Talk:Kiautschou Bay Leased Territory

Move

As this page is about the German colonial concession, surely it should be at the German name, "Kiautschou". Or at least at whatever name is most likely to have been used in English (eg "Kiaochow", "Kiauchau" or "Kiao-Chau"). The page about the area itself, and it's Chinese history, is at Jiaozhou Bay, which makes sense, but I can't see why this is.
Unless there are any objections, I propose to move it. Swanny18 (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, done. Swanny18 (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Move to Jiaozhou Bay Leased Territory

WP:NCZH is agnostic concerning what romanization was used by the people at the time. Wikipedia uses pinyin, unless modern English secondary sources do otherwise. Google ngram isn't helpful here, but a search of Google Books is. The only modern secondary sources that use "Kiautschou" (whether referred to the leased territory or not) are German. [1] In contrast, a number of sources use Jiaozhou. [2] Unless someone presents evidence that there is a more common name in use for this entity, the name should be in pinyin. SilverStar54 (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

That's not entirely true; there are a number of English sources that use the term, like Germany's Colony in China, The Kaiser and the Colonies: Monarchy in the Age of Empire, and Transnational Encounters between Germany and Japan.

That said, I'm not arguing one way or the other, and according to a basic ngrams search, Jiaozhou is more commonly used in English (though that only refers to the location, not the leased territory specifically; it may be the case that the older spelling is preferred when referring to the territory). Parsecboy (talk) 12:41, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Yet another addendum: I was reading Kaigun earlier today (unrelated to this issue) and noticed they use “Kiaochow” - an ngrams search for that shows it’s more or less tied with Jiaozhou in general usage since 1980 or so. And again, that’s general usage about the area, not the leased territory specifically. Parsecboy (talk) 23:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm in favor of keeping the name Kiautschou Bay Leased Territory. --Lubiesque (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure why I wasn't able to find any of these sources on my original search. Upon a second look, there are quite a few sources that use "Kiautschou", although I think there are at least as many that simply describe the location of the concession as "Jiaozhou Bay" without giving the territory a specific name. I think this is a case similar to Tsingtao Brewery, where there's an official name using the old transliteration that's still in widespread use. I'm fine with leaving it as Kiautschou. SilverStar54 (talk) 20:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I think at a minimum, the title needs to be de-capped, as it's not a proper name as far as I know. I also question the "leased territory/concession" distinction; I've never seen it referred to that way. Every source I've come across, from contemporary publications to more recent books/articles refer to it as a concession. The distinction between the two are blurry, at best, and I think this is a glaring example of a wikiality - technically true (which is the best kind) but no one else makes the distinction. I would prefer either Kiautschou Bay concession or Kiaochow Bay concession (I'm more or less agnostic on the specific romanization). Parsecboy (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Leased territories and concessions/settlements were fundamentally different. There were 5 LTs in China, all granted by China in 1898 (the German, Russian (later Japanese) and French LTs plus the 2 British LTs (Weihaiwei + the New Territories of Hong Kong). All were leased for a period of 99 years except for Weihaiwei. While the LT remained Chinese territories in theory, the foreign countries were allowed to exercise nearly all sovereign powers over their leased territory. As for the foreign concessions and settlements, while granted for an unlimited period, they remained Chinese territory and Chinese law applied there (not the case in the LTs). In contrast to the vast LTs, all the concessions and settlements were comparatively small, sometimes tiny, areas set aside within existing Chinese cities. In principle, the foreign powers were entitled to exercise powers of a MUNICIPAL nature in their concessions (including police) although most of them tended to exceed their limited authority. Then there were two full-fledged colonies: Macau and Hong Kong.--Lubiesque (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Right, I understand the distinction, but we are a third party source that must follow usage in secondary sources. I have not ever seen a source that refers to this entity as the “Kiautschau Bay Leased Territory”, capitalized or not; it is universally (in my experience) referred to as the “Kiautschau Bay concession” (or other romanization equivalent). To use another title based on our own determination is WP:OR and as such is strictly prohibited. In other words, if you want to keep the current “leased territory” title, you need to provide sources that also use it. Parsecboy (talk) 23:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

There are many good sources, including secondary sources, that identify the territory as a lease territory although the name of the territory may be spelled different ways: "The treaty also provided for the restoration to China of the former German-leased territory at Jiaozhou Bay and of a railway from Qingdao to Jinan in the ...: (Britannica). "The leased territory of Kiao-Chow , together with the railways and other rights possessed by Germany in respect of Shantung province." (presidentwilson.org); "The leased territory of Kiauchau is to be restored to China and the Shantug Railway is to be worked jointly by the two powers concerned."(The Hindu, 28 January 1920). Lubiesque (talk) 02:35, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Furius provided some sources on the German Colonial Empire talkpage which is what made me revert my move here. SilverStar54 (talk) 05:03, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

All the concessions and settlements in China are methodically listed in this 1937 article: William. C. Johnstone: "International Relations: The Status of Foreign Concessions and Settlements in the Treaty Ports of China", The American Political Science Review, no 5, Oct. 1937, p. 942-948. --Lubiesque (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)