Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Han chauvinism

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Sumple 23:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Han chauvinism

Delete unverifiability, POV, racist overtones; elaboration below Sumple 12:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this article because firstly it contains unverified and frankly untruthful claims. That is to say, in many places it makes either misleading statements, or deliberately misinterprets facts to reflect a biased theme.

e.g "In China, it is generally used to describe supremacist or ethnocentric versions of Chinese nationalism focused upon the Han Chinese identity." - the terms for "Han chauvinism", whether in English or Chinese (大汉族主义, 汉本位) are not in wide use in China. In fact, etymologically, it is clear that the phrase 汉本位 is of Japanese origin.

an example of deliberate misinterpretation: ""Dongyi" – term for Asians living in Manchuria, Korea, and Japan." The word "Dongyi" is a historical term meaning "barbarians of the east", and was used exclusively to refer to those peoples who lived in Eastern China in ancient times, who were not subject to the rule of the king or emperor. The deliberate misinterpretation can be evidenced from the fact that this Chinese phrase had to be explained with a Japanese reference.

Finally, the statement "In Taiwan, Han chauvinism refers to the tendency among the right-wing political elite..." is clearly designed to cast aspersions on pro-reunification segments of Taiwanese politics. As anyone who is familiar with the topic will know, the pro-reunification segments are not the "right-wing" of the political scene in Taiwan. If anyone is "right-wing", it is the ultra nationalist pro-independence parties.

I seriously suspect that the whole concept of "Han Chauvinism" was an invention of Japanese militarism or some similar movement. --Sumple 12:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC

Comment If it is a term, perhaps rewriting the article to eleminate these negative attributes would be a better way of going about things? Is it not worth a try at least? I dont support the article either way, i just think its better to at least try to get the article to be better if there is any truth behind it. (Sumple, without being mean, when you say things such as an invention of Japanese militarism , you do come across a bit biased and racist. Just thought you should know in case you didnt realise) Leyasu 12:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I just meant that whoever came up with this term wasn't entirely neutral. I went over the top with that comment. Apologies. --Sumple 13:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I didn't like the terms "supremacist", "right-wing" and "elite" so having fixed those, this article can stay. Ruby 14:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Google Scholar turns up 866 hits for the term. It is certainly a valid article. What it needs is better sources and citations, not deletion. The "Dongyi" term is cited (in fact, the it's the only part of the article that's cited). This article needs improvement, and those Google Scholar links are a good starting place. —thames 16:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - valid term, Sumple seems to have some knowledge about it, so why don't you just clean it up? Renata 16: 25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Rename if there's a more accurate term. What you said, Renata. Herostratus 17:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Renata3. -Rebelguys2 19:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Renata3. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 20:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. I'll obey the majority rule :D I still have a problem with some of those terms though. My biggest problem is with the Japanese reference - just look at the title of that reference "China's East Asian Economic Conspiracy". neutral? I'll edit. --Sumple 00:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.