From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject China (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Fashion (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Repeated Vandalism[edit]

Repeated vandalism by IP: Watch out for him —Preceding unsigned comment added by Intranetusa (talkcontribs) 06:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC) traced back to <------ Repeated offender of vandalism across all wiki articles it touches. Please beware of this IP and keep track of him.

Another person who vandalized the article: IP:

  • 03:41, 16 January 2008 (Talk) (18,132 bytes) HAHA i DONT CAR3 ABOUT THiS!!!
  • 03:40, 16 January 2008 (Talk) (18,097 bytes) <===========THiS iS BORiNG L0L
  • 03:42, 16 January 2008 (Talk) (18,103 bytes) HAHA i DONT CAR3 ABOUT THiS!!!

Intranetusa (talk) 04:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Picture Uploaded[edit]

The original author of the picture posted various hanfu pics on photo shop, and allows people to use them via forums, websites, etc. The picture is "hanfu.png"

Intranetusa 00:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Picture Deleted[edit]

Deleted the picture of the pajama hanfu worn by the Tang emperor. I will say again. That is not representative of a typical hanfu, and probably is a Qing re-portrayal of a hanfu with qipao elements. If not, then find a better picture of a hanfu. If you wish to this pajama hanfu, state a good reason for doing so. Intranetusa 03:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

  • That picture is Hanfu. If it isn't then Li Bai, Du Fu, Bai Juyi, all the Chinese emperors since the Tang, all Chinese officials since the Tang, all Chinese scholars/literati since the Tang, etc are not wearing Hanfu. And it certainly is not Qing influenced. Look at the paintings and archaeological evidence. I could name a good deal of paintings painted pre-Qing that shows that the yuanlingshan was worn generally and is most certainly not exclusive or a one off/atypical. And calling it a 'pajama-Hanfu' I find unhelpful. Unless the Qing could time travel, I very much doubt it is connected to the Qing at all. If at all, I think the yuanlingshan influenced the clothing of the Manchurians and not the other way round. One should look at the evidence and analyse the origins and history of it, not assign it as 'Qing/Manchurian' just because it so happens to 'look like' a qipao which is like saying a Chinese emperor's mian (the tall crown with a flat rectangular board on top with lines of pearls dangling) is Western origin, just because it looks slightly like a mortarboard (and if you know that the Western mortarboard came into existence around the 1400s and that the mian dates from 2500BC or so, you'll intuitively know that claim is jumping to conclusions, unfounded and quite frankly rubbish)! --Charlie Huang 【遯卋山人】 10:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If you must upload it then put it on the bottom. The Tang emperor's hanfu variant doesn't match up the hanfu blueprints directly below it. We're trying to distinguish the hanfu from the qipao, and posting hanfus on the top of the page that look like qipaos isn't helping. Intranetusa 00:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Your comparison between the headpieces and western mortarboard is unfounded. You have to realize that the pictures uploaded, especially on top, has to match the blueprints of diagonal folds of the hanfu description on the bottom. Uploading that picture repeatedly is totally unhelpful on educating the general public, and only serves to confuse people even more on the differences between the qiapo and hanfu. Intranetusa (talk) 01:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Indeed it may confuse. But one of the things we must avoid is making assumptions or making people think that _all_ round collared robes are 'not of Han origin' when some of them factually are. But I guess you are right in educating the readers first before throwing in an anomaly into the works. --Charlie Huang 【遯卋山人】 20:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Moved Ming Dynasty Emperor Outfit to the Bottom[edit]

The golden Ming Dynasty Emperor Outfit doesn't resemble the original Hanfus, so I'm moving it to the bottom. Delete or replace it if you find a more suitable picture. Intranetusa 21:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the picture you are referring to is actually an image of Hanfu. And it is wear by an emperor of the Tang Dynasty (Tang Taizhong), not Ming Dynasty... I think you probably misread something. --Balthazarduju 00:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, my mistake. The emperor's outfit doesn't resemble a common Hanfu though. We should have the more common variations on the top and less common on the bottom. Intranetusa 01:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I'm still moving it to the bottom. The picture reminds me of a pajama-hanfu. It does not match up with the piece by piece description and layout of the pictures below. Intranetusa 17:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

If that picture gets moved up one more time, I'm deleting it. Whoever gets moving it up better have a good reason to use that sub-standard picture in the article. Intranetusa 12:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no qualms about you moving it to the bottom, but the outfit the TANG emperor is wearing is not an uncommon outfit for an emperor at all. Chinese emperors commonly wore that outfit throughout many dynasties including before Manchurian or Mongol domination, as obvious here with the Tang Dynasty emperor's example. I believe even the Koreans and Vietnamese emperors (and mandarins as well) wore a similar influenced outfit as well.Giftscroke (talk) 03:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Not a good picture[edit]

I deleted the current picture because it is not representative of pure Hanfu-style. Please use another picture. -intranetusa 19:36 7 March 2007

I've moved your comment to the bottom of the talk page - per the guidelines, makes it easier to track. Anyways, what part of the picture is not representative of a pure Hanfu style? What differentiates pure from impure Hanfu? I personaly don't see much wrong with that picture, so I'm restoring it, but I welcome your arguments to the contrary. --Reverend Loki 17:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll have to agree with the previous user. I think the picture shows a modern designer's interpretation of the historical hanfu. Sjschen 18:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

A Hanfu clothing resembles robes, sort of like a kimono. This garmet looks an a mix mash of Manchurian and quasi-Hanfu styles. If you see the movie "Hero" with Jet Li, all the characters wear traditional Hanfu. I am going to delete this picture and upload a better one. -intranetusa 21:46 14 March 2007

This "garmet" you are talking about is wear by emperor Tang Taizhong of the Tang Dynasty. It is a piece of Hanfu, and this type of upper garmet (with/without golden color) is commonly wore by Chinese emperors throughout dynasties. -- 20:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved this topic back up. I have uploaded two new pictures of authentic Hanfu style clothing from the movie "Hero" with Jet Li. (I own the DVD) This is an actual representation of traditional Chinese clothing, not that quasi modern interpretation of the Hanfu in the original picture that was uploaded. -intranetusa 22:10 14 March 2007

  • The emperor's garment is what is called a yuanlingshan or "round collared robe" and is certainly Hanfu. It was made by the Chinese themselves and wasn't imported from elsewhere. Also, officials, scholars, poets (i.e. Li Bai, Du Fu, etc) wear it. You cannot regard it as not 'pure' enough! --Charlie Huang 【遯卋山人】 08:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hanfu or Han Chinese clothing[edit]

If anyone reads this, I've just edited the article because there was some rather untrue information posted before my edit. Potentially prank/sabotage? This article needs a LOT of work. Satsuki Shizuka 03:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Satsuki Shizuka

The pingyin of 裳 is chang2 instead of shang2 ---paintery

I think this should be moved back to Han Chinese clothing. This is the English wikipedia and we should be putting terms in English as much as possible. -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 16:29, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

En, I think you are right, because now Hanfu is not very famous!!! -- Anon

Done. --Menchi 02:36, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Ok.... something weird happened when I moved. Here's what happened:
  1. I deleted the existing Han Chinese clothing as requested.
  2. I moved Hanfu to Han Chinese clothing (as evident from the current one-event history of Hanfu)
  3. Apparently Hanfu is moved, but the place for Han Chinese clothing is still empty. No idea where Hanfu went to. It is redirected to Han Chinese clothing.
  4. So I un-deleted Han Chinese clothing and restored it to an earlier version (Oct 23, yesterday).
I'm clueless and have no idea how to fix this technically. I hope the restored version is up-to-date. Geesh... who knew moving a page would be so complex....... --Menchi 02:43, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Not sure if this is significant or not, but when I restored Han Chinese clothing. I saw that it said it was User:Gwalla who deleted that page, not me. --Menchi 02:47, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I did delete it. It was listed on Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and, when I saw it, only contained a request for a sysop to delete it so that Hanfu could be moved there. I think we happened to delete at almost the same time. Sorry about that. Gwalla | Talk 02:53, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
So did any data went missing during this deletion-moving-undeletion-restoration? I hope not. --Menchi 02:59, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Doesn't look like it, fortunately. Sorry about stepping on your toes there. Gwalla | Talk 04:44, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Don't worry about it. One could say I'm the one doing toe-steppings! It's just very confusing..... --Menchi 06:07, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Influence

Deleted all references to Hanbok. Next time someone posts something about Hanbok, I would like to see some credible evidence. Whoever wrote the article wrote about Hanbok out of their heads, full of bias and factual inaccuracies.

What are you talknig about? It is clear about that the hanbok style is similiar to hanfu, especially the korean kings cloths. Those cloths are simliar to the cloths during the Ming dynasty in China.

I am not quite confident with the structure I made!!![edit]

If anybody has any idea about what should be put into this article or what is not needed!!! --Anon

Just keep putting more. We need as much as possible on this topic. :) (Right now we haven't even started talking about Hanfu itself...) -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 06:32, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

here is the Chinese discusson over structure for hanfu[edit]

we can refer to it!!!


Here is a site which has very elegant and beautiful pictures of Han clothing styles[edit]

Scroll down until you get to the pictures: [1] - Stancel 17:51, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Without pictures...[edit]'s hard to understand the article! A picture says a thousand words, get it? We ought to incorporate some pics of clothing in here. Mandel 20:14, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

galleries of han chinese clothing[edit]

yes,A picture says a thousand words. hey look at this, you can see some galleries of han chinese clothing. it's amazing,anyway.

copyright infringement[edit]

copyright tag placed. See Outlook 18:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, right. Anybody watching this page had better clean up the copyvio toot sweet or else this article or at any rate large swaths of it are going to have to go to the bit bucked. Herostratus 05:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

If was published in August 2005, then it would appear that that website copied from Wikipedia, since much of the current text has existed in Wikipedia since 23 October 2004 --Xiao Li 07:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You can copy and paste the content from that website into Wikipedia then, since they probably did copy from Wikipedia without giving credit. A colorful website does not mean original content. Besides, they don't even list the authors for their articles, so all of their articles probably came from Wikipedia. This article needs more content anyways, and it's not fair for the editors' hard work to be robbed by another site who took it as their own.-- 03:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
The following address links to the people who created the site: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 03:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Current article[edit]

I'm liking the new rewrite of the article. The previous ones were rather messy. --Charlie Huang 【正矗昊】 18:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Since I live near the Toronto thing, I think I'll go take a peek.Sjschen 19:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


It's getting slightly crowded. May I suggest we use only important pictures that help with the article rather than one's which seem questionable, like the film/TV ones. --Charlie Huang 【遯卋山人】 22:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it is getting crowded. It is hard to argue with how effectively pictures convey the meaning of the article, though. Perhaps a few too many cinematic images. Perhaps we should restrict the images in the article proper to the bare minimum - preferably to images actually referred to by or that is a prime example of the accompanying text. However, I do feel that, with this subject, more pictures is better than fewer. So, what would you say to including most of the pictures towards the end using the Gallery Template? --Reverend Loki 22:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • That would be better, though I find some of the pics not as illustrative and clear than say the rather good diagram ones which are attractive and are the only two pics which are useful to the article. There are surely more better live-action photos of Hanfu out there that are more eye-catching than the currect film/TV ones. --Charlie Huang 【遯卋山人】 10:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we should put in some more pictures taken from historical paintings depicting the clothing of the eras? Sjschen 20:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I made a post here the other day, prior to the database lock, but now it's nowhere to be found. Heh. Anyways, I made a rundown of my opinion of the photos in the article. To summarize:

  • The first two images, one from Hero and the other of two women from an unnamed TV serial, do not add much to the article, and can be done away with. Barely see them, and they don't convey much info.
  • The painting of the old man in hanfu, "Bai Juyi", is good. Historical representations in paintings of hanfu generally follow a certain pattern, and this is a good example to help readers identify other such examples as they come across them. A better example may be found, but the article benefits from at least one image like this.
  • The painting of Imperial robes - is this even hanfu? To my untrained eye, it looks more like early Qing dragon robes, and thus out of the scope of this article. I have left a comment on the user page for the original contributor on Wikimedia commons, and will hopefully hear back on it soon.
  • The two diagrams are good. We might consider placing them closer to one another to better show the differences between the two. This is facilitated by their identical sizes.
  • The last image, a photo of a man standing, is excellent - a real world example, and it happens to be the only viable image in the article showing the 3rd layer, the outer robe which is mentioned but not otherwise depicted in the article. A better image may be found, but this one should not be removed unless it is replaced by an improvement.

Anyways, that's my 2 cents. --Reverend Loki 16:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

  • The imperial robe pic is Hanfu (it is the last emperor of the Ming dynasty by the description given). However, I'd prefer if it was something more earlier; a good example with be the Tang Taizong one. --Charlie Huang 【遯卋山人】 16:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I've made a few changes. Looks more tidy now. May I suggest that more pictures should be added when the article is expanded. --Charlie Huang 【遯卋山人】 16:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Someone replaced the pics of the films/TV. Surely there are better examples of film/TV ones. The Hero one looks blurry and unclear and is more of an action flaunt. I'm thinking of something from Curse of the Golden Flower which is at least clear and shows off Hanfu more... --Charlie Huang 【遯卋山人】 14:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Someone deleted the last image of the man wearing the 3 layered hanfu, please restore it.

Intranetusa 17:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Quote location request[edit]


I've been searching for the exact location of this quote in the ZZ but I can't seem to find it anywhere! Could someone please tell me the chapter, or where this quote really comes from so I can cite the exact source. I added this from information somewhere then decided to search for it, but couldn't find it so I have to ask. --Charlie Huang 【遯卋山人】 10:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

  • OK, after a bit of a search, I managed to find out that people are quoting this from the 定公十年 chapter. However, after going directly to this said chapter and reading through it, I have seen no trace of this quote. Either this quote is non-existant (and thus, made up), a commentary (which I would be require to see for myself as proof), or from somewhere else... --Charlie Huang 【遯卋山人】 10:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Ah, I think I found it. It is a commentary after all! 孔颖达《春秋左传正义.定公.卷五十六.传十年》注疏. People should make it clear because it looks like a direct quote from the the original text instead of accurately specifying that it is a commentary!

Moved Picture[edit]

Whoever put the picture of the "yuanlingshan"Tang robes on top, I've moved it again. Any picture uploaded on the upper portion has to at least match the hanfu description-blueprints on the bottom...including the diagonal folding of the cloth. The variant of this specific type of hanfu, without detailed description, serves no purpose whatsoever except to confuse people. The main purpose is to distinguish the hanfu from the qiapo. If that picture is uploaded on top, this works contrary to this purpose.

Intranetusa (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

  • OK, OK, OK. I think that's settled then. The only reason I don't want to use that pic is because the emperor faces to the right and it would look better if he faced to the left, but I suppose that is besides the point... --Charlie Huang 【遯卋山人】 20:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok then, glad it's settled. I'll see if I can find another picture that has him facing left. If you can find a similar image of him facing left, feel free to upload it. Intranetusa (talk) 19:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Qing dynasty = modern China?[edit]

"Technically, the Qing dynasty and afterwards would be considered modern China, so the qipao would be modern clothing and not traditional."

Sorry, but this sentence is very POV. How can you say Qing Dynasty is 'modern' (a term which is entirely subjective)? We don't consider the Victorians particularly 'modern' save the industrial revo. Anything pre-20th century is not 'modern' IMHO (I would say anything that is more that 25 years old is slipping from the realms of 'modernity'). I would accept 'late Qing' but anything more is pushing it to the extremes a tad too much and is very misleading. And this is before we go onto the issue of the qusetionable rhetoric employed... —Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlieHuang (talkcontribs) 17:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, assigning any specific dates is subjective but not necessarily POV as long as that subjectivity is reflected outside of Wikipedia. In the West, "modern" can begin as early as the end of the Middle Ages as the Modern history article notes. Your strict definition of modernity as it relates to history in general is shared by few. Jonathan D. Spence's widely-read text, The Search for Modern China, uses A.D. 1600 as the beginning of his treatment and has a reasonably convincing justification for considering the era from the Qing Empire forward as modern. Of course, Chinese Marxists would use 1911 as the cutoff because they consider the pre-Republican era to be feudal." — AjaxSmack 00:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. But I still think it sounds like a sentence agruing a case for something, especially when 'technically' is used in such a manner. It sounds like a statement of fact, but fact should not be open to interpretation. --Charlie Huang 【遯卋山人】 12:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Modern China is from british invasion 1840, Qing as a whole is definitely not Modern China.--刻意(Kèyì) 06:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone upload the following pictures to the gallery,plzZZ???[edit]

Rpoon (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC) THZZZZZZRpoon (talk)

  • The question would be why and where will they fit in? I am relectant to add computer generated imagery in favour for historical paintings or actual practice. --Charlie Huang 【遯卋山人】 12:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The word costume[edit]

I think over using this word is inappropriate. Technically, clothing becomes "costume" when it is worn outside of its original cultural or historical context. Wearing Hanfu nowadays would constitute wearing a costume, since the wearing of it is enacting an anachronism. But back in pre-Manchu times, Hanfu was simply the clothing people wore. It's inappropriate to label it "costume" unless your specifically talking about people running around in Hanfu today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

  • No, the word can also just mean the regular styles of clothing. see a dictionary. Johnbod (talk) 01:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Again, the word is open to interpretation. Everyone refers to 'national costume' and I don't think they imply anything to it. --Charlie Huang 【遯卋山人】 12:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's interchangeable in common speech. Costume would give the sense of a more elaborate clothing that you don't wear everyday. Intranetusa (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

the round collared robe IS hanfu[edit]

and it is NOT atypical or uncommon at all. it was extremely common even during tang dynasty for not only the emperor but mandarins and other high male officials. the person who assumes the pictures of round collared gowns must be distorted qing-style depictions probably knows little of chinese history or fashions (or a shallow knowledge). in other words hanfu is not one similarly cut garment worn by all chinese but rather refers to the diverse types of clothing worn by ethnic chinese. it is understandable that some chinese try to distance themselves from clothing which looks similar to qing styles in an attempt to promote a lesser known style of hanfu, but you cannot use wiki to distort the truth. that round collar is authentic 100 percent chinese variation of hanfu which was very common for not only the emperor but officials as well. I think the problem here is attempting to define the word hanfu with one particular type of outfit when it's evident chinese fashions were diverse. Giftscroke (talk) 03:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Although it may originated from other ethnic groups during the Tang Dynasty, but it has since been integrated with the Hanfu 'system'. Hanfu is not just 'crossed collar, tied to the right'. There are also straight (parallel) collared- and round collared-Hanfu. Supersentai (talk) 13:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

picture needed!!![edit]

Maybe this picture would be suited , it's great --Lennlin (talk) 16:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Jessie Sum at the 2005 Hong Kong flower show.jpg
  • This is a kimono. You can tell by the flipped collar, obiage and obijime. Supersentai (talk) 12:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    • It's hard to say whether this is a kimono without looking at the full costume/picture. Kimonos have a lot of the same elements as tang dynasty costumes, with "obiage" and "obijime" included. Regardless, this picture probably does not work, there are more pics of han clothing here Sjschen (talk) 17:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The form of Hanfu that was brought over to Japan during Tang Dynasty was the blouse-and-skirt Ruqun (襦裙). There was neither obiage nor obijime at that time. Kimono nowadays developed from the clothings worn by the samurai class (武家) during the Edo period, which was in turn developed from the kosode (小袖, the undergarment) of the Juni Hitoe (十二単) worn by the noble class (公家). Though the Juni Hitoe developed from Ruqun, they were totally different in terms of appearance, cutting and method of wearing, and thus the Juni Hitoe can be considered an original Japanese creation. Obiage and obijime were created and used only when the obi of the Kimono became wider during the Edo and Meiji period.Supersentai (talk) 02:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
    • For me it's very difficult to see how the costume she is wearing is "put together" in this picture especially the portion with the sash and rope at the waist. To my limited understanding, such elements also existed in Chinese garb. With the similarities that exist in region's costume and the fact that the photo shoot featured various other new fangled "Traditional Chinese" type garments[2][3][4], isn't it hard to definitively say that this drees here is indeed a kimono? Sjschen (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • It's definitely a Kimono (though it's more of a "cosplay Kimono").

1) The sleeve opening is sewn together below the wrist (with no sleeve cuff).

2) The collar is the same colour as the clothing.

3) Hanfu belts/sashes are never that wide. They also don't have so many "ornaments" on them.

4) A ohashori fold can be seen below the obi.

Supersentai (talk) 09:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

yeah, it's kinda tricky since the uploader cut off half of the picute. --Lennlin (talk) 06:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh cool :) Thanks for the correction. Sjschen (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
If it helps I tagged it as a kimono when categorising it at Commons, though someone else decided it was hanfu. That said its probably a costume created by TVB's costume department rather then a proper kimono (hence the cosplay comment) or hanfu.KTo288 (talk) 00:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Addition of Ming Dynasty Hanfu[edit]

I am planning to add a section on Ming Dynasty Hanfu, as there has been a lot of research work done on Ming Dynasty Hanfu, which includes artifacts and drawings from Ming Dynasty, and good quality Ming-styled Hanfu made by Hanfu activists, as in here: Supersentai (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

GREAT!! i will fully support this kind of involvements. -- (talk) 06:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
!! we should detail each dynasty's unique Hanfu and the photos in the album is beautiful --Lennlin (talk) 06:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I need some help with posting the new section and pictures. Some of the pictures have watermarks (especially the Hanfu made by Hanfu shops), and I have no idea how to upload the pictures to wiki. Supersentai (talk) 08:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I have added the new section, along with pictures in the gallery. Supersentai (talk) 14:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I think most of your picture are infringing copyrights, just try to find out who the authors are and fill in the image summary. also some of old Ming portrait that you added are expired in copyright so it's good but follow the example of this image and fill in the correct descriptions . --Lennlin (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I will help you fill in the summary of old portraits --Lennlin (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Supersentai, you did good but you upload alot of your pictures that does not really improve the article such as artifacts of Ming dynasty where the quality is unclear. Also the pictures you uploaded, well, let's say it's not good looking, we need more "artistic“ ones. btw you know tang dynasty clothing?--Lennlin (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I suggest that we give each different style of hanfu its own stub, like this: List_of_Korean_clothing. This way, we can add more images for each style of hanfu, because it is really difficult to list more styles of hanfu or describe each style in greater detail with restrictions on number of images. Supersentai (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
we could certainly do that =] that would be great !! should make like "List of Hanfu clothing" or "list of Han chinese clothing" or list of ming dynasty clothing? your choice --Lennlin (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • 'List of Han Chinese clothing' would be good enough. Can you help me to make the change? I know nothing about starting an article/stub. By the way, I think yuanlingshan and panling lanshan can be under the same stub, since there is almost no difference between them.Supersentai (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
sure! i will made the artical --Lennlin (talk) 16:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey i made the artical, please check it out here [[5]]. --Lennlin (talk) 17:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I removed the Song Dynasty section from the new article, because some of the information are wrong. In fact, there is very little differences between Song and Ming clothings. Most of Song clothings continued into Ming Dynasty. Can you help me to make stubs for each individual style of Hanfu? Thanks.Supersentai (talk) 00:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ruqun discussion[edit]

Please join in the discussion at ruqun talk page. Supersentai (talk) 01:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

External links update:[edit]

With all due respect to fellow editors, I just did some update to the external links:

1. deleted link, which is now dead 2. added link, which is an English hanfu Han Chinese Clothing blog.

PLUS, I propose to remove link, which is a advertise link. also check the link, which is down for now.

Let me know if you don't agree these changes. -- liuyiwp

Sinosphere and Hanfu[edit]

The source[6] cited to back the causal relationship between the concept of Sinosphere and Hanfu specifically refers to state-formation and makes no mention of clothing. Hence, this claim for the moment should be considered original research until proper evidence is provided. Cydevil38 (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Done removed! unless someone disagrees --LLTimes (talk) 02:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hanbok: the art of Korean clothing Korea: a historical and cultural dictionary

Neither of these sources support the claim that Hanfu influenced Korean Hanbok. Both only refer to Hanfu as only having influenced "Korean traditional dress", which doesn't necessarily translate into Hanbok, and the latter also doesn't specify direction of influence. Considering tremendous influence nomadic clothings has had on Hanfu, it wouldn't be surprising to find some similarities. Cydevil38 (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright, then change 'hanbok' to 'Korean traditional dress' then. Liu Tao (talk) 18:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
So no disagreement? --LLTimes (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that "Chinese influence" equates with Hanfu. For instance, Sunny Yang's book points to Chinese influence on Korean official robes, Gwanbok, but other more detailed sources also point out that this Gwanbok style, having originated from western Asia, is foreign to Chinese themselves. Cydevil38 (talk) 03:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Its a pretty neutral statement. Since China have influenced Korea, does that mean that "some" Korean cultures is Chinese? doesn't have any korean uniqueness? If indeed the custom was adopted it (which i highly doubt), it would be modify into Chinese's styles. "...distinctively Tang". :)--LLTimes (talk) 04:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's accurate to include every single styles that were worn in the so-called "Han Chinese" dynasties are all Hanfu. The official robes adopted by Koreans, for instance, are explicitly said in detailed sources to derive from western Asian cultures, not indigenous styles fashioned by Han Chinese. If, by definition, that Hanfu is any and all clothings popularly worn by Chinese when China is under Chinese rule, then western jeans, suits and dresses could be included in that concept as well. It should be emphasized thus that Chinese influence is not necessarily influence from Hanfu, but rather influence from any styles in China, both indigenous and foreign to Chinese. Cydevil38 (talk) 08:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

i dont really see the problem i didn't include specific names but a general name "traditional korean clothing" which my source tells me. --LLTimes (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

As I have pointed out, the sources you refer to specifies foreign styles that Chinese have adopted that are different from indigenous "Han Chinese clothing". "Chinese influence" doesn't equate with "Hanfu influence", since not all that were worn by Chinese were indigenous. Cydevil38 (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

can you specify where in my source that tells "specifies foreign styles that Chinese have adopted that are different from indigenous "Han Chinese clothing". "Chinese influence" doesn't equate with "Hanfu influence", since not all that were worn by Chinese were indigenous."--LLTimes (talk) 00:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay are you kidding me? It's been two days now and you choose to avoid this discussion you've started. It's funny that every time i revert you came but after that you don't. AND answer my question above please. If you want me to use more reliable sources then i will. --LLTimes (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sunny Yang's book refers to official robes of Tang Dynasty that has been used since Silla Dynasty, which are an adopted foreign style for the Han Chinese. Not everything worn in China were "Han Chinese" and hence "Hanfu". I should also point out that Sunny Yang also adheres to the dualistic tradition view of Korean traditional clothing, where she says, "Later, at end of the Three Kingdoms period, the Tang Chinese style was adopted for royal families and nobility as formal wear, while Korean traditional clothes were worn as everyday wear." Cydevil38 (talk) 00:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a fact and true that not everything worn in China are han clothing. I don't call it hanfu, preferbably Han clothing. In Valerie Steele 's encyclopedia of clothing and fashion. she stated "The woman's hanbok in contrast, is probably derived from a tang dynasty women's fashion for high-waisted dresses worn with a short jacket( or from a later Chinese revival of that Tang style)." This argues continueing effect of Tang style on Hanbok. And according to this Levinson David 's Modern Asia Volume 2, citing informations of from "Lee Hun-jung. (1989) 2000 Years of Korean Costume. Seoul: Ministry of Culture and TourismYang, Sunny. (1997) Hanbok: The Art of Korean Clothing. Elizabeth, NJ: Hollym International.". It stated that "Under the influence of Chinese culture, from the seventh century CE onward the sleeves of Korean jackets and robes became larger and trousers wider. Headdresses and robes were similarly modified." "China's influence on Korean costume became more evident. Korean figurines unearthed from a mideighth century tomb in Kyongju, the capital city of the Shilla kingdom, were depicted in Chinese-style dress. In earlier tomb mural paintings, long jackets with belts at the waist were worn over long, pleated skirts, but the figurines from the Unified Shilla wore skirts over their jackets, a distinctively Tang Chinese style." Becuase i don't have alot of time, you might see me hurrying and unpatient but I'll try to research more on this dallyung or Chinese adopt official robes stuff.--LLTimes (talk) 15:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If Valerie Steele's account means that the Tang style had lasting effect, then her view is a minority unrepresentative of scholarly consensus. Even one of the websites you've introduced clearly distinguishes Tang style as "completely different from Korean hanbok" and "no longer in practice", calling the style exotic and strange.[7] The same website also introduces Gwanbok(dallyeong) as having originated from Central Asia[8], Levinson doesn't clearly state which aspect of "Chinese culture" had influenced Korean costume and whether the influence was a lasting one. Chinese culture by then was already heavily influenced by foreign culture, particularly Tang Dynasty. It is widely known that Korean nobles and royals wore Han Chinese style clothings from Silla to Koryo Dynasty, but as I've pointed out with Sunny Yang's example, most see this as having been a separate trend from that of Hanbok.

What you seem to fail to grasp is that indigenous styles of Chinese clothing were not the only trends in East Asia. While the Japanese kimono, a one piece clothing similar to Hanfu, may have been influenced enough to be worth mentioning, Korean hanbok, consisting of two pieces, is completely different. Even if there was any influence, it was insignificant to begin with, and to point out this "influence" unilaterally without contrasting information ultimately distorts the general truth that Korean Hanbok is a tradition alienated from Hanfu that is much closer to other stylistic lineages in East Asia, such as the nomadic styles. In other words, inserting a passage saying that a completely different type of clothing has had influence on Hanbok only misinforms readers with an erroneous impression, and doing so only serves the political agenda of establishing the ideology of Sinosphere or Chinese nationalism by any means necessary, the point of view in which everything in East Asia "must have originated from Han Chinese". Cydevil38 (talk) 21:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

First, i didn't introduce that link, CB did. Also you're one mad theorist. If you keep on going on with your theory then it will probably sparks negative responses from viewers. I don't want to mention any Korean-centric stuffs here , so please clothing discussion only.--LLTimes (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, did you say my theory? It's widely mentioned in reliable sources that Hanbok and Hanfu are different and not related. It is explicitly stated even in the site CB provided, which is by the way the "official" site of Korean culture hosted by the Korean Ministry of Culture and Sports. I don't think it's a stretch to interpret the persistence by some to have Hanbok embroiled in this article, the only "missing piece" in the Chinese nationalistic conception of the Sinosphere, as ideologically driven. Cydevil38 (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay i get your points and you didn't get mine, there is no need to throw in your "theory" of "political agenda" and etc. Now please zip your mouth about that k? It's not related and Sinophere was removed. --LLTimes (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yoon Ji-won's source as requested[edit]

Yoon, Ji-Won (2006). "Research of the Foreign Dancing Costumes: From Han to Sui-Tang Dynasty". 56. The Korean Society of Costume: 57–72. 

Here, I'm opening the thread since I've been asked to verify Yoon Ji-won's source. On the other day, I just skimmed through the source, so I obviously missed the mention of "banbi". I can confirm that what Cydevil38 (talk · contribs) claim is true, at least regarding Banbi, and influences of Central Asian clothing on Chinese clothing. However, Cydevil38 should've provided exact page numbers, urls, or ISBN or ISSN, and all other necessary information when he added it. The source consists of scanned texts, so there is no way for non-Korean editors like LLTimes (talk · contribs) can scrap or rely on translation tools to check the source. I spent a great deal of time for this reading the source, and typing the pertinent passage. However, I have no time for translating them, so Cydevil38, please translate them to end the dispute.

--Caspian blue 04:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks CB for wasting so much time between both of us. I think i can get a glimpse of what the above "will" say, a confident confirm from you is pretty much enough. Normally, I wouldn't trouble people to go that far as to confirm their sources for me, mainly because i doubt the claims that he was adding. On the Beizi (背子) part, a normal person who know Chinese would know the meaning of it. There are two meanings of the word but in this context, Beizi means a "coat" or something that you wear outside, but so is banbi. So it's right to call them both beizi as both of them are similar to "coats". However, It would be better not to do so as there are a lot more clothing that might be consider beizi. Banbi and Beizi in it's ancient definition might be referring to two different items. It was known more as Banxiu (半袖) than beizi and there are no other sources *i presume* mention banbi as "beizi". Both banxiu and banbi is mostly used. By the way, why does Cydevil love to include foreign influences on other clothing but angry when someone puts the tag on his stuff haha. Kidding aside (the sources i used in banbi page also mention Han clothings' influence on hanbok and it specifically say 韩装 but whatever). Anyway Thanks Cas.--LLTimes (talk) 05:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


The link needs to redirect to Zhiduo_Clothing, not the disambig page, I would do it myself, but couldn't figure out how without listing _Clothing in the link. Actually this applies to half the clothing items on the page. (talk) 03:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

link as in Zhiduo? Liu Tao (talk) 06:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Done Philg88 (talk) 09:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


This article had been hackled by pro Ming-philes from Jiangzhe region whom have a strong Anti-Qing/Yuan sentiment, editors should take note, because their standpoint of protaying themseleves as victims can be very dangerous and absurd for argument they went into.

p.s: I am not a Manchu.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You don't need to mention this. Wikipedia has told us to write without point of view. And I don't think those editors from Jiangzhe region means they are probably pro Ming-philes. Instead, such a kind of remind might be considered as a discrimination to those who is living in such region. Haneluya (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 20:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Han Chinese clothingHanfu – The article ought to be moved to the proper title "Hanfu", which is the name by which the topic is most-commonly known. Currently, this article uses an unnecessary descriptive title, which was decided about 9 years ago. Googlebooks [10] vs [11] / JSTOR [12] vs [13] / Ngram [14] -- Cold Season (talk) 00:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Support - per sources, but also since the modern sounding "Han Chinese clothing" suggests to me at least some kind of comparison of modern Han Chinese fashions and marketing to modern minorities (who may wear headcoverings for example). In ictu oculi (talk) 01:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support with redirect from old title. Ex nihil (talk) 04:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

About the Xuanduan: Is it a robe?[edit]

I was heard that to show respect to the tradition, the Xuanduan is designed to be ruqun (I mean, Xuanduan is a set of blouse, skirt and other accessories, not a robe). Even the length of the blouse is stated to be 2.2 Chi (unit), or about 73.5cm. That should never been considered as a robe. Reference page is, but that might not be so reliable... However in this article, it is stated as a robe. I am looking for further investigation. If someone knows more about that, please tell me. Haneluya (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Leading photo selection[edit]

Recently there are some conflicts on choosing the article leading photos. I think File:Hanfu man and lady.jpg is better than File:Jin Wu Di.jpg. Althought the first one is not the photo about famous people in history, it is lively and can show what modern Hanfu looks like. This is more meaningful than using ancient pictures. I think the better place the second one is the "history" chapter. What do you guys think? --Someone's Moving Castle 14:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The clothing depicted in the painting by Yan Liben "File:Jin Wu Di.jpg" looks detailed and complex, and you can see many elements of Hanfu on the people's cloth (including headgears, belts, shoes, etc.). It is a far more sophisticated illustration.
The File:Hanfu man and lady.jpg looks more like two people going to a cosplay party. Yes, if the photo is well-taken or the clothing they are wearing is interesting, then that's another story. But the picture is simply of two random people, and the clothing they are wearing I'm afraid looks like they bought it at a costume shop. Not to mention the anachronistic accessories (backpack, hat, the shoes, etc.). Anyhow, I moved them to the gallery.--Balthazarduju (talk) 01:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
It's unnecessary to use so called "complex and detailed" pictures. In addition, Hanfu today has huge differences from Hanfu in thousands years ago. This article talks about Hanfu, not about history, so it is better to use pictures in modern ages which can show what Hanfu currently looks like. Hanfu is not a history remaining, it's still alive. It's okay that people in the pictures are random people if they can show the feature of Hanfu. In addtion, Kimono and Hanbok can be purchased from a custome shop as well and there are many pictures of random people in those two articles, do you think we should turn them into ancient paintings? Finally, I cannot understand why you think they are in a cosplay party, there are some parties for Hanfu lovers in China especially on some traditional festivals, maybe you should learn something about that.--Someone's Moving Castle 12:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
It would be better if someone used a photo of a photo without the modern day hats, leather boots, and sportsbag. It makes it look like those modern-day accessories are part of a typical hanfu (modern or not) -- at least for men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Observation (talkcontribs) 11:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
The modern hat, backpack and boots spoil the photo. Rincewind42 (talk) 14:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Based on the discussion, I have switched back the lead photo for the article. Someone's Moving Castle, if you think another modern Hanfu photo (preferably without modern accessories) is more suitable for the infobox, we can then discuss it here.--Balthazarduju (talk) 14:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


There seems to be a bombardment of images, and not in a useful way. There needs to be some tidying up, cutting out of some less than appropriate images and some general reworking. Someone with some time and effort might want to make all the sections look at least consistent with each other in style and layout. --Charlie Huang 【遯卋山人】 23:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Hanfu is a "non-academic, non-official noun to define" blablabla[edit]

What's with this fluff?

Firstly, hanfu is the common name. Unless this "non-academic, non-official" nonsense is reliably verifiable and is the consensus among academic sources, this is just original research. Secondly, this article's topic is about the clothing and NOT about a dictionary entry (i.e. a noun). It is certainly not a suitable and succinct lead sentence, so cite it and put it in a etymology section or something. --Cold Season (talk) 10:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Severe Violations of Neutrality[edit]

As some users have noticed, this article contains severe violations of neutrality. I understand that there are people in opposition with Hanfu activists' ideas, but that does not justify the violations in which "Hanfu" is defined as a merely historical dress (since the definition of Hanfu is still controversial, yet the current Wiki's definition does not reflect the supporters' idea at all). The article also makes almost no reference to the Manchurian genocide in China; it is absurd to say that most Han Chinese people wore Manchurian attire by their free wills. As a matured traditional dress, Hanfu has a highly sophisticated structure; however, the zhiju in the photo is not consistent with such structures. The article also does not talk about the movement in which Han Chinese people attempt to recover their traditional dress since the downfall of the Manchurian Qing Empire.

Therefore, I hereby suggest to KEEP ALL THE OPPOSITE IDEAS in which Hanfu is defined as merely a historical dress and all the relevant citations. However, I would add the photos in which modern Chinese people wear Hanfu and the sources defining Hanfu as a traditional dress, in historical context or from contemporary perspectives. I would also adding sources verifying the Manchurian killings (e.g. the accounts on the massacres in Jiangyin) and the appeals for the revival of Hanfu since the beginning of the 20th century (e.g. the Hanfu with the character "Han" wore by Zhang Taiyan). Finally, I strongly advice to change the photo in the infobox (we can also keep the photos in which Chinese wore Hanfu in the past in the article's body. --User:黃昏斜照水 9:17, 23 December 2016

Of course, it's a traditional dress. Still, therein lies the problem... What's the authenticity of the hanfu as depicted in the images of modern Chinese people, because it's still a traditional clothing and thus has a historical foundation of development. To me, I like to see a indication of that authenticity and foundation rather than just modern representations of home-made tailoring trail-and-error and messing around.
A propos, are "Hanfu activists" a good authority on that subject? I like to wager that most are not schooled or trained for it, and thus the likelihood for inauthenticity (of what's supposed to be traditional) rises. --Cold Season (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)