Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/Archive 6

message: The "Political NPOV" section doesn't seem seem to be even largely about article naming conventions, but about style and usage, which is beyond the scope of of this namespace.  It ought to confine itself to guidelines on which articles names should use the terms "China", "mainland China", or "PRC", etc.  Alai 16:30, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming convention vs. Manual of Style 

message: I've been editing a lot of late-Qing Dynasty articles lately, and have found certain irregularity when it comes to the naming of Qing Dynasty nobles. I have read about the naming conventions of Chinese nobility on the history standards page, and agree that the naming convention there is appropriate. There are problems, however, when we encounter the Qing Dynasty Nobility. Currently three naming conventions seem to have emerged, and a unified convention should be agreed upon. The problems are set below: 
#Many Qing nobles of the Imperial clan, especially later in the dynasty, appear in Chinese literature simply with their personal names, i.e. Duanhua (端华) was the Prince Zheng, Sushun was also a Prince, of a lower class, but no one refers to him as "Prince". 
#Yinxiang and Zaiyuan both held the title "Prince Yi", Zaiyuan being a direct descendant of Yinxiang who inherited the title. He was the 6th in a line of Princes Yi that ended after his execution. No one ever referred to him as the "6th Prince Yi", the way some references are made to Zaifeng, the 2nd Prince Chun.
#Contrary to nobles of previous dynasties and western countries, Qing nobles did not have a Place name attatched to their title. As a result, some people are simply known, for example,  as "Baron", instead of "Baron of Xiang" etc..
#Chinese nobility, seen evidently during the Qing Dynasty, received and lost titles, rose and dropped in ranks quite frequently. People such as Yinsi was the Prince Lian under Yongzheng, but was disgraced after and known as "Ai-qi-na". Their names are therefore inconsistent during most nobles' lives. 
#The loosely defined rank of "Duke" (公) (国公 Guogong is the Imperial Duke, 民公 Mingong is the Commoner Duke)  was usually only given to members of the Imperial lineage. Their style names, however, are seldom known, and it would seem inappropriate to name someone like Zaize (载泽) as the Imperial Duke Zaize.
#Nobility titles of peerage outside of the imperial clan, i.e. Marquis, Baron, awarded for honour or valour, are seldom used in naming. Zeng Guofan and Yuan Shikai were both made Marquis of the 1st Rank. Should their titles be included in the article title?
#Some titles have a posthumous name attatchment. Yinxiang was the Prince Yi-Xian, Xian being the posthumous name. Zaifeng (Regent under Puyi) was simply the Prince Chun, without a posthumous name because the dynasty collapsed. Further, disgraced and executed nobles are usually not referred to by their titles of nobility.
#The title beile (贝勒) is actually a Prince of the Blood, but is roughly translated as "Lord". Which translation to use? 
#etc. etc. running out of time so I won't list them all
If someone is willing to come up with an efficient naming system for all Qing Nobility, I welcome you to. But due to the overwhelming number of problems faced with these complicated conventions, I will offer a simple Solution:
Whereas the vast majority of Qing nobility were best known by their personal names, and the organization of the Qing nobles can be best done through such a method, I propose that all Qing Dynasty nobles simply carry their given name on the title of the articles. This is the naming convention accepted on Chinese encyclopedias like the Cihai. All the titles they have received, during their lifetime or posthumously, can be put in bold in the beginning paragraph.
Example:
Yinxiang, the Prince Yi (Chinese:怡亲王胤祥; Pinyin: Yìnxiáng; Wade-Giles: Y'in-hsiang;; Posthumous name: Xián 贤) (1686—1730) of the Manchu Aisin-Gioro clan was a noble of the Qing Dynasty born as the 13th surviving son to the Kangxi Emperor. His mother was Kangxi's concubine, Min-Fei of the Janggiya clan. 
I am open to suggestions as to the composition of the first paragraph.
Meanwhile, separate pages will be created for titles that are inherited successively without change of rank, in a similar fashion to Prince Chun and Prince Yi articles.
—Colipon+(T) 06:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In the English Wikipedia, the names should appear as is the custom in English encyclopedias, not as is the custom in Chinese encyclopedias. We should use the names that English-speaking historians of China use. Therefore, Prince Gong, 1st Prince Chun, and 2nd Prince Chun should remain as they are. Nobody in the West knows their given names, and no historian in the West use their given names. They are always referred to as "Prince Gong", or "2nd Prince Chun". For other princes, sometimes western historians use the given names. For example, Sushun is known as "Sushun" by Western historians, he is never referred to by his princely title. So in this case we should use "Sushun". So my opinion is that this should all be a case by case decision, depending on what's the most frequently used name by English-speaking historians: sometimes it will be the princely title (Prince Gong), and sometimes it will be the given name (Sushun). In case of doubt, if you are not sure what's the most used name in English, you can check the Cambridge History of China, or you can run a frequency search on Google (only English webpages). Hardouin 12:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qing Nobility 

message: Tones should be marked in Chinese words (such as proper names), in order to distinguish words written differently but pronounced alike except for the tone. This distinction can be transliterated conventionally either by accent-characters or by numbers. 
In the alternative to indicating tones, a distinction between words pronounced alike (in, e.g., Mandarin) by citing variant pronunciations in other (e.g., non-Mandarin Chinese) dialects.
Any articles in this encyclopaedia written without tones somehow indicated should be deleted by the editor until the authors have made such corrections.
:Please sign your postings.
:I agree that tones should be marked, assuming that the person writing the article knows what the correct tones are, but I cannot accept the idea that articles should be deleted. That's not the right way to deal with minor problems. Letters with tone marks are available at the bottom of every edit page, they don't interfere with the reading of names by people who don't understand tones, and they don't clutter up the page the way numbers hui4.  P0M 06:21, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  tones in Chinese words 

message: I'd like to propose to change the sentence " ..pinyin is the most standard way of romanizing Mandarin Chinese words. " as "..Hanyu Pinyin is the most standard way of romanizing Chinese words, based on their pronunciation in Standard Mandarin.", and " In general, Chinese entries should be in Hanyu Pinyin except.. " as "In general, the titles of Chinese entries should be in Hanyu Pinyin except.."  — Instantnood 20:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor modifications to the section on [[Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28Chinese%29#Romanization|romanisation]]

message: Should this page be tagged with the  template? — Instantnood 20:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering the current state of discussions, is this page fit for it?--Huaiwei 10:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

text: No, it's a guideline. SchmuckyTheCat 17:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: {{Policy<nowiki>}}</nowiki>

message: Regarding the recent edits on the "short" names of the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China on pages such as List of countries, List of sovereign states and List of countries by continent, I've thought it over and consulted resources on Wikipedia. Here are my thoughts.
As much as I respect many points of the guideline at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28Chinese%29#Political_NPOV, such as "Hu Jintao is the President of the People's Republic of China" is preferred over "Hu Jintao is the President of China." (with the first sentence being more accurate), I think the guideline can be overreaching in some cases, such as for the above pages, and becomes some sort of politically-correct language police.
For example, in the pages above, the "short" name of each country is listed, and the debate is on what "short" names should be used for the PRC and the ROC. I think we can all agree on the following points:
# The shortening of the names of the two countries into "China" and "Taiwan" are the most commonly used around the world.
# The names "China" and "Taiwan" do not provide any confusion when the context clearly implies that the entities described are countries. (Confusion may arise when naming articles and in some other contexts when China may describe the "greater China region" and Taiwan may describe the island.)
# The country name "China" is accepted by the governement and the people of the PRC, and the name "Taiwan" is accepted by the government and most people of the ROC.
# The country names "China" and "Taiwan" may be controversial to some people.
Regarding of how to deal with the controversy, please look at Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Dealing with self-identifying terms, and the example cited. What it basically says is that just because the short country names "China" and "Taiwan" are controversial to some does not mean we have to ban them. Wikipedians should be allowed to use them not because these names are endorsed as "accurate", but because they are sufficient to "describe" the countries. On the contrary, not allowing to use them would violate NPOV, as we have decided to conform to the opinions of the people who oppose to those names. As this sentence in Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Dealing with self-identifying terms says:
:Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. We cannot declare what a name should be, only what it is.
Therefore, the pages above merely describe what the "short" names of the countries are, but not what the "short" names of the countries should be. So I believe using the names "China" and "Taiwan" satisfies Wikipedia's policy. Chanheigeorge 08:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neutrality is non-negotiable. We should not use the terms in a manner that might be representing some of the different points of view but not the rest. Yes Wikipedia is descriptive, and therefore we must use the names they're officially known as, not what some people or, specifically, politicians, advocate. As an encyclopædia the aim of Wikipedia is not like that of the press. We have to present neutral facts, and present different points of view in a neutral manner (whereas the press have to take care of how much the audience can understand). — Instantnood 19:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While "Neutrality is non-negotiable", whether something is nuetral or not is.--Huaiwei 10:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The Republic of China is almost always referred to as "Taiwan" nowadays, NOT "China". Using "China, R.O." is not accurate because it implies that China is a shortname alias for Republic of China. The short name of the Republic of China is Taiwan. It's not up to us to dispute this. What a-bian said was "中華民國是台灣" (the Republic of China is Taiwan [not merely its short name] - that is the statement in dispute.--Jiang 05:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Republic of China is frequently referred to as "Taiwan". Calling "China" is usually confusing. "China, R.O." is not easily understandable. While I consider "China (Taipei)" better than "Chinese Taipei", virtually no one uses "China (Taipei)". Sometimes I write "Taiwan administered by the Republic of China". Since there has never been both Chinas co-existing in the United Nations, the Republic of China has been effectively supressed. "Red China" is not to be encouraged while it may not be a neutral point of view.--Jusjih 01:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The country names China and Taiwan 

message: Please join the discussion at WP:CFD#Category:Chinese newspapers to Category:Newspapers in the PRC, regarding how the category shall be renamed. — Instantnood 19:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category:Chinese newspapers

message: There are some recent changes and editing disputes to the placement of the "Republic of China" in lists that I think should be settled in written conventions, rather than being edited and reverted repeatedly:
1. alphabetization: Countries in lists can either be alphabetized according to common name (this is the existing convention) or official name. The common name of the "Republic of China" is "Taiwan", and as such, it should be alphabetized under "T". The only excusable alternative is alphabetization under "R" for its common name. However, as a rule, items on a list should be placed where people are mostly likely to look for them. People look for Taiwan under "T", not the Republic of China under "C". Some recent changes use the listing "China, Republic of" imply that "China" is the short form for the "Republic of China". This is outright false. In fact, our average reader born after the 1960s in a anglophone country will probably be unaware of the existence of a "Republic of China" on Taiwan, and will most definately not look for Taiwan under "C".
2. formatting: I find the use of "Republic of China (Taiwan Area only)" as excessive. It seems that Wikipedia is applying Chinese Nationalist Party reunificationist ideology to the extreme. According to convention, we present only the common name in the list, but an exception can be made for the sake neutrality and accuracy in providing an alternative name (this being "Republic of China") in addition to the common name ("Taiwan"). The name "Republic of China" is itself a charged term, and when it is used in the context of "Republic of China (Taiwan Area only)", we are using "Taiwan Area" as a qualifier of "Republic of China" and this is nowhere near neutral. I flipped through some old editions of the Republic of China Yearbook from the 1980s and even the KMT-led government under Chiang Ching-kuo does not go into such excess. For example, in the "People" section, there is a heading of "population distribution in the Taiwan Area", followed by text that uniformly uses "Taiwan" to mean the entire "Taiwan Area" such as with use of the phrase "Taiwan's population" followed by a specific numerical figure. If this defunct government has no problem using Taiwan synonymously with Taiwan Area and a cultural and demographic context, why should we?
To comply with existing convention and common sense, I propose: 
*"Republic of China" should be always alphabetized under "T" for accessibility purposes. 
*Due to arguments that "Republic of China" and "Taiwan" are not synonymous, and the existing consensus that "Republic of China" should be used where it is more accurate, we should list the entity as "Republic of China (Taiwan)" in a political/governmental context (such as with a list of government leaders) and as "Taiwan (Republic of China)" in a non-political context (such as with a list of GDPs).
Comments? --Jiang 12:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many lists of non-political/governmental topics does have lots to deal with political matters - For instance, lists of GDP figures are compiled by international organisations which have some sort of inclination. There's no such thing as truly apolitical as long as the lists talk about country. All those politics aside, in the study of political science and international relations, the PRC and the ROC are  technically split states like the Koreas and Germanys, although there's huge difference regarding their  extent of control and official diplomatic recognition. They both are qualified as sovereign states, and the current convention is to talk about their de facto extent of control, excluding all claimed territories (e.g. Olivenza would not be included in the figures for Portugal, not even footnote is necessary). </p>As for listing and its name, I agree listing it under #T, and would prefer using "Republic of China (Taiwan)" for all circumstances. "<Code>Republic of China (Taiwan)</code>" is Chen Shui Bian's terminology and is not NPOV. It's fine to use "Taiwan (Republic of China])" for apolitical ones, but I don't think it's practical to tell what's apolitical. — Instantnood 16:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you for raising this issue, Jiang, as the amount of undiscussed changes on this topic have been disturbing.  I've been loathe to get involved. I agree with this so far 100%.  "China, Republic of" is something that nobody ever uses.  If you could, please address 'noods issue about wikilinking and confusion over direct political and indirect political. SchmuckyTheCat 17:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: This seems generally reasonable. But I wonder whether there is actually a larger issue here: how is the Korean situation being handled at the moment? I'm not saying we should handle China/Taiwan similarly, but if there are inconsistencies we may want to address them at a higher level under general guidelines for country names. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 22:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Koreas seem to be uniformly alphabetized under 'K'. This doesn't seem to be as much as a problem because this is commonly done elsewhere (eg CIA World Factbook) and "Korea" is commonly (though no more common in English than the "N. Korea"/"S. Korea" variations) used in english as the short form for either entity (or both). Where do you suggest this be discussed?--Jiang 09:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, no one looks under "C" for a place commonly known as "Tawian". – Zntrip 22:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The next thing to do is to formalise this general agreement to the unwritten convention as a written policy. — Instantnood 16:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: " However, when we speak of economic indicators, we are basing the figures on a defined territory - this is where "Taiwan" becomes relevant. " - But that's contradicting with the official policy that Taiwan should not be used to refer to the entirety of the present-day Republic of China, beyond the islands of Taiwan (Taiwan, the Pescadores, Green Island, Orchid Island, etc.). The islands on the other side of the strait, and those in the South China Sea, are not, and has never been part of Taiwan, unless Taiwan is used in place of Republic of China. " To equate the Republic of China with the area it controls is making a political statement,... " - By the same logic, excluding claims from figures of a state (e.g. Olivenza from figures for Portugal) is also making political statement. And we do exclude the area under North Korean control from South Korean figures, and vice versa, despite their claims. Few states officially recognise and maintain official diplomatic ties with both of them. — Instantnood 08:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here's my input . . . . at work here in a certain company in Hsinchu people usually don't mention about the Republic of China unless they are talking about the Republic of China income tax, the laws of the Republic of China, or if one has Republic of China citizenship/nationality.  When we deal with visiting foreign vendors, we seldom talk about the Republic of China so we wouldn't have to spend so much time giving them the long, complicated story about the Political status of Taiwan.  Of course, I could refer them to the Wikipedia (but there's not guarantee that they would read it).  Now here's my cheesy joke . . . there was The Artist formerly know as the Prince and there is this Taiwan formally known as the Republic of China . . . . Allentchang 14:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: thank you Jiang, another reason why Korea isn't a relevant discussion is that both sides are recognized by the international community, AND each other. They desire re-unification but they don't maintain an official state of denial about the current state. And neither really makes claims about the other. SchmuckyTheCat 15:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and no. Although both are members of the UN since 1991, few sovereign states maintain official diplomatic relations with both of them. As far as I can recall, each of them is claiming the territory of the other, although they acknowledge the status quo. One more thing to note is that they're still technically at war. No peace treaty or truce has ever been concluded between the two. — Instantnood 16:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: (response to Jiang's comment at 09:37, February 28) Did the ROC government prior to Chen's administration use Taiwan in place of Taiwan Area of the Republic of China without first mentioning Taiwan Area in the paragraph/page/chapter? If they mentioned it first almost everytime when they're using Taiwan in place of the it, it's not quite wise for us to simply use Taiwan here on Wikipedia, without illustrating the whole matter clearly prior to the first appearing of Taiwan in an article. Or else it's actually creating more confusions. As I've said before, using two terms appropriately is in effect avoiding confusions. It's very clear how the subject matter of the history of Taiwan and history of the Republic of China articles are different. Same for Taiwanese cuisine, Taiwanese culture, etc., that readers can promptly tell these articles are not quite immediately related to the non-Taiwan parts of the ROC. — Instantnood 16:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd suspect Quemoy, Matsu, etc., may or may not be excluded from the information presented. Using Republic of China avoids such confusion. — Instantnood 15:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It may not be confusing for the almanac of the ROC, but it is when it comes to the Wikipedia, for we're having parallel articles on some topics, e.g. history of Taiwan versus history of the Republic of China, which is not the case in the almanac. (The history topic isn't that immediately political.. it's more or less as political as economy I guess.) Using the two wisely is in effect avoiding ambiguity. The subject matter, or precisely, the scope of the article, is far more clear. As soon as one looks at the title, she/he can promptly tell without much difficulties. — Instantnood 20:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming conventions for lists 

message: Since these two have shown they can't play nice on this page they are banned per the notice at the top of this page.  I am reverting the page to the version that existed prior to the start of the latest war between these two.  I encourage others editing this page to feel free to change.  --Wgfinley 02:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|Schmucky]] and [[User:Instantnood|Instantnood]] banned 

message: :: — Instantnood 19:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:imperial Beiyang Navy ships can also be grouped under :category:military history of China, or more specifically, category:military history of the Qing Dynasty, which you've neatly done. In addition of the ROC categories, I'd suppose it's necessary to have :category:military history of Taiwan, let's say, for the historical military sites on Taiwan during and before Japanese rule. — Instantnood 19:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  China categories 

message: I am requesting help from other editors on an ongoing dispute including, but not limited to Template:Politics of the Republic of China, Republic of China Army, Republic of China Navy, and Republic of China Air Force. I would like to request input from other editors on what exactly our policy is on the issue of including the common short form. I'd also like to give other people the opportunity to get involved so a community agreement on this can be reached. As I understand it, it is accepted convention to include the common short form for the ROC as Republic of China (Taiwan) when introducing the ROC, much as varients of Republic of Korea (South Korea) are used in similar fashions. (From the Political NPOV section of the naming conventions: The former can be listed, depending on context, either as "Republic of China (Taiwan)" or "Taiwan (Republic of China)".). The aforementioned articles have recently been the subject of a dispute between myself and multiple anon IPs (possibly the same person) over the last few days, who continuously deletes the "(Taiwan)" in the intro paragraphs. The anon has rejected the addition of the short form in parenthesis as well as the aforementioned section from the guidelines as being "offensive" and "misdirecting" readers. The revert war shows no sign of stopping anytime soon. -Loren 19:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Republic of China (Taiwan)"