Talk:Sinocentrism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Pro Chinese[edit]

There is a dispute from a user - Ross Monroe - that the new map is too Pro-Chinese. Please be objective and separate between facts and political view. We are not here to have a debate between Pro-PRC and Anti-PRC. I am not associated with either PRC, ROC, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, etc. Durianlover1 (talk) 03:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


Zhongguo is the light which all the others flicker around like dazzled flies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.120.18.136 (talk) 04:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup[edit]

I've cleaned up the page, but that doesn't necessarily make it totally accurate or acceptable to everyone! This is Wikipedia. If you can contribute, by all means do so. The article is not much more than a stub at present and a good historian should be able to flesh it out and, more importantly, correct any errors of perception or fact. Bathrobe 11 August 2005

Having looked around a bit more, there seem to be some major questions about 'Sinocentrism'. It is popular in Japan to perceive China in terms of Sinocentrism but the ubiquity of the perception does not prove that it is true. The article needs to be heavily rewritten. Bathrobe 19 August 2005
These two paragraphs are really too broad brush:
"In ancient times, the Chinese Empire regarded itself as the only civilization in the world; the Emperor of China was regarded as the only legitimate Emperor of the entire world (天下); and Chinese civilization, distinguished by its Confucian codes of morality and propriety, as the only civilization in the world. Non-Chinese peoples and states were either tributary states subservient to and in awe of the Chinese Empire and civilization, or they were barbarians refusing morality, propriety, and enlightenment.
""Politically, Sinocentrism was a concept of international relations adopted by dynasties of China in their relations with other countries, particularly in East Asia but also theoretically the entire world. Surrounding countries such as Japan, Korea, and Vietnam were regarded as 'vassals' of China and relations between the Chinese Empire and these peoples were interpreted as tributary relationships under which these countries offered tribute (朝貢) to the Chinese Emperor."
There is a need to refine the concepts. This might include a treatment of exactly how China classified its relations with "barbarians" and "vassals". I believe there were various degrees and gradations of relationship. Can anyone fill in this information? Bathrobe 05:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Sinocentrism in language[edit]

I think this article could benefit from a section about how Sinocentrism is reflected in the Chinese language. Terms such as "Zhōngguó" (Middle Nation), "all under heaven" reflect the Chinese belief that they are the center of the world. The terms they use for the "barbarians" around them also reflect this: 蠻 (southern barbarians - used in phrases such as 野蠻 - barbarous, savage), 夷 (another barbarian tribe), etc. I'm sure they have other terms, but my Chinese is limited (i.e. nonexistent). DHN 17:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The terms can be found in the Wikipedia article barbarian. Here's what it says:
The Chinese (Han Chinese) of the Chinese Empire regarded the Xiongnu, Tatars, Turks, Mongols, Jurchen, Manchu, and Europeans as barbaric. The Chinese used different terms for barbarians from different directions of the compass. Those in the east were called Dongyi (东夷), those in the west were called Xirong (西戎), those in the south were called Nanman (南蛮), and those in the north were called Beidi (北狄). However, despite the conventional translation of such terms (especially 夷) as 'barbarian', in fact it is possible to translate them simply as 'outsider' or 'stranger', with far less offensive cultural connotations. The use of the translation 'barbarian' may have been a deliberate attempt by European powers to justify their policies against China.--Yuje 00:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if the term 野蠻 is still used in modern Chinese. Ironically, the term for "Southern barbarians" is used in Vietnamese: dã man, man rợ (savage, barbarous). DHN 06:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is, and also in Japanese, too! Bathrobe 07:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, 野蠻 is still used on modern Chinese, as an expression meaning "unreasonable" or "aggressive". For example, if someone shoves his way ahead of you in a line, you might say that person was very 野蠻. --Yuje (talk) 14:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
The Han chauvinism article also has something to say about it:
  • "Nanman" (南蛮) – literally barbarians of the South - referring to other ethnic groups in today's South China, Southwestern China, and Indo-China.
  • "Xirong" (西戎) – originally an ancient ethnic group (Rong), this term was later used to refer to all non-Han ethnic groups in today's Northwestern China, who were mostly nomadic horsemen,
  • "Beidi" (北狄) – originally an ancient ethnic group (Di), this term was later used to refer to all non-Han ethnic groups in today's Northern China, Mongolia, and Siberia, especially those who lived beyond the Great Wall.
  • "Dongyi" (东夷) – literally barbarians of the East, referring to ancient ethnic groups who lived in today's Eastern China, including groups which have now been assimilated into the Han nationality. The "Dongyi" are said to form the main part of the Han nationality today. (According to Japanese sources, the term has in modern times been used occasionally to refer to the peoples of Manchuria, Korea, and Japan.1)

Apparently, three of them in some distant past referred to actual ethnic groups, but acquired negative connotations and came to a generic term (like Tartars and Huns in English, I suppose)--Yuje 21:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Another Vietnamese word that has "man" in it is khai man (false testimony, perjury). I'm not sure if it came from this man or some other man. DHN 15:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I think it probably came from another man -- maybe 瞒? Bathrobe 06:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
A word "Dongyi" (东夷, 東夷) has been used to mention "barbarians" in east including Japan. You can find it in "三國志魏書東夷傳倭人條" which is thought to be written in 3rd century. "三國志魏書東夷傳" describes 东夷(=東夷) and "倭人條", which is part of "倭人條", describes Japanese at the time. -- 24.61.43.160 (talk) 22:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, something could be added about Sinocentrism in language, both words for the "centre" and words for "barbarians" of the four directions of the compass. There is also a discussion of the word "Zhongguo" at the article on China that contains useful points.

Bathrobe 00:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I think a distinction should be made clarified between ancient and modern Chinese. The terms that DHN refer originated around the time of the Spring and Autumn Period, before even the Roman Empire. The words exist, but have as little relevance to modern-day Chinese as Chinese honorifics do. The modern day usage of "tianxia" means the whole world, for example, the phrase "tianxia taiping" means "perpetual peace under all of heaven", ie world peace. While China is still referred to as Zhongguo, no one in their right mind would argue that modern people consciously think of themselves as being the center of the universe everytime they call themselves Chinese (zhongguo) any more than British are necessarily considerered heroic (yingguo), Americans beautiful (meiguo), or French lawful (faguo). A lack of such a mention could mislead non-Chinese speakers like DHN to believe this is still reflected in the modern Chinese language. --Yuje 09:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I think the comparision of the Chinese name of East Asian countries with European ones is specious. European names are transliterations designed to sound like the original name, while East Asian names have concrete meanings. If I remember correctly, America and England are each transliterated with three syllables that are meaningless if taken together. The modern names are just shortened version of those transliterations. DHN 15:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Notwithstanding that the characters chosen usually have neutral or positive connotations, the derivation is relevent only to those who know the etymology. Allow me to use a Chinese example instead, then. The name for Tianjin literally means "Celestial Ford", referring to when some emperor crossed it. However, how well known is this etymology, though? Do people think they're visiting heaven every time they visit the city because this meaning is reflected in the langauge? Or do people think of Tianjin as just Tianjin, a city in China? There's a difference between etymology of how words derive, and the actual meaning of words. I would argue that the continued usage of the name Zhongguo isn't sinocentric.Yuje 22:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this is true, although historically there is a case for saying that this awareness existed in ancient China. As to whether there is no modern consciousness, I wonder if there is still not some residual consciousness, if not in a positive sense then in a negative one. I have a suspicion (and I could be wrong) that resentment at Japanese use of 'Shina' was at least partly caused by the refusal to use 'Zhongguo'. And the Japanese didn't want to use 'Chugoku' precisely because they didn't accept the implication that China was the 'Central Country'. Still, this is perhaps rather slim evidence. Bathrobe 10:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The very use of the name Zhongguo instead of 漢國 or 支那 is ethnocentric innately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.43.217.70 (talk) 03:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Burma[edit]

- I've changed Burma to Myanmar and replaced the adjective Burmese with the adjective Myanma as explained by the article Explanation of the names of Burma/Myanmar 2 April 2006

Ancient Greece[edit]

Actually, the concept of sinocentrism is much more complex than bragging rights or spheres of wealth, power and political influence. It's quite hard to explain but if one was to compare how some people view sinocentrism, the closest but not entirely accurate comparison in a western perspective would be how the Ancient Greek and Roman Civilization influenced their surrounding neighbors. Also, the vassel states and tribute system was seen as a symbolic statement of respect, not necessarily of viewing the chinese nation as being superior to others. Although there are obvious notions of the euphoric superiority complex among the ancient chinese at the time, the system of subjecating their neighbors could not fully explain the sophisticated network of foreign relations between ancient china and its neighbors. The Chinese culture is extremly diverse, and even to this day, a geographical distance of 10 km in one area of China will show some distant heritage unique to the area. One can not simply state that this is how an entire nation thought about other nation-states without realizing that the opinions derived from only a small group of people who most likely have power.

Sinocentrism in North East Asian Diplomacy[edit]

It seems like there is no exact Chinese translation of the English term "Sinocentrism". I suggest to use the term 上国主义. Few years ago a series of books containing verious articles in Tang Dynasty were published in China. One book is on SInicentrism in North East Asian Diplomacy, and contains series of articles by Japanese, Korean and Chinese scholars on this topic. The different countries were competing the usage of 上国 or 小中华 when they addressed other. It would give a better understanding of this concept. Another is the comparison of the European countries, particularly the Byzantine Empire, Holy Roman Empire, and the later Ottoman EMpire, France, Great Britain and Russia to claim as direct lineage of the Roman Empire. - Karolus

Please leave time stamp. There are 中国中心主义 and 华夷 concept(culture and barbarian) in China. Of course Culture means 中华's (Chinese) 华 (culture). Seeing 上国主义 is seldom in Asia. And each country had different views toward "Sinocentrism" or "Chinese dynasty". Not every counties wanted to look up China and followed China imperatively, as Japan and Vietnam. --221.191.22.252 (talk) 04:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Please leave your name. Japan and Vietnam did use extensively 上国主义 when they deal with the Ainu people in northern Honshu and Hokkaido, the Bohai kingdom in 8th to 10th century, and the kingdoms of Chanpa (a Muslim state) and Cambodia in SE Asia up till today. Karolus 20080407 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.190.32.7 (talk) 21:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
"上国主义" is never used in Japanese language, they use "中華思想", which is supposed to be spelled "中华思想" in contemporary Chinese, instead. --24.61.43.160 (talk) 23:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Somebody get the article straight![edit]

The first part pretty summed up sinocentrism a inciting Anti-Chinesee sentiment and the last part concluded that sinocentrism is the real deal. I know more than one people wrote it, but can somebody at least try to make it coherent?

If talking about "Sinocentrism", how come Nepal, Burma, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, Russian Maritime province and Phillipine are not incorporated into the map?

Am I the only one who thinks...[edit]

...The opening to this article is biased. The opening as it stand consists of a definition a short paragraph long and then three paragraphs of why sinocentrism is wrong. This appears to be undue weight, and I suggest that it be toned down to a paragraph or so long or moved out of the intro.Lehi 10:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

No you are not. LeighvsOptimvsMaximvs 00:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
If there are no further objections than these three paragraphs shall be removed.Lehi 20:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Citations needed[edit]

  • Chinese contribution to the development of water borne sewage

"July 26, 2000 BEIJING (Reuters) - China has flushed Britain's claims to have invented the water closet down the pan with the discovery of a 2,000-year-old toilet complete with running water, a stone seat and a comfortable armrest.

Archaeologists found the antique latrine in the tomb of a king of the Western Han Dynasty (206 BC to 24 AD), who believed his soul would need to enjoy human life after death, the official Xinhua news agency said on Wednesday.

"This top-grade stool is the earliest of its kind ever discovered in the world, meaning that the Chinese used the world's earliest water closet which is quite like what we are using today," Xinhua quoted the archaeologists' report as saying.

    • This constant harping back to ancient Chinese civilisation to prove that China invented everything before everyone else did is a symptom of Sinocentrism, not a proof that it is justified. Whether it is a case of standing up to bullying by the West, or an expression of Chinese ethnic pride, this is a 'mentality' and is part and parcel of the complex called 'Sinocentrism'.
    • There is a strong historical background to Sinocentrism, and that is the pretensions to superiority by Confucian ideology. This ideology was used to justify the assimilation of surrounding inferior cultures to the Chinese way. There is no doubt that it took place in border areas like Guangxi, which gradually converted the locals to a Chinese view of civilisation. It is probably no accident that the Vietnamese wielded their Confucianism to assert their superiority to the other peoples of southeast Asia.

"It was a great invention and a symbol of social civilization of that time," Xinhua said." source of material above Gregorydavid 08:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

"Bartholomeu Dias, also called Bartholomew Diaz, was a Portuguese navigator whose discovery in 1488 of the Cape of Good Hope showed Europeans there was a feasible route to India around the storm-driven southern tip of Africa. He also discovered for Europe the south-east trade winds and the westerlies to the west and south of South Africa, thus establishing the wind system for those who sailed after him. King João II of Portugal financed Dias’s expedition. Dias took part in Cabral's expedition that discovered Brazil, but Dias’s ship sank during a storm. It is very unlikely that Dias was, in fact, the first mariner to round the Cape. The great merchant traders of antiquity: the Phoenicians, Egyptians, Greeks, Arabs, Chinese and Indians — all made journeys down the west and east African coasts, and one expedition went right around the continent."

South African History Online Gregorydavid 08:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Lets give it a try.. Gregorydavid 07:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

See: Debate about chinese Gregorydavid 11:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this Sinocentrism or Han Chauvinism?[edit]

When Ming Taizu said:

Ever since ancient times, rulers have governed the empire. It has always been a case of China occupying the interior and managing the barbarians, and the barbarians being outside and submitting to China. There was no such thing as barbarians occupying China and governing the empire. From the time the Song fortunes declined, the Yuan was created by northern barbarians entering and residing in China. As for our Chinese people, it must be that Heaven's will is that we Chinese should pacify them. How could the barbarians rule them? I fear that the heartland has long been stained with the stink of mutton and the people are troubled. Therfore I have led forth armies to make a clean sweep. My aim is to chase out the Mongol slaves, to do away with anarchy and assure the people of their safety, to cleanse China of shame."

Was he being Sinocentric or Han Chauvinist? Bathrobe 05:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps he was being neither Sinocentric, nor Han Chauvinist, but instead nationalist? It reads like a reaction against rule of China by outsiders. --Yuje 07:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I put up the quote because it seems to me the second section of the article detailing the differences between 'sinocentrism', 'han chauvinism', etc. draws overly fine distinctions. It seems to me that the founder of the Ming dynasty, who was apparently noted for his ethnocentrism, was in the terms of his time both 'Han chauvinist' and 'sinocentric'. The paradigm that he is giving voice to is one of sinocentrism because he places China above surrounding peoples, and Han chauvinist (in modern-day terms) because the China that he envisages is one ruled by "Chinese", not by barbarians.
The second section of the sinocentrism article takes for granted the modern-day concept of Zhonghua Minzu, whereby the 'barbarians' are accepted into the Chinese fold, but this was clearly not the paradigm that Ming Taizu embraced when he made that statement. I have long felt that whatever validity the Zhonghua Minzu concept may have in modern China, its projection back into history is a kind of historical revisionism. That is why I am not very happy with the second section of the article.
Of course, that does not mean that I accept the projection of modern ethnic consciousness back into history, either. That would also be a kind of "historical revisionism" based on nationalism. But I still feel that sinocentrism should encompass more than simply the tribute system, which was merely its political incarnation.
Sinocentrism is an article that could have immense depth. I am still looking forward to Yuje's rewriting the article to make it a bit more accurate, reliable, and less POV! Bathrobe 07:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I tried to make an effort at it, but the issue is a complex one, given the multitude of opinions and views that spanned the history, as well as the many modern opinions and of course the governments involved. When I tried to piece these together to describe these views, I had a hard time writing in a way that avoided interpretation and OR, and my own views on the matter are neither very neutral nor very mainstream, so I've held off from doing it. Another problem I've encounted is that while many have often thrown accusations of Sinocentrism or chauvanism, I saw very little literature on the actual study of these two idealogies to any significant depth. So because of those reasons, I put my rewrite of the page on hold.
For your actual question, of whether or not it's Han chauvanism, that opens up another can of worms, including the questions of "Who are the Han?" I don't know if you are aware, but some scholars have argued that the idea of a Han ethnicity was actually a constructed identity during the 20th century, to promote a form of ethnic nationalism and as a justification for the overthrow of the Manchus. During the Mongol rule itself, only the Chinese from northern China, the parts conquered from the Jin were part of the Han caste, while the inhabitants of southern China were called the Nan Manzi caste, or "southern barbarian" caste, which complicates things even further.
The Zhonghua Minzu idealogy might have originated due to the Qing need to justify their rule over China. Emperors after Huang Taiji tried to promote Manchu-Han reconciliation with phrases and slogans like "漢滿一家" (Chinese and Manchu are one family). You can even see traces of it in the last emperor's abdication speech, where he goes through a flowery justification for his abdication and degree to establish a new Chinese republic of the five races (Han, Mongol, Manchu, Tibetan, Muslim).
As for the degree of acceptance of "barbarians" throughout Chinese history, it varied from dynasty to dynasty. From what the history books say, the Tang Dynasty was a period of openness, with the acceptance of a foreign religion, Buddhism, and an international city at Chang'an with scholars and merchants from the Arab, Persian, Central Asian, Turkish, and Indian cultures there, and many famous names from that period had foreign origins, such as An Lushan, Batuo, Bodhidharma, Pirooz, and so on.
My own views on it are complex, and I find myself hesitant to try to weave together a coherent article on this subject. Were I doing this kind of thing for a living, I could probably spend years of study on this matter. But if I were, I probably wouldn't be editting on Wikipedia, either. --Yuje 09:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I am aware of the complexity. Thanks for making an effort, at least. I guess the Sinocentrism article will have to stay as it is.
I don't know your particular views on the issue. I obviously also have my own views. However, I wonder whether your particular POV would be any worse than what is there already :) Bathrobe 01:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Aren't Sinocentrism and Han Chauvinism two branches of the same root? I'd argue they are symbiotic. one cannot exist without the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.43.217.70 (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

"Sinocentrism is also not synonymous with Chinese nationalism"[edit]

That's just plain ignorance/lack of professional research. Regardless of anything else, those two definatly means the same in the eyes of the Chinese people, that is to say, the 1.4bil living within the mainland China. Just ask them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gw2005 (talkcontribs) 02:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You are contradicting yourself. If there is no professional research, how can you claim something out of nothing?--Skyfiler (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I think there is a difference between the two terms. Chinese nationalism is having pride in China and in being Chinese, and defending its qualities. Sinocentrism is more like putting China on a pedestal and viewing all other cultures as inferior. DY (talk) 23:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
There's a difference between the two in historical context. It is not incorrect to say however that the People's Republic of China has conflated Sinocentrism with Nationalism. This is heavily propagandized in modern times. 60.42.2.197 (talk) 15:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

the 30 years war ?[edit]

The Sinocentric system was a hierarchical system of international relations that prevailed in East Asia before the adoption of the Westphalian system in modern times. Westphalian system re-directs to the treaty ending the 30 years war in 1648. Vandalism or mis-direct? Nitpyck (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The Westphalian system was established in Europe after the 30 Years War, but it did not spread into China until the 19th and 20th centuries.--RossMonro (talk) 16:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The term "sinocentrism"[edit]

Does this term have an etymology behind it? Would it serve any purpose in the article, or would it be unnecessary? 98.202.38.225 (talk) 03:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Europe[edit]

Relations between European countries and Chine not begins with the celebrated Macartney Embassy of 1792-93. In wikipedia in spanish we have added a short paragraph for XVI and XVII centuries that may be of your interest.--Ángel Luis Alfaro (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Map[edit]

As noted on its page, the map heading this page is off, failing to include Mongolia and the Siberian southeast. -114.91.65.133 (talk) 12:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The map has a lot of problems, but failing to include Mongolia and the Siberian southeast is not one of them. The anonymous user seems to be confusing the concepts of "territories of the Qing" with "usage of Chinese characters". It is well known that the Qing, unlike the Republic and People's Republic, did not force Han Chinese culture on all of their territories and controlled the settlement of Han Chinese in non-Han territories. The mere inclusion of Mongolia in the Qing empire did not necessarily mean that Mongolia was an area of Chinese-character usage. The Qing actually encouraged Mongolian culture and book publishing, which was done in the Mongolian language, not Chinese.
At any rate, that map showing the range of Chinese character usage is misguided in its very premises. For example, it shows Xinjiang, Tibet, and Manchuria as "Chinese characters alongside other characters", just like Japan. But unlike Japan, which has more than a millennium of use of Chinese characters, the use of Chinese characters is only a very recent development in Xinjiang, Tibet, and Manchuria. Historically, these areas simply did not use Chinese characters. On the other hand, Vietnam historically had a very long involvement with Chinese characters for over 2000 years, but no longer actively belongs to the Chinese character sphere. How can these very different situations be shown on this current map in a meaningful way?
Bathrobe (talk) 23:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The map at the top[edit]

The paragraph beneath it needs to be updated. I enjoy eggs (talk) 00:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Name of China in Chinese[edit]

Surprise no one had mentions that the name for China in Chinese means Middle Kingdom/ other similar terms, see the article on china

124.169.229.45 (talk) 12:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The meaning is closer to "center" than "middle," and "country" rather than "kingdom." And I don't think they even used that name during times when sinocentrism was actually prevalent. They just used their dynasty names prefixed with "great" (e.g., Da Song, Da Ming, where Da means great or large). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.73.109 (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The very use of the name Zhongguo instead of 漢國 or 震旦 or 支那 is ethnocentric innately.

震旦 or 支那 are not Chinese names for China. The latter is Sanskrit and the former is a Buddhist translation. Zhongguo is Sinocentric because it positions China at the center of the world, not because it is not what other people call China. Lathdrinor (talk) 08:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Southern Korean states protected by Goguryeo and Manchu?[edit]

Hello. The second sentence in the section on Korea is unclear to me. Did both the Goguryeo and the Manchu protect Southern Korea or did the Goguryeo rule Northern Korea and Manchuria? If (as I suspect) the former, a clearer writing might be "Until the era of the Three Kingdoms of Korea, Southern Korean states had been protected from Chinese invasions by militarily powerful Northern Korean states such as Goguryeo, and the Manchu, who ruled what is now North Eastern China." Cheers.--Wikimedes (talk) 23:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the image File:East Asian Cultural Sphere - Sinocentist.png[edit]

Regarding the WP:OR image File:East Asian Cultural Sphere - Sinocentist.png, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 72#Chinese Cultural Sphere, Sinocentrism. --Shibo77 (talk) 21:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

There's a difference between these two maps - the one you use it for Chinese Characters influence (it's the same map inside the Chinese Characters article). It's not the same as Sinocentrism. I understand your anti-China perspective, are you paid by CIA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Durianlover1 (talkcontribs) 17:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The image you have placed in the article is the same image as the one referred to in the Dispute resolution noticeboard (File:East Asian Cultural Sphere - Sinocentist.png). It is deemed as a piece of original research. --Shibo77 (talk) 02:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Please do not engage in edit wars, discuss here before changing the image again, thank you! --Shibo77 (talk) 04:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Unclear map captioning[edit]

Hi TheLeopard. I noticed your recent edits to the File:Huaxiasiyi.svg map caption across several articles, but am confused. Please explain why archaic Chinese historical exonyms like Beidi are "obvious terms" to en.wikipedia readers. Can we assume that native speakers would know words not found in English dictionaries? Yes, the individual "b-word" translations are in the articles themselves, but if they are not explained in the surrounding text, as in the Siyi (Four Barbarians) article, then readers (excepting Sinophones) are unlikely to know them. Please also explain how italicizing Chinese words is "random". WP:CAPTION recommends not using italics, "except in ways that would apply if it occurred in the main text." I hope we can work together and find a more meaningful caption. One solution might be to list and translate the Siyi (oops, italics, <grin>) in the text of each article instead of only in the caption. Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 23:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Vietnam[edit]

Nguyen Emperor Minh Mang claimed that the Vietnamese had the right to call themselves Han people 漢人

http://books.google.com/books?id=py5Xh0-pw18C&pg=PA115&dq=minh+mang+han&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cOZSUqPkLcbgyQHVzYD4AQ&ved=0CEcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=minh%20mang%20han&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=q5C3Sbe1iMoC&pg=PA209&dq=minh+mang+han&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cOZSUqPkLcbgyQHVzYD4AQ&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=minh%20mang%20han&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=2j6GNiMMc1oC&pg=PA474&dq=kinh+people+of+capital&hl=en&sa=X&ei=g7xJUs2iMoO48wSzq4GYBg&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=kinh%20people%20of%20capital&f=false

http://kyotoreview.cseas.kyoto-u.ac.jp/issue/issue4/article_353.html

Minh Mang called Vietnam "Zhongguo" 中國

http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-asia&month=9906&week=e&msg=28mq4qDZEWt3sD%2B6t6h/lw&user=&pw=

Sinocentrism#Vietnam

Rajmaan (talk) 04:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Japan

http://www.academia.edu/3694137/Japan_-_The_Tiny_Dwarf_Sino-Japanese_Relations_from_the_Kangxi_to_the_Early_Qianlong_Reigns

http://www.ari.nus.edu.sg/wps/wps08_106.pdf

http://www.amazon.com/Tsao-Yin-Kang-Hsi-Emperor-Bondservant/dp/0300042787

https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/831/items/1.0086761

https://www.princeton.edu/~elman/documents/Benjamin%20A%20%20Elman%20On%20Their%20Own%20Terms%20-%20Science%20in%20China%201550-1900%20%282005%29.pdf

http://asia200.blogspot.com/

http://m.friendfeed-media.com/df5123af1af2568323ed23143e69fd63714557ff

The suggestion that Sinocentrism is out of date or came to an end is ludicrous.[edit]

The article suggests in a couple of places that this way of thinking, that China is the center of the (Asian) world and that its surrounding states are vassals regardless of their own opinion of the relationship they have with china, is no longer held to be true by any significant group of people. This is central to the People's Republic of China's many and various claims of territory belonging to other countries throughout Asia. This government wishes to paint itself as the latest in a succession of various regimes that have since the dawn of their recorded history ruled over a common culture that is not limited to any single ethnicity and sees any group with any amount of heritage from that culture as part of its domain.

I don't know if it's appropriate to change the article to reflect my personal opinion, so I'm leaving it alone, but it would probably be best to omit these misleading statements. 60.42.2.197 (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

No, it is not appropriate to push your point of view here.--Biografer (talk) 15:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sinocentrism. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)