Talk:Anti-Chinese sentiment

China Start‑class Mid‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discrimination Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Doesn't Relate

Some parts Doesn't relate to sinophobia snice it talks about its poltics not the ethnic hate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Synthe (talk • contribs) 2006-02-18 20:15:09 (UTC)

  Sinophobia is not exclusively ethnic hatred of the Chinese

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.205.129 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-10 02:23:13 (UTC)

Revert war

People here are strongly and firmly advised to stop revert-warring and discuss their differences on this talk page rather than keeping reverting the article. I am absolutely stunned to see this talk page blank with the number of revert which can be seen in the history; this is a very worrying sign as to the actual willingness of people here to discuss the matter.

You are all advised that I will consider further warring as disturbance and will take appropriate measures to make this stop. Rama 15:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and expand

Sinophobia is a better title for this article. It appears in dictionaries [1], has 11 000 google hits and is absolutely an extant issue. It's relevant in: Taiwan, Tibet, Malaysia, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Cold War Russia, the United States and (arguably) Canada. Re-directing this to racism is ridiculous. If we don't have a page for a species of lizard we don't redirect to animal. Marskell 19:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From the last moment I am aware, there is no requirement to call a vote for a move, especially on such a small and unmolested article as this. --TJive 15:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since there has long existed a Sinophobia redirect it requires a manual move. The article as is deserves to be expanded separate from racism, which was a solution but only a temporary one. --TJive 15:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I just realized I goofed, because I didn't notice the above template. Sorry. I doubt there will be many votes for the proposal though. --TJive 16:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename

Please formally support or oppose move to Sinophobia. I'm supporting obviously. Marskell 11:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. --TJive 15:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Role of politics/government

It is obviously the intention of the belligerent anon that this article be focused not on the racial aspects of "anti-Chinese sentiment" (hence Sinophobia) but rather the political. This is a controversial proposition (though not unused) as far as the latter term but "anti-Chinese sentiment" is far too broad and does not appear to actually be used in formal contexts as a term. Rather the article as it existed appears as the analysis of the editor and hence original research. The precise nature of the topic needs to be agreed upon to decide where to place the content and how. --TJive 16:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have thought long and hard about this in other contexts and I don't know if we're ever going to have a clear separation of political and ethnic focus in these articles. Anti-Americanism, for instance, is not actually a racial or ethnic bigotry as Americans don't constitute a racial or ethnic group. Yet it is clearly analoguous to racial bigotries insofar as the American people are targeted and not just political policy. I don't like Anti-country sentiment in general because it is amorphous and invites the political soapbox as you suggest. Of course -phobia or -ism are not perfect either but these are dictionary words, easier to pin down and verify as extant (or not).

Of course, politics does need some mention alongside strictly ethnic considerations when it becomes "consistent hostility" rather than regular criticism. Anti-PRC rallies in Taipei or Anti-Iraq War rallies in London are not necessarily "phobic" but when someone pulls out a Chinese or American flag and burns it it does qualify. In short, focus on ethnicity yes, but realize that it can't be compartmentalized as wholly seperate from politics (which is as much about emotion as about reason, after all). Marskell 16:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To me Sinophobia would be fear or hostility of Chinese people. Possibly also fear of the Chinese advancing on the world stage. Opposition to the PRC government I wouldn't think applies. Protests of Taiwanese against the PRC is even more ridiculous, IMO, as the Taiwanese are mostly a Chinese people themselves. If Sinophobia just means dislike or fear of the PRC government then I'm quite happy to be Sinophobic, while being something of a Sinophile at the same time.--T. Anthony 04:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The first category in Anti-Americanism is to "be opposed to the US government". I don't see why Sinophobia (Anti-Chinaism) cannot contain the Chinese equivalent. I think the conscious distinction between the PRC gov't and China/Chinese people by some is a subconscious denial of the legitimacy of the PRC gov't, and is POV. Pseudotriton 22:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move

The manual move doesn't bring talk which I have just cut and pasted. Admins do have the ability to simply move over the redirect and bring talk with as would occur with an unused name. No big deal. I'll remove it from requested moves. Marskell 16:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

title problem

phobia=fear

I think you want to use the latin word for hate.

Phobia equals fear or dislike insofar as it has been borrowed in to English. There is a few centuries plus debate on this and it is quite common to use a word final -phobia to denote bigotry or dislike. Beware the first rule of etymology: what it meant originally has no more or less weight than what it means now. Marskell 22:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Source this

"Many Chinese use the term "Sinophobia" in preference to "Anti-Chinese sentiment" as the former implies a racial bias or bigotry, which many Chinese see as implicit in Western criticism of China and the Chinese. Using the term "Sinophobia" makes it easy to dismiss the possibility that observers may have serious, non-racially motivated criticisms towards modern Chinese culture, customs and methods of government." Says who? Marskell 18:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs clarity...

I do not consider myself to be "Sinophobic" - rather somewhat "Sinophilic", in that I love Chinese culture and I've never met a Han I didn't like - but this article paints people with an anti-PRC sentiment as being Sinophobes. elvenscout742 21:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the changes made partly address this. Marskell 17:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When discussing Anti-Americanism, it is nearly impossible to distinguish between anti-American culture/people and anti-American government, so the same should not be surprising for "Sinophobia". The semantics here can be quite tricky, not the least because one cannot always separate a nation's people from its government (governments are made up of people). Pseudotriton 03:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. While there exists people who hate the American government so much that they boycott the influx of American items or American culture, there also exists a fairly large number of peoples in the world who hate the American government but readily import its products or aspects of its culture. That's the problem I have with this article. Chinese people/Chinese culture does not equal Chinese politics or Chinese economics. While many people, at least outside of China, hate the Chinese political system, they certainly do not hate or fear Chinese people. The article as it stands suggests that these two sentiments cannot be mutaully exclusive. 68.46.183.96 (talk) 12:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding

So, in the midst Amy Chua's World on Fire I've decided to expand the Asia section; I'll make a proper ref system later. I think, once filled out it might go like this:

1.1 "Market dominant minorities" (which is basically done now)
1.2 Taiwan (which isn't done and where we need to address the question of whether anti-PRC equals Sinophobia)
1.3 Japan (which isn't done either but needs to be here) Marskell 16:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi

Japan embraced Nazism??? Nah...I'm taking that word out of this article.--Cloviz 02:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fascism. -- Миборовский 03:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like flies to a carcass

This article seems to be attracting Sinophobes! LOL. This edit exemplifies. -- Миборовский 21:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to Improve

I cleaned up some of the grammar and wording of this article, but many sections still need improvement. I couldn't do much more because I'm not sure what they are trying to say. Examples include the statement of foreign rule "consolidated subconscious fear in modern Chinese society" in the Historical background section, and the last two sentences in the "Reaction from Chinese" section. I really can't figure out what the original author was trying to convey. Any ideas? Pseudotriton 22:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unverified Claims

"Peoples's Republic of China thinks that Japan and U.S.A. are two countries implementing anti-China policy."

I think this needs to be verified immediately or deleted. Drak 10:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

President Bush calls China a "Strategical Competitor" or something along the lines of that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.224.65 (talk) 02:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

moved from article

According to this <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinophobia>entry</a>, quote: “Their (he means the Chinese) apparent difference from local cultures and often underdeveloped communication skills have encouraged local Sinophobic sentiments”

Throughout the definition of Sinophobic, there is no use of the word racism. I disagree with the author. I don’t think the (maybe different) looks of the Chinese caused local resentments. Discriminate people by looks is racist, it is unacceptable in any culture. Maybe the author is one of such old school American racist who grew up in segregation era. It is outrageous for him to state the perpetuate stereotype of the Chinese: “(he means the Chinese) often underdeveloped communication skills”. Use the example of America; the English skills of the Chinese immigrants are at the same level of all other immigrants including those from Eastern Europe. Language and looks are not the reason. The reason is quite simple. Throughout history, whenever there are anti Chinese riots and violence, there are anti-Chinese politicians, radio stations and Christian churches that openly instigate racist hatred and violence against ethnic Chinese. I wonder why the author failed to notice this elephant in the room.

The author also claimed: “their (he means the Chinese) major cultural identity was defined during its classical period before the 3rd century BC, thus casting a long shadow for other ethnic cultures within the territory to fertilize.”

This is simple false. Although Chinese culture emphasis history, the Chinese culture is ever evolving. Today, in the US, every person is forced to say “one nation under Ghod.” Can we, then, conclude the the cultural identity of the 200 year old young nation was defined during the dark age in Europe under Pope?

As a conclusion, I think it is inappropriate to expose Chinese children to such naked and profound racist bias from wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snasxs (talk • contribs)

Moved from article page to talk; more appropriate here. -- Миборо в ский 18:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sinophobia, anti-Chinese sentiment

I may be raising this a little late, but the terms Sinophobia and Anti-Chinese sentiment seem to me to be rather different in their meaning and emphasis. In simple (perhaps oversimple) terms:

Sinophobia is fear and hatred of China.

Anti-Chinese sentiment is hatred of Chinese people.

Needless to say, the two can be intertwined in many blatant and subtle ways, but mixing the two makes it difficult to get a proper focus.

For instance, the section on Sinophobia in Japan mixes the intellectual background of 'anti-Sinocentrism' (actually a kind of nationalism), contempt for China as a nation during the period it was unable to match Japan in catching up with the West, fear of modern China as an emerging rival, and dislike for Chinese living in modern-day Japan due to a perception that they are responsible for a lot of crime and contempt for those who are economically less well off. Some of this might be called 'Sinophobia', but contempt for Chinese living in Japan would not normally go by that name, I would suggest.

The section on Southeast Asia almost completely deals with 'anti-Chinese sentiment' directed against local Chinese residents, and not with the 'fear of China' as a neighbouring great power that Southeast Asian nations also possess to some degree or other.

Similarly, the article on Anti-Japanese sentiment also deals with both anti-Japanese sentiment and Japanophobia in one article. In this case, the greater weight seems to lie on Japanophobia.

As I said above, I think the distinction between them can be quite blurry, but it exists nonetheless. Moreover, the use of one or other in the title of the article could lead to a subtle bias in the focus of the body of the article.

What do people think?

PS: Actually, I think this is the point being made in the comments at the first section on this page, "Doesn't Relate", which contrary to normal Wikipedia practice has been placed at the top of the page instead of the end.

Bathrobe 07:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think this should be moved to Anti-Chinese sentiment. Colipon+(T) 05:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i'm not convinced about the need to move. See these references - sinophobia is clearly used here to refer to racism against people of Chinese origin rather than anything against the PRC or previous versions of China as a State:

I think this sections needs to talk more about causes of sinophobia. You could cite latest chinese riots in Milan or riots against chinese in the Salomon Islands. Find the resons why it happened. The sinophobia doesn't come from the air... it has its causes. Please research better this topic. This radically asymmetrical economic position has often created explosive anti-Chinese sentiment amongst the poorer majorities. This has led to violence, such as the May 13 Incident in Malaysia in 1969 and the Jakarta riots of 1998 in Indonesia, where more than 2000 people died[1]. In the Philippines hundreds of Chinese are kidnapped every year and often killed regardless of a ransom—a problem the ethnic Filipino police are often indifferent to WHY ARE THEY KIDNAPPED? WHAT HAVE THEY DONE? ARE THEY KIDNAPPED FOR FUN???(Chua, pp. 1-5)[Not the best citation - more objective source needed! Full citation needed]. The government of Malaysia is constitutionally obliged to uphold the privileged status of the Bumiputra, at the expense of but not limited to ethnic Chinese. WHY???? WHAT ARE THOSE PRIVILIGES?

Anti-Chinese legislation in Indonesia was constitutionalized, but has been lifted since 1998.

AGAIN NEED TO WRITE MORE ABOUT CAUSES - WHY ONLY CHINESE SEEM TO BENEFIT FROM ECONOMY? HOW DOES THIS HAPPENS? HOW IS IT POSSIBLE THAT 1% of CHINESE POPULATION IN THE PHILIPPINES HOLD 60% OF PRIVATE ECONOMY? NEED BETTER CITATIONS TOO!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.111.8.207 (talk) 07:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boud (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Chinese sentiment in Korea

Since Korea and China have been neighbors, it's only natural that Korea has had anti-Chinese sentiment throughout history from when China regarded itself as the Middle Kingdom to the time when the two countries become involved in border disputes in 2000s. This is reflected in incidents like Eul-Yong Ta. There must be a section about this, but my knowledge is limited. Can anyone start this section? mirageinred 21:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever heard about the massacre of ethnic Chinese in North Korea? That'S right, it happened. And Zhu Jong Ji even knew about it

Good size yet flawed

I've read a fair amount on Chinese Americans and on that element this article is deeply flawed. So much so I'm wondering if Anti-Chinese sentiment in the US should be a separate article. One thing that glared at me was "the reactions of overseas Chinese are mixed; there has been little sign of unity or effort in combating the ethnic based stereotyping" which I believe is intensely wrong to the point of almost being insulting. At least in the US the Chinese community did have various efforts against stereotyping or racism, particularly in California. Chinese Americans petitioned for Angel Island, California to be a historical landmark and pushed for Asian American studies classes. Fred Ho, and several others in Asian American jazz, were activist on Chinese American issues. It also doesn't mention anti-Chinese people in the US like Dennis Kearney and possibly Jack London. (Granted London being anti-Chinese is disputed at Wikipedia, but it's widely believed)--T. Anthony 14:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that statement you refered to can be interpreted as meaning the anti-stereotyping/racism movements by Asian Americans are not as united and well organized as those by African Americans or even native Americans, at least that's how I read it. Pseudotriton 07:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Epoch Times

At first glance, some people will say that the Epoch Times is merely anti-CPC, but some some have suggested that it uses the anti-CPC stance as a cover-up for an "anti-Chinese" agenda. I am not saying that this is their agenda per se, but this opinion is widely held among many Chinese from the mainland, as well as other independent observers. Other human-rights organization, i.e. the Laogai Research Foundation (http://www.laogai.org/news/index.php), founded by Chinese dissident Harry Wu, by contrast, are treated with skepticism at worst. The latter organization was even quick to defend the Chinese government regarding the allegations of the concentration camp at Sujiatun. BogdanM02 06:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Epoch Times is a Falun Gong mouthpiece. I take it with a grain of salt just like I do with People's Daily. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In your view, Hong Qi Gong, do you think it should be mentioned in this article, with the clarifications that I have explained above? BogdanM02 07:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a credible and NPOV source that claims what you're saying, go ahead. But by NPOV source, I mean nothing that are obvious "enemies" of Epoch Times that would naturally try to discredit it. For example, I don't think it would be a credible claim if People's Daily says that Epoch Times is "anti-Chinese", because People's Daily and other CCP-controlled news media have biased reasons to discredit Epoch Times. Otherwise, you're just merely introducing

the mutual discrediting that goes on between Epoch Times/Falun Gong and PRC news/CCP. I think your best bet in this case is to find a western source that independently thinks the Epoch Times is "anti-Chinese" (as opposed to "anti-PRC" or "anti-CCP"), which, I really doubt you'd be able to do. But I may be wrong. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I searched around for some criticisms of bias in the Epoch Times. Most searches turned up articles from the Epoch Times itself, or else they were pages that were critical of Falun Gong and not its publications. However, according to the opening sentence of this article: "Sinophobia is a consistent hostility toward people of Chinese origin, and may also refer to hostility towards Chinese culture, history or government." I think that it is very clear that the Epoch Times makes itself very clear what is position is on the CCP, and unabashedly so -- at times approaching on yellow journalism. I will then indicate these points when I mention them in the article. BogdanM02 04:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article is still missing something

I am now in Mongolia, and I've noticed that anti-Chinese sentiment is extremely powerful in this country -- just walking down the street speaking Chinese with Chinese people is seen as a provocation! There is nothing in the article about this.

Another problem is the concept of Zhonghua Minzu. I would suggest that there is strong anti-Han sentiment even within China that is quite closely related to the anti-Chinese sentiment of the Mongolians. It is a dislike of being dominated by (Han) Chinese. This could be put in an article of its own, or it could be included under anti-Chinese sentiment.

But either way, there needs to be a bit more thought put into the conceptual framework of this article.

Bathrobe 11:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We'd need to find sources, as always. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is a problem, because we have a ban on "original research". Still, I was taken aback by the virulence of anti-Chinese sentiment in Mongolia, and the complications introduced into the Mongolian identity by the existence of the Inner Mongolians (I've heard statements here like "Inner Mongolians are not real Mongolians", etc.)

Still, I feel that there is a need to sit down and try and clarify the conceptual approach. This probably goes for all the 'Xphobia' and 'anti-X sentiment' articles. (Actually, the article seems better than it used to be -- written from a far more holistic point of view -- but it still needs some improvement.)

Bathrobe 02:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australia - Sinophobia during the Gold rushes of the 19th century and White Australia Policy

I have read the Australia history textbook back then when I was in high school. Part of it relates to Sinophobic behaviour of Europeans some time in 19th century Australia fearing the immigration of Chinese into that former British colony. The indications of which, to my knowledge, the Europeans placed restrictions on Chinese entering Australia, of which the Chinese had to bribe the officials to enter the country, and there was also a riot in Victoria, showing a sketching of a White man pulling the pigtail of a Chinese miner and his group of Chinese colleagues. (See Chinese Heritage of Australian Federation Project for more related detailed information) So, do you guys any information relating to my statements or more helpful information to add on? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.254.22.218 (talk) 03:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source for word "sinophobia" ???

Can anyone document that the word "Sinophobia" has been used outside of Wikipedia? I do not recall ever encountering it before.

If not, then I propose the opening passage should read "Sinophobia is just like homophobia, except with Chinese instead of gays. Please use it as often as possible. Jia yo!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.167.168.222 (talk) 23:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the references i just added - academic researchers do seem to use the term, at least in Australia/New Zealand, but they don't do open access publishing like researchers in physics do physics, so we don't have as much electronic access as we should have:

On google searches, you need a good pair of keywords, e.g. sinophobia racism gets more useful hits than sinophobia alone (which gets some sites about relations between States critical of PRC rather than the main topic of racism and other sites about therapy for sinophobia - they looked like rubbish/spam on google so i didn't actually check them). Boud (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

suggestions for building up references and some reorganisation

Many of the sentences in the present version of the article are quite factual, so it should not be too hard to google a bit and find some decent references.

On the other hand, the present text is very richly linked to other wikipedia articles which in some sense are subsidiary, such as:

Yellow Peril - 6 online references, more than 10 apparently useful external links
White Australia policy - 18 online references, 3 fairly serious looking external links
Chinese Exclusion Act (United States) - 6 references, 5 quite serious looking external links

So while it would not be a good idea just to copy/paste all these references to the sinophobia article, those references can be checked for their relevance to the statements in the present article and then precisely copy/pasted so that individual statements are sourced. i suggest using the <ref name="somelabel">here's the ref info</ref> format for the initial reference, and then <ref name="somelabel" /> for subsequent (or earlier) references to the same publication. See Wikipedia:Template_messages/Sources_of_articles/Generic_citations for templates for here's the ref info for different types of references.

Personally i'm not convinced that there's a lot of sense copying references from more-or-less subsidiary articles to more-or-less broader-theme articles, but i do understand the argument that an individual wikipedia article should have direct external reliable references, not just depend on other wikipedia articles to be valid. So i do think that copying some of those references in a quite precise way would be reasonable and not too much work if many people join!

Anyway, my suggestion to people who have already worked on the article is to select some of the relevant references from the referred-to wikipedia articles, but also look for independent references.

Boud (talk) 00:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hilarious Political wank here

The Western Media hasb been hidding, denying and sometimes supporting Tibetan terrorism against Han Chinese during these riots in Lhasa which remind me to Chinese massacre of 1871 in Los Angeles. Ethnic Chinese were killed, ear-chopped and burnt alive in shops. Almost no Western source paid any coverage to these facts (it is obvious that they would if the victims were Tibetan killed by Hans though).

This is in my opinion a clear and extremely serious case of Sinophobia, and probably the first open denial and hidding of ethnic killings in years in the Western world. So, dear Wikipedias, please add a chapter related to this horrible episode of Sinophobia.

I see sub parts related to this:

1- Ethnic killings commited by Tibetan violents. 2- Minimization and/or denial by most Western media. 3- Western demonstrators supporting this ethnic violence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.39.202.33 (talk) 19:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IT WOULD BE GOOD IF YOU FIND OUT WHY IT HAPPENED, WHAT HAN CHINESE HAS DONE TO TIBETEANS BEFORE AND WHAT ARE THEY DOING THERE IN TIBET (I THINK THEY SHOULDN"T BE THERE...)!!! AND WRITE ABOUT IT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.111.8.207 (talk) 07:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Nazis claimed that Jewish had done terrible things to Germany too, right? Should we exclude stuff related to Nazism in Antisemitism article then? Seems like you are the typical sinophobe supporting ethnic violence against random Han citizens just by what their gov is said to have done. Disgusting and typical nowadays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.39.202.33 (talk) 07:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"IT WOULD BE GOOD IF YOU FIND OUT WHY IT HAPPENED,WHAT HAN CHINESE HAS DONE TO TIBETEANS BEFORE AND WHAT ARE THEY DOING THERE IN TIBET (I THINK THEY SHOULDN"T BE THERE...)!!! AND WRITE ABOUT IT."

You could say anti the Chinese goverment, but never say about anti Chinese people,it's not fair to against any innocent Han people. Yes it's ture that Han Chinese are the majority in the gov,but the gov is always the gov,and sometimes it doesn't stand for the most people,just like any other govs, who can say Americans that lead a high standard life don't wanna kill Bush????? And who can say thier gov always thinks about their people all the time?????

Here is a wisdom , when you say something about others, first get the stuff clearly,really understand what will you talk about,and don't give the shit! And i don't know where are you from, Why don't you say "IT WOULD BE GOOD IF YOU FIND OUT WHY IT HAPPENED, WHAT WESTERN FORCES HAVE DONE TO MIDDLE EAST PEOPLE AND WHAT ARE THEY DOING THERE "?)

"(I THINK THEY SHOULDN"T BE THERE...)!!! "------I AGREE WITH YOU !!!BUT PLEASE SAY IT TO BRITISH AND AMERICAN FIRST,WHO EVER INVADERED ASAIN COUNTRIES!!!!

So, killing innocents in Lhasa, burning girls alive in their shops, etc, is right because of what the Chinese gov is supposed to have done in Tibet??? Isn't that the argument used to justify 90% of crimes against humanity? I know that in general the West (both media, people and govs) is supporting that ethnic violence morally, but Wikipedia is supposed to be independent. Therefore, the attempted pogrom against non Tibetans happened in Lhasa as well as the moral support given by most Western media and govs MUST be recorded in this article. If there were a pogrom of Jewish residents in some Arab coutnry and the Arab media and govs offered moral support to those who committed it as well as their spiritual leader of course we would include that episode in Antisemitism article (I hope so), right? Same here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.36.200.199 (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page-style writing in Sinophobia#Southeast Asia

The following was plucked from the Sinophobia#Southeast Asia section at the end of the section's body of text, obviously requiring a move here:

AGAIN NEED TO WRITE MORE ABOUT CAUSES - WHY ONLY CHINESE SEEM TO BENEFIT FROM ECONOMY? HOW DOES THIS HAPPENS? HOW IS IT POSSIBLE THAT 1% of CHINESE POPULATION IN THE PHILIPPINES HOLD 60% OF PRIVATE ECONOMY? NEED BETTER CITATIONS TOO!!!

The tone of the comment alone sort of turned me off helping any further. - Two hundred percent (talk) 03:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International Relations

Changed

There is a new level of resentments from the other victim countries of globalization in competition of labor intensive manufacturing base. Many countries have experienced drastic loss of economic competitiveness as more manufacturing facilities are being relocated into China for its self-reliance, stable labor supply and favorable government policies.

to the following in an effort to reduce appearance of bias.

As a result of globalization, many countries have experienced drastic loss of economic competitiveness as more manufacturing facilities are being relocated into China for its self-reliance, stable labor supply and favorable government policies. For this reason, there is a growing level of resentment toward China in these countries.

Harry1717 (talk) 06:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1917 quote

I came across this striking quote but it didn't quite fit into the article:

“

Nowhere in the world do ducks fly thicker in autumn than over the marshlands rimming the Yangtze River. Not so many years ago, so the story runs, Admiral Train took his flagship up-river from Shanghai in the golden Chinese October, combining sport with the performance of his patrol duty. Somewhere up-stream west of Nanking they dropped anchor and the Admiral and his flag officers and his guests with their guns disembarked and went ashore. To their huge disappointment the first day's bag was poor.

They got only twenty-eight ducks, but they did get two Chinamen, and on the following morning the widows of the two Chinamen came on board, lamenting and seeking compensation. This episode occurred, as I said, not so many years ago, but it was under the Empire, and after prolonged negotiations the Admiral settled with the widows at eight dollars Mex. per deceased. And all along the China coast and through the river ports a howl went up from the British because the Americans were raising the price of Chinamen.

”

— "The Quick And The Dead On The Border", The World's Work XXXIII:5 March, 1917

(emphasis mine)

Copy edit August 2008

I am currently copy editing the article per the copyedit tag. Notes below

Removal of chunks of unsourced material

Most of these have been removed because I feel they are irrelevant to the article; I may copy relevant material from here to replace in the text.

Historical background of Sinophobic sentiments

Han Chinese society showed signs of declining vitality in both military ambition and individual creativity during the 17th to early 20th century. Even though the Hans possess a highly heterogeneous and ever-evolving ethnic identity, their major cultural identity was defined during its Han and Tang dynasties, thus casting a long shadow over other ethnic cultures within the Chinese territory. A few major military successes in subduing China proper by European powers further consolidated subconscious fear in Chinese society. Industrial revolution had a shocking impact on Chinese society, under Manchu rule. Growing resentment from the outside world against the general values of Chinese society since the successful Western colonization or Westernization in the surrounding countries had left the large empire unconquered but deeply isolated. The pan-Chinese Sinosphere including Japan, Korea, and Vietnam had successively taken opportunities to wean themselves from Manchurian influence as the Manchu dynasty started losing power due to enroaching European powers; some nations including Japan had employed cultural repellent sentiments to quicken their own cultural advancement. By the end of the 19th century, the internal chaos of China in both civil life and the Manchu regime reached the point of dysfunction, quickly giving rise to the popularization of negative images of the Chinese as having a corrupt and undesirable state of living. That was done both overseas by Chinese export of coastal farmers as laborers, and in China proper by the adaptation of Western elitism.

The 20th century has seen China struggling to define itself in successive panic reactions to its social dysfunction and world isolation, with the overthrowing of the Qing Dynasty, and several major conflicts both within and without: the Xinhai Revolution, the Northern Expedition, the Second Sino-Japanese War, the Chinese Civil War, the Korean War and the Vietnam War. After the Chinese Civil War, Communism gained a stronger foothold and ruled the country since 1949. With the crumbling down of communist ideologies, social dysfunction resurfaced in the 1980s, giving rise to another wave of negative sentiments and China-bashing; however, economic and political reforms of the 1980s have greatly improved the attitude of Western nations toward China, while its growing status as a contending power to the U.S. is a source of some discontent. -Samuel Tan 14:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]