Talk:Ruqun

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hanfu revivalism and bias[edit]

It seems common among Hanfu revivalists to confuse court attires of Yuan and Ming Dynasty to be Hanfu or "ruqun". Contrary to their beliefs, court attire of the women they see there is an import of Korean hanbok, a result of Koryo influence over the Mongol court of Yuan Dynasty.

Ordinary women of the Yuan Dynasty wore Ruqun(upper jacket and lower skirt), and garments of Banbei(half sleeves) were also popular. In addition, influenced by people of Koryo in the neighboring country, the aristocrats, queens and imperial concubines in the capital city imitated the custom of Koryo women's attires.

http://www1.chinaculture.org/library/2008-01/28/content_28414.htm Cydevil38 (talk) 21:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • You said in the Hanbok article that Mongolian fashion were brought into Korea royal house when Mongolian princess married Korea royalties. So Mongolian clothings influenced the aristocrats, queens and imperial concubines of Korea, not the reverse. Also, I wouldn't trust a source that can't even spell "Goryeo" properly. Supersentai (talk) 03:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The influence went both ways. Koryo is a correct, but alternative, spelling. The source is correct about Koryo influence, and this is widely known in Korea. Also, ruqun from Song to Ming was more or less the same. The ruqun as shown in this article is a distorted version made by Hanfu revivalists. It's ironic that some Hanfu revivalists distort their own cultural legacy to steal other people's culture. Cydevil38 (talk) 03:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ruqun as shown in this article is made based on artifacts and portraits from Ming Dynasty, and till now, those are the only artifacts of ruqun found.Supersentai (talk) 04:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.efu.com.cn/data/2006/2006-04-21/146502_3.shtml

That site shows you a good idea of how ruqun evolved without distortions by Hanfu revivalists who are no doubt influenced by the Korean Wave. In case you didn't know, as the Hanbok article suggests, women's hanbok remain relatively unchanged since its earliest evidence on the Goguryeo wall murals. There is even less stylistic changes in men's hanbok. Cydevil38 (talk) 04:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • That article is outdated. It hasn't been updated since year 2006. Ming Dynasty artifacts have only been excavated in the last few years. Supersentai (talk) 05:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what Ming Dynasty artifacts look like or if a 2006 source is "outdated", because it will only mean the opposite of what you're claiming. Women's hanbok remain relatively unchanged since its earliest evidence in Goguryeo wall murals. All foriegn influence were superficial and temporary, except for Mongolian influence which had lasting change unlike others.

Goguryeo(Koguryo): [1] Goryeo(Koryo): [2] Joseon(Chosun): [3]

Your claims are biased and contradictory to the academic consensus of the subject matter. Please stop distorting information on Wikipedia. Cydevil38 (talk) 06:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Artifacts and portraits from Ming Dynasty:
http://laiba.tianya.cn/laiba/images/537068/12135170132084211364/A/1/m.jpg
http://imgsrc.baidu.com/forum/pic/item/d5bd2d73a38ae20b8701b0a2.jpg
http://imgsrc.baidu.com/forum/pic/item/6b6e203fadf05bff55e723e4.jpg
http://laiba.tianya.cn/laiba/images/23733/12137029440913759654/A/1/l.jpg

Can you still deny that such clothings existed in Ming Dynasty? Also, this PDF file (http://221.145.178.204/nrichdata/etc/book/file/1966/FMH02_13.pdf) states that China Hanfu have had great influences over hanbok. The author is a Korean specialized in history of hanbok. Supersentai (talk) 06:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are talking about a four decades old source with questionable reliablility. Besides, most of the material talk about clothing of royals and aristocrats, for which it's true that they adopted different forms of Hanfu until the downfall of Joseon.

I did say it doesn't matter what Ming Dynasty artifacts look like, because it's firmly established that hanbok remain relatively unchanged from its earliest evidence in Goguryeo wall murals. Also, Goryeo is much older than the Ming Dynasty. There are Ming dynasty portraits showing women wearing ruqun the way it was worn in Song Dynasty and before. What does this infer? Do your pictures really depict those of ruqun? What does www.chinaculture.org say about the history of attires in the court of Yuan Dynasty? Think about it. Cydevil38 (talk) 06:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Do your pictures really depict those of ruqun?"
Ru means blouse, qun means skirt. The artifacts and drawings all has a blouse and skirt. What do you think?
Also, Yuan Dynasty was a Mongolian dynasty, with the nobles wearing Mongolian clothing, which were not worn by the Han Chinese, and thus are not Hanfu. Supersentai (talk) 06:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then everything with a blouse and a skirt is Hanfu? That's just silly. Then this girl must be wearing a ruqun[4] too? It's just damn silly.

It's obvious from the paintings that attires of the early Ming Dynasty court was heavily influenced by the Yuan Dynasty court. Then there are also Ming Dynasty paintings of contemporary women wearing ruqun as it was in Song Dynasty. If anything, the similarities you've pointed out should be seen as a result of Korean influence over what you call "Hanfu", but I have the slightest interest in tuggling over origins of other people's culture, unlike you. Cydevil38 (talk) 07:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are paintings in Ming Dynasty called shinutu (仕女图), which are mere figments of imagination of the painters. These paintings mostly depicts women wearing clothing of previous dynasties (pretty much like modern drawings of ancient people), and it would be foolish to base actual clothing off these paintings.
Actual hanfu are based off rongxiang (容像), which are portraits of people sitting in a chair and posing for the painters, which are more believable. Supersentai (talk) 07:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arg, please explain how korean influenced Chinese Dynasty? If you say Yuan then i would somewhat believe yet their clothing are different from han dynasty's Ruqun but Korean? When they use Chinese characters and Silk from them? Care to list some source? --199.219.144.53 (talk) 15:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Cydevil, could you show us actual paintings or like what Supersentai provided with artifact & Painting? other than computer drawings? also some of your listed Chinese sites are outdated and the artical's Arthur simply doesn't know much about hanfu to even write one. If you still insist these outdate source are valid then same thing can be say about Sentai's 4 decades year old source and it's questionable reliability. --Lennlin (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am astonished by the level of bias here. Can we really call a 2006 source outdated? It's only 3 years old. Supersentai's source is four decades old and its text doesn't entirely support the editor's claims. None of the sources do. He's using them to promote a radicallly biased claim that is against the academic consensus. Most of Supersentai's sources are forum posts and whatnot by amatuers and misguided Hanfu revivalists. I have posted the official site of Ministry of Culture of PRC. The Ming Dynasty ruqun I have posted is also widely available on the internet, and it's based on old Ming Dynasty paintings. Cydevil38 (talk) 22:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another important point that you're oblivious of is the fact that Koreans have been wearing this type of clothing for several centuries before Ming Dynasty was founded. Even Koryo, the Korean dynasty that preceded both Ming and Yuan, had this type of clothing. It's simply anachronistic for anyone to claim that this type of clothing is derived from something that came into existense centuries later. Cydevil38 (talk) 23:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm gonna comment about just few things. As for the mention of "outdated sources", did not Supersentai (talk · contribs) try to insert a 1966 source that he can not even read nor indicate which page number he is using? The 43-years-outdated source is worthy to be included without even pointing out pages, but the 3-years-old source from a reputable site managed by Ministry of Culture, P.R.China is not okay to use? Please don't tell me about further contradiction. Moreover, I'm bemused at Supersentai's other nonsensical denial of the Chinese source just for the difference of Romanization on Korean. Likewise, how can we trust his comment even he does not know about the "representative Romanization of Korean" that scholars use in real life. Scholarship on a well established theory can be changed if a good artifact or document is newly found. However if you want to say about "outdated information" on the 2006 source, bring a hard evidence from "reliable sources" to back up your claim, not "Baidu" or a "forum". The 2006 Chinese source is at least not a forum. Besides, Yuan Dynasty was essentially Mongolian empire, not Han Chinese one. --Caspian blue01:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I just read the latest addition of that 1966 book(1998) by Seok Juseon. First of all, her book is not specifically about Hanbok as we know it today. Her book is about any and all different styles of clothings that were worn in Korean history. I'd like to make a few important pointers with regards to this book.

  • With the of concept of any and all different styles of clothigns that were worn in Korean history in mind, it's true that various kinds of Korean clothing was "derived" from China. However, on the same token, various kinds of Korean clothing was derived from the West, such as t-shirts and jeans. Concept of Hanbok itself may vary, but at least with that specific type of Hanbok we are talking about here, it is a specific type of indigenous clothing that had little if any at all influence from China.
  • Suk Juseon also makes an important note that Korean clothing, in general, is of the northern Asian(nomadic) style as opposed to the indigenous Chinese style.
  • Her opinion of Joseon Dynasty's clothing is that it evolved very independently without foreign influence. She makes no mention of Ming Dynasty. Cydevil38 (talk) 02:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I also went over a comprehensive book on history of Chinese clothing to verify whether what Supersentai is telling is true. It turns out his claims are all falsified. I took a few scans to prove so.

  • [5] This is the scan of a page on ruqun during Ming Dynasty. As I had suspected, it's identical to the ones widely available on the internet, further strengthening its verity.
  • [6] This is the scan of what Supersentai claims to be ruqun. In the book, this clothing is specifically explained to be of Mongolian in origin. It is also explained that Mongolian clothing was in the past influenced by Koreans, Khitans and Jurchens, which could explain the similarities between this type of Mongolian clothing and Korean hanbok. I could care less where or how this Mongolian clothing came to be, but the important fact is that this is what Chinese adopted during Yuan Dynasty, and Koreans have been wearing a similar type of clothing for centuries before Chinese first adopted this type of clothing.

All in all, it is further proven that what Supersentai claims to be Ming Dynasty ruqun is in fact a Mongolian clothing that Chinese adopted during Yuan Dynasty, and his claim that Korean Hanbok is derived from Ming Dynasty ruqun is all but false. Cydevil38 (talk) 03:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • [7] This is a very unreliable computer drawn image of Ming Dynasty ruqun. This image was drawn many years ago, before extensive research was done on Ming Dynasty clothing. Also, the image of Ming Dynasty ruqun in the article has another name, called aoqun (襖裙), which is a subset of ruqun. If possible, please back up your claims with artifacts and ancient paintings, instead of computer drawn images. Thanks. 116.15.179.16 (talk) 03:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing clothes in China by Antonia Finnane gives a very different description of aoqun. According to this reliable source(unlike an article in an internet discussion forum), aoqun was developed in the Ming Dynasty and became popular in Qing Dynasty. The book also mentions that ruqun only has a passing resemblence to Korean Hanbok or Japanese Kimono, hence denying any substantial relationship.

All the reliable sources so far - the website of Ministry of Culture of the PRC, another comprehensive website on Chinese clothing, comprehensive book on Chinese clothing in Korean, another book on Chinese clothing in English - all corroborate to a ruqun that is very different from what Supersentai claims is ruqun. The books also pointed out that many Ming Dynasty clothings were either derived from or heavily influenced by foreign cultures, mainly Mongolian but also Korean, and the clothing Supersentai claims to be ruqun is among them. Cydevil38 (talk) 06:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • On page 164 of the Chinese book 《中原女子服饰史稿》 (can be translated to "History of Women clothing of the Central Plains") by 孟晖, it is stated that Ming Dynasty aoqun, with blouse over the skirt, directly desended from the clothes of Han Chinese women of Liao and Yuan:

"明代前期，中期女服均采用右衽，直领，长袖袄衫，下裙束在袄内，有时加罩一件半臂衣，一般不以巾带束腰，任由松阔的袄身完全抹煞女子身材，样式与风格，直接承自辽，元汉族女服。"

It then goes on to say that this form of aoqun can be seen in the 宪宗行乐图 painting: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1a/Ming_Dynasty_Maid_pix.jpg

The book can be view at: http://fliiby.com/file/25651/dy8cdss893.html

And regarding Mongol clothes being influenced by Goryeo, please see this: http://koreabound.com/about_page.htm?pg=koryo "From 1274, Mongol strongly influenced Goryeo court, and Goryeo kings had monarchical titles meaning they were royal to Mongol empire. They also took Mongol names, do Mongol style hairdos, wore Mongol costumes until 1351." Who was influencing who? Supersentai (talk) 09:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've already given you sources that says Yuan Dynasty court was culturally influenced by Goryeo. I can't read Chinese so I can't comment on that, but I have access to both Korean and English sources that give different depictions of ruqun and also a different description of aoqun. I've already described what those sources say, so I don't feel the need to repeat my words.

Also, please do not remove the disputed tags until a consensus is reached. Cydevil38 (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Off-Wiki canvassing[edit]

http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=31002

China History Forum, Chinese History Forum > Off Topic Heaven > Asian History and Culture

I see Supersentai too there.--Caspian blue 01:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's really fast. The post is gone now because the editors obviously saw my comment, but the cache is still live. --Caspian blue 02:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Singapore IP user 116.15.179.16 (talk · contribs) deleted the thread out of nowhere. Since the repeated canvassing is very much relevant to the ongoing dispute, the IP user has no right to delete them. Besides, Supersentai (talk · contribs), you've been warned yesterday for the disruptive canvassing. If you repeat such canvassing behavior again, the next step is AN/I. --Caspian blue 04:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

End[edit]

Since we all know now that there are conflicts between Ming Aoqun's influence and Yuan and Koryo. Ming certainly worn these kind of clothing from pictures. You guys can debate further here, however I'm going to remove the tags since there aren't any statement in the front page stating it's influence on Hanbok anymore. --Lennlin (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not just about Hanbok. This is about authenticity and reliabile information on Wikipedia. This is what a reliable secondary source in Enlish says about ruqun and aoqun, from Changing clothes in China by Antonia Finnane.

  • Historically, the most interesting development in Ming women's dress is the increasing prevalence of long upper garments at the expense of the high-wasted style of the ru or short jacket worn with skirt. This amounted to a major change in the architecture of Chinese women's dress and presaged the long reign of the ao or long jacket during the Qing. The short jacket and skirt (ruqun) is the most commonly depicted women's fashion in figure painting of the Ming and continued to be portrayed by artists right up until the nineteenth century, although late depictions are almost certainly based on earlier paintings or drawings rather than on life. The ensemble has a passing resemblance to the hanbok or kimono, in sharp contrast to the aoqun(long jacket and skirt), which is the most familiar women's ensemble from the Qing.

According to this source, aoqun developed during Ming Dynasty and only became widely used towards late Ming Dynasty and during Qing Dynasty. Other reliable sources also depict a very different form of ruqun from what Supersentai claims to be ruqun. [10] This is the picture of ruqun that is still used at Wikipedia without controversy. [11]


Also, about foriegn influence on Ming Dynasty clothing from the same source:


  • Garments retrieved from tombs show that this restoration project was at least partially realized, but also provide evidence of the sustained influence of the far north on Chinese clothing. To eradicate all traces of Yuan culture was of course impossible, especially given the continued residence in China of descendants of the original Mongol invaders and to this heritage were added new currents of influence arising from trade and other movements between China and neighbouring lands.
  • Wu Jen-shu points to three different manifestations of fashion in the Ming. One was fascination with the exotic: horse-hair skirts(maweiqun) from Korea, and a military-style tunic(kuzhe) apparently inspired by nomad warriors from the north. Both these (male) fashions developed first in the capital, perhaps due to the tribute trade missions that regularly made their way to the markets. Weaving horse-hair was a rare skill in China when the Korean horse-hair garments first appeared, but by the late fifteenth century local weavers had mastered the art and were stealing the tails of horses owned by metropolitan officials to supply themsevles with the materials necessary for the manufacture of the cloth.

More on daopao:

  • Wang Shizhen describes three different garments evolving from the kuzhe: one was the yesa; another was the "tangerine robe" (chengzi yi), worn with a cord around the waist; and the third was the "Daoist gown" (Daopao), worn without the cord.

More on Koryo and Mongolian influence on Chinese clothing from Traditional Chinese clothing by Shaorong Yang:

  • As for women's clothing, fur and leather, commonplace among Mongol clothes, were introduced to China on a wide scale. In general, suede and felt were the materials common in clothes and hats. Gowns were loose and long and often used for ceremonial occasions. By the close of the Yuan Dynasty, the clothing of Korea was seen as especially beautiful, and clohtes, boots and hats similar to the style of Korea were popular and adopted among teh Mongol rulers.

From www.chinaculture.org, official site of Ministry of Culture of China:

  • Ordinary women of the Yuan Dynasty wore Ruqun(upper jacket and lower skirt), and garments of Banbei(half sleeves) were also popular. In addition, influenced by people of Koryo in the neighboring country, the aristocrats, queens and imperial concubines in the capital city imitated the custom of Koryo women's attires.

The ruqun or aoqun depicted in this article contradict verifiable reliable sources. An authentic picture of ruqun verified by reliable sources has been available on Wikipedia for quite a while, but Supersentai for reasons unknown decided to bypass this consensus and make controversial claims. To resolve this controversy, this article should be based on verifiable and reliable sources.

And lastly, please do not remove the dispute tags until a consensus is reached. Cydevil38 (talk) 23:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apparently, you have forgotten (or ignored) what I said about shinutu (仕女图), which are paintings made up by artists. These paintings are made by artists from Ming Dynasty all the way to present day, where people are still drawing people wearing ancient clothing. And it also say that the "ensemble has a passing resemblance to the hanbok or kimono", which isn't true because she (I assume the author is a woman) forgot that kimono used to be a blouse-and-skirt form back in the Nara period.
  • As regards to horse-hair skirts (maweiqun, 马尾裙), it is a crinoline underwear made by Koreans in Joseon Dynasty to give the flared skirt look, and it did lasted in Ming Dynasty fashion, but only for a short time.
  • And you said Mongol rulers adopted Goryeo style of clothes. Even if it's true, it's the Mongolian royals and nobles, not the commoner Han Chinese. Supersentai (talk) 00:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cydevil38, there is no doubt that horse-hair skirts originated in Korea and were at one point prtty popular in Ming China, to a point that it was considered disrupting/irregular clothes (Fuyao). However, I just don't see how you could say Ruqun was influenced by Hanbok of the Koryo Dynasty when records show it started showing up during Han Dynasty. What about various painting which show that it was worn by women of Tang and Liao Dynasty? Are you saying Koguryo influenced Ruqun in the Tang era and Koryo influenced Liao's Ruqun?

Also, the fact that some Mongol/Yuan nobles were wearing "the clothing of Korea/Koryo women's attires" (what is "the clothing of Korea" anyway? Please provide some details on Koryo women's attires if you have any) doesn't automatically prove your argument that commoners/baekseung were wearing Korean/Koryo-style clothing, what it means. Juchechosunmanse (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juchechosunmanse (talk • contribs) 02:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Whether ruqun or aoqun was influenced by Koryo or Mongolia is beyond my point. What I'm trying to point out is that according to verifiable reliable sources, ruqun or aoqun is not Supersentai defines them to be. This is what ruqun of Ming Dynasty looks like according to relaible sources: [12] [13]

This is the image Wikipedia used for ruqun before Supersentai came up: [14]

The reliable sources give a different description about ruqn and especially aoqun. aoqun was developed during Ming Dynasty and becoem popular during Qing Dynasty:

  • Historically, the most interesting development in Ming women's dress is the increasing prevalence of long upper garments at the expense of the high-wasted style of the ru or short jacket worn with skirt. This amounted to a major change in the architecture of Chinese women's dress and presaged the long reign of the ao or long jacket during the Qing. The short jacket and skirt (ruqun) is the most commonly depicted women's fashion in figure painting of the Ming and continued to be portrayed by artists right up until the nineteenth century, although late depictions are almost certainly based on earlier paintings or drawings rather than on life. The ensemble has a passing resemblance to the hanbok or kimono, in sharp contrast to the aoqun(long jacket and skirt), which is the most familiar women's ensemble from the Qing.

From Changing clothes in China by Antonia Finnane.

In short, Supersentai is heavily disrorting information on these articles to make ruqun and aoqun to what they are not. He does have an agenda. Sources for most of his pictures are from the Hanfu reviavalist movement, which can be said to be a political movement, that sometimes can be seen as a reactionary movement to the Korean Wave. These people think Korean Hanbok and Japanese Kimono "stole" something from them, hence they feel the compulsive need to make hanfu look like Hanbok or Kimono and show it to everybody, telling them that Hanbok and Kimono came from hanfu. This is what we see here, Supersentai editing every articles that Hanbok is derived from Hanfu, then posting images and information in favor of the revivalist view in contrary to the verifiable reliable sources. In essense, they are distorting their own cultural legacy to distort other people's culture.

What this article needs is removing all the dubious pictures added by Supersentai. They are mostly taken by Hanfu revavilists, and may have copyright issues anyways. There're already reliable images on ruqun, so they should be used instead. Also, the reference to kimono should be removed as well. The article itself makes no mention of ruqun or the Ming Dynasty. If anything, Kimono itself is very different from ruqun. Cydevil38 (talk) 22:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • [15]This picture depicts a very general view about ruqun. It doesn't specify which dynasty's ruqun it is describing.
  • And you just keep ignoring what I've said about shinutu (仕女图).
  • And you keep ignoring my sources, artifacts and portraits.
  • The Hanfu reviavalist movement is NOT a political movement. The government has not shown any support in it. By the way, till now, the only types of ruqun made based on actual artifacts is Ming ruqun. Supersentai (talk) 01:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Hanfu revivialist movement is a reactionary movement to the Korean Wave? I think you gave the so-called "Korean Wave" too much credit. I'd say the majority of Hanfu revivalists pay little attention to the Korean Wave and hanbok, they are more or less targeting the Manchurianized costumes such as Chongsam and Qipao. What agenda does Supersentai have? I failed to see one. Juchechosunmanse (talk) 03:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • From Changing clothes in China by Antonia Finnane: "Wang Shizhen describes three different garments evolving from the kuzhe: one was the yesa ...". But according to this source ([16]), yesa evolved from yosunoja and byunsunoja, not kuzhe. It failed to research more into kimono, that kimono worn in early periods of Japan was a blouse-and-skirt form, which definitely share resemblance to ruqun. Also, this source is ignoring artifacts ([17] and [18]) and other paintings ([19], [20] and [21]) from Ming Dynasty, which makes it an unreliable source.
  • [22]This website is a fashion portal. How reliable can it be? Supersentai (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since Antonia Finnane is a history professor of of Chinese History at University of Melbourne with some notability according to references to her name and books in google books, Amazon search, news articles and interviews, all you gotta do is to present her analysis is "wrong" by showing reputable sources (book reviews from critics), not your "own" analysis. And I would like to know the notability and affiliation of the Chinese author. I want you to bring in "book reviews" on your book. If the two contradicting theories are regarded reliable, then the article should address the both views like "According to A, ruqun is derived from X...On the other hand, according to B, it originated from Y......
    Question: how do we know the artifacts that look quiet new are indeed excavated or decedent artifacts? You have neither presented captions nor location information where they are preserved/exhibited. If you don't, your claim has no merit.--Caspian blue 12:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for your convenience, there seems to have book reviews on Antonia Finnane's book that automatically secures the notability of the book. Here is one.[23].--Caspian blue 13:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I directly emailed Antonia Finnane regarding her account of Ming Dynasty clothing:

Quoting from your book, "Changing clothes in China": "Historically, the most interesting development in Ming women's dress is the increasing prevalence of long upper garments at the expense of the high-waisted style of the ru or short jacket worn with skirt. This amounted to a major change in the architecture of Chinese women's dress and presaged the long reign of the ao or long jacket during the Qing. The short jacket and skirt (ruqun) is the most commonly depicted women's fashion in figure painting of the Ming and continued to be portrayed by artists right up until the nineteenth century, although late depictions are almost certainly based on earlier paintings or drawings rather than on life."

However, quoting from the Chinese book 《中原女子服饰史稿》(http://fliiby.com/file/25651/dy8cdss893.html), page 164: "明代前期，中期女服均采用右衽，直领，长袖袄衫，下裙束在袄内，有时加罩一件半臂衣，一般不以巾带束腰，任由松阔的袄身完全抹煞女子身材，样式与风格，直接承自辽，元汉族女服。" It then goes on to say that this form of clothing can be seen in the 宪宗行乐图 painting: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1a/Ming_Dynasty_Maid_pix.jpg

Your information states that the blouse-over-skirt (the blouse is not tucked into the skirt) attire developed only in Ming Dynasty, but the Chinese source states that the blouse-over-skirt attire was worn in early Ming Dynasty, and it was developed during Liao and Yuan Dynasty. What are your views regarding this difference?

Attire of women in Liao Dynasty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mural_in_liao_tomb.jpg Attire of women in Yuan Dynasty: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Puppeteers_draw_a_crowd,_Yuan_Dynasty.jpg

These are artifacts of clothing from Ming Dynasty: http://laiba.tianya.cn/laiba/images/537068/12135170132084211364/A/1/m.jpg http://laiba.tianya.cn/laiba/images/23733/12137029440913759654/A/1/l.jpg

These are 容像 (rongxiang) paintings from Ming Dynasty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Banbi%2Bzhiduo%2Baoqun.jpg http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y244/iamsentai/6b6e203fadf05bff55e723e4.jpg

Also, do you know 仕女图 (shinutu), which are paintings in the Ming Dynasty that depict women wearing clothing of past dynasties? These paintings are total figments of the painters' imagination, and thus cannot be used as basis for actual clothing worn during Ming Dynasty. Like what you stated: "late depictions are almost certainly based on earlier paintings or drawings rather than on life". This also applies to the Ming Dynasty paintings.

And she replied:

Thank you for your informative email. This period of clothing history is in need of much more detailed work than I devoted to it. I presume you are doing just that. I look forward to the results.

Does this mean that her account on Ming Dynasty clothing is not as reliable? Supersentai (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have not answered my question. The professor did not specify "roquan" at all in her response. Bluntly to say, how do we believe that you really sent the email to her given your history related to copyright violation and questionable editing to clothing articles? You have to forward the email to WP:OTRS team for verification. I'm still waiting for your answer to my question. You said Antonia Finnane's book is unreliable.--Caspian blue 16:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can email her yourself at a.finnane@unimelb.edu.au as given in this link to verify what I said. Also, I only meant that her account on Ming Dynasty clothing is unreliable.
  • It is not common for Chinese people/critics to comment on books. However, this and this link states that 孟晖, the author of 《中原女子服饰史稿》 has done extensive research on living styles of ancient China.
  • This and this link refer the artifact as Ming Dynasty artifact. Supersentai (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why do I have to send her email? Since you want to discredit her assessment on the clothes, you have to show your evidence from "reviews" from critics. I already gave the book review. Moreover, I also recommended to address both views if your claim is referenced by reliable sources. for Chinese people/critics to comment on books. -> Wrong, I've seen counter examples for Chinese books. Would you summary the articles since I do not read simplified Chinese very well. --Caspian blue 17:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, what Supersentai claims to be ruqun looks very different from how it's drawn in reliable sources.[24] Then there are tons of Ming Dynasty panintings that depict this stype of ruqun from reliable sources. The authors of those sources mut have given more credit to those paintings even though Supersentai discredits them. He then tags Ming Dynasty paintings that depict this authentic type of ruqun with dubious tags. This version[25] provides reliable and uncontroversial information of ruqun to the readers, but Supersentai seems to have another agenda in mind. Assuming he's Chinese, why is he denying his own cultural legacy? Only he knows perhaps.
  • Secondly, other attires in the paintings that Supersentai claims to be ruqun are obviously Mongolian in origin, and since whatever they're wearing isn't ruqun, there's ample of room to presume that they are foreign derivations much like their counterparts.
  • Thirdly, he already abused Korean language sources to make edits to Wikipedia that are not supported by the cited sources. I'm not about to take his word on anything that is not verifiable by me.
This source states that this painting is a depiction of Yang Guifei and her maids by a Ming Dynasty painter: "此图以杨贵妃清晨在华清宫端正楼对镜理髻为中心，将宫女奏乐、采花和携琵琶等情节同现于一个画面". What's a Tang Dynasty royal consort doing in a Ming Dynasty painting?
From this page: Meng Hui (the author of 《中原女子服饰史稿》) had done extensive research on living styles of ancient China, especially on details of ancient women's life (孟晖对中国古代的物质生活有着深入的研究, ... 长于探究古代中国女性生活中的种种细节 ...)
This source describes about the Ming Dynasty artifact, states the dimension of the artifact, and it is now in the Museum of Confucius. This artifact was handed down the Kong (Confucius) family. Supersentai (talk) 06:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll address your objection to the painting even though there are sources that say painters used contemporary fashion regardless of the depicted characters.

In any case, your efforts to deny foreign influence on Hanfu is really futile, since it's widely accepted that Chinese clothing(Hanfu) was considerably influenced by foreign styles since the Warring States period and especially during Tang Dynasty. Cydevil38 (talk) 04:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have never denied foreign influence on hanfu. And yes, I know that Chinese liked foreign fashion during the Tang Dynasty. Supersentai (talk) 13:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is Korean Wave? What exactly does that have to do with this? Average Chinese doesn't care, you're making it sound like it's having huge impact in China. Also how are you so sure that painters used contemporary fashion? Do people in England draw pictures of King wearing tuxedo? Also the artifact Sentai showed clearly depict Aoqun, AND the painting [[31]][[32]]. I failed to see how Aoqun is not alive in Ming.
  • Reliable sources decribe a very different aoqun. It is also said that Korean clothing had a lot of influence over female Yuan Dynasty clothing. Cydevil38 (talk) 22:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opps got carry away.Just a small comment, I don't know if you're right or what but I'm sure the picture tell us that these clothing are used in Ming too. for now keep it neutral. --Lennlin (talk) 01:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What a mess[edit]

okay, You two! What goals are you two trying to achieve here? Sentai please don't add controversial lines regarding to anything without a fine source. Also Cy, i think you're trying to deny Aoqun ever existed or even being regard as Hanfu at all. There are many paintings and "real" artifacts of aoqun dug up if you don't know. There are always outside influences, same thing came be say about Korea, so saying Hanfu/Hanbok is pure is wrong. Sentai i suggest just leave Korea out of this until you have some well documented source and try to separate Tang's Ruqun and Aoqun from this article to prevent further confusion because i'm confused now with this broken article spammed with tags. Can you two at least set an agreement here? --Lennlin (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources in English and Korean provide me with reliable information on aoqun, and they are contradictory to what Supersentai claim it to be. Cydevil38 (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ruqun&oldid=1202813028"