticism of the Israeli government" and "Criticism of the United States government" (and so, yes, the Anti-Americanism article similarly has a corresponding article).
I would be tempted to take on this task right now if I didn't have my hands a little bit full. This page is relevant to some COVID-19 related content on Wikipedia I've handled and, as can be inferred from that, the concepts of anti-Chinese racism and criticism of the government of China can get tied up in one another — so hard lines need not be drawn here, necessarily. But this page as it stands conflates the two far, far too much. I support a split.
If this proves controversial, I suggest an RfC (request for comment) be opened to attract comments from uninvolved editors. I'm unsure if that will be necessary, though. --Chillabit (talk) 11:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree: I came here to find references about the differentiating between anti-Chinese sentiment (sinophobia) and anti-China attitudes (mainly caused by actions of the state), but instead I was surprised to instead find it all mixed up in one pot. - That's definitely to be separated, best into two pages, one about foreign views on Chinese politics (whether justified or not), and one about sinophobia (discrimination which is never justified).

Woah lads, you are too quick to judge on some complicated topic like this. For example all your ″economic power to bully other countries″ and ″oppressing us for a long time″ arguments as well can be used to describe US politics. Just basic search via Wikipedia shows this: [1], [2], [3]. So we should separate this article then - [4]? Or maybe you should stop viewing politics from the ″good — evil″ perspective and try to grow up a little bit? 5.167.236.63 (talk) 08:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A very simplified opinion on the matter. You say you're a HKer, but page 8 of this Gallup poll suggests that HKers (esp. the older ones) have had a history of supporting the CCP (see for instance, some of their views on Tibetan independence). These same pro-Chinese govt views can be found from polls in other Asian countries like Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand etc.

So unlike the West where ppl will dislike the PRC govt more than PRC citizens (although with COVID the difference is getting smaller), some of China's Southeast Asian neighbours seem to have it reversed, disliking PRC citizens more than their govt. Whether or not these Southeast Asians' dislike for PRC ppl is justifiable or based on bigotry is another matter (I hear similar views toward Russians can be found in Greece, Cyprus, & Bulgaria, countries which tend to be pro-Putin). Donkey Hot-day (talk) 05:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are Han chauvinists outside China, I don't think thats news to anyone. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you're not implying that ethnic Chinese (much less Han) make up the majority in places like Thailand, Indonesia, and Malaysia where at least half of those surveyed have favourable views of China. If you are, that would be a logic fail.

This seems to be creating an artificial difference in terminology where it doesn't exist. Sinophobia has been used to describe discrimination and fear of Chinese people as well as China to the point where it is interchangeable. A cursory google search would provide proof of that. Separation of article into anti-Chinese sentiment and "Sinophobia" would be creating something new in terminology on wikipedia where it didn't exist elsewhere. Basically original research since Sinophobia does not just refer to fear of China. Qiushufang (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is the current lack of a distinction which is rather artifical and makes articles like these rather awkward. The paragraphs and the sources often are mismatched as the sense of the term change throughout. The two terms are not synonymous and they have not been synonymous. As others have pointed out above, people can have a valid negative sentiments against various nations in the world. Phobias are by definition not rational. To equate the two would constitue original research and should be backed by solid sources and a motivating section. This I believe is common knowledge. I think it is also known that this is a topic that is muddled by political agendas and it better to remain factual and objective. If a move as proposed by talk was made to sort out the distinction and not muddle terms, I would be in favor of it. --C. lorenz (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any sources which support a distinct difference between Sinophobia and anti-Chinese sentiment which is broadly accepted? For example, as recent as 2022, publications and 2021 sites have referred to the two interchangeably. Qiushufang (talk) 22:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Prejudice is an affective feeling towards a person based on their perceived group membership or a preconceived (usually unfavourable) evaluation or classification of another person based on that person's perceived political affiliation, sex, gender, .... That's a different phenomenon (thing) to political dissent and criticism. To take the example that is probably the most attention-seeking in Wikipedia, Antisemitism and Criticism of the Israeli government are distinct topics (though there are some relations between the two). Nobody would accept to merge those into a single article. Boud (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's true but this article was not merged and as far as I can see follows the common usage and meaning of the term. From the article's sources: Sinophobia is Fear of or contempt for China, its people, or its culture., a strong dislike of or prejudice against China, Chinese people and culture, a fear or dislike of China, or Chinese people, their language or culture. If that is true, then sinophobia is more expansive than the definition of antisemitism if it does not include criticism or hatred of Israel. Not all definitions of similar concepts or types of prejudice are one to one matches. I am saying that I have not been able to find specific distinctions in the usage of sinophobia where it separates fear and hatred of the government as something else entirely not covered by sinophobia. A recent example being this article where someone says that "Sinophobia is the fear of China and Chinese people." Here another article seems to use sinophobia as fear of China. If there is an urge to split this article it does not reflect how the term is commonly used currently. Qiushufang (talk) 15:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those are media sources, not academic sources. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#The dictionary definition trap: Encyclopedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic (or a few largely or completely synonymous or otherwise highly related topics), but the article should provide other types of information about that topic as well. An encyclopedic definition is more concerned with encyclopedic knowledge (facts) than linguistic concerns. (italics changed to bold by me).
We could add a section about academic debate about the use of the word wikt:Sinophobia, provided that there are good sources. Boud (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The key distinction there is between China and the PRC, 95% of Chinese culture and history is pre-1949. Take for example to odd situation we're put in by the fact that Taiwanese people have a strong dislike of the PRC but strong affinity for China. Does the negative opinion of people primarily of Chinese descent towards the PRC count as sinophibia? I think not... But it clearly is anti-PRC sentiment. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you are misunderstanding me. I am not against the creation of an article which covers negative sentiments towards China or the PRC or what have you. I AM saying the drive displayed above to define it as solely Sinophobia or that Sinophobia is solely anti-China sentiment whereas it is not anti-Chinese sentiment and the reverse is wrong. Wikipedia is not a dictionary but it is also not where WP:OR is supposed to exist. There are no sources making this distinction. There are no academic debates, or media debates, or even definition debates about the word "Sinophobia" as far as I can tell because so far nobody has been pedantic or ideologically driven enough to make such a case except here and perhaps in online forums. Qiushufang (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen an academic refer to negative public opinion polling about the Chinese government's role in the world as Sinophobia or Anti-Chinese sentiment. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what relation your statement has to what I just wrote. The only time I mentioned academia was: There are no academic debates, or media debates, or even definition debates about the word "Sinophobia" as far as I can tell. I did not say anything about polling and even said that I am not against making a dedicated article for that type of content. Qiushufang (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ratuva 2022, East Asia, 39, 13 says that the US, France and Australia for more than a century have been using anti-Chinese racism as a tool for geopolitical interests, and that Sinophobic narrative has morphed into an everyday political cliché as a result of repetitive enunciation over time.... He doesn't say that racism and opposition to China are the same thing, though he says that there's a close relation - i.e. state involvement in encouraging racism (not the only case in history of that). A cliché is not a meaningful topic for a Wikipedia article, unless it's to discuss the cliché itself (origin, influence).

There has been some media debate about the Cornish exhibition at the ANU SCMP 2021, and the artist Luke Cornish (Wikipedia notable) distinguishes criticism of China from anti-Chinese racism (he apologised for one artwork and objected to censorship of the other two). Boud (talk) 17:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The debate I was referring to was the meaning of Sinophobia, which was originally in reply to arbitrary distinctions made earlier in this section. For example Wefwe620 said that "Anti-Chinese sentiment and Sinophobia" were separate categories. A later IP reply decided that "anti-Chinese sentiment (sinophobia) and anti-China attitudes" were two separate categories in the reverse of OP's categorization. My entire point up until now is that there is no such distinction in the word itself, hence the confusion, because that is not how it is used in academia, media, or other platform. The non-existent "debate" on this matter is what I was referring to. Not whether or not such and such is anti-China sentiment or anti-Chinese sentiment or whether they should be separated into separate articles. A "Sinophobic narrative" having morphed into a political cliché has no bearing on the parameters of the word nor does it make Sinophobia a cliché itself. How can "fear of China, Chinese people, and Chinese culture" be a cliché? I am not sure what relevance or point is being made here or the articles' relevance beyond anti-China or anti-Chinese sentiment being discussed. Could repliers make the relationship and relevance of their comments more obvious and straightforward? Qiushufang (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See Talk:Anti-Chinese sentiment#Scope proposal below. I can see reasonable arguments for either definition of scope, but having an ambiguous scope that can be interpeted as equating racism with opposition to a state (rather than documenting this as the long-term policy of the US, Australia and France, at least in the 19th and 20th centuries) is not supported by the sources, nor by The dictionary definition trap. Boud (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_imperialism
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_interventions_by_the_United_States
  3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change
  4. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Americanism

Is anti-Taiwanese sentiment anti-Chinese?

[edit]

Xx236 (talk) 06:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As the vast majority of those in Taiwan are Han Chinese, I would say there has got to be some overlap.--SinoDevonian (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading Article

[edit]

This article makes the assumption that sinophobia is congruous with anti-CCP sentiment. The pew poll linked refers to worldwide sentiment vs CCP not ethnic chinese people. Many people in the world distinguish between chinese people and chinese government in their opinions and negative attitude. This article needs serious rewriting. 98.216.50.110 (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Far too many statements of fact on this page reference state run media, opinion pieces and news articles phrased as rhetorical question as sources. It is misleading to casual readers and undermines the credibility of the topic to more analytical readers. I am certain there are better sources out there. The Depiction of China and Chinese in media is an example I was going to post about, but I may as well just leave this here instead. Prime examples are: A definitive statement is lacking a reference, a CCP run newspaper as the only source for criticizing Hollywood, and someone's denial of sinophobia being used as a reference for their sinophobia. Llamageddon (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ME too, the hate against the goverment vs the people is not defined properly. The CCP for example has concentration camps while most of the people is innocent. This article should be split into two with one as "racism against chinese people" and "criticism of the CCP" Rynoip (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic material: racism versus criticism of a state

[edit]

The off-topic section in this article, which started a confusion between prejudice towards ethnic Chinese versus criticism or feelings against the PRChinese government or state (there's currently essentially no distinction of govt vs state - it's a dictatorship) was started in this edit on 27 July 2018 by a user who has been blocked indefinitely since two days later - 29 July 2018. Unfortunately, later editors didn't seem to have noticed the confusion, and didn't tidy up.

If there are enough sources of material in this article to split off Criticism of China, or to override the current 'redirect' which is anti-China sentiment, then I recommend that anyone willing to should go ahead and WP:SPLIT on the grounds of these being two different topics. The fact that some dictionaries happen to interpret the word wikt:sinophobia as having either or both meanings does not imply that scholars of racism and scholars of China agree that these are a single topic. Obviously, there are likely to be some relations between the two, but that doesn't justify a merger between distinct topics. Racism is not political criticism or opposition.

I was going to try a split myself, but it turned out that the off-topic material started with a copyright violation 4.5 years old. That also puts the rest of the section under a bit of suspicion for copyvios, making it not so easy to start the split article. Boud (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder from above: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#The dictionary definition trap: Encyclopedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic (or a few largely or completely synonymous or otherwise highly related topics), but the article should provide other types of information about that topic as well. An encyclopedic definition is more concerned with encyclopedic knowledge (facts) than linguistic concerns. (italics changed to bold by me).

@Chillabit, Wefwe620, Donkey Hot-day, Horse Eye's Back, Xx236, and SinoDevonian: This is just a ping to non-IP editors who appear to have been recently (talk page 'recent') concerned about keeping the scope of this article to one topic or otherwise discussing scope. Boud (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am neutral on splitting, although if done, I hope it'd be a solution to solve the current excessive length of the article. More importantly, I think the polls are relevant here, just like how similar polls are cited in the Anti-Russian sentiment, Anti-Americanism, and Anti-India sentiment articles among others. And surveys like those of Pew Research seem to suggest there are discrepancies on favourability of Xi, the CCP leader, compared to favourability of China (e.g. from the 2022 data, it seems some Greeks and Israelis distinguish between views of "China", which may include culture/people, and views of the CCP). So I disagree with your recent addition of the WP:OFFTOPIC template there. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Precedents ("other stuff exists") can be considered, but can apply in both directions. There is a section Anti-Americanism#Interpretations that includes Noam Chomsky's arguments about the meaninglessness of the term: Chomsky is a prominent US dissident, criticising the governments of his own country, but describing him as being prejudiced against the US people would be ridiculous: so he's anti-American-government and pro-American-people (though even 'anti-American-government' is misleading: he's in favour of having a government, but criticises it based on evidence). Per Chomsky's argument, insisting on Anti-Americanism or Anti-Russian sentiment or Anti-India sentiment as a single fused racism against X-ians and criticism/negative sentiment against state X, is using this encyclopedia in a way "characteristic of totalitarian states". It's in the interests of states to avoid criticism, and racism is a bad thing, so conflating criticism (or negative sentiment) against a state with negative sentiment against the inhabitants of that state is in the interests of states (to imply that anyone criticising state X is racist). That doesn't make it a sociological reality, except that the totalitarian project of conflating racism with criticism of a state is a frequent sociological reality, but in Wikipedia, it should be described that way - as propaganda (historically, including today, often very effective propaganda). In any case, on this article, we don't have to solve the problems of the other three articles; those ones can follow this one if editors there wish.
There's also plenty of evidence that identifying anti-citizens-of-X or anti-biggest-ethnic-group-of-X with anti-X-the-state is part of governments' propaganda programs to justify war and human rights violations more generally. If we misleadingly contribute to governments' propaganda, then we're not only doing bad encyclopedic coverage, but we're also indirectly increasing the likelihood of war.
Whether the polls are relevant or not is fundamentally linked to the scope, which is currently undecided. If under the triple split (see below), this article remains limited to the prejudice part of the three articles, then polls on sentiments towards the PRC (or Xi Jinping) are off-topic, since the PRC is a state, and Xi Jinping is its dictator - feeling bad about them is not prejudice. Boud (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scope proposal

[edit]

Problem: In this version of 16:12 20 March 2023, the scope was Anti-Chinese sentiment, also known as Sinophobia, is a fear or dislike of China, Chinese people or Chinese culture. (I modified that but we don't yet have clear consensus for my modification.) This definition and title equate (1) Anti-Chinese sentiment, which will generally be interpreted as prejudice against people who are perceived as ethnic Chinese, with the more ambiguously defined word (2) Sinophobia, which appears to include both anti-ethnic-Chinese prejudice and criticism or negative sentiment against the People's Republic of China. The scope statement of 16:12 20 March 2023 makes the scope unclear, and risks readers thinking that sentiment or criticism against China as a state is a form of racism. The sources appear to support deliberate confusion of the two distinct topics by state actors (Ratuva 2022, East Asia, 39, 13). We need to clarify what the scope of this article should be. Luke Cornish (a notable artist) distinguishes criticism of China from anti-Chinese racism and was subject to a well-known censorship incident related to the distinction, or lack of distinction between racism and state criticism.

Scope proposal:

  1. Anti-Chinese sentiment, in the sense of prejudice against people who are perceived as ethnic Chinese
  2. Sinophobia, in the sense of both anti-ethnic-Chinese prejudice and criticism or negative sentiment against the People's Republic of China, and the way that states have used/encouraged/generated the prejudice as a geopolitical tool (and also fear or dislike of Chinese culture)

Please add * Support 1 or * Support 2 or * Oppose 1 or * Oppose 2, with reasons and sources (which do not have to be already present in the article). Clarification: this is not formally a move request, but if consensus is obtained for 2, then an informal move request, after closure of this scope proposal, would be likely to achieve easy consensus. Boud (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

(Space for longer discussion, as opposed to support/oppose, sources and main arguments) Boud (talk) 19:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support 1: I would support having separate articles for Anti-Chinese sentiment, Sinophobia, and Criticism of China/Anti-China sentiment with some caveats. There are obvious overlaps between the three and interconnecting points. For example it is not clear where the anti-China part or anti-Chinese people part of the China Initiative beings and ends as it affected both Chinese Americans and Chinese nationals ostensibly to combat Chinese state objectives. A non-insignificant number of its victims could make an argument that they were targeted solely for being Chinese. In this instance how would such a topic be categorized or would it just appear in all articles? What is the degree of overlap that is appropriate? Certainly many items could belong solely in one category and not the other but many also would fit in either categories. What is the threshold here? Qiushufang (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I like your idea of breaking it into three, maybe Criticism of China should be Criticism of the People's Republic of China so that the scope doesn't for instance include criticism of the Ming dynasty, the early Republic, or the KMT's corrupt rule? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would make sense to me for Sinophobia to cover broader and more general history of anti-China/Chinese sentiment over the centuries and for a dedicated article to focus on only criticism of the PRC/CCP. Under such a re-categorization, anti-Chinese sentiment would be focused on anti-Chinese people sentiment. Qiushufang (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 1: Article is deeply flawed with inaccurate citations such as using the chinese state media as a source. It should be divided.
Rynoip (talk) 09:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose 1: Change to outright oppose due to below conversation. I am changing my support to an oppose as of currently. Until I am confident that the above proposal can be clearly carried out without haphazard deletions such as by HEB, I can't condone the scope change. Qiushufang (talk) 16:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose split in general: In practice, the exact motivation and intended target can be difficult to differentiate. The language of questionnaires often do not make such distinctions either. I would also venture that Sinophobia and anti-Chinese sentiment are close to being synonymous. Although Wikipedia does not have to follow dictionaries, their broad definition suggest that in practice and in reality, the concepts are interwoven. The political situations involved here also make it even more complicated. Lastly, the series on discrimination often groups nation and ethnicity together already. Anti-Americanism, for example, covers criticism of the country, its government, as well as its people. If any information in an article clearly falls within only a narrower scope, that can simply be noted as such. Vacosea (talk) 02:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This entire page is absurd

[edit]

This entire page is Wumao nonsense. It is equating countries being against China and calling that "anti-Chinese sentiment" trying to steal the connotation of "anti-Semitic sentiment" as if it's some kind of racism thing. Despite in reality many of these countries against China hold pro-Taiwan positions (clearly showing it isn't about race/ethnicity). Shame on Wikipedia for allowing the Wumao to spread their propaganda nonsense on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.1.253 (talk) 01:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Stuff about the PRC but not about the Chinese people or Culture

[edit]

@Rjensen: if you would like to make a page for sentiments regarding the People's Republic of China you can... But thats not the topic of this page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dictionary definitions =Sinophobia = anti CHINA or People

[edit]

The dictionaries in notes 2-3-4-5 all agree that the country is a target. Sinophobia = " strong dislike of or prejudice against China, Chinese people and culture" = Macmillan dictionary note 3. also Sinophobia is "Fear of or contempt for China, its people, or its culture" states note#2 The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Also Collins Dictionary = "a fear or dislike of China, or Chinese people, their language or culture". Rjensen (talk) 15:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is we deal with the world in more nuance than a dictionary does (thats why we don't generally use them as sources). For example how does one describe the hatred of the Peoples Republic of China by someone from the Republic of China (Taiwan)? Its certainly not Sinophobia... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the solution is to cover each country separately, which we do in the first table--one that got erased and is now back. Rjensen (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Was there consensus to return the removed table? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a Taiwanese person, the premise is false, a person of the Republic of China (Taiwan) certainly can hate only the PRC due to Sinophobia. My personal family is a testament to that. Qiushufang (talk) 16:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If they hate the PRC and not China (a concept which is much older and larger than the PRC), Chinese people, or Chinese culture how can it be Sinophobia? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because she hates PRC because it is China and has Chinese people in it. Qiushufang (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, does she hate all places with Chinese people in them? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ya, except Taiwan, but she doesn't consider Taiwanese really Chinese I guess. I mean, this should all be pretty simple stuff for anybody clued into Taiwanese identity making. Qiushufang (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What you're describing sounds more like Taiwanese chauvinism than Sinophobia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm pretty sure she specifically does not like Chinese people, like why else would she say stuff "there's too many Chinese people here"? Seriously this is not complicated. It can be both. Qiushufang (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By "Chinese people" do you mean people of Chinese descent or people from the PRC? Does she for example include Canadians and Singaporeans? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly this conversation is off topic, but it does show how depressingly complicated and intertwined/overlapping this subject is. There's no one interpretation on what anti-Chinese sentiment/Sinophobia is. I don't even think my original proposal works at all and I might have been too naive at the time. Someone could easily get into arguments similar to this over every piece of content added. I think I am going to move to outright oppose. But ya, she doesn't like China, PRC, Chinese people from the mainland, and other Chinese to a lesser extent. Just not Taiwanese (ROC). Qiushufang (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its a complication inherent to discrimination in general not this context specifically, for example see the nuance of shadism within the context of anti-black sentiment/Negrophobia. And of course there is the added layer that bigots rarely have an academic understanding of their bigotry, maybe they hate China but what they express is generalized anti-Asian sentiment because to them all people of East and Southeast Asian descent are "Chinese" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly anti-Asian sentiment currently redirect to US history, perhaps making that a stand alone page can serve as a home for some of the more generalized information? For example some of our COVID coverage. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why China is central to anti-Chinese sentiment: quote from Cultural Anthropology

[edit]

Here's a current analysis published by the Society for Cultural Anthropology at this link: " Sinophobia, Epidemics, and Interspecies Catastrophe By Christos Lynteris June 23, 2020: "Since January 2020, the Covid-19 pandemic has been accompanied by a wave of racist, xenophobic incidents targeting people perceived by their attackers as Chinese or Asian. A source of particular alarm is the reported pattern of bullying and attacking individuals as “viruses.” ....The nineteenth century saw the establishment of China in Western imagination as the “Sick Man of Asia” and at the same time as the origin of infectious diseases like plague (Lynteris 2018) and smallpox (Craddock 1995; Heinrich 2007), which were beginning to be understood in terms of bacteriology. The outbreak of plague in the British colony of Hong Kong in 1894 and the spread of the disease across the globe in what came to be known as the third plague pandemic played a catalytic role in this identification of China as the breeding ground of pandemics (Echenberg 2007). This global pandemic unfolded at the height of the Yellow Peril, and played an important role in its development (Lynteris 2018). The identification of Chinese urban spaces, especially Chinatowns, as the “breeding grounds” of plague (Lynteris 2017; Engelmann 2018), and of the bodies of Chinese migrants, even Chinese objects (Peckham 2016), as catalysts of contagion was linked at the time with an understanding of China as an empire in decay. Associated with ideas of racial degeneration prevalent at the time, this image fostered an idea that diseases that were supposed to belong to humanity’s past, like plague, festered in China, and thus threatened the modern world with a relapse to the middle ages." Rjensen (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The China in that quote is not the PRC its a completely different social and political construct. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
same area and population,--and very similar fear 130 years ago to covid-19=China fear today. Rjensen (talk) 18:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its not the same area and population, both have fluctuated wildly over the centuries. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the issue is the image of China held by others and why it's so negative. The area involved has a 90+% overlap and I think almost all the current PRC population is descended from the 1890s population. Rjensen (talk) 22:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC).[reply]
I agree with Rjensen. My original proposal in the scope change discussion seems naive. The degree of overlap between how geopolitics and anti-Chinese sentiment is too significant and the threshold and difference too vague to properly separate. The PRC contains 90% of Chinese population in the world. Perceptions of the PRC not affecting Chinese people is ludicrous. Qiushufang (talk) 23:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Effecting? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
sheer nonsense. that is like saying you were not the same person yesterday and today. MingScribe1368 (talk) 16:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An anti-Chinese insult?

[edit]

Is it not possible that anyone using the term 'Wumao' are themselves pushing an anti-Chinese agenda? If so, shame on them for spreading propaganda. Given this, does Wikipedia have a policy on the use of racially insulting terms?

A deeply flawed article

[edit]

Sinophobia is a real problem. The article's preamble is fitting ("Anti-Chinese sentiment, a form of racism against Asians, is a fear or dislike of China, Chinese people or Chinese culture, also referred to as Sinophobia.")

But in much of the text that follows, "anti-Chinese sentiment" is conflated with a critical view on the People's Republic's leaders. According to China's constitution, the people have rights such as freedom of expression and the right to assembly (Article 35). However, these rights are revoked for those who critizice the government. They are routinely charged with "Picking quarrels and provoking trouble" or subversion of the state. Here's one of many cases: [4] By the logic of the present version of the article, any political opposition to the dictatorship is 'a form of racism against Asians'. This is ridiculous. Those who promote the view that universal human rights should also be granted to the people of China, are sinophiles, not sinophobes.

Sometimes, when invoking universal human rights, an accusation of disrespecting Chinese culture and its contrasts to western ideas often surfaces. Nothing could be further from the truth: Chang Peng Chun, a Chinese philosopher, playwright and diplomat was the vice-chair of the drafting committee for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. He has been credited with being one of the philosophical leaders of the deliberations, and introduced ideas from a leading Chinese philosopher, Mengzi (Mencius) because of their universal validity.

It is frankly incredible that e.g. the people of Taiwan are portrayed as having "Anti-Chinese sentiment". They have "Anti-CCP sentiment", which is something completely different: Their sentiment is a defence of freedom for a Chinese people, and the opposite of racism against Asians.

The polling data that are provided are also very misleading. When asked about a favorable or non-favorable view on China, respondents will generally take this to be a question about China's government. When deteriorating poll numbers were seen during the pandemic, the article attributes this to increasing racism. It is likely that some of this change are correctly attributed to racism. But at the same time, the pandemic years coincided with brutal repressions in Hong Kong, and revelations of crimes against humanity through the supression of Uyghurs and other muslim minorities. These circumstances were almost certainly very important in the changing views on the People's Republic of China and its leaders. Yet, this is not discussed at all when the polling data are presented.

In fact, the rulers in Beijing considers all people of Chinese origin outside the People’s Republic to be nationals of China, regardless of their citizenship ([5]). On multiple occasions, the power elites in Beijing have characterized Chinese people who oppose their authoritarian rule as "race traitors" (e.g.[6]). The Taiwanese' yearn for freedom is not "anti-Chinese". But the attempt to force people of Chinese descent to be agents of the dictatorship, is certainly an expression of "anti-Chinese sentiment". Why is there no mention of this in the article?

I have now explained why I find this article deeply flawed. My recommendation is to keep the section "Sinophobia during the COVID-19 pandemic", scrap the rest, and start from there. And be careful not to fall into the trap of yielding the power of defining what is Chinese to the self-serving power elites in Beijing. Melsom62 (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this article is a mess that honestly comes off in several parts as a propaganda piece for the PRC rather than an honest analysis of Sinophobia. I'd add that, as with the conflation between antisemitism or anti-Judaism, and criticisms of Israel as a polity or the Israeli government, it also most directly harms Chinese people themselves, since it redirects any discussion of discrimination done against them, towards their authoritarian government, and it erases their existence apart from that of "PRC citizens". LaughingManiac (talk) 14:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You posted two sources, none of which mention the terms "anti-china" or "sinophobia" and the rest of your post is mere opinion with WP:NOTADVOCACY and WP:SYNTH issues. Your two sources look like they belong in articles related to Chinese nationalism and HK politics rather than here. Regarding Taiwan, if it is just "Anti-CCP sentiment" then are you implying they consider themselves more Chinese than Taiwanese and preferring the name Republic of China instead of Taiwan? B/c that is not the stance of the Pan-Green Coalition.
And the claim that Beijing considers all ethnic Chinese outside China to be their nationals is highly questionable as China doesn't even allow dual citizenship unlike other countries such as Israel, Turkiye, Hungary or to an extent Russia. (I experienced it personally as an American of Chinese descent when Shenzhen customs officials at the HK border gave me and other tourists extra inconvenience and suspicion during the entry process.) And furthermore, there are many govt dissidents in the Russian, Turkish, and Iranian diaspora for example but that doesn't mean content about them belongs in the Anti-Russian sentiment, Anti-Turkish sentiment or Anti-Iranian sentiment articles. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 10:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, This article is flawed and should be rewritten or split up completely into "dissent for the chinese government" instead of grouping the hate against the government with the ethnicity Rynoip (talk) 21:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Depiction of China and Chinese in media

[edit]

"Depictions of China and Chinese in Anglophone media have been a somewhat underreported subject in general, but most are mainly negative coverage. In 2016, Hong Kong's L. K. Cheah said to South China Morning Post that Western journalists who regard China's motives with suspicion and cynicism cherry-pick facts based on a biased view, and the misinformation that they produce as a result is unhelpful and sympathetic of the resentment against China. According to China Daily, a nationalist daily newspaper in China, Hollywood is accused of negative portrayals of Chinese in movies, such as bandits, thugs, criminals, gangsters, dangerous, cold-blooded, weak, and cruel; while American, as well as European, or Asian characters in general, are depicted as saviors. Even anti-Chinese whitewashing in film is common. Matt Damon, the American actor who appeared in The Great Wall, has also faced criticism that he had participated in "whitewashing" through his involvement in the historical epic and Hollywood-Chinese co-produced movie, which he denied. In practice, anti-Chinese political rhetoric usually puts emphasis on highlighting policies and alleged practices of the Chinese government that are criticised internally – corruption, human rights issues, unfair trade, censorship, violence, military expansionism, political interferences, and historical imperialist legacies. It is often in line with independent media opposing the Chinese government in mainland China as well as in the Special Administrative Regions of China, Hong Kong, and Macau. In defence of this rhetoric, some sources critical of the Chinese government claim that it is Chinese state-owned media and administration who attempt to discredit the "neutral" criticism by generalizing it into indiscriminate accusations of the whole Chinese population, and targeting those who criticize the regime - or sinophobia. Some have argued, however, that the Western media, similar to Russia's depictions, does not make enough distinction between CPC's regime and China and the Chinese, thus effectively vilifying the whole nation."

This section is clearly dissent of the government but it is grouped up into sinophobia, I say this should be deleted and also the section about New Zealand also contains unreliable sources. Also, the hollywood part where "Chinese people are depicted as evil" isnt accurate at all and using china daily a state owned media source as the citation. Rynoip (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lede reworking

[edit]

The lede still needs reworking to comply with WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY though it does not seem like MingScribe1368 cares to follow core policy such as WP:ONUS or discuss any major changes. Happy to start that discussion here. - Amigao (talk) 03:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MingScribe1368, you are surely aware that all of recent edits to the lede cited sources specifically related to the COVID-19 pandemic, and they now the corresponding text has been framed as such. The cites have been preserved as has much of the text. - Amigao (talk) 04:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your approach on this. You've made five reversions total, of two different editors, within 24 hours. This is well over WP:3RR.
"During the COVID-19 pandemic" is an unnecessary qualifier for assertions like the different forms of anti-Chinese sentiment including microaggressions, etc. These scholarly articles may arise within the context of the racism against Chinese during the pandemic. Are you making a contention that microaggressions and overt racism to Chinese were limited to the pandemic? Of course, we know this is not the case,
@MingScribe1368's version is also superior by upgrading from general web sources to scholarly articles. You write that you have left these sources, but know they are part of an unnecessarily long string which includes weaker, general web sources. Of course for readability we try to minimize citations in the lead. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't see anything that was added that would not have been justified by the contents of the page even without citations. They're just descriptions of discrimination and those who are affected and would apply to sinophobia outside of COVID-19 anyways. Qiushufang (talk) 17:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, Sinophobia manifesting due to COVID-19 is not relevant to Sinophobia in general. Perhaps he thinks the emergence of COVID-19 justifies or extenuates Sinophobia, and COVID-driven Sinophobia is something different in nature from simple Sinophobia. Ridiculous. MingScribe1368 (talk) 06:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately, he broke a bright line rule with 5 edit reversions. Do note I was banned for 48 hours for attempting to preserve my own edits on another page, even though my edits were reasonable and well-explained by any standard, and the other party was just engaging in outright deletions with one-liners - clear vandalism. I want to know if these abstract, hard technical rules apply to others, or are they reserved as a kind of higher bar or threshold that some editors need to cross and which others can simply skirt. MingScribe1368 (talk) 06:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I realize I brought the issue of the other editor's breach of the 3RR rule up in the context of the disagreement over content and I was quite right to do so, but this is not really the place for extended discussion of that broken rule. Regarding your question --- everyone is bound by the rules and policies. Action such as your ban require reporting to administrators, generally. But the place for doing so is not on talk pages but on the incident notice board, found here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents JArthur1984 (talk) 15:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That rule was apparently enforced on Amigao for 24 hours. It seems wikipedia administrators do try to be impartial. The only thing to do is to continue upgrading the quality of this page. MingScribe1368 (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While the articles in question could have made statements outside the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, they did not. Here, we follow what the WP:RSes actually state, not what they could have stated. - Amigao (talk) 01:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

human rights

[edit]

No such article should be written and made available without mentioning the human right situation in China that has been constantly worsening year by year since 2015 and the dictatorship direction given to the country by xi jinping 2A02:3032:B:FD8:9698:C31B:96E7:7CC8 (talk) 05:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-Chinese_sentiment&oldid=1245976797"