Talk:Grand coordinator and provincial governor

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. Discussion of other options like splitting can continue below. Cúchullain ^t/c 14:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Provincial governor of the Ming and Qing dynasties → Xunfu – From the text of the article I see that the translation for xunfu is different for the Ming and Qing dynasties, so is there a particular reason why the article uses the Qing translation for both Ming and Qing in the title? I suggest we use the common Chinese name so that we don't wrongly assign the Ming xunfu to the Qing's, and also to eliminate the extraneous disambiguation. _dk (talk) 05:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support Sounds like a sensible move. I am all in favour of using pinyin for these official titles as their translations are at best archaic (thanks Hucker) or worse inaccurate. Zongdu is another example.  Philg88 ^♦talk 05:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support many of these Chinese titles don't have standard English translations. Using pinyin transliteration is both more precise and more concise. -Zanhe (talk) 22:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Changing my vote to Neutral. I still prefer "xunfu" if we continue to have both Ming and Qing posts combined in the same article, but Madalibi's proposal of splitting them into two articles is better in the long run. -Zanhe (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: the proposal sounds reasonable at first sight, and I rarely disagree with you on such matters, _dk, Philg88, and Zanhe, but xunfu is not used in reliable sources on either Ming or Qing history, "governor" (sometimes "provincial governor") is the only translation used for the Qing xunfu (it is therefore a "standard translation"), and "grand coordinator" is the only one I can think of for the Ming. For the Qing, Hucker's Dictionary of Official Titles in Imperial China (1985) has "(provincial) governor", Brunnert and Hagelstrom's Present Day Political Organization of China (1911) has "governor", and the entire field of Qing history uses "governor", including R. Kent Guy's recent book Qing Governors and their Provinces (2010). As a translation, "governor" is neither archaic nor inaccurate (), it has all the virtues listed in WP:Naming criteria ("recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness, and consistency"), it respects WP:ENGLISH, and it is the only translation used in reliable sources, so I think we have no reason to use Chinese in this particular case. That leaves us with the overlap between Ming and Qing noted by _dk. To resolve it, I propose we split the article into Provincial governor (Qing dynasty) and Grand coordinator (Ming dynasty) (because these two officials had quite different functions), and turn Xunfu into a DAB page. We can then flesh out both articles (got plenty of sources here to do that). Madalibi (talk) 02:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• That is also an adequate solution, though I suggest we keep the page Xunfu as a short article detailing how the post evolved and how its functions differed from one dynasty to another (and hence the different translations), as well as an etymology. Something to consider: are the Ming and Qing post two different posts because they have different functions, or are they the same post since they share the same name and one is evolved from the other? This really harkens back to our old discussion of how to deal with Han dynasty titles when their names were derived from the Zhou. (see Talk:Three Ducal Ministers and Talk:Translation of Han dynasty titles from three years ago. Hi crew!) Maybe we should come up with a standard on how to organize and name Chinese government ranks. _dk (talk) 03:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• It would be great to have a standard for all dynasties, though I'm afraid some dynasties would be too messy to handle. (Yes, Han dynasty, you know who you are!) But the Ming and Qing would be easy to manage, as the vast majority of Ming specialists follow Hucker (who was primarily a historian of Ming institutions), and Qing historians follow either Brunnert & Hagelstrom or Hucker, who often have the same translation for a given title. To go back to our current discussion, I think our two new pages would need a short section ("Aftermath" for "Grand coordinator", "Origins" for "Provincial governor") explaining the use of xunfu in the other dynasty, each with a {{main}} link to the other article. I'm still not sure where we would put the etymology, maybe in the Xunfu page as you suggest. It's difficult to answer your other question — different posts because of different functions, or same post with evolving functions? — on an ontological basis. I'd say let's simply stick with the reliable sources, which treat them as different posts (as shown by the different translations). Another advantage of keeping them separate is that the Qing xunfu had a lot of equivalent designations, like fuyuan 撫院, futai 撫臺, zhongcheng 中丞, fujun 撫軍, and fuxian 撫憲, which I'm sure didn't all refer to the Ming xunfu. Madalibi (talk) 04:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Xunfu has variously been translated as provincial inspector, commissioner or governor, and probably some others that I haven't mentioned. All these translations are inaccurate because the literal meaning of the Chinese is "touring pacifier" or "mobile assuager" or something like that. There is nothing inherently indicative of "province" in the title, that was conferred by the prefix; neither is there an assumption of this official being actually based in the province to "govern" – he was more of a firefighter or troubleshooter for when the locals became agitated (never a happy lot, the Chinese populace). What the (English) sources say about this is irrelevant, since there is no hard and fast Wikipedia guideline that says we have to use an English translation.
  

The inaccuracy of the English title "Provincial governor" is compounded by the superiority of the zongdu over the xunfu (see Hucker 2731) by Qing times, such that the later was the civil official responsible for the appropriate administrative division, not the overall governor (fu as opposed to du). All that leads to my preference for xunfu over a bastardized English translation. I don't believe (per Madalibi) that we need three articles—and by extension one for each dynasty—on the same topic. Differences in the xunfu's role between the dynasties (including the Han) can be explained in separate sections of the Xunfu article.  Philg88 ^♦talk 05:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Philg88! Hmmm... Let me disagree with a few things you say. The "commissioner" you see in some writings most likely refers to the buzhengshi 布政使 ("financial commissioner" [B&H] or "provincial administration commissioner" [Hucker]) or to the anchashi 按察使 ("judicial commissioner" [B&H] or "surveillance commissioner" [Hucker]). And my memory may be failing me, but I've never seen xunfu translated as "inspector" for the Qing, though I can't say for sure for the Ming. The xunfu was unambiguously and inherently a provincial official, because he was always based in the provincial capital, and the Chinese title xunfu was always attached to the name of a province ("xunfu Shandong" for the Ming, "Shandong xunfu" for the Qing). I agree that the Ming xunfu was a specially appointed troubleshooter who didn't do much "governing", but that's why he's usually called "grand coordinator" rather than "governor"! The Qing xunfu, for his part, had broad fiscal, judicial, ritual and administrative responsibilities, as well as powers of appointment. The Qing xunfu was therefore a stable and substantial appointment that differed from the Ming xunfu. The zongdu ("governor-general", sometimes "viceroy") held military power, but his presence doesn't cancel the power or role of his subordinates the provincial governors. Incidentally, three provinces (Shandong, Shanxi, and Henan) did not have a zongdu.

I'm not sure what to say about your point that "What the (English) sources say about this is irrelevant, since there is no hard and fast Wikipedia guideline that says we have to use an English translation". After all, WP:COMMONNAME (a policy) says that "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources)"! There is not always one dominant English name we can use, but in this case there is. I don't see how "governor", which is natural, precise, and concise, and dominates reliable sources, can be called a "bastardized" translation.

I also disagree that translations have to be literal to be acceptable. If this were the case, we should quickly reject "Grand Council" (junjichu 軍機處: "place [for discussing] military affairs"), "Grand Secretariat" (neige 內閣: "inner pavilion"), and even "emperor" (huangdi 皇帝: "august thearch"). But of course we are not, because these terms, just like "governor" for Qing xunfu, have successfully become the common names for these institutions in the secondary literature.

One counter-point you could raise is that of consistency — one of the five WP:Naming criteria. Are we being inconsistent when we use English translations in some cases and the original Chinese in others? I would say, yes we are, but only because it's impossible to be consistent. If we insisted on using pinyin everywhere, we would have to move Grand Council to "Junjichu" and speak of "Qianlong huangdi" or the "Bingbu shangshu" everywhere. If instead we insisted on using English throughout, how would we justify one translation over another for titles like jiedushi? (See Translation of Han dynasty titles#Comparison for more headaches.) Because perfect consistency is impossible (or has overly heavy costs), the rule I try to follow is "use English when one translation is dominant in reliable sources, and pinyin otherwise". Here this would mean using "governor" for Qing and "grand coordinator" for Ming. Cheers! Madalibi (talk) 09:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Madalibi, your reasoning is admirable and it looks like we agree to disagree . We can discuss the vagaries of translating Chinese official titles and how Wikipedia policies apply to them until the cows come home, but the crux of the issue is that you support covering the xunfu topic in three separate articles and I don't. We will just have to wait and see how the !vote goes. Best,  Philg88 ^♦talk 09:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@Philg88: Yes, each side of a lumper/splitter debate usually fails to convince the other. In any case I can live with both results, so let's see what the others have to say! Best, Madalibi (talk) 10:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Whether to lump or split really depends on whether we have enough content to justify a split. So I guess I'll go with Xunfu if not, and Madalibi's solution if we do :) _dk (talk) 12:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Hang on Underbar dk, this is a discussion about a requested move, not an article split at this stage. If the move is agreed, Xunfu should have a section for each relevant dynasty, and if the article gets too big per WP:SIZE then it gets split. As an aside, there is nothing to stop the use of the piped links [[Xunfu|Grand Coordinator]] for the Ming and [[Xunfu|Governor]] for the Qing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philg88 (talk • contribs)

Of course, at the article's current stage I would advocate a move to Xunfu per nomination. My above comment is about the future. There is also nothing to stop the use of redirects, like the History of the Great Wall of China page does right now! (plug) _dk (talk) 13:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I don't think this is really a lumper/splitter issue (even though I was the one who first used this term here). I think the split is justified by WP:Naming criteria, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:ENGLISH, and reliable sources, so I don't think the article needs to reach a large size before we decide to create Grand coordinator (which is currently a redirect to this page) and Governor (Qing dynasty). And _dk: you are quite the diplomat. Madalibi (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Hahaha I'm not sure if that's a compliment but thanks in any case! It's true that the page does not need to reach the size limit in order to split, but I think you would agree that there isn't much to split in the article's current state _dk (talk) 14:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

It's a compliment, of course! And you're right about current length (though Kanguole's point about WP:NOTDIC applies), so I'll try to add a few things in the next few days. Cheers! Madalibi (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose – I agree with Madalibi's interpretation of WP:Naming criteria, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ENGLISH, and would also add WP:NOTDIC. It seems that we have here two different posts united by having the same Chinese name. But since Wikipedia aims to be an encyclopedia rather than a glossary, that means we have two topics that should be covered by two articles, even though they will be short. And since each of these posts has a standard rendering in English sources, we should use those as the titles. Kanguole 17:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, I guess. I see convincing arguments on either side, but what tips the balance for me is WP:ENGLISH, not just in the formal rule sense, but because it is more immediately meaningful to readers who are not specialists. But I would welcome the next move, whether it's to either 1) split, (less desirable because more "dictionary" like), or 2) rework this article to show the development of the post from Ming to Qing (better because it's an interesting development which you could then see on one page). Ideally, the article might cover the evolution in earlier dynasties, even if just in an introductory paragraph on "History. But that's up to whoever does the work on it. ch (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.