Talk:Hanfu Movement

Article

Now that it is translated from Chinese, we need to discuss the relavance of some of the points here. Any comments on how to improve it? --Charlie Huang 【遯卋山人】 14:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Too many Chinese external links

I just added hanfu.info link as an English external link. Hope you all agree.

Photo backgrounds

Heres a comment to improve this article.

I think there are better pictures in of Chinese wearing hanfu in China with Chinese Architecture buildings (i.e. red/dragon clad pillars (not the fluted stuff here in this pic). green ceramic tiles (rather than the stone bas relief), 5 animal eaves (rather than the simple edges) etc..) in the background. The picture should be in Beijing NOT London. This is a ridiculous choice that is subtly politically incorrect. Implies that the Chinese only remember their Hanfu clothes and not their buildings! If aliens were to chance upon this page, they'd miss the incredibly ornate style of Chinese buildings and mistake London for being the capital or inventor of hanfu! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.137.64.104 (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the clothes are the central focus, not the architecture? -- AnonMoos (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Manual of Style and reliable sourcing.

@1.32.70.151: It is important that articles adhere to the manual of style and standards of Wikipedia. We cannot add an empty section and write "to do". Also, please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources as the two cited sources in your writing are blogs that do not appear to adhere to the standard. Also, typing THIS IS RELIABLE in your edit summaries doesn't really prove that; you want to take issues to the talk page to discuss with other editors. Ogress _smash! 17:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Sources for future article expansion

• Global Times

 — LlywelynII 08:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Violation of NPoV; selective usage of sources

This article almost exclusively describes the Hanfu movement to be racial and Han supremacist in nature, and I have to be skeptical that this doesn't stem from one-sided sources. Certainly, any racial implications of the movement is relevant to the article, but it's hard to imagine that a sentiment towards reviving just the fashion necessarily has to be exclusionistic, "utopian", or dismissive of ethnic minorities. It heavily relies upon the views of a single individual, Kevin Carrico while another source it cites in Beijing Review [1] actually presents arguments on both sides of the movement, even noting that Chang Mengfei of Jiangnan Times asserted that no Hanfu supporter has ever called upon minorities to abandon their clothing, and yet the article uses information from the source selectively to present only one perspective of the movement. Sol Pacificus (talk) 02:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

The claim that to be pure racial and Han supremacist in nature, is literally a made-up story. The movement was stimulated by a common folk in Henan 2003. The background was that numerous interest groups in China are trying to eliminate the awareness of 'Han' in China. Sadly, the Wikipedia list is demonizing this movement by ignoring any possible arguments.

I have just started revising the article for its neutrality issues since this has not been addressed. Thus far I have only trimmed down and reorganized the bias, an endeavour that has already taken me hours, and I have not had the time to introduce new points which are neutral in tone. I wish to clarify some of the changes I have made.

• The article previously took its information from two main sources: Kevin Carrico and Jame Leibold. The former in particular has apparently made extravagant claims about the movement, going as far to allege that its entire foundations encompasses conspiracy theories about a dark Manchu plot which controls every apparatus of the Chinese government. This has not been cited by any other source on the movement I have read so far, and it's frankly quite extreme. I have not read his book, admittedly, so I do not know what evidence he offers as to this claim, but the excerpts I have read sound very sensationalized, and considering this article at one point took almost solely from his words, I must emphasize how much it has given it undue weight.
• The article tended to repeat points by these two authors throughout its entirety, rather than containing them to one paragraph or a specific section. It seemed that every chance one had to slip in more of their allegations, previous editors did, such as in the history and definition sections instead of keeping the focus on the actual history and defining the terms. I moved their views to the "Criticism" section.
• Points which were not critical of the movement were always preceded by specifying "supporters of the movement" or some variatioon whereas points made by critics tended to be stated as given facts. This was most egregious when the page described Carrico's aforementioned extreme allegations.
• The Wikipedian guidelines also caution against using quotation marks to imply that terms such as traditional and hanfu are doubtful. Examples of this included the section heading "Definition of 'Hanfu'" where I changed it simply to "Definition".
• Even neutral statements about the movement were constantly amended with rebuttals which also had the effect of misleading readers about the original sources due to synthesizing the original point with the rebuttal.
• I did try to keep all the preexisting main points in the article intact, but I trimmed it down and summarized ideas expressed by cited scholars more generally.
• The "debate" section included too many irrelevant points trying to refute the idea that the Manchus led to the decline of Han Chinese culture. While the points are not necessarily invalid, it veered from the topic of Hanfu movement itself and was attacking positions of the movement as given indirectly by Carrico in the first place. Those paragraphs about how Chinese people still wore Han clothing during the Qing dynasty aren't necessary.
• At least three sources were erroneously cited or their words were taken out of context of their writing.
  • Hua Mei's article actually contains a well-researched analysis of the history of the term hanfu and how it is defined. Our article instead only cites it for "it is a concept to distinguish Han people's dress from minority clothing". Given the centrality our article gave to Carrico's belief that the movement is inherently Han supremacist, I fear that this may have been added only to reinforce this interpretation. Hua does explain that the term arose during periods of foreign conquest, hence an indigenous vs. foreign dichotomy is present in the etymology. However, distinguishing native clothing in a period of foreign invasion is different from imposing one's native clothing onto minorities. In reality, Hua writes instead that the students who she consulted with felt inspired by the vibrancy of ethnic minorities' indigenous clothes to want Han people to share their vibrant indigenous clothes as well. It seems therefore that the definition given by Hua Mei needed to be clarified. Hence, I found the way this was cited to have been misleading.
  • "Participants revitalize their utopian vision of the authentic 'Great Han' and corresponding 'real China' through dress, reinvented Confucian ritual and anti-foreign sentiment". None of this is mentioned in the article written by Olivia Bullock that this statement cites which only reports on the fashion trend generally and does not touch upon any political, utopian, or ethnocentric controversy at all, only that there are questions about its authenticity as opposed to being mere costumes or cosplay.
  • Sylvie Beaud does not present an original analysis of her own, but her article is a review of Carrico's work. Citing to her article misleads readers into thinking that there is another independent party which shares Carrico's ideas through another study.
  • Because of these three cases of erroneous sourcing, I removed the citation to Zhou Xing, Professor of Aichi University as a precaution because I do not have access to the source, and I fear that it is written too generally to faithfully represent what he wrote.

Finally, I want to point out that there is so much information about this movement given in even three of the sources cited, Alice Yan, Hua Mei, and Beijing Review which gives different perspectives and arguments about the movement not covered by this article at all which would make it so much more informative. Sol Pacificus (talk) 19:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Forgot to mention this, but the introduction, background, and history sections definitely need expansion since there's a lot of context given in even the sources that have been cited, but definitely sources that we haven't cited which shed more light on the diverse motivations behind the movement. Sol Pacificus (talk) 20:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Section on Tifayifu and Qing imposition of Manchu clothing

The cited source that I can verify, Rhoads, says that Manchu clothing, unlike Manchu hairstyle, was only obligatory for officials and scholars, and it was adopted by the Han population of its own accord. This article, on the other hand, asserts that Qing originally mandated it for everybody and later compromised, and includes a lot of stories about this imposition of Qing clothing and resulting rebellions - these occupy much of the historical section of the article. However, all of these stories and almost all the sources cited about this (all that are accessible online) seem to be about the hairstyle, not the clothing. All of this makes me suspect that the stories about violence and rebellions are irrelevant here and are simply used as a rhetorical device in order to present the story of the adoption of Manchu-style clothing as a story of violence, to delegitimise Manchu-style clothing and thereby legitimise 'Han clothing' in opposition to it.--79.100.149.219 (talk) 01:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)