Talk:Hanfu

Citations about Influencing other Cultural Dress

I just checked the citation regarding Hanbok being influenced by Hanfu—the one from the National History Museum of Korea in its issu digitized magazine form.

I understand many nationalists from China, Korea, and really whatever other country’s cultural dress is in question get riled up and HEATED about this discussion on origin. Regardless, I must point out that having actually read the magazine no where in it does it support the claim Hanbok was influenced by or descended or associated with etc etc. with Hanfu.

I’m sure there’s a credible English source out there somewhere that acknowledges connection or influence from Hanfu. But nowhere in the Hanbok section is China or any Chinese dynasties even mentioned. Ergo, this citation is pointless, it does not support the assertion made. Should the citation be removed or some sort of tag placed indicating the need of a stronger citation? It’s kind of like no one actually read the magazine. I feel like this also prompts a round of review on the other citations for clarity. Hopefully they all support what is being said in the article as written, but it is clear the current source for Hanbok is insufficient. Maybe some fashion studies journal article about Hanfu/Hanbok would have the line needed? 2601:14D:8600:2E30:254A:11FA:7FF0:C116 (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree. This Wikipedia article needs updated and reliable citations. --赤葡萄酒 (talk) 05:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

How is Hanbok noy influenced by Ming hanfu though the joseon court adopted Ming dress and Dissemination of Ming styles into Korea happened during the late Ming and early Qing korea localized it and made the clothing unique diffrent from the original chinese form. The Hanbok of joseon is more related to Ming clothing then the ""Hanbok"" of Gogoryeo. 2603:8001:8446:6EBB:76B2:3AF7:6B52:E1CD (talk) 01:48, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

This is exactly why you're wrong. Yuan dynasty was influenced by Goryeo dynasty, Korea, around 1300s. There are multiple historical records talking about how goryeo style outfit and accessories were such a fashion among Yuan people that everyone wore it as if it's the trendsetting style and even men wanted to have Goreyo wives with their distinct goryeo style. After Yuan perished, Ming came. Isn't it very natural that Ming was influenced by Yuan? It was built on the same land with the same bloodline of people. They had reference of Yuan clothings, and of course, since Goryeo hanbok style was popular among Yuan people, they must have incorporated that style and recreated the Ming outfits. Since Ming tried to almost inslave Joseon dynasty that came after Goryeo, it was natural that Joseon king and politicians started wearing the exact Ming style that was built on Goryeo-influenced-Yuan style. History has orders. You cannot deny what was written by the old Yuan writers and historians. Let's stop this biased violent attack towards Korean Hanbok, which has thousands of years of history. Ming could make Joseon kneel with its weapons, but it is a pure fact that Yuan fashion was influenced by Goryeo dynasty and Ming was built on Yuan and followed Yuan's style. What came back to Joseon later was merely the public officer and king outfits of Ming, since Joseon people were forced to. ~2026-93314-8 (talk) 10:54, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Joseon people were not conquered by Ming, nor has it ever been attacked by Ming. Let's stop with this romanticized version of history. When has ever in ~300 years of Ming dynasty that has it ever attacked Joseon? If anything, didn't it help Joseon resist Japanese invasion? What you are saying is ridiculous and pure nationalist nonsense. ~2026-29684-08 (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Image in the lead section

Hello [@GuardianH]

I am starting this discussion to find a consensus on the image recently added and removed from the lead section. The initial removal by another editor cited two reasons: a potential copyright violation and a layout issue ("one floating element per lead section"). Your revert summary addressed the copyright issue, stating it should not be removed unilaterally until a violation is proven. This is a fair point about process, but I'd like to focus on the second reason, which is a clear violation of Wikipedia's Manual of Style.

Per MOS:LEADIMAGE and MOS:SANDWICH, an article's lead section should generally contain only one main image, which is typically placed within the infobox. Adding a second "floating" image next to or above the infobox creates text sandwiching and visual clutter. This significantly harms readability, especially on mobile devices where a large portion of our readers access Wikipedia. The infobox already serves the purpose of providing the primary representative image for the article.

While the copyright status of the file should be verified, the layout issue alone is a sufficient and standard reason for the image not to be placed in the lead.

Therefore, based on the established Manual of Style guidelines, I propose that we remove the image from the lead section. If its copyright license is valid, we can certainly find a more suitable location for it within the body of the article, where it can illustrate a specific section without disrupting the lead's layout.

Thank you. 211.196.255.208 (talk) 18:36, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Your interpretation of MOS about how "an article's lead section should generally contain only one main image" is a misreading and putting more than one image in the lede is a widely accepted practice, as here. Also, an image gallery such as the one here is not violation of MOS:SANDWICH, far from it; that policy does not address properly formatted image gallery templates, but rather the placement of opposite, separate photos. As for the copyright question, that's really a question for WMC rather than here. GuardianH (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

@GuardianH: Thank you for your reply. I would like to clarify my points based on a closer review of the Manual of Style.

You are correct that MOS:SANDWICH technically refers to opposing images, and my primary concern is better articulated under MOS:LEADIMAGE. However, a specific guideline within that policy directly addresses this situation and makes the use of a lead gallery inappropriate for this article.

The policy explicitly states:

"Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations should not be illustrated by a photomontage or gallery of images of group members."

Since "Hanfu" is the clothing of the Han Chinese—a large human population—the current four-image gallery in the lead is in direct violation of this rule. This is not a matter of interpreting the word "generally," but a clear instruction against using lead galleries for this type of article.

This specific rule reinforces the other points I raised:

1. Standard Practice: This guideline is why the vast majority of well-developed articles on Wikipedia use a single lead image, typically in an infobox. They adhere to this standard because it is the established best practice for clarity and focus.
2. Mobile Readability: The current gallery causes significant readability issues on mobile devices, where a large block of images pushes the lead text far down the page. This is precisely the kind of layout problem the Manual of Style is designed to prevent.
3. Better Placement for Images: The intention to showcase diversity is good, but the correct implementation is to place these valuable images within their relevant historical sections. This provides direct visual context for the text, which is the recommended Wikipedia practice.

Given this clear and direct guideline from the Manual of Style, I again propose that we replace the {{multiple image}} template with a standard {{Infobox clothing type}} and select one representative lead image. The other images can then be moved to more appropriate sections within the article.

This would align the article with Wikipedia's established standards and significantly improve the reader experience. 211.196.255.208 (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

What is crucial here is the second part of that policy at MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY that you did not mention:

Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations should not be illustrated by a photomontage or gallery of images of group members. This does not apply to articles about things such as body parts or haircuts.

Hanfu is a piece of clothing. It is not an ethnicity simply because it involves the Han Chinese ethnic group. Likewise, it would be unreasonable to say that Kimchi is an ethnicity because it involves Koreans. It is perfectly acceptable to put image galleries on articles about clothing, as here. Notwithstanding this, if you want to make a copyright objection, the best place to do it would be on WMC rather than mainspace. GuardianH (talk) 22:09, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

@GuardianH:

Hello, this is the same user who previously posted from the IP address [211.196.255.208 ]. My IP has changed.

Thank you for clarifying your interpretation of the policy.

That said, I believe this interpretation does not fully reflect the spirit and purpose of the guideline. The gallery in question does not merely display inanimate objects; it presents "images of group members" wearing the clothing. The central purpose of MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY is to avoid presenting a handful of selective images as representative of a broad and diverse population’s culture, which is precisely what this gallery does.

Furthermore, your analogies are not equivalent. Comparing Hanfu, a complex cultural identifier deeply tied to ethnicity and history, to a simple "haircut" is a false equivalence. Likewise, the comparison to "Kimchi" is inappropriate; Kimchi is a food item, and an article about it would fall under culinary guidelines, not those concerning the visual representation of a large human population. Ethnic attire such as Hanfu is fundamentally about how a people present themselves.

More importantly, this focus on a single sentence overlooks two other critical, unaddressed issues that severely impact the article's quality:

1. Mobile Readability: The lead gallery causes significant readability issues on mobile devices, a clear usability problem that layout guidelines are designed to prevent.
2. Lack of a Standard Infobox: There has been no explanation for why this article omits the standard {{Infobox clothing type}}, which is the established best practice for providing essential, at-a-glance information for clothing-related articles.

For these reasons, the current layout conflicts with multiple guidelines and established best practices. I still believe the most constructive solution is to adopt the standard format: one lead image in an infobox, with the other images placed in relevant sections. If we cannot reach consensus here, the next logical step would be to seek a Third Opinion from a neutral editor. 2001:67C:2660:425:2C:0:0:358 (talk) 16:41, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I think we should move the images to other parts of the article or delete because it seems very cluttered and the text looks kind of weird. And also add {{Infobox clothing type}} so people can see information about the hanfu at a glance, instead of reading through a giant article, which someone might not have time for. (I found this through the active disagreements section of the third opinion article) Jay =^•ﻌ•^= 23:34, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

@Icannotchoosemyuser You're (helpfully) giving a 3O ^^ you might as well remove the entry from the 3O page per the listed procedure there.

As long as I'm here, I guess I might as well say, I don't really see any immediate issue with the page as it stands. I agree with GuardianH that MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY isn't applicable here, and I don't immediately see how the other cited MOS provisions directly imply a problem with the page. It looks okay to me on a small screen. That infobox template is fine generally speaking, but unless there's been a wide consensus adopted across fashion articles that it needs to be used for every clothing type article by default (e.g. via RfC), nothing implies it has to be used here just because it's used on other clothing type pages. The existing montage does supply information about hanfu at a glance, as does the lead; through both in tandem I was able to get the gist of the article in seconds on arrival without prior familiarity. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 10:03, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

@Icannotchoosemyuser, Mesocarp, and GuardianH:

Hello all, Thank you to everyone who has provided input on this discussion. I especially appreciate Jay and Mesocarp for offering their time and perspectives as third parties. It appears we have reached an impasse, as opinions are divided and a clear consensus has not been formed.

To move forward, I believe this issue now requires formal mediation. Therefore, I will be escalating this matter to a dispute resolution forum, such as the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard to help us find a resolution based on Wikipedia's guidelines.

Thank you again for your participation. 2001:67C:2660:425:16:0:0:250 (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I think it might be a little premature for DRN since Icannotchoosemyuser and myself have only just arrived; we're not really at an impasse yet I would say since there hasn't really been almost any discussion between the four of us. DRN won't offer, like, a "ruling," it's just moderated discussion—a more structured version of what we're doing here already, in other words. I'm happy to do things that way with y'all if it's really what everyone wants, but I haven't really seen signs yet that we're not up to finding consensus on our own. Notably also, DRN has to involve everyone being willing to participate—it's for times when, like, everyone is genuinely trying to find consensus but the conversation just keeps going off topic or getting too verbose or similar, such that it would help to have a disinterested moderator guide the discussion and keep everyone focused. I don't want to trouble any of the volunteers there if we don't really need to.

I will say as a side note too, I don't have a tremendous investment in the outcome of this or anything really—I also arrived here from the 3O page, saw that I cannotchoosemyuser had essentially already given a 3O, but figured that as long as I was here I might as well share my thoughts. I will say though also, to some extent, I kind of get the impression you want the MoS to say things it might just not really, and it might work better to e.g. start an RfC on Wikiproject Fashion or similar to try to build consensus around the point you're concerned on. Like, if you really want that infobox to be the default on all clothing type articles, you can try to actually establish that, but it's something the community really needs to discuss properly; if that's already happened it hasn't been brought up in this conversation. Before that point there is no standard. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 21:43, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I'll say too, I'll help you put together an RfC like that if you want to do that and would like help. They can be a little subtle to draft. This is a pretty simple point though thankfully. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 21:52, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Well actually I take it back…it's kind of complicated if I really think about it. Sorry, I woke up recently and am still kind of groggy. ;^^ Anyway, we can talk about it if you want to go that route. I think it might be the best approach here. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 21:57, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

One last thing to quickly note just for the sake of clarity (sorry for the four replies in a row ;^^)—you could make an RfC for just this article, proposing e.g. that the lead image montage be replaced with the infobox, or you could make an RfC on Wikiproject Fashion or the like, proposing that the infobox actually be standard for all clothing type articles. The former would probably be easier to draft and build consensus around just because it's simpler and more limited in scope, but it wouldn't extend to any other articles aside from this one, so that might not actually accomplish what you want. Obviously I can't really say what the outcome of any of these would be in truth. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 22:19, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I change my opinion. I think that we can keep it as is. Jay =^•ﻌ•^= 22:25, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Okay. I guess the three of us are in agreement at that point then. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 22:45, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I will respect the current outcome of this discussion for now. However, for the record, I must express my disappointment that this debate was prematurely concluded after being escalated to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard.

The case was closed based on procedural arguments made by a newly-arrived editor, preventing a formal mediation on the core policy issues.

The following critical points, central to Wikipedia's Manual of Style, therefore remain unaddressed and unresolved:

• The significant readability issues caused by the lead gallery on mobile devices. This usability concern, a key principle of the MOS, was dismissed based on one editor's subjective experience rather than broader user accessibility standards.
• The omission of a standard {{Infobox clothing type}}, which is the established best practice for providing accessible, at-a-glance summary information. The argument that it is not "mandatory" fails to justify why a non-standard, less informative layout is preferable.
• The core question of whether MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY applies to articles about ethnic attire that feature "images of group members." This crucial policy interpretation was sidestepped with flawed analogies rather than being discussed on its own merits and in the spirit of the guideline.

I believe these are substantial issues that impact the quality and consistency of the encyclopedia. I will not pursue this further at this time, but I hope future discussions will give these points the serious consideration they deserve.

Reference: Hanfu DRN filing 2001:67C:2660:425:4:0:0:104 (talk) 09:53, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

"closed based on procedural arguments made by a newly-arrived editor, preventing a formal mediation on the core policy issues" ... a.k.a., a perfectly acceptable 3O. Other editors tuning in and choosing to preserve the material is not really worthy of WP:DRN. Do you happen to be using ChatGPT to write your responses to the discussion here? A lot of the text you give is provided in the style of an LLM's list and speech. GuardianH (talk) 04:08, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: China and the World

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2025 and 19 December 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Birbble (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Birbble (talk) 21:57, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Influences and other East Asian clothing styles

@Xjptankman: Your edits are fairly blatant POV pushing considering your edit history.

• First you removed the links to other East Asian traditional dresses because of a supposedly "pretty obvious Sino-centric bias." I find this absurd as there is currently no mention of which influenced which in the section. The link to Chinoiserie clothing might be moved to another section but I see no reason to remove it outright.
• Please read due and undue weight when editing article leads. What you added there has already been mentioned in far more detail in the article body. We don't need every random fact in the lead. Esiymbro (talk) 19:04, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Personal attacks are pointless. Could I also say your edits are fairly blatant POV pushing considering your editing history?

Since you yourself described these as East Asian traditional clothing, why is the section titled “Other clothing in the Sinosphere” instead of “Other clothing in East Asia”? That wording does seem obviously Sino-centric.

We have not even discussed why this section exists in the article in the first place, or what purpose it serves.

Given that Hanfu was historically influenced by Persian and Indian clothing traditions, should Hanfu then also be categorized as "Other clothing in the Persian " or "Other clothing in the Indian"?

Chinoiserie in fashion generally refers to Western use of Chinese-inspired aesthetics. Are you suggesting Western fashion belongs to the Sinosphere or to East Asian traditional clothing? I see no reason to keep it in that section.

The content I added was a concise summary noting that Hanfu was historically influenced by other cultural traditions. That is a broad historical point, and it helps explain that Hanfu did not develop in complete isolation. I do not understand why that should be removed.

The lead already includes vague statements such as references to "young Han Chinese people in China and in the overseas Chinese diaspora." I would argue that acknowledging Hanfu’s historical influences from other cultures is more important than such vague wording. Xjptankman (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you consider calling out your two edits as POV pushing as a personal attack against yourself. That says more about the nature of your edits, but unfortunately that is largely irrelevant to the discussion here.

Sinosphere is a well-established term and it is not the same as East Asia (differences include Vietnam and Mongolia, and the non-Sinosphere cultures within China itself). The clothing styles listed there share many clear, self-evident similarities and are frequently compared together. Even if you disagree with the terminology, it does not justify removing half of the "see also" section (and arguably the more relevant half) altogether without discussion.

Given that Hanfu was historically influenced by Persian and Indian clothing traditions, should Hanfu then also be categorized as 'Other clothing in the Persian' I do not find this to be a serious argument. Hanfu had likely adopted elements from nearly every neighboring culture, but that does not mean that you should give an exhaustive list of all such influences in the lead. In fact, the sources you cited made it clear that the the Persian, Sogdian and Indian influences they talked about were all specific to only the Tang dynasty, and each affected only certain pieces of clothing during that period. Again, the exact details of such influences have already been explained with better written text within the article. It should also be self-evident why we include the current status of Hanfu as being revived by young people, rather than a few curiosities from 1,300 years ago. Esiymbro (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Interesting. You did not actually deny the POV pushing accusation, which maybe says something about those edits.

"Sinosphere" is a real term, but "Other clothing in the Sinosphere" is not. You are mixing up two different things.

Also, saying they "share many clear, self-evident similarities" is not really an argument. Vague wording cannot replace an actual reason.

Have you considered that they are "frequently compared together" because they are usually discussed as East Asian costume? That is the more proper academic term.

And if you think Hanfu should not be categorized as something like "Other clothing in the Persian sphere," then why are you so strongly defending the equally artificial wording "Other clothing in the Sinosphere"?

I already explained why “Other clothing in the Sinosphere” is inappropriate, but you still have not given a proper reason for keeping that wording.

Also, this is a "See also" section, not the article body. If you want to keep that section and those links, you should explain why they are necessary and directly relevant to this article.

The influences received during the Tang dynasty did not just disappear after the Tang dynasty ended. Surely you are not saying those influences simply stopped 1,300 years ago.

Compared with Hanfu's long historical development and intercultural influences, the fact that some young people today are involved in the revival movement is much less important. If the body already discusses those historical influences, what exactly is wrong with briefly mentioning them in the lead? Xjptankman (talk) 20:59, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

A quick Google search easily confirms that "Sinosphere clothing" and other similar terminology are very commonly used. You are welcome to search for yourself to see if Hanfu equally appears in discussions about clothing in the Persian culture sphere. If it does, I have nothing against you creating the section "Other clothing in the Persian sphere" in Persian clothing and adding Hanfu there. Esiymbro (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Then why not show actual evidence for it?

Even a quick Google search shows that almost nobody uses this wording, let alone in academic writing.

Why do academic sources usually use terms like “Traditional Clothing of East Asia,” “East Asian costume,” or “East Asian fashion” instead?

Wikipedia should rely on reliable sources. I think I have already pointed out the problem with your argument pretty clearly.

You still have not given a convincing reason why Hanfu’s historical influences should not be briefly mentioned in the lead. At this point, it just looks like you personally do not want it there.

Meanwhile, you keep defending the wording “Other clothing in the Sinosphere,” even though this expression basically does not exist and is not used that way.

Honestly, your position here is starting to seem a bit strange. Xjptankman (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Compared with Hanfu's long historical development and intercultural influences... How much does those specific influences on Tang dynasty Hanfu matter, considering Hanfu's 3,000-year history? In the lead section, should we describe in equal lengths effects of domestic Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism on Hanfu in each single dynasty? What about laws and edicts over history, like sumtuary laws that strongly affected commoner clothing, or Hongwu's ban on "barbarian clothing"? Why should we give your Persian/Sogdian influences precedence in the lead over these topics and over the current status of Hanfu? Esiymbro (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Because the idea of an uninterrupted “3,000-year history” is not widely accepted to begin with, and clothing from 3,000 years ago is not necessarily closely connected to later Hanfu.

The influences received during the Tang dynasty did not just stay in the Tang dynasty. They continued to affect later periods.

And yes, I would also support mentioning major rulers, religions, laws, or ideologies in the lead if they had major influence on Hanfu.

Honestly, it feels like you are trying to artificially confine Indian, Persian, and Sogdian influences to a single historical moment in order to downplay their broader impact. Xjptankman (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Citation needed for the above statements, and for significant Indian, Persian, and Sogdian influences beyond the Tang.

Ironically, you personally not wanting Hanfu's influence on Japanese/Korean/Vietnamese to be there was how this started. You falsely claimed that "the cited sources do not state that Kimono was influenced by Hanfu" even though it was explicitly stated in the source. Kimono is not just "influenced by Hanfu", but also has "Chinese origins", according to the source Kimono: Fashioning Culture.

Back to my point in the beginning: clear signs of POV pushing. Personally I have no issue with discussing external influences on Hanfu and I have personally written about them before. I do have an issue with a clearly WP:UNDUE POV. I don't think there is much point to discuss beyond this. Esiymbro (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I do not think there is much point continuing either. If you are going to ignore obvious examples like the continued existence of yuanlingpao and pibo after the Tang dynasty, then there is probably not much more to say.

That passage also had multiple problems with both wording and sourcing, which is likely why other editors did not restore it either. If you want to understand kimono better, you should probably read the actual Wikipedia page more carefully.

And honestly, from the way you keep overstating terms like “Other clothing in the Sinosphere” and “Sinosphere clothing,” I also think there are clear signs of POV pushing here.

There is probably no point continuing this discussion further. We can leave it to the admins. Xjptankman (talk) 00:14, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I read this whole thread and it is so obvious on what agenda you are pushing and attacking Esiymbro. It is like you aren't even reading what he wrote. Considering your editing history, it is blatantly obvious for what reasong you are on here editing Wikipedia pages. It is a well accepted fact by Japanese scholars that Chinese clothing has influenced Kimono. You can read articles published by Japanese professors on history of Kimonos. Although I don't even think you can read a single sentence of Japanese. You do not have any right to discredit thousands of scholars from USA, Japan, China and many more countries who specialize in Far Eastern history. This conversation should go to Reddit, instead of Wikipedia. ~2026-29684-08 (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2026 (UTC)