Talk:Chinaman

Parallel terms

The parallel forms of Chinaman are actually "Franceman", "Englandman", etc., which do not exist in English. The words "Englishman" or "Frenchman" are constructed by adjective+man instead of countryname+man, and they do not have historical derogatory connotations. Since "Chinaman" and "Englishman" neither have similar grammatical structure nor similar connotations, they are simply not parallel. Actually, the word "Englishman" was coined long BEFORE "Chinaman", and the obvious grammatical difference in the coinage of "Chinaman", in some sense, reflects the historical malicious attitudes towards Chinese mine workers in California. The Irish hurled many insults at the Chinese. One such insulting terms was "Chinaman" used to demean them as being dishonest (look and dress differently ) and stupid (can't speak English). The hatred / distrust of the Chinese led to the eventual passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act in America, which was not repealed until 1950s. Listing all these words together is to confuse unnoticed people with a wrongly justify the subconscious false logic (i.e. why can we just ignore the negative connotation since there are other "parallel" neutral terms?). I think there is a biased intention to mitigate the derogatory meaning. The author of that sentence, please logically justify the parallelism on the webpage (or at least acknowledge the grammatical difference) if you insist on listing these words together.

btw, I do not often participate in editing wikipedia pages and I hadn't edited a term in social science before. I occasionally corrected some technical errors in some math or engineering related articles, and I could directly edit the page without any trouble or contention. That the specialty of this word I wasn't aware of. As a result of my unawareness, I directly edited this page without posting anything in this talk page, and wondered about the problems of not being able to properly save. It was not my intention to participate in a "edit war". Instead, I found this talk page a healthy discussion place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.252.5.59 (talk) 05:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

These are interesting arguments. If the term Chinaman was used in a derogatory way when it was first coined, then this would indeed be worthy of including in the article. We can't just include it based on your argument, though, as the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability. If you have a reliable source that backs up your arguments, then I say by all means include it. You can find the relevant policy at WP:V. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 06:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

As for the terms being parallel or not, well, they are at least close. Do you have any sources that discuss the relationship between Englishman, Frenchman, etc. and Chinaman? If so then they would be a great addition to the article. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 06:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

To Mr. Stradivarius: Chinaman and Englishman are clearly not grammatically parallel as explained before. Being close is different from being parallel. Closeness and parallelism are different concepts. In fact, there are many (very) close words in dictionary that are not parallel. Do you have sources to support this parallelism claim? It cannot be made by only mentioning "closeness" in a subjective way. As you said, the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability. If I point it out this apparent grammatical point by adding a note in the page or replace the word parallel by close, would you still try to revert the edit? You are a devoted responsive de facto manager of this page, so there is no point editing the page without your consent. The terms Englishman and Frenchman are not essentially related to this article, and they are not worthy mentioning in a short introductory paragraph. Listing unrelated terms with NO justification of parallelism is to intentionally instilling subjective opinion. The sentence Although the term has no negative connotations in older dictionaries,[1][2] and the usage of such parallel compound terms as Englishman, Frenchman and Irishman[3] remain unobjectionable,[4] the term Chinaman is often listed as offensive in modern dictionaries.[5][6][7] should be changed to Although the term has no negative connotations in SOME older dictionaries,[1][2], the term Chinaman is often listed as offensive in modern dictionaries.[5][6][7] It is worthy noting that in the current version when mentioning older dictionaries without negative connotations (in fact the older dictionaries were published after the Chinese exclusion act in 1882 when the racial slur was used most often), a universal statement is used, however, when mentioning modern dictionaries, even with more references, the word often is used. Though being subtle, this is clearly a biased subjective opinion instillation. I always acknowledge the possibility of exceptions, and highly discourage misleading universal statement. Per your request of a trustworthy reference, please refer to Page 104 of China 2227: Long, Long Ago by Lyle Jan. The page can be accessed from google book at [1] I also recommend the book The anti-Chinese movement in California By Elmer Clarence Sandmeyer for a more comprehensive historical perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.252.5.59 (talk) 07:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The source you listed mentions that Chinaman is derogatory in the present day, that Chinese railroad workers were discriminated against in the 1860s, and that the western railroad workers coined the term Chinaman's chance as meaning "having little or no chance". What it does not say is that the term Chinaman itself was derogatory in the 1860s. We could use this source to put something in the article about Chinaman's chance, but not about the acceptability of Chinaman before the Chinese exclusion act. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

p.s. I'm not a "devoted de facto manager of this page", I was just patrolling recent changes... — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, you're right about the claim that the terms are parallel being unsourced. You should feel free to remove them (actually, I see that you have already). The burden of proof is on the editor who wants to include material in the article, after all. In fact, I think I will go through this article and remove any other material that could be challenged, just to be on the safe side. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

After a more in-depth look, I found this article to be well-sourced and well-written. It is just the lead that we need to be careful of. I have my doubts about the claim that the term Chinaman itself was derogatory before 1880, because it contradicts the "History" section of the article. Once we can clear this up we should have no problem. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The addition of the term contentious and the paring down of the examples of compounds to three are good edits. I fail to see the point of arguing that Chinaman is not parallel, since it goes against the source, and seems to be predicated on the notion that China is a place, and implicitly that compounds based on places are somehow inherently insulting. That is perhaps a valid OR POV, but the terms woodsman, Norman, spaceman, etc., show that locational compounds are perfectly acceptable grammatically and in regards to etiquette. Note that there are no native English compounds such as Portugueseman or Vietnameseman, (the ending -ese being a borrowing from the French) and so the lack of a term Chineseman is hardly surprising.

In any case, changing the lead from a balanced historical overview to a tract which assumes portraying the word as a slur is the only priority and valid view is a blatant violation of NPOV.

μηδείς (talk) 17:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, arguing about whether the terms are "parallel" or not seems like splitting hairs to me too. However, now that we are arguing about it, why don't we just change it to something that means the same thing while dropping the word parallel? I propose changing "parallel terms" to "similar terms". Definitely with you about the balance of the lead - I have not seen any evidence that Chinaman was offensive in and of itself before 1880, or in the older dictionaries. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Please refer to Page 448 of The Columbia guide to standard American English, By Kenneth G. Wilson. It says "it is an ethnic slur, a taboo in American English". This reference from a reliable source was deleted without explanation or discussion. I'm not sure if you come from an American English background. But You false accusation is not constructive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattyjacky (talk • contribs) 19:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I removed the comment, not the source per se. We cannot simply state that this word is inherently objectionable as a fact. That you removed 中國人, which is a compound of 中國 "China" and 人 "man" makes me suspect you know this. The source itself is a modern usage manual assuming a certain modern view for a certain audience. Most English speakers outside California will be shocked to learn that this word is objectionable, and you won't find objection to it prior to recent decades.

You have to understand that wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a medium for social engineering. See WP:SOAP. The priority for the article is to be balanced and comprehensive in the dimensions of history and geography. Along those lines, your deletion of the fact that 中國人 is the native Chinese word for a person from China is problematic. The fact is neither irrelevant nor unverifiable. The fact will be restored to the article. I'll let you suggest a way to do it before I act to restore it myself. μηδείς (talk) 19:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to also note that the origin of the term predates the California experience and even Chinese migration to America. Most etymologies place it as mid 18th century, before the first Chinese immigration to America (c. 1820 according to our article) and when California still belonged to Spain. At the time, Americans made up only a relatively small portion of the world's English-speaking community. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

To Medeis: The argument is not about the accuracy of translation, but about the fact that the English sentence itself does not have any reliable citation. I don't understand your claim Along those lines, your deletion of the fact that 中國人 is the native Chinese word for a person from China is problematic.. I challenge the source of the English sentence, not the accuracy of the translation of an unsourced sentence. Are you saying that we should keep a translation of a sentence even if the sentence in the original language is removed? I found you enjoying accusing various users with violations. Remember that Wikipedia is a place where users work corporately. With full respect to you long time devotion to some articles and acquired knowledge and confidence in the meanwhile, I fail to see how it is me rather than you who are engaging a propaganda of personal opinions. At a very high level, without delving into technical details, I agree that gradually people in the world should forget bitter history and forget any resulting historical burden. After all, every letter is as innocent as it is, and combination of letters could be interpreted in a benign way. For example, "nigger" in some languages just means black and has been used long before modern history to mean black. But we cannot logically argue that it is not a racial slur in American English. There might be one day that neither N word for African American nor K word for Jewish American were offensive. However, for anyone grown up in California, it is common sense that this word is a racial slur to Chinese people, even if it is not the most nasty one. You clearly have a priori intention to mitigate the derogatory meaning. With full recognition of your peacefull mind, it is not the way wikipeda articles should be edited in. Thanks. Mattyjacky (talk) 23:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

No-one's trying to argue that Chinaman isn't offensive now - the lead clearly states this already. You appear to be confusing the offensiveness of the word now with its offensiveness 150 years ago. These are two very different things. (By the way, you might want to have a look at WP:TLDR.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

To Medeis: btw, generally, information can be lost in translations, especially arbitrary unthoughtful translation. The fact that in English there are DIFFERENT words describing the same concept with different connotations means that you cannot confuse different words. 中國人 is the native Chinese word for a person from China and a agreed translation of Chinese, but it is not a proper translation of Chinaman. Since you've mentioned that you are Chinese, assuming you've read some English literature translated to Chinese, you should have known that 中國佬 is the translation of Chinaman with clear negative tone. Again, I should emphasize here again that my argument was NOT about translation. Instead, it was about the fact that the ENGLISH sentence is unsourced. If you have questions about reference of Chinese translation of Chinaman, please leave a message on your personal page since it is not related. Mattyjacky (talk) 23:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, translations can be a little vague. You could argue that Chinese translates to 中國人 and Chinaman to 中國佬, but you could just as easily argue that Chinaman translates to 中國人 and that the best fit for 中國佬 is chink. I think the reality is that Chinaman could be translated as either 中國人 or 中國佬, depending on the context, the location, and whether it was said now or 100 years ago. We should probably steer clear of this vagueness in the article. I also think that the phrase "When used to distinguish between nationals of China vs. those of Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Macau" is a little dubious. This assumes that Chinaman is used to distinguish nationals of China from the other groups, something of which I have no personal experience. In my experience it has always been used as a blanket term for all these groups. But then, I am not a reliable source... — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 12:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Relevance of Englishman, Frenchman and Irishman

I have doubts about the relevance of the statement "and the usage of such parallel compound terms as Englishman, Frenchman and Irishman[3] remain unobjectionable". This page is devoted to the word Chinaman, not Englishman, Frenchman, Irishman, or Ironman and even Spiderman :) . If these words are mentioned, then why not others? Does it serve a purpose other than arguing that Chinaman should not be seen offensive? If it is considered "balanced" only if different views are included, despite that how remote they may be, then which of the views and how many of them should be included? Who has the proper credentials to make such selection?Dwarm12345 (talk) 14:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

There are no credentials necessary, just consensus and the core content policies of verifiability, no original research, and a neutral point of view. As this has become a controversial issue, I would be very interested to see a reliable source that discusses the relationship between Englishman, Irishman, etc., and Chinaman. That will be a lot more productive than arguing back and forth over definitions. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

That's why I have been advocating to use respectful dictionaries as the authority on the issue. Dwarm12345 (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The lack of credentials of the editors are the biggest weakness of Wiki from my newbie' point of view. Very often the discussions are time consuming and easily fall into the he-say-she-say situation, especially when it gets into the realms of social study and politics. Many educators regard Wiki as highly unreliable or even misleading :( Sorry for the off-topic observation. Dwarm12345 (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

"If these words are mentioned, then why not others?" It's called historical context. This is a comprehensive descriptive encyclopedia, not a prescriptive dictionary of recent usage. It would be a disservice to our readers not to provide this information, and it in no way prevents the reader from understanding that some people do find the word offensive. Your comments imply that this article should only be about the view towards the word in California in the last three decades. If you really want to improve this article then I suggest you see what is the earliest source you can find which describes the term as offensive. My guess is it will be the 1980's, but it might be as early as the 1960's. That would be very interesting. μηδείς (talk) 15:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I went on a little search for sources, and I found an entry for Chinaman in "The color of words: an encyclopaedic dictionary of ethnic bias in the United States" by Philip Herbst. In that entry, it says that Chinaman is "similar" to Englishman and Irishman. The fact that he mentions this in the first sentence of the encyclopaedia entry is a good indicator that the information about Englishman, Irishman, and Frenchman be kept in the lead. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Good find. μηδείς (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

So now both of you support my respect for respectful dictionaries! Dwarm12345 (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

In support of the notion of doing reader a FULL service :-), I move to add a reference to Ductchman which IS a racial slur listed under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs Dwarm12345 (talk) 02:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

That was interesting, since it mistakenly attributes the word Dutch to the Pennsylvania Dutch, while the term is much, much older. And neither source says anything about the term being insulting. I suggest you read the entry for Chinaman, it is quite good.

At this point your comments look like a POV in search of a rationalization. I suggest you read the policy WP:OR. I suggest, again, that you try to find some sources before 1980 that show the term as pejorative. That would be interesting.μηδείς (talk) 03:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Your assessment is a plain POV and it is counter productive IMHO. Can you focus on the discussion rather than making conjectures on one's motives? Dwarm12345 (talk) 03:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Medeis: You simply deleted the term from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs without even pretending to reach a consensus first!!! This is a gross violation of Wikipedia policy which you have preached many many times in various occasions yourselves!!! Dwarm12345 (talk) 04:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Medeis, don't you have to wait for reaching a consensus BEFORE you delete the entry, AGAIN? Dwarm12345 (talk) 05:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Dwarm, talk about List of ethnic slurs goes at Talk:List of ethnic slurs, not here. Thanks. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 05:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree. But if I don't mention the deletion of the entry, a reader may mistakenly think I was giving misinformation. So please excuse me. Dwarm12345 (talk) 06:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I stay by my earlier move to add a reference to Ductchman which IS a racial slur listed under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs . Medeis, please respect the scholarship which you have been advocating and do not delete the reference this time. Dwarm12345 (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's have a look at the sources. There's no entry for Dutchman in "The color of words"; rather, it appears under Dutch. In that entry it says that Dutchman can be "inaccurately and often derogatorily to name a German, someone of German descent, or a foreigner". Also see the entries for Dutchman in the Chambers Dictionary and Mirriam-Webster Online Dictionary, which don't list the term as offensive (Mirriam-Webster does list it as "archaic", though). It's not exactly the worst of words, and certainly less offensive than Chinaman. It doesn't really seem relevant enough to include in the lead. Do you have any evidence to back up your arguments? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 04:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Since similar words are discussed in the article, it would be a disservice to the readers not to list this word, which is even more grammatically close to Chinaman than the other three. Whether the word Dutchman is insulting or not is secondary, now, in this case it happens to be. Dwarm12345 (talk) 05:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

A while back, I began a section (now the second one in archive two) where Orwell discussed the term being offensive in the 1940's. Although it was in the context of him having to change it in reprintings because the connotation of the word had changed. --JGGardiner (talk) 03:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Others

In the first paragraph, it is said "When used to distinguish between nationals of China vs. those of Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Macau, it is similar to a direct translation from Chinese - 中國人, vs. 港人, 台人, and 澳人 respectively.". This statement has no reference. Can any one cite reliable reference of using Chinaman distinguish those of Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Macu? In fact, Chinaman is used as a racial slur towards all aforementioned Chinese people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.252.5.59 (talk) 07:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this point. This is without citation, and it contradicts the fact that this word is often referring to a superset of Chinese people instead a subset. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattyjacky (talk • contribs) 07:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Plain dictionary translations hardly need a source, but you can try Google translate: [China] people, vs. Hong Kong, Taiwanese, and Australian people

I've replied to this above. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 12:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Mattyjacky (talk) 19:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC) :::::: This sentence has no reference to any dictionary or other reliable sources.

The old version, which says the term has been used by English speakers of Chinese descent and others, without offensive intent,[8][11] gives subjective conclusive opinions on the intention and contradicts the fact that the same links are listed in the "Controversies" section. I suggest changing "without offensive intent" to "causing contraventions" to better describe the nature and let readers refer to the relevant section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattyjacky (talk • contribs) 08:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

You don't change a factual and balanced view which reflects the sources to its exact opposite to fit a point you wish to emphasize. The fact that the term is controversial is the fourth word of the lead. μηδείς (talk) 18:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

NO. "unintentional usage" is the opinion of one side of the controversies. People do not call the opinion of one side in a controversy factual and balanced view. If you don't want to mention controversy, you should at least not cite the opinion of only one side in the lead. Mattyjacky (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

This statement is relevant and sourced, and should stay in. The sources say that the individuals in question didn't intend to cause offence. Mattyjacky, are you questioning the veracity of the sources? The other side of the story is already provided in the lead - it is a "contentious" term, and it is "noted as offensive by modern dictionaries". You can't get much more concrete than dictionaries listing it as offensive. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 12:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

To Medeis: The argument is not about the accuracy of translation, but about the fact that the English sentence itself does not have any reliable citation. Remember that Wikipedia is a place where users work corporately. With full respect to you long time devotion to some articles and acquired knowledge and confidence in the meanwhile, I fail to see how it is me rather than you who are engaging a propaganda of personal opinions. At a very high level, without delving into technical details, I agree that gradually people in the world should forget bitter history and forget any resulting historical burden. After all, every letter is as innocent as it is, and combination of letters could be interpreted in a benign way. For example, "nigger" in some languages just means black and has been used long before modern history to mean black. But we cannot logically argue that it is not a racial slur in American English. There might be one day that neither N word for African American nor K word for Jewish American were offensive. However, for anyone grown up in California, it is common sense that this word is a racial slur to Chinese people, even if it is not the most nasty one. You clearly have a priori intention to mitigate the derogatory meaning. With full recognition of your peacefull mind, it is not the way wikipeda articles should be edited in. Thanks. Mattyjacky (talk) 20:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Please do not edit according to your personal emotions upon hearing a word, or suggest that it is appropriate to do so.

The wikipedia policy issue is very simple. Read the sources: "Rosalyn Weinman, NBC's executive vice president for broadcast standards and content policy, sent MANAA executives a letter saying the network had never intended to offend viewers." That makes it rather clear that there was no offensive intent. As for citations to support text, a reference supports the fact reported, not the wording of the sentence that communicates that fact. μηδείς (talk) 01:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks. Did you read the description of Chinaman in Columbia style Book aforementioned? This is not a personal emotional "upon hearing a word". Rather, your defensive attitude of your own wording may result from your efforts on this article (which is commendable as a separate issue). What you've cited here is exactly a one-sided opinion in a controversy. Could you please also read about the accusations? Did the people being offended say that they finally agree with the statement by NBC? What you wrote here is exactly a one-sided opinion- the statement from NBC. Please calm down and restrain from insisting your exact wording and contemplate whether causing controversies is a better factual balanced description. No one can verify another man's intention, and we cannot say with malicious intention either. But causing controversies is a agreed fact. There are many wikipedia articles where good authors do not give a judgmental conclusion in the lead on something that is actually IN the controversy session. Thanks. Mattyjacky (talk) 02:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Please read the sources:

• "As many people know, I do not believe in any form of prejudice or discrimination and was unaware that the term 'Chinaman' was derogatory and hurtful to the Asian Pacific American community."
• "Rosalyn Weinman, NBC's executive vice president for broadcast standards and content policy, sent MANAA executives a letter saying the network had never intended to offend viewers."

Your last order, besides being a misrepresentation of the sources, violates WP:NPOV which requires us to address all facets of an issue. One simply cannot edit based on the insistence that one's personal emotional response to a word establishes its objective status as offensive in all contexts and historical eras. μηδείς (talk) 02:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The source you provided above is still from the same side - the offender. Please provide citations of people who were offended, if you still think there was once a controversy at all. I agree that it is counterproductive to argue with you indefinitely. I'd like to raise this to a third party evaluation. Mattyjacky (talk) 02:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The point of view of people who are offended is already included, with the phrase "the term Chinaman is noted as offensive by modern dictionaries". I doubt readers will be confused about the offensiveness of the term after reading that. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 12:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Changing the lead

It doesn't look like Dwarm12345 will be coming back to edit here soon, judging from their comments at AN/I, but I am still in favour of changing the lead a little to better reflect how the term is seen as offensive by Asian Americans. Although Dwarm12345 may not have been the most calm and collected of contributors to this article, it is clear that they thought there was a problem. I'm sure it is possible to make this article more politically correct without sacrificing our coverage of the various modern and historical perspectives on the term.

Reading it again, a simple way to do this would be to take the sentence "While usage of the term Chinaman is nowadays strongly discouraged by Asian American organizations, the term has been used by English speakers of Chinese descent and others, without offensive intent, and has also been used as a self-referential archetype by authors and artists of Asian descent" and simply swap it round, so the part about it being strongly discouraged by Asian American organizations comes last, and therefore has more emphasis. Also I propose adding a quote or two from my fairly extensive survey of the sources on the modern usage of the term, in a new sentence after that. Does this sound like a reasonable idea to everyone? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no opposition to changing the order of the clauses, but then the "has been" needs to be changed to "is normally", (per Green) and the of Chinese descent and others needs to be dropped:

"While the term [Chinaman] has been is [normally] used by English speakers of Chinese descent and others, without offensive intent, and has also been used as a self-referential archetype by authors and artists of Asian descent, usage of the term Chinaman [word] is nowadays strongly discouraged by Asian American organizations"

giving:

"While the term Chinaman is normally used by English speakers without offensive intent, and has been used as a self-referential archetype by authors and artists of Asian descent, usage of the word is nowadays strongly discouraged by Asian American organizations"

I have no problem quoting some dictionary entries in the text. They shouldn't be in the lead. If we are going to do that we definitely need to restore the Chimese word Chinaman itself, and we should quote green saying the usage is usually innocent.

μηδείς (talk) 15:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not quite buying that Chinaman is "normally used by English speakers without offensive intent". How do you reconcile that with Mirriam-Webster's dictionary of English usage, circa 1994, that says they have seen "some examples of the old naive use ... but more of knowing use that is intended satirically"? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 16:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Herbst, 1997, p49 says "a name usually used without malice". And note that the Merriam Webster entry is dealing with seeing the written word, not the spoken. (I question the NPOV of a source which records past innocent usage as "naive" rather than "innocent"--naive implies that unmalicious speakers should have known people would take offense in the future when they meant no offense themselves.) I would be happy to use "usually" per Herbst rather than "normally". μηδείς (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You're questioning the neutrality of Mirriam-Webster? Are you sure about that? You might want to check our article Merriam–Webster's Dictionary of English Usage which quotes linguist Geoffrey Pullum as saying it is "the best usage book I know of... utterly wonderful". Herbst 1997 seems to be the source that characterizes Chinaman as the least malicious out of all the ones I found; on the other end of the spectrum is the Encyclopedia of Chinese-American relations, 2006, which says outright that it is "an ethnic slur, taboo in American English". Mirriam-Webster is in the middle ground. There is also the fact that Mirriam-Webster had multiple editors working on it, whereas Herbst likely had just the one. As we are discussing it, here is the full MW quote: "Our American evidence shows some examples of the old naive use—as if the user had no notion anyone found the term offensive—but more of knowing use that is intended satirically or is intended to hark back to those days when the expression was common." I think it is clear they are not talking about modern-day usage, not past usage. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 19:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The question is whether we should say "While the term Chinaman is used by English speakers without offensive intent..." or "While the term Chinaman is normally used by English speakers without offensive intent...". The MW source, with its reference to ironic usage, deals with written materials presumably searchable by lexis nexus, not speech, and does not say that most use is malicious. Ironic use is not malicious. (Naive by MW must apparently mean non-ironic.) Herbst is broader, more recent, and deals specifically with racial terms. Adding "normally" or "usually" actually softens the claim. μηδείς (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, each source has its own strengths, I'll admit. Putting aside the differences between Herbst and MW, there are a lot of other sources that I found, which describe Chinaman using variations on "offensive", "derogatory", "often offensive", "usually offensive" and "taboo". I don't think it would be a fair representation of the sources to ignore all of these. I think "sometimes used by English speakers without offensive intent" would be a more appropriate representation. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 22:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

We are speaking about intent. To say that it is sometimes used without offensive intent is to imply that for the most part it is used with offensive intent, which is not supported by a single source, including MW. There is no contradiction between saying that some people find the word offensive but most people who use it don't intend to offend. You cannot balance the strength of people's offense at hearing the word by changing the characterization of the intent of others who use it from normally without malice to sometimes without malice. μηδείς (talk) 23:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Wait a second, let's get our definitions straight before we continue. I was considering offensive intent here to be any language that intends to offend, threaten, upset, belittle, make fun of, or otherwise marginalise a person based on their race. Let's call that demeaning language. We can usefully contrast this with innocent language, which intends none of these things. We can work out the exact wording for the article later. If we are dealing solely with the intent of the message, then we have two sources that deal with this, Herbst and MW, which I think are both respectable and reliable sources. They also happen to contradict each other. I think the obvious thing to do here is to find some more sources, preferably as recent as possible, which we can use to resolve this contradiction. There must be some more recent usage guides or slang dictionaries somewhere that we can use to help us. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour^♫ 05:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Intent of a speaker of the word is an irrelevant issue. The article should be on the word itself, not on the intent of the people who uses it. I found it odd that only the editor(s) of this page is(are) obsessed with the intent issue while articles on other similar terms (yankee, k*ke, n*gger, ...) are strictly on the word themselves and have no reference to the intents of the speakers. And there is a good reason for that. We all know for even the worst form of racial slurs, people may be using it out of ignorance. And even for the best form of praising or flattering words, people may be using it for negative or cynical intents. So if you were to mention the innocent intents, shouldn't you also cover malicious intents? Then it becomes totally meaningless. So I object the change being proposed on the intent issue, instead I move to remove the language on intent all together. Dwarm12345 (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)