Talk:Suanmeitang

Translated by?

Is this article verified as translated by a person fluent in Chinese and English as required by WP:V and WP:RS? —Mattisse (Talk) 02:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I did the original translation, but through editing most of it is now stuff I've written on my own using extra sources I brought in. The bits that are just translation, without my own sources, are the ones that still have tags. If you think it should still be verified by a native speaker, I can go look for one. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 13:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to know you did the original translation. I think it should be noted from where you obtained the original source. Also, are you aware that using a book source, such as a snippet from a Google source, without having read the entire section on the subject, is not considered a reliable source? Often a snippet, when taken out of context, gives a much different impression than when read in context. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's be as specific as possible in the future regarding which areas of the article are believed to be lacking in some way. This is not some esoteric philosophical issue, it's a dried plum drink and thus fairly straightforward. Badagnani (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

These are not acceptable sources:

• http://books.google.com/books?id=s_AOAAAAQAAJ&q=suan+mei+tang&dq=suan+mei+tang&ei=NedNSYrfB5PGyAT1luzYAg&pgis=1 (snippet from book via google search)
• http://www.sinica.edu.tw/tit/dining/1195_PekingCuisine.html (advert/dinning guide link)
• http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/citylife/2007-06/04/content_886638.htm (ad link originally from foodtourist.com)
• http://finance.thestandard.com.hk/thestandard_cb/CB0806.pdf (authority unclear)
• http://books.google.com/books?id=0-kDAAAAMAAJ&q=suanmeitang&dq=suanmeitang&ei=7p9OSbykIqTGMsa9wPgN&pgis=1 (snippet from book via google search)
• http://books.google.com/books?id=8F5kAAAAMAAJ&q=suanmeitang&dq=suanmeitang&lr=&ei=-6BOScD5NYq0Nry_yc8G&pgis=1 (snippet from book via google search)
• http://www.btmbeijing.com/contents/en/btm/2008-07/timehonouredbrand/xinyuanzhai - (sponsored by the municipal tourist bureau)

—Mattisse (Talk) 20:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The whole article is an original translation. It does not say it is an original translation. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources. Where did the original source come from? A Wikipedian translator is not preferable. The fact that he is using questionable references in an unreliable way does not strengthen his case. See WP:RS and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

For Chinese cuisine articles, especially articles about cuisine items that aren't well known outside Chinese-speaking areas of the world, we use the very best sources we can find, in both English and Chinese, as there often aren't many sources in English. I think we're doing a good job, but can always improve. Let's stay positive and work our hardest to make this the best possible article on this subject, bringing in more editors skilled in the Chinese language. Badagnani (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• That does not justify unethical use of references. Per WP:RS:

Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made; if an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for queries about the reliability of particular sources.

Please try to maintain Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Collecting DYK's is not so important as to allow and editor to undermine them. Nor does the questionable use of one's own translation. Please see Wikipedia:Translation#What_to_remember_when_translating and Wikipedia:No original research. Undermining Wikipedia is not the way to "stay positive" here. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's do our best to stay positive and work together collaboratively. We're doing a great job on this article; let's try to do even better by checking the sources really carefully and inviting other editors skilled in the Chinese language to help out. None of us is doing, or wants to do original research. Badagnani (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You could start by following the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made; if an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. You could demonstrate that you have some understanding of the problem by remove the google book "snippets" which are clearly against policy and guidelines. You could also go to Wikipedia:Translation and ask for verification and proofreading of the original. I realize that it is far more important to get a DYK than to have an accurate article, but now that the DYK has been obtained, perhaps article quality could now be addressed. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, let's now try to stay positive and work together to improve the article, making it the best possible article on this subject and using sources in English and Chinese where necessary. Google Translation or Babelfish usually work well, but we have many skilled editors who speak and read Chinese fluently. I've already asked some of them to help out here. Which statements in the article do you believe to be incorrect? This is not an aspect of complex Chinese philosophy, it's a drink made from dried plums and other ingredients. Badagnani (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

O.K. So you agree to getting the article proofed? (Otherwise, it is original research.) And you agree to removing the google books search "snippets"? —Mattisse (Talk) 23:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Badagnani, I get the idea you have not read WP:V or WP:RS. Writing an article is not a matter of writing what "everyone knows" or "common sense" or "common knowledge", for any article, but particularly one about a non English word. Are you aware of Wikipedia policies and guidelines in article writing? It is not a matter of assuming good faith when it comes to article sourcing. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this a WP:TROLLing comment? If so, I will not respond to it. I've been here long enough to be insulted in such a manner. Please do your best to refrain from such attacks in the future. We need to work together in a collegial manner at Wikipedia. Badagnani (talk) 23:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if you feel insulted and my wording is poor. I am merely questioning if you have understood the underlying policies and guidelines. If you agree that writing an article is not a matter of writing what "everyone knows" or "common sense" or "common knowledge" but that statements must be adequately referenced, avoiding WP:SYN and further, that a translation by one editor needs to be verified to avoid WP:OR per Wikipedia:Translation, then we are on the same page. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Translated article

Please see: Wikipedia:TRANSLATION#What_to_remember_when_translating. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Concerns about WP:OR and WP:SYN in this article

Putting adjacent snippets together is original research and WP:SYN as the editor has done in this article. He has taken two or three word "snippets" from google search findings and strung them together. This is WP:SYN so it must be taken seriously This is especially important since the translation is by the same editor, and since it has not been proof read, can also be seen as original research. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be creating a problem where there is none. If the statements are sourced from reliable sources, they're fine. This is not some complex Chinese philosophy, it's a drink made from sour plums and other ingredients. Thanks to the Internet, we may translate from Chinese to English using Google Translation or Babelfish to find out what Chinese sources say. We'll also have native Chinese editors helping out shortly. Badagnani (talk) 00:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your point of view. Are you saying that because you think the subject is not important, or because the subject is familiar to you, that the standards for an article can be lower? The standards are the same for every article, and machine translations are never O.K. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll been asked to take a look at the article and to be completely honest, the translation seems to be pretty good. As for better sources, I'll try to find some in Chinese language, but to be honest, there are very few academic papers on folk and cultural food items so this may be a bit difficult. Sjschen (talk) 08:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Notice

Sorry I haven't been able to participate in the above discussion yet; I have very limited WP access right now. I will try to find time within the next week or so to respond to concerns. Sorry for the inconvenience, Politizer ^talk/_contribs 04:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks like there hasn't been much activity on this issue in a few days so I assume no one cares anymore and it's over, but just in case, here's my two cents. I think this whole argument has revolved around a misunderstanding and an impression that I just directly copied text from the zh-wiki article and took it at face value. Really, the fact that this article was a translation shouldn't even factor into the picture, because I did my own work finding sources and material; the translation was only a starting point, and I included the translation template at the bottom to give proper credit until such time as the article is 100% original work (right now there is still one, maybe two, sentences that are similar to the original zh-wiki article; the rest is more or less new). Whether or not I'm a native speaker, or whether or not my translation is accurate, doesn't matter, because this isn't the same article as the zh-wiki article; it's new stuff. If people have problems with the reliability of the sources, they're welcome to take it up with me; if people have problems with the fact that the article was translated, that's just irrelevant. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 15:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Any clarification regarding the translation helps, as non fluent speakers in both languages acting as translators and/or machine translations "fixed" by a non fluent speakers in both languages have become an increasing problem on Wikipedia, so I am just trying to raise consciousness. And such practices are especially tempting for DYK because of the time-limit in generating a new article.

Regarding using references to "snippets" from Google search books, this is strongly discouraged, in fact is considered misleading referencing. The snippets do not provide enough information in context and give the appearance to new editors that such referencing is permissible. Better to supply the full reference to the book you used as a source in the article, even if you can't supply a web link. Sorry to cause upset - it's just those two issues are part of my current crusade to maintain article standards. Since DYKs will be seen by more viewers that the typical small, new, obscure article, it is especially important in my eyes that these articles represent Wikipedia standards correctly. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Page move

Please do not move a page before engaging in thoughtful, conscientious discussion.

Google search results:

• "Suanmeitang" = 748 hits
• "Suan mei tang" = 261 hits
• "Suanmei tang" = 133 hits

Badagnani (talk) 02:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer the first (status quo, without spaces), not for any well-thought-out reasons but just because pinyin with spaces between morphemes rubs me the wrong way. If there is a compelling reason to change the article title I am open to suggestions, but I'm not certain suan mei tang is "much less confusing" than suanmeitang. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, for a person who doesn't understand Chinese at all, they could very well misinterpret it as possibly "su an mei tang", "suanme itang", etc. There are numerous possibilities and I think it'd be better if we stick to logic instead of "consensus" and Google hits (which aren't very accurate indicators considering that the 'most popular' romanization doesn't even have 1,000 hits. GraYoshi2x►^talk 04:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

That's why the article starts with Chinese: 酸梅汤; pinyin: suān méi tāng ; I think that should help clarify the segmentation. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The standard is generally to use the most commonly used romanization. This item is actually appearing more frequently over the past five years in grocery stores in English-speaking nations. Badagnani (talk) 02:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Really? Let me know where those grocery stores are...summer is coming in Kansas, and I would kill for some of this stuff ;) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Where I live, they actually romanize it as "suan mei tang" or "SuanMeiTang" (and a few other places I've been to also label it like that). So it does differ depending on where you live and it's not a very good indicator as to a popular way to spell it out. GraYoshi2x►^talk 04:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

At least you can find it in an Asian supermarket. Ask any Chinese person you meet where the best one is (depending if you live in a metropolitan area of Kansas; if not you may be out of luck), and you can undoubtedly get it there. Badagnani (talk) 02:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Large removals

In the future, please try to discuss large removals (of an entire paragraph or more of text) such as this one before engaging in them. Thank you for this consideration. Badagnani (talk) 03:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)