Talk:Chinaman (disambiguation)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chinaman (disambiguation) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Cherrypicking dictionaries

As I've said elsewhere, a reliance on dictionaries and definitions is the last redoubt of the morally weak, but since the game of dictionary-cites is being played, it seems that (as before) not the whole truth is being brought forth; one problem with dictionaries is that they're all written "off each other", such that what one says the other one will tend to parrot (much like academics and journalists, as well as grade nine students). That all dictionaries cited are modern ones where they have had the p.c.-ite brush go over them to make sure all sensitivities are in place, to me, invalidates them as useful cites for how people do speak, not how they should. That these dictionaries cited by HQG baldly state either "offensive" or even the qualified "usually offensive" (implicitly meaning that it is sometimes not, but that logic apparently doesn't satisfy HQG) without accounting for the word's origins or how it became derisive (China+man is a standard Germanic neutral-person formation, as well as being standard pidgin formation) makes them highly suspect and not representative of anything but current usage/acceptability. I tried to get into OED but I don't have a subscription so couldn't look there (and I'd expect its entry to contain a lot of etymological info as well as examples of varying usages) so I tried to google up some alternates - more than HQG's "at least four" (his preference for American dictionaries is telling...):

Most useful as been from http://www.onelook.com/?loc=pub&w=chinaman which lists various dictionary entries, including the "at least four"; interestingly there were some dictionaries (Cambridge) which didn't have the word at all.

  • Enc4 Encarta - "an offensive term for a man of Chinese origin (dated)" (no other definitions, e.g. cricket)
  • Concise OED - "noun, chiefly archaic or derogatory, a native of China." (no other definitions)
  • Rhymezone.com -" noun: a ball bowled by a left-handed bowler to a right-handed batsman that spins from off to leg; noun: offensive terms for a person of Chinese descent
  • Allwords.com 1. derog, old use, A Chinese man. 2. cricket - A ball bowled by a left-handed bowler to a right-handed batsman, which spins from the off to the leg side.

And so on; that some of these have only the "offensive" meaning and none of the other "non-offensive ones" indicates the degree to which they are incomplete and hence non-authoritative

Most interesting among these were the two vintage dictionaries, though:

Neither of these historical English sources make any mention of "offensive"; if the term had been offensive in 1913, Webster surely would have said so, huh? As for the other source, it's more a lexicon than dictionary; it's interesting that it used the full-derisive form, though ("John Chinaman" - again without any suggestion of its putative offensiveness at the time) The most full set of defintions of the lot is at;

1. Usually Offensive.a Chinese or a person of Chinese descent.
2. (l.c.) a person who imports or sells china.
3. (often l.c.) Political Slang. a person regarded as one's benefactor, sponsor, or protector: to see one's chinaman about a favor.
4. a Chinaman's chance, Usually Offensive.the slightest chance: He hasn't a Chinaman's chance of getting that job.
Note:infoplease.com is I think a derivative of Wikipedia, so doesn't count, but definition #2 is interesting here as another archaic usage; it was, in fact, the namesake of a particular lake in the Peace River Country of BC that had been Chinaman's Lake and is now China Lake; story is the settler on that lake had actually been a Mr. Chinaman from England, and that had been the family profession...that may even be citable but the debate where this surfaced in local papers was back in the early '90s

So we now also have the "derogatory" and "archaic" usages, and also dictionary evidence with doesn't say "not offensive" but also doesn't say "offensive". Other than that, HQG's suggestion/citation request that examples of non-derisive use by citable is a red herring, as there are no modern-era publishers or academics who could or ever do work on such a topic; in fact, it would be interesting to find out if there was an academic paper on this word's origins and how it became perceived/branded as being offensive. That there are undocumented uses that "official" sources like dictionaries and academics choose to ignore does not mean they aren't there; it's a general problem with citability issues on many topics - wrong, incomplete, or fallacious research/findings are still citable and also repeatable by other sources; dictionary listings are viral and definitions "spread unquestioningly", while whole other definitions and contexts are ignored. But, as before, dictionaries are not rulebooks, nor even signposts; they're meant to be a measure of a language, not a prescription as they're often invoked as by people with inferior lexical/logical skills.Skookum1 20:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Saying that there are no modern-era publishers or academics who would publish works on non-derisive use of words considered to be slurs is a huge assumption. Also, without any published works, it may simply be that there are no non-derisive use of this particular word. There are four dictionary sources in the article itself, and you have provided four more. None of them say that only "some people" consider it offensive. They all say "derogatory" or "offensive" without qualifying who considers the word so. Are we to summarily dismiss 8 dictionaries on how the word is defined? I would hope not. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. So you're intent on dismissing two dictionaries which do NOT say that the term is offensive and somehow the ones you've cited, which do not include the other meanings (which are implicitly non-offensive, or held to be), are valid while the others are not? THAT is Cherrypicking. I have indeed provided four more, which use other terms ("derogatory", which does NOT mean the same as "offensive" any more than "usually" does not, but can, mean "sometimes").Skookum1 21:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The existence of the inoffensive political and cricket meanings is, again, further proof that there are uses of the word which are not even "usually" offensive, i.e. that sometimes the word does not have a derisive/offensive context (not directly anyway, as these terms are obvious adaptations of the older sometimes-not-derisive meaning which you say was always-offensive), as clearly evidenced by the other disambiguation entries. Again, that these secondary meanings (including the "dealer in chinaware" meaning) are not mentioned by your dictionaries is a demonstration of their essential inadequacy as incomplete and therefore not reliable.Skookum1 21:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The two dictionaries which do not say it is "offensive", they say that the word is "derogatory". We can certainly include that wording as well.
They DO? You must have better reading skills than I do, Hong:
Webster's Dictionary, 1913 - "Chi"na*man (?), n.; pl. Chinamen (). A native of China; a Chinese."
Bibliomania.com copy of Brewers' Reader's Guide - "Chinaman (John), a man of China."
Now where, exactly, do those two citations say "offensive" or anything resembling that? Skookum1 21:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

As for other usages of the term, the statements about the term being offensive is explained in the bulletpoint as it is used to refer to a Chinese male. I don't really think it's absolutely necessary, but I've inserted specifically that the term is offensive when used to refer to a Chinese male. Also, earlier I put a "citation needed" tag on the statement that the term "to some still is" a standard English term for Chinese people. If no reference can be provided for that in several days, I'll remove that qualification as it is yet another instance of WP:Weasel words.

No, it's not; it's an example of the fallability of the citations-only format, which leaves all the stuff that academia/journalist won't document as non-extant; that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. maybe you should take a road trip to Prince George or Kamloops next time you leave HK and listen to how people talk; that the most common modern usage I know of for this term is by non-whites (First Nations) I also find rather ironical (and I'm not talking about in their languages, where as noted it's in their lexicons as the only word for Chinese, both adjectivally and as a noun).Skookum1 21:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
You might also try talking with 4th of 5th generation Chinese here and see their reactions when you raise the issue of the word, or ask them if they use it in a humorous/ironical sense (they do); if you ever leave HK, that is.Skookum1 21:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I know you disagree with what "weasel words" are, but right at the top of the guideline, it specifically says, "This page in a nutshell: Avoid "some people say" statements without sources." Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems to me that the standard-bearers of the "Chinaman is a racist term" agenda (a big feature of political/cultural tirades from CC politicos here in the early '90s) would also deride the political and cricket uses as inherently offensive simply for using the term at all. All other uses derive from the original use, which was NOT offensive (even if modern-era dictionaries can't grapple with that fact). Whatever; Hong, go ahead, rewrite the page as you see fit; I'm bored with you, but I'm also not going to let your inconsistencies and your willingness to completely overlook/deny/misread the sources stand. and I know others will follow in my path long after I've become bored with you and Wikipedia (actually I'm already bored wth you).Skookum1 21:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use as census surname, maybe English surname

I already knew this was the case, as during the 'Chinaman debate' in the BC media/political arena in the early '90s one of the placenames that p.c.-ism insisted on revising was a Chinaman Lake in the Peace River Block, where it was named after the English settler who had originally homesteaded at the lake, a Mr. Chinaman of Hartford or Leicester or wherever whose family trade had been the chinaware business, hence the name; there are it seems a large number of people whose legal surname was Chinaman, as a search at genealogy.com has just revealed.

Now, it's true that among these there are US census records which would most probably be a Chinese person, and the same would be true in BC, where for example ships' passenger records and other registries, including censuses, would summarize "four Chinamen" instead of listing names, and in census records you'd have situations where the guy was known as "Bob" or "Charley" and for purposes of the census he'd been written down as, in the following example from Hawaii in 1900, "Charley Chinaman":

http://www.genealogy.com/cgi-bin/wizard_results.cgi?&SPF=16340685668945 Genealogy.com for "Charley Chinaman"]

But note the second entry on that page, in Wisconsin: Charles Chinaman, also 1900 (there are others on this page which go to 1880, 1870, 1860 but only one of them has specific data because I need a subscription to see more, in that case origin:China). Now by then, it's true that Chinese were more common west of the Rockies than earlier, but the more formal personal name indicates that this doesn't seem to be a "generic surname" as might be the case with "Charley Chinaman" (and others in the genealogy.com listing, though not all by any means) and this was actually a real surname. Whether adopted by a Chinese Mr. Chinaman in the course of Americanization or this guy wasn't Chinese, which is also a possibility; but if it's not an English surname in that case, it does suggest that the defamatory usage of chinaman wasn't as harsh farther east, where the term had enough acceptability to be considered as a legal surname, rather than ust a generic appellation; this may even be the case with Charley Chinaman, who in the local polyglot/multiracial culture of the Islands might have just made his nickname in the local community his legal name; an example of standard-bearing use, not even ironic, but proud (as also with Lee Poon Peak and Ha Ling Peak, which had been Chinaman('s) Peak before p.c.-izing (and were named as Chinaman('s) Peak by the guys who climbed them but were since renamed for them, instead of as an Ha Ling's case - near Canmore, Alberta - he had explicitly stated he was naming it for "all chinamen". That I don't know where to cite; it came up in Usenet long ago during the debates but was probably in the Canmore or Calgary papers - which I don't see, being in BC. A local history may have his exact words - but again, I don't get to see much in the of Alberta history; there's more than enough to read in BC - as again maybe one of the local papers in the Peace River Country might have old newsfiles on Chinaman Lake/China Lake about the purportedly English homesteader namesake, rather than the name having been in reference to a Chinese person at all (as elsewhere, there were few Chinese east of the Rockies until much later; the Peace is the part of BC east of the Rockies; there was a gold rush there, but much further upstream than the farming area in question (nearer Fort St. John I believe, and would have to be as what's upstream from Bennett Dam is now inundated).

Back to the genealogy.com evidence of legal, i.e. non-offensive, surname use:

So far, I've been cherrypicking more 'regular' sounding first names, as others are obviously Chinese (Oh Chinaman, Yee Chinaman, whose real surnames were probably "Oh" and "Yee" of course), but continuing to poke around (without yet finding a British link, as I admit to hoping...) there are some others of interest, simply for their location; and again for the apparent acceptability as a legal surname, and also the likelihood that some may have been naturalized/adopted names:

There are numerous records for the generic-derisive form "John Chinaman"; probably J Chinaman, Joe Chinaman, Jack Chinaman etc - and certainly "A Chinaman" and "Many Chinaman" are doubtless generic usages; many are clearly Chinese. But others like Rose and Lefro and Pearle and even Charles and although I haven't looked at Henderson and Hampton and Ben and William, those don't indicate any kind of negative or even passive-bigoted (as with China Chinaman, John Chinaman) as in census use, but self-accepted names; or not? Even if Census custom at the time was to render Rose Kwok as Rose Chinaman, that's not a derisive use despite its discriminatory origin; it's a legal use, a census use; but it would also seem to be, especially in the case of marriage records, or census records from areas where Chinese were not numerous (and where the term Chinaman could/would be hence a lot more innocuous, and for various reasons self-acceptable); or again, if those records were fully visible, Rose and Pearle and others in east-of-the-Rockies areas were not of Chinese origin; something is certainly "up" with Lefro, I'd say, but even there it could be someone of Eurasian ancestry who had "earned" the name as an appellation in local society, such that it had become his surname. That's also an extremely early usage, in the very earliest days of the China trade, and rather long before derogatory associations had developed; and also socially distinctive anywhere west of the Indian Ocean to have such a bloodline (as whoever was in Louisiana most clearly came there via the sea, and not overland, not in those days anyway...).

Now, genealogy.com is purely an American-based site, evinced by all the source coming up being those in the US (not even Canada, interestingly, despite the longtime family/bloodline overlap on the continent); I just looked up British genealogy site but as far as I can tell it's not digitally searchable; I'll see what else I can find. If nothing else, the genealogy references provided above, original research or not, clearly demonstrate that there was at least another, more passive and not explicitly derogatory usage, in census-taking procedures, and it also points to this being a naturalized surname in some cases; even if there was a formal policy saying "don't use Wong/Ip/Kwok but put Chinaman instead", the existence of that policy is an example of a non-offensive but rather official use; those it was applied to, and certaily their successors, find that to be an offensive use, but in the sense of it being a legal-registry name it's certainly something more than "offensive"; exactly what is hard to say; doubtless on this particular subject, the use of Chinaman in US census registries, there may be an academic paper out there somewhere which would be of interest; but still, it points to a use that was not overtly offensive; like so many others in all the early sources I get to read of the history of this part of the world, where the word is used in passing without any pejorative tone at all; unless you're looking for one, you won't see/hear it...I'll be back with whatever other genealogical/legal registries stuff I might find, and also gonna check with other languages (First Nations or Scandinavian) use or used the term (in modern Chinook Jargon, it's been supplanted by "China tillikum(s)" - China person/friend/kin - but that was done for reasons of p.c.-ism; the modern dialect from Oregon also regards the word Siwash (for a native male, adopted from fr. le sauvage) as derogatory, while other surviving-speaker groups do not, while their non-derogatory form Sawash is regarded as being just as derisive by still some others).Skookum1 22:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

City directories and provincial directories in Canada tend to give full Chinese names, by the way; normal enough for any businessman; but they also might say, among the entries listing other Chinese by occupation/status:

  • Kwok Oh, labour contractor and shipping agent [a rich guy)
  • Ang Chee, labourer [one of the guys who made him rich]
  • Jack Ah, a Chinaman [some guy]

Generally that last usage wouldn't appear in Business directories, more like news reports of somewhere, as the business directory listed only people who wanted to be listed and had a business or service to promote; some Britons and others were also listed generically, whether "squatter" or "remittance man" or whatever was what else wasn't being said; those of stature could at least enjoy the use of "Gentleman" or "Esq." in lieu of a business-title listing (too declassé for some...); it wasn't a postal directory in other words, of everybody; just those someone in business might have some reason or other to want to contact; there's no point in looking in parish registers, at least not in Canada, because very few early-era Chinese converted, and nearly none were Christian to start with, i.e. births, marriages etc would have gone unrecorded)Skookum1 23:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed addition in light of the above

"In official uses such as census records [and newspapers], Chinaman was often used as a generic surname or descriptor without a derisive context.

A bit harder to add "and in some cases may have become a naturalized surname" without citations of specific examples of that, i.e. not census records, or somehow citable demonstrations that Charley Chinaman, Henderson, Rose Chinaman or Lefro Chinaman were/maybe naturalized/adopted surnames./

Also add-able should be:

A derisive tone was created by the jingoistic compound form "John Chinaman".

But I suppose you'd want a cite for that; it's certainly in Morton, but I don't know if he explicityl defines it as more derisive than Chinaman; and like other BC historical authors (e.g. the Akriggs, even publishing in 1975) the casual use of "Chinaman" for "Chinese person" is very common, even when not quoting from historical sources; a no-no now but again evidence of a more casual context to the word than the hard-line one that you are so intent on entrenching here; with the aid of dictionaries which are, as noted, incomplete in their definitions and do not themselves, in fact, provide citations.Skookum1 23:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New article

It's pretty apparent that this DAB page has become inadequate in explaining the usage of the term to refer to a Chinese man. I'm going to create a new article specifically for such usage of the word, using the sources already in the article . It shouldn't take me too long, and I'll simply this page when I'm done. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

There are lots or archival newspaper copy and various official-esque records, as well as 20th Century "pop histories" (truckstop histories and kitchen histories I call 'em, depending on which series and who wrote 'em) in casual use, as well as in nearly any older history or other publication; this is the "general descriptor" sense, said passively in the same context as "there were three Swedes working at the mill" (which could also be derisive, and just as harshly in some areas). In the course of a biography of a homesteader or miner, the passage might to "[Chang Yee] was no longer acceptable to the other Chinamen around Dease Lake because they regarded him as a demon who had come to occupy their former friend's body" - that's a paraphrase from a story from Dease Lake, British Columbia, in Ghost Towns of British Columbia by Ramsey, about a guy who had been so drunk that his long hangover led people to begin his funeral rites; which he sat up in the middle of, fresh as a daisy. That passage I'll dig out if you like; Ramsey may use "Chinese" unless he's quoting a period source; but it's one of countless examples of casual/passive use where offensiveness is not intended; it may be repeating an error, but it's still innocuous use (the way Britons may use "Red Indian" without realizing how offensive that would be in North America, on either side of the border, to First Nations/Native American people; the rest of us would find it awkward). Celestial and Oriental (no longer acceptable, either one, although most BCers I'd venture have heard an Asian refer to themselves that way) were the polite forms, and "Celestials" in particular was part of the popular argot as much as "Chinamen", although you'd never see "chinamen" relative to the formation "celestial gentleman", or the even more assiduous "Son of the Flowery Kingdom", which also appears in local histories/accounts. Some period source-texts may be online; I'll see what I can find; I know there's passive/casual uses in the local histories in the references section on Lillooet, British Columbia and other BC history pages.Skookum1

I've been maintaining the need for a separate article for a long time, because of the range of uses that exist that I know the dictionary definitions don't and perhaps encompass; the legal context of the censuses and other official records is just one to add, as is the nature of passive use both in historical sources as well as in popular use in the 20th Century; it's not enough to simply say "it's offensive" and leave it at that when there's so much conflicting evidence around; much of it obsolete academia and publishing that while it may no longer be acceptable wording, for a very long time it was. The humourous/nickname context of, maybe, Charley Chinaman or Humpy Chinaman, is maybe like the affectionate-use category of the common local-smalltown nickname in rural places I've lived in "Frenchie" (there was inevitably a guy who went by that or might say "it's Jean-Pierre, but you can call me Frenchie"), as is also suggested by Rose Chinaman or Pearle Chinaman; unless those ladies were, perhaps, descendants of whomever Lefro Chinaman was...There's a lot more to some words than dictionary definitions are useful for.....Skookum1 00:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've made the new article, and have simplified this page according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages), which basically says that DAB pages should be as short and to-the-point as possible. Three uses of the term have their own articles, two have references, and two others do not have references or their own articles. I'll be deleting them in several days if references are not provided or if articles are not created for them also. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, FYI, I've kept the different usages of the term to a minimum definition. If editors would like to expand upon them, please create articles for the terms that do not have articles themselves. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) states that we should keep DAB entries short and to-the-point. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Articles don't have to be created for items to be on DAB pages; only the meaning; just un-link them; they still stand as alternate meanings; the politics one has more "carriage" for content, but the other is still a usage, if not a fully-article worthy one (unless you'd like passages from Early VAncouver and other sources quoted as yet another article...); the politics one seems like there will be lots of citations. The cricket one is citable; the eyeglasses "made in the UK and mostly exported to Asia" is, I'm pretty sure, a Prince Philip-style bad joke. There's also, I believe, valid reason to mention the arch-pejorative "John Chinaman", which is the real derisive form (as was also the short form "John", used in a third-person-y sense rather than as a form of address); it's plain-Chinaman that has the range of neutral/non-offensive usages/applications, while John Chinaman is exlpicity derisive and intentionally jingoistic (like Thatcher's infmaous "Argies", but really not much worse than that).Skookum1 03:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
That written while you posted your previous; as for "If editors would like to expand upon them, please create articles for the terms that do not have articles themselves" I think your proposed return to delete things in a few days if no one does anything further is more than over-hasty.Skookum1 03:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Those usages that have their own individual articles don't need citations, as their articles attest to the existence of such usage. That would include usage as a slang, as the cricket term, and as the Anglicised name of the movie Kinaman. I only think the one about the glasses and the figurine should be deleted because with no references, we're not providing the readers any evidence that those usages actually exist. And at any rate, they can always be re-added if they do end up getting deleted, when references can be provided. As for "John Chinaman", that probably ought to be added to the new article about the slang itself instead of this DAB page. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OED entry (Shorter Ed.)

A friend just emailed me this, transcribed from his Shorter Oxford's (OED):

Chinaman n. PL -men. M18 [f.CHINA n2 (branch I) or
CHINA n3 (branch II0 + MAN] I 1 A dealer in porcelain.
Now rare or obs. M18 II 2 A chinese man. Now arch. or
derog. M19. 3. Cricket A left-handed bowler's
off-break of googly to a right-handed batsman. M20
Phrases: Chinaman's chance US colloq. a very slight
chance (usu. in neg contexts.)

Notice that "now derogatory", and also the "dealer in porcelain meaning, also "now rare or obs."Skookum1 03:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Source for porcelain figure meaning

Will be, I'd say, in antiques catalogues/books, even maybe via Antiques Roadshow; there were certain series of figurines and certain generic models made by various different makers; I know I've seen it on Antiques Roadshow, whether as "porcelain chinaman" or as "chinaman figurine" or in some context where the commentator might say "these were called chinamans because of their subject matter".Skookum1 03:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

it's like "a skookum", which is a type of souvenir doll made to emulate stories of "the skookum", something like a sasquatch/bigfoot (skookum has other meanings also, those just two) Different objects, one named as its subject is the other. Makes sense to me, even if not to you; the figurines in question might have been one of the Four Immortals for all buyers in the UK might know, but more likely they were guys with coolie hats and pole-carry outfits in peasant tunics, with nicely done caricature; the porcelain meaning, while not immediately citable, is I'm certain valid, as also the obsolete meaning of a dealer in porcelain (maybe that Mr. Lefro Chinaman in Louisiana, for instance).Skookum1 03:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation pages are not content pages

I think everyone who is responsible for the disambiguation pages out there where the red links outnumber the blue links by almost two-to-one and especially those who actually introduced a references list to the page need to read WP:MOSDAB, because clearly a central factor has either been missed or perhaps has been ignored by someone trying to make a POINT.

That factor is this: Disambiguation pages are not content pages.

They are not there to explain things. They are not there to prove things to you. They are there for one purpose only, and that is to straighten out confusion between articles we already have or articles we will almost certainly have. Tell me, are we likely to ever have an encyclopedic article devoted to a single derogatory epithet whose use seems to have been solely in 19th century British Columbia? No? Then it doesn't belong here. Period. If we could somehow give every article a completely distinct article so that no one ever typed in just plain "Mercury" when they specifically meant "Mercury, the planet" or "mercury, the metal" then disambiguation pages wouldn't even exist. They are not content pages; if you are fighting over the content then you need to step back, re-read what disambiguation pages are for, and start cleaning up the mess. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Lots of DAB pages have unlinked entries; I only redlinked "North Aemerican Chinaman" because Hong had gone and redlinked other entries, which say in the case of the bureaucratic chinaman, may or may not come to exist; that North American Chinaman is a slur on Ontarians (rather than Chinese) means it shouldn't be on the new separate page about the use of the term for or by Chinese people, in the same way the bureaucratic meaning wouldn't be there. But both are meanings, both existed; they may not need articles, but they need to be here (esp. since they're citable).Skookum1 01:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Also IIRC this wasn't originally a DAB page but got turned into one.Skookum1 01:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No, that's exactly the point: just because something exists does not mean it has to be on a disambiguation page. Disambiguation pages are purely for resolving confusion between entries that exist in the project. If I call someone on the phone and ask to speak to "Steve", and there are two Steves in that office, asking me "Do you mean Steve Taylor or Steve Jones?" is reasonable. By contract, asking whether I mean Steve Phillips, Steve Stone, Steve Baker, Steve Brubeck, or Steve Hill, where those are all people who cannot be reached at that number, is only wasting my time and the time of the person I'm talking to. That's pretty much what adding entries that will never have corresponding articles to a disambiguation page does. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
You wouldn't call a number looking for someone you know isn't there. You would, however, search an encyclopedia for a term that could be there. A disambiguation page shouldn't be used to list just the articles that do exist, but also the articles that don't exist that people may search for. Disambig pages are not "purely" for resolving confusion between entries that exist in the project. It is possible that a subject that warrants an article just doesn't have one yet (which is, in part, what you're saying, I just wanted to clarify it). Chickenmonkey 22:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Disambig pages are full of redlinks all over Wikipedia, including on the surname disambigs/list pages and on various lists summarizing notable people/events/things of one kind or another; redlinks are the way people are motivated to write new articles, for one thing; they're a sign that something may be worthy of an article but no one's had the time to write one on it yet. I could name thirty pages easily where such listings or massed redlinks can be found; there's nothing to make this one any different except the desire, it seems, of some people, to keep as many definitions off this as possible.Skookum1 23:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations/Examples for Chinaman (figurine) - pick one:

Copper ornaments; Chinese vases (Azacapotazlo and Hue Hutitlan). Little Chinaman (Teotihuacan) terracotta figurines of S E Asian people (Niven); Chinese bronzes (Romeo Hristov); Chinese totems (I B Remsen).

  • IMDB entry on the film "Porcelain" -
    • "A gay Filipino man goes home with a non-Asian man that he meets at a club. When he finds a chinaman figurine and other Asian knicknacks he's confronted with the issue of how race affects desire."
    • It's interesting that a Google Search will refer to various EBay pages where old texts mention "Chinaman"; those same pages now have been pc-ized though they show up in google the same as before.

Most tellingly, a crystal and antiques dealer in the UK:

  • The Chinaman China, Crystal and Gifts - no sign on their pages if the proprietor is chinese, or the reference is to the figurines. On second/third thoguht this is probably from the British usgae for a dealer in chinaware, and leads me to wonder if the pronunciation in that should be "China Man", i.e. with the two words pronounced separately. I suppose emailing the store and asking the provenance of their name might be the way to go, partly to establish the British usage, if that's what this is.
  • Meissen porcelain catalogue page (3 items listed at present)
  • Kovels.com Catalogue entry on porcelain chinaman figurine, 1760
  • another kovels.com catalogue entry (1999)
  • reference to a "chinaman figurine" in a children's book/story
  • Antiques catalogue listing "Chinaman pattern" and other usages e.g.
    • "SUNDERLAND LUSTRE. Gorgeous ancient 1820 cups and saucers in pristine condition.The Chinaman pattern is very fresh and bright with no rubbing of the lustre.The London shape to the handles,the deep saucers,the superb depth of the lustre,and the date they were made was c1820 --GEORGIAN."
    • "Chinaman patterned trio made in Queen Victorias Reign. Staffordshire,England.Very good condition
    • "Chinaman large breakfast cup and saucer in excellent condition,Victorian. "
  • Catalogue entry for Porcelain Chinaman Laundry Sprinkler
  • many search items are turning up references to Chinaman's Hat, a Hawaii landmark - as it used to be known anyway (Ebay and other items coming up are postcards/views of it from the 1890s and so on); it should be added
  • Thomaston Auction catalogue page, item no. 173:
    • FIGURINE - ROYAL WORCESTER FIGURINE 'CHINAMAN' #3073 SIZE: 2 1/4H X 1W X 1 3/4D CONDITION" GOOD
    • which suggests that the Royal Worcester catalogue's #3073 is entitled "Chinaman" after its subject; I might just have to stop in at the porcelain section of the local department store and ask to the see the Royal Worcester catalogue. I believe the Royal Doulton catalogue may also have figurines titled "Chinaman". No doubt those, too, are offensive usages according toe the harline POV even if the shops selling them would be mortified to be told that they were ignorant and being offensive. But the catalogues, ad naueam (ane there are more, all over the web) on Chinaman figurines prove two things: one, that such figurines exist and are called that and two, that Chinaman was used to describe the figurines without derisive/offensive intent/content.Skookum1 21:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

By all means, pick the source you think is best and re-insert the entry on the term's usage for figurines. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chinaman (sailing vessel)

I didn't put "(ship)" in that redlink/nominal title because Chinaman (ship) would normally be for a ship named (MV/SS) Chinaman; the context here, which are one of the two connected to the China trade, is that of a particular kind of vessel/sailing-ship business/trade where the ship itself is called a Chinaman; I don't think this is the same as a China clipper (the pre-air age meaning of China clipper, that is). Anyway, although unlike the "dealer in chinaware" meaning for which we do have citations now, I haven't yet seen a dictionary definition of the vessel/ship-meaning, but I did come across two such contexts in the review of Kipling's writings I just completed on the resources page off Chinaman (racial term). The passages are in Traffics and Discoveries and in Captains Courageous.Skookum1 20:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link to resources/citations list

Neither Keefer nor I appreciated having this stuff put "out of sight, out of mind" off the "racial term" talk page , although for the reasons of sheer volume we agree with the practicality of it, especially as those pages continue to grow. There's a lot of important material there which newcomers to this debate, such as David Levy and others, may not have noticed beforehand, and which others here have denounced as "irrelevant" and called us "fascists" and such for talking about. Whatever; here's the link to the amassed citations/usages and other resources, which I'm re-posting here because the original notice, low-key as it was, is now archived and semi-invisible. No doubt there are some who would prefer that it was invisible, but that's just not the case; a link on the Talk:Chinaman (racial term) page to this debate page, also, as it's been the main arena for debate of what is now the article page here.Skookum1 00:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New visitors please see Talk:Chinaman (racial term)

A main arena of debate on this page and its contents has been at Talk:Chinaman (racial term); its discussion may or may not shift over to here.Skookum1 00:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cricket

Just had a look at Chinaman (cricket), which is a redirect to left-arm unorthodox spin; there are two versions of how the term became applied to cricketing (looks like a curve ball to me) and neither of them comlimentary, unless it may be that Ellis "Puss" Achong was also nicknamed "the Chinaman", but no, it's a comment from someone being done in by his left-arum unorthodox spin saying "Fancy being done in by a Chinaman" (I can hear the old-boy colonialist in that, can't you?); the other version is more abstract. Whatever; just turned out to be interesting; one account only is in Achong's article but it refs the other one.Skookum1 02:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/h/i/Talk%7EChinaman_%28disambiguation%29_5f98.html"