Talk:Laowai
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Word choice
I didn't change the term to "collected" to vindicate European powers. "Extorted" is a charged word that specifically means to coerce unjustly. "Collected" is a neutral term. It is not the wikipedian's place to make moral judgements about historical events, even if that event is the Holocaust, near-unanimously regarded as a terrible atrocity. It might be more appropriate to include a passage about how the Opium Wars are viewed by historians as having been unjust, but this would need citation. The reason I took out the word "extorted" is because it is no different than saying "stupid Europeans" or "very mean British". Whether accurate or not, it's not scholarly.--Zeplin007 20:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I wrote the original article, and I don't have any problem with the edits. Just keep in mind that there are times in history where neutral terms are inappropriate. You wouldn't call the holocaust an "unfortunate event", and it wouldn't be wrong to use a word like "brutal" to refer to slavery. In this article Zeplin007 changed the word "extorted" to "collected" for a reference to First Opium War and Second Opium War, when Europeans governments supported European drug smugglers who illegally sold opium to the Chinese, who were attempting to ban the drug. Wide spread opium use during the Qing dynasty is considered by nearly all historians of Chinese history to have been a major factor factor in the decline of Chinese power and the root of suffering for thousands of Chinese addicts. When the Chinese attempted to stop these smugglers Britain and France went to war with China, destroyed their armies and coastal cities, forced the Chinese to sign away the sovereignty over Hong Kong, Shanghai and several other coastal towns, and then made the Chinese pay millions of dollars to pay for the drugs that the Chinese government had originally confiscated. If that's not extortion, then I don't know what is, but a harsher term then "collected" should be used. But I'll let someone else make that edit. David Straub 12:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Although I've tried to refrain from editing this article, I really cannot let this go on any longer. I'm going to work in Shanghai for a while and was trying to do some objective research before I went. Wikipedia (minus talk pages) is not the place to interject one's own opinions regarding the supposed racial force behind a word or compare degrees or types of racism among words. I've added some minor edits to the main article page to eliminate such instances. I hope it is understood that this is not mean to undermine what may or may not be true according to people with a lot more Chinese experience than me. It is merely an issue of style. No one wants to endure a wikipedian lamenting about how offensive a word is. Readers want objective, fact-based, neutral reporting. As the article previously stood, several statements exhibited impossible comparisons and generally "begged the question".--Zeplin007 00:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
There are currently two points in this article where it is said that "lao" in laowai connotes respect, which is inaccurate (but is a common misunderstanding). Laowai is a colloquial word for foreigner, as opposed to a more formal word such as waiguoren. For more discussion, see the following two pages (the first is written by myself). -- Todd May 4, 2005.
- Having lived in China for close to 5 years, I can verify that "laowai" does not connote respect. It is not inherently friendly (or unfriendly) either. When respect is truly intended, other words are used. --Sinosplice 01:17, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
How about (cautiously) using the example of "Australian" vs "Aussie" to illustrate that laowai is an informal term (it would not be used on formal occasions), but is more or less neutral? -- Todd 03:47, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Okay, who updated the article? "Respect" has become "friendly", and I agree with Sinosplice that this is not really the best definition either...can we just say "neutral" and leave it at that? Also, I think "lao zhong" is probably only used in overseas chinese communities. And another thing I've noticed, the "Laowais and the Media" section is about foreigners and the media, it is not related to the word "laowai" itself. -- Todd@waze 10:53, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't agree with this: The "lao" in "Laowai" literally means "old" and in this context is usually intended to denote familiarity and a degree of casual friendliness. Foreigners seem to have a big hangup with "lao" not really meaning anything, but here it's really the case. For other words, "lao" does indeed mean "old," or connote respect, but not here. The Chinese language has a tendency to form words with two syllables over words with one to avoid ambiguity. Hence words like laoshu (mouse), zhuozi (table), shitou (stone). In these cases, "lao," "zi," and "tou" have no meaning. This is a well-documented linguistic feature of the Chinese language. People should really stop trying to inject their own feelings into the language; it's really very simple. Laowai is a casual, netrual word meaning "foreigner." --Sinosplice 03:18, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
If laowei is neutral than so is 'nigga', 'chink', and 'gook'.
Word "lao"in "laowai" doesn't mean old.It is not a nutral word. old in chinese"老", but the "lao" in "laowai" is "佬" it means "Disrespectful name for foreigners". You can find this word in chinese dictionary.
people write "老"but not "佬" because it's easier to write.So now they just use character "老" but it means "佬" it doesnt mean "old".
Who have been in china or Taiwan long enough can understand what “do not like foreigners” it is part of Chinese culture. Taiwan is the same because they are all chinese ． P.S. please forgive me for my bad english July 2005
The fact that laowai is used to collectively describe caucasians yet Asians of foreign nationality, many of them from nations that have visited far greater horrors on China than any European-based society, get to keep their dignity is incriminating at best. Laowai is a racist, hateful slur, like another poster said, it's tantamount to nigger, kike, bean, gook etc etc...the world is full of these monikers. However, use them here in the US, in public, and you'll likely manage a trip to the ER. justifying "laowai" by referring to alleged unfair treatment of China in the 19th century is more of the old, racist "white people are always to blame" rhetoric, and a smoke screen to guise China's genuine, widespread problems with ignorance and backwardness, problems Chinese society would be best advised to deal with soon. The source of such usage isn't injustice, it's the old demon of hate found everywhere. face it and stop playing games. I haven't been there for a few months now, but thank you for including information on public education in the media regarding this vulgar word, that's part of the way to go.
[edit] Move to Wiktionary
I transwiki'd this article to Wiktionary and replaced the current version with a soft-redirect. SchmuckyTheCat reverted that edit with the comment rv this is not a dict def
I've read and now re-read the article. The contents of this article are a detailed discussion of the meanings, origins and usage of a word. It includes synonyms and related words. Those are components of a dictionary definition. It is not the content that I would expect to see in a truly great, unabridged encyclopedia. It is, however, the content that I would expect to see in a truly great, unabridged dictionary. I believe that the content belongs in Wiktionary, not in Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a dictionary has been established policy since long before I joined the project.
I see no possibility that this article can be expanded past a dictionary definition and into an encyclopedia article. I would be happy to be proven wrong, though. If you can show me what in this article is more than a discussion of the meanings, origins and/or usage of the word or if you can expand the article past that state, I will withdraw my objections. Rossami (talk) 01:13, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
- I agree that there's room for improvement on the article, but the word has a social context that calls for more than a dictionary definition. It is somewhat comparable to gaijin, only less known at the moment. Lawrence Lavigne 00:54, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
[1] 66.235.28.63 02:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Three months ago, I expressed the opinion that this article was a mere dictionary definition and transwiki'd the article to Wiktionary. Several people disagreed and argued that the article could be expanded into an encyclopedic topic. In that time, however, no expansion has occurred. The only edits have been some minor wikification of existing content. Also in that time, a formal proposal was made to reverse the rule that Wikipedia is not a dictionary but the proposal failed. Since the article remains a mere dictionary definition and since its content is already at Wiktionary, I am going to again make this into a redirect to the dictionary definition. Please do not revert it until you are ready to expand the article into a full and encyclopedic discussion of the social context. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 11:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Hwong ya?
I have worked from people who I believe were from Fujien part of China in a number of cities, and they always use the term 'Hwong ya', but I cannot find any discussion of this term on any of the linked articles. The only explanation I was ever given is that it was the word in their dialect for 'Waiguoren'. Is it very rude? (I asked this same question at Talk: Ang Mo about a month ago and never got a reply) 71.253.146.218 16:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it all depends on how it is used. I live in Shanghai and when they say "naguonin" in the Shanghaiese dialect it is freuquently quite rude manner, but it is not a pejorative. I have a feeling "Hwong ya" is not a pejorative, but can be used rudely, just like the word foreigner in any language can. In Taiwan they actually use the local term "big nose" to refer to foreigners!!! --David Straub 06:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikitionary links
Is it absolutely necessary to have two links to the related Wikitionary definition at the top of this article?--Daveswagon 04:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
