Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China- and Chinese-related articles/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

BCE/CE date format

Following a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China where a very large consensus favoured the introduction of BCE/CE instead of the Christianity-related BC/AD system for China-related articles and templates, I would like to propose BCE/CE as the official date-style policy for these articles. PHG 03:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - First there is no such thing as a "large consensus". There is consensus, or there is not. Second, you are lying. There was no consensus - we are still in the middle of discussing what to do. Although many users have a preference for BCE/CE, consensus was not to have a wide-ranging policy and/or to change all the articles that currently use BC/AD. Please stop misrepresenting what other people have said. John Smith's 10:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment Please refer to the discussion on the WPCHINA talk page. John Smith's (talk · contribs) is the only one opposing this policy. --Ideogram 10:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support - No one is lying here. There is an overwhelming majority of people that wish to convert all dating to the new format. My reasons for wanting to change the date are given in the original discussion, but in a nutshell, BC/AD is based upon Christianity. The new format is more scholarly and has no religious affiliation. By the way, there is no need to be so negative John. --Ghostexorcist 10:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Except, of course, that is exactly the same thing. 1 CE is 1 AD. You're just in denial if you think this gets rid of the religious aspect. John Smith is fighting a losing battle, though. Most people seem incapable of understanding the idiocy of BCE/CE. America's Wang 11:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Though it is not sourced (and it would be nice if someone tracked it down), the Common Era article states "[Common Era] comes from the concept of the Era vulgaris that was developed in ancient Roman philosophy. 'Vulgar' comes from the Latin word vulgāris (from vulgus, the common people), meant 'of or belonging to the common people, everyday'." If this is true, then it has no religious conotations, unlike A.D. - "In the year of our Lord". --Ghostexorcist 17:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to say any more on this, partly because it's a lost cause (sorry, John Smith), and partly because I'm not that interested. (I don't really need anyone to school me on Latin, though.) I wonder if the Astronomical system might be an alternative (no, not really), even though it's still based on AD/CE. My main objection to BCE/CE is that it smacks of political correctness more than anything. I would love it if someone could come up with a method which truly avoided religion and would not favour one cultural tradition over another. No one is likely to convince me that BCE/CE has done this. America's Wang 22:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's get rid of all this Western cultural-imperialist clap trap, and just use sexagenary cycle + regnal year. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Is is a lie to claim there is consensus. Consensus is not a super-majority. So PHG lied.

Also, WP:MOS states quite clearly that either BCE/CE or BC/AD is fine to use. The former is not "more scholarly" at all and is still based on Christianity because it uses the supposed date of Christ's birth as a basis. It would only be non-religious if it was not related at all to a religious figure's birth or death. John Smith's 11:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

As previously mentioned, John spilled this discussion from the Jesus talk page to here. You can read the discussion that takes up a huge chunk of the page. The article uses both AD and CE dating and I guess John continually deleted the CE (see here for one instance).

Once he is talked out of it on this project, he'll just move onto another. The following comes from his discussion on the Jesus talk page:

"Well I'm certainly not agreeing with the current position, and I won't even say that I agree to the point of having consensus. But I'm not going to press the issue on the talk page (because that's not going anywhere), and I'm not going to start reverting because that's also not going to get us anywhere either. Maybe I'll look into another way to resolve this or continue the discussion elsewhere. But if people want to edit the article they should start without delay, whether talking about it here or just getting on with it." (source)

--Ghostexorcist 17:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Ghost, this has nothing to do with the Jesus article and you know it. This issue was raised by PHG here, not me. The only thing I was interested in doing in relation to this project was getting agreement to make the template used on Chinese history articles adaptable, so that it could say "BC/AD" when an article used it. I think your deliberate and malicious attempts to smear me are pretty obvious - you're scraping the bottom of the barrel. John Smith's 17:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for saying you posted the discussion here. The discussion was actually began on the China wikiproject talk page by Hong Gi Gong and then brought here by PHG. However, I think it's been proven that after your failed campaign on the Jesus article, you went "elsewhere" to revert the dates of several articles, some of which were under the scope of the China Wikiproject. So it was your reversions (which you got at least one 3-revert warning for) that led to the discussion in the first place. Now the problem has even spread to the Japanese pages. --Ghostexorcist 19:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It has not been proven at all - it is an allegation. There was no problem on the Japanese pages until PHG came along trying to change things, after I had made the History of Japan article consistent. Also it got worse when you and Hong got involved - you are to blame for that. John Smith's 19:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Your quoted comments and edit history speak for themselves. Just keep on telling yourself that it's my fault. --Ghostexorcist 21:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You're dodging the issue. You said the problem had spread onto Japanese pages. The problem got worse when you and Hong got involved. That is a simple fact. John Smith's 21:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong battle John, and undue personal attacks as well. There is such a thing as a "large consensus", you will find 354,000 references to that expression in Google. PHG 12:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is governed by wikipedia, not google. On Wikipedia there is consensus or no consensus. Consensus is not a majority and there is no such thing as "large consensus" on wikipedia. John Smith's 17:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

"Large consensus" is a very common expression, which means what it means, and allows for a few contrarians: "Consensus= General agreement, majority view" (OXFORD Concise). You claim this expression is not acceptable on Wikipedia, and that people who use it are "liars"? Just ridiculous. PHG 22:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

But in the context of wikipedia a "large consensus" does not exist. You keep avoiding this issue. Wikipedia has its own sets of definitions and rules - it is not governed by the Oxford Concise dictionary, or any other external publication in this matter, as wikipedia has an official position on "consensus". John Smith's 05:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support preference, not rule - I would like to see all articles use BCE/CE instead of BC/AD, but what troubles me is that it is inconsistent with WP:MOS to mandate the use of one system over another. My preference is for the BCE/CE format, and I believe that the MoS should prefer it. But it should not be mandated. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose I think this has all come about as I created a template using BC and AD notation based on a pre-existing one using BCE and CE notation for the history of China articles. This was purely to make the history of China articles that use BC and AD notation consistent within themselves. IE It is a presentational point. It is also supported by the MOS, which says articles should be consistent. --Foula 12:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support As with any MoS, this is a guideline. So I support adapting BCE/CE as a preferred guideline for all China-related articles. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

  Actually I'll rephrase. If there was consensus to have a "recommended" style one would need to choose the wording carefully, to ensure editors didn't believe they had to use one style or another. John Smith's 15:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

  It's implicit of every MoS that they are guidelines as opposed to official policy. Check the top of this MoS, and check the top of Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Unfortunately it seems that some people took exception to the template, and now others are going about trying to argue for a wholesale change of all China-related articles to BCE and CE notation. This seems somewhat extreme - and is certainly unnecessary.

Normally a publication adopts a house style so that its content is consistent - ie so that it looks good. This attracts people who like, or are comfortable with, that house style. This is a great advantage. On the other hand, people who don't like that house style are going to be put off: no-one subscribes to a magazine or watches a TV series that is presented in a way they don't like!

It seems that Wikipedia has taken a compromise approach. Some articles adopt one style, others another. This gives editors, and readers, who have a strong preference at least some articles in their preferred style - the alternative would be to lose some of them as editors and readers.

With this in mind, forcing through a mandatory change to BCE and CE notation should be strongly resisted. BC and AD notation is, by a long way, the more common notation - and the one that the overwhelming majority of readers (who can't be expected to be history experts) will be familiar with. Risking alienating the bulk of your audience hardly seems the right way to go.

Another option is to force through a mandatory change to BC and AD notation. This wouldn't be as bad as the previous option as considerably fewer people prefer BCE and CE notation to BC and AD notation. It still, however, would come with the downside that those who do will choose to contribute on and read about Chinese history elsewhere.

I imagine it is in the spirit of trying to keep everyone (or at least as many people as possible) tolerant of the style chosen that both notation styles are permitted. Why not let this practice continue?

This does still leave us with the problem of templates. I would still prefer to see templates with BC and AD notation for articles that use BC and AD notation, and templates with BCE and ce notation for articles that use BCE and CE notation. I'm really not persuaded by the arguments against. If this is not allowed, then surely the template should use the notation that is used by a clear majority of the articles on which it appears (if there is one)? At least then as few articles will look as mix-and-match as possible that way. Foula 12:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Foula is a very recent user (1 month) whose main activity has been to introduce "History of China -BC" templates in China-related articles which until then were using the BCE/CE template. Sock-puppet suspected. Can someone check? PHG 12:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

PHG, typical bad-faith attitude from yourself. John Smith's 12:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Just facts John. And stop the personal attacks, this is not acceptable behaviour on Wikipedia. PHG 12:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not a personal attack to accuse you of bad faith - calling for an IP check just because someone is a recent editor and shares my view is bad faith. You could demonstrate some good faith yourself and try to discuss matters on talk pages, rather than keep reverting in violation of WP:MOS. John Smith's 12:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Calling someone "bad faith" (after, what, "liar"???) is indeed a personal attack and you should apologize for that (we are all supposed to assume the good faith of other editors). It is also normal to check sockpupeting for a very new editor who is almost exclusively involved in a single subject. PHG 13:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not normal to run an IP check just because someone has only been around for a month - maybe a few days or week - but you are assuming bad faith, as you are not assuming good faith. You should be the one to apologise - to Foula.

Anyway, go run your usercheck request against me and Foula. It will come back negative and my point about bad faith will be proven. John Smith's 13:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It is normal to do such checks, and I have never said I was pointing at you as a suspect of sockpupeting. You are the only one who is insulting others here. Regards. PHG 13:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You weren't pointing at me? Then who were you pointing towards? You can't ask the admins to check a user against everyone on wikipedia. You need to specify who you think the puppeter is - you can't just make a general allegation of sockpuppetry, as that is not assuming good faith and is insulting the user in question. John Smith's 13:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I hope you are not the unique single user out here fighting for this BC/AD format, and that there are other notable users that would have to be checked... :)) PHG 13:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You're dodging the question. Who are you alleging is Foula's "puppetmaster"? If you allege no one then my point about bad faith is pretty much proven. John Smith's 13:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not dodging anything. It could be you, or it could be somebody else who is acting on the same lines. I have no way of telling whether you are alone or several pushing for, for example, the implementation of this History of China-BC format. And I do not wish to start finger pointing until some facts are known. It is just completely unusual for a newby to start editing Templates etc...: usually it has to be someone already fairly experienced with Wikipedia. PHG 13:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets may be reported here. There is no need to engage in lengthy verbal filibustering exercises over such issues.--Huaiwei 13:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are dodging the issue. You are making a general allegation against someone to undermine their credibility, whilst refusing to actually state who the puppetmaster is because you have no evidence to link the user to anyone else. As former Prime Minister John Major said, "it's time to put up or shut up". Either properly file a checkuser report against Foula, or withdraw your allegations.

Also what Foula did is fairly simple. He/she merely copied an existing one and changed BCE/CE to BC/AD. There's also the possibility that Foula edited wikipedia as an IP first. I don't mind you filing a report, I'd just wish you'd do it and then leave this alone. John Smith's 13:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note that a similar discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) - [1]. Also, I have filed a suspected sockpuppetry case against John Smith's, so we don't have to dilute the discussion here from the real topic.[2] Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have gone dead for the last two weeks; has there been any consensus established regarding era names for China-related topics? We have some articles (e.g. Qin Shi Huang and Han Dynasty) that use BCE/CE and some (e.g. Qin Dynasty and Zhou Dynasty) that use BC/AD. siafu 21:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope, no consensus was reached. John Smith's 22:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

John is in denial. He was the only person who opposed it. Everyone else is in favor of changing over to the BCE/CE system (only as the preferred method and not the end all format). I don't think anyone has visited much because they were tired of the constant bickering. --Ghostexorcist 23:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Foula also opposed it. Additionally, a majority is not consensus. So that would mean you're the one in denial. John Smith's 23:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, bickering. --Ghostexorcist 23:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah - pointing out the truth is "bickering". I think your last comment was a case of the pot calling the kettle black, Ghost. John Smith's 23:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

So, if majority is not consensus, what would constitute a consensus? siafu 03:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

John Smith's, it is important that you answer this question if you actually believe in moving forward in either direction. siafu 20:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

According to wikipedia, a consensus is where everyone can agree to live with something even if they may not actually agree with it. John Smith's 20:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

So, in particular, why is it that you cannot agree to abide by a change in era names, even though you very obviously disagree with the rationale? It is quite obvious that the majority is in favor of the shift, and you do not need to be part of that majority, but in particular, what is so incredibly onerous that you absolutely cannot work with the will of the other community members? siafu 20:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Han Dynasty

I recently reverted some vandalism on Han Dynasty and in so doing, switched the date system to BCE/CE, so it was consistent with the navigational template, and because I believe the article should use that system since it is not Christian-related. Both John Smith's and Foula have reversed my edit, however. If you have an opinion about the matter, please weigh in or make the edit yourself. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe you shouldn't make unilateral changes in the dating system. Let articles stand without trying to sneak changes in. John Smith's 00:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Making changes and then publicly declaring them seems rather unlike "sneaking" to me. siafu 03:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

He did not make the edits and then declare them in public. Hong only raised this when he was twice reverted - I doubt he would have done so if no one had noticed. John Smith's 09:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that commentary like this truly is bickering. None of the editors involved in that revert war, including you, have made any comments on Talk:Han Dynasty, which is where this discussion should be taking place. siafu 14:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I would also reccomend being careful not to re-introduce vandalism with blanket reverts, as you did at Han Dynasty, John Smith's. siafu 04:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Np. John Smith's 09:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Siafu/Variable - we can certainly discuss the Han Dynasty article here also, since there's already an existing discussion on the same topic as it may be applied across multiple Chinese history articles. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

That's just a cop-out. There are plenty of editors who are only working on articles, like Han Dynasty, who are not paying the slightest bit of attention to project pages like this one. If you want to change or maintain the status of the Han Dynasty article you need to talk about it there. Even editors trying to address this issue in good faith at that article will have no idea where this discussion is. Moreover, the final agreement reached in the great BC/BCE war a couple years ago was that this would be decided on an article-by-article or subject-by-subject basis, and therefore the discussion needs to be specific to the article being considered. All of you stop reverting, and go discuss at Talk:Han Dynasty. Doing anything else at this point would reveal bad faith, and would be an obvious attempt to use an article whose subject matter is completely irrelevant to advance an agenda. siafu 14:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Relax. I've started a discussion at the article Talk page.[3] Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Xia Dynasty‎ and Shang Dynasty‎

John Smith's is now also trying to insert BC/AD into both Xia Dynasty and Shang Dynasty. Please pay attention to his contrib history to see what other Chinese history articles he'll try to insert BC/AD into. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You are the person who was making unilateral changes to push BCE/CE. You're using the flimsy argument that they were stable for two weeks before I reverted, when they were stable for much longer before you started pushing your position. It is you that need to be watched. John Smith's 17:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

By all means, I welcome other editors to watch my contrib history. That's why it is linked at my signature. I fully support Chinese history articles to use BCE/CE, and I make my edit knowing that I have majority support. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is governed by consensus, not majority. You would do well to look into wikipedia rules and guidelines, rather than push a POV across articles without gaining consensus first. John Smith's 18:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, if other editors agree or disagree with my edits, they are free to edit the articles themselves. Discussion is not the only way to reach concensus. The issue has not been discussed in a couple of weeks, I know there is majority support for BCE/CE, so I made the edit. I feel perfectly justified in doing so. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

And I felt justified in reverting you due to the fact BC/AD had been in use for a long time before you came along. John Smith's 18:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The articles were stable with BCE/CE recently. But your obsessive POV pushing is just causing a war. Your righteousness in this matter just pushes people into a corner. None of us, certainly not I, are going to come running to your religion because of BC vs. BCE. So wouldn't you do better by figuring out a reasonable compromise? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, what on earth are you talking about? "Running to my religion"? Besides what sort of compromise can there be? It's a straight issue over the use of a term. If you have some suggestions please share them. As to stability, as I said the articles were stable BEFORE Hong made his edits. It is not POV to restore the previously stable version - it IS POV to make unilateral changes as he did. John Smith's 20:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Orange, could you explain to me how it is POV of me to follow MOS guidelines? John Smith's 20:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that you do not believe that a compromise is even possible? If so, we should probably pursue this in the context of formal dispute resolution. siafu 20:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what kind of compromise could be reached. Maybe informal mediation could be tried as a start given we've already discussed this at the Project and the Project's MOS. John Smith's 20:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The only compromise I can think of is that all articles are restored to using the terms found in the first major contribution (as mentioned in WP:MOS) and that no further changes are made across the Chinese project to the date systems where they are consistent. If they are not consistent, they should be made so according again to the first major contribution. If this is not possible because they were not consistent then or when introduced, they should be made consistent according to the greatest frequency of terms that appear. That would be a compromise over fighting over whether BC/AD or BCE/CE should have supremacy, correct? John Smith's 21:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The MoS does not in fact say that the first major contribution should be adhered to. Also, please do not neglect the section heading above this one. I'm overtired of debates on this topic going nowhere, and would like all parties to at least try to actually move towards some sort of arrangement. siafu 21:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Check the general MOS lead - it says the first major contribution should be used if there is stability is disputed/unclear. Also I have made a suggestion over a compromise - so far I am the only party to have done that. John Smith's 21:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned at Talk:Han Dynasty, this is not in reference to era names, and should not be applied as a general maxim-- such an attitude leads to complete stasis, which is not what was meant. The previous sentence says clearly: "Edit warring optional styles is unacceptable". Since it's disputed, let's resolve the dispute (or at least TRY to do so) and then enact that. siafu 21:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm also afraid that your suggested compromise does not address the concerns of either side, unless your only concern is one of procedure. As such, I strongly doubt that it will gain any traction; I don't think it's acceptable myself. siafu 21:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea why, because an article was at a previous state, it cannot be changed because a very small minority of editors that want to push the BC/AD standard. If you only care for consistency, you would not care which system was actually used. Keeping the status quo for status quo's sake makes no sense whatsoever, especially when the status quo is not the best state of the article. You have stated you only want to see consistency, so I have no idea why you object to switching to BCE/CE. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hong we have been over this. I want consistency in the terms used inside articles - I do not feel the need for consistency between articles and templates. There is nothing wrong with using BC/AD - what is bad for the articles is you going off on a crusade to remove them everywhere you can find them in the project. John Smith's

Or, alternately, obsessively undoing such changes combined with accusations of "sneaking", "vandalism" and "POV-pushing" on both sides. This sort of behavior is what led User:jguk and User:SouthernComfort to be sanctioned by the ArbCom. This is, btw, part of my insistence on discussing the changes on the articles involved. siafu 21:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

But Hong doesn't want to discuss first, at least until he's changed every article he wants to. Then, I am sure, he will insist "consensus" is reached first. John Smith's 21:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

That may be, so how about you seize upon the opportunity to not escalate into an edit war? "He did it first" arguments aren't going to get us any closer to resolution. siafu 21:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on this issue had stopped for 2 weeks, with majority editors preferring BCE/CE. I reverted some vandalism, and along with that made the appropriate changes. I feel perfectly justified about making my edit. Meanwhile, your only rationale for reverting my edit still seems to be that the article was using BC/AD. You do not seem to object to BCE/CE on any other reason at all. It's a rather weak argument. Why should we keep the status quo? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hong, I do not agree that you were justified in making your edit. You did not gain consensus, and did not attempt to do so on the article talk pages before acting. However, I do agree that keeping the status quo for its own sake is not a valid position except to stop the edit warring as consensus is sought/reached. siafu 21:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hong, so what if discussion had stopped for 2 weeks? Do I have to revert every article I'm in dispute over every day so I don't lose my "position" over it? Don't be so absurd. If you felt the discussion had gone stale you could have asked if people wanted to move on to something else.

As to what a majority may feel, again remember that is not how wikipedia works. You yourself have insisted others gain consensus. Yet when it suits you, you will try to force something through by majority. That is pure hypocricy on your part.

Of course you feel perfectly justified, as do I. My position is not just based on the fact that the article used the terms first. I feel that BC/AD has as much right to be used as BCE/CE anywhere and although I respect the use of BCE/CE that does not mean I will defer to it as soon as anyone complains over BC/AD. I follow the taxi-rank approach. Just because you are less tolerant than me in this matter does not mean your position should take precedence. John Smith's 21:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Variable/siafu - You should realise by now that concensus will almost never be reached in discussion because John Smith's will always be opposed to using BCE/CE despite him being in the very small minority. This is an unfortunate trend in WP - the one most stubborn editor gets to edit articles his or her way, and the only certain way to stop this is a majority actively edits against the small minority. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hong, you are misrepresenting the facts - this has to stop right now! I am not the only person who objects to your unilateral changes - Foula has also done so. Furthermore other users supported the guidelines to show BCE/CE was prefered but not to change existing articles that already used BC/AD.

I am as willing to reach consensus as you are, in fact more so because I can live with BCE/CE being used at all, whereas you have a clear prejudice that is affecting the way you edit. John Smith's 21:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I have not misrepresented anything. I have never said you are the only person who objects to my edit. And I only changed Han Dynasty along with a vandalism revert - I was editing the article anyway, so I made the change. If you can tolerate BCE/CE, then let's agree to use it in Chinese history articles. Because I certainly prefer BCE/CE. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

As do I. --Ghostexorcist 22:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hong, you said I was in a "tiny majority" when clearly the discussion was not so one-sided. So you were misrepresenting the discussion.

No, I am not going to agree to use BCE/CE because you are intolerant of BC/AD. It is you who should be more tolerant. I hoped you wouldn't use the "I'm intolerant, so as you're more tolerant you should side with my position" argument, but sadly you have. That would be a terrible precedent for me to set on wikipedia, as it encourages more conflict by giving incentives for people to be completely partisan. Try to be flexible and people expect you to do what they want because they won't compromise! John Smith's 22:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

So basically you're opposing the majority preference for the sake of opposing it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree with Hong here. However onerous you may find his behavior to have been, this is going against WP:POINT. siafu 00:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not. It isn't just about his behaviour. I have explained why I personally want to keep BC/AD. The only issue in this case is Hong's cry that I should agree with him because I'm more tolerant. I might like to see BC/AD become standard on Wikipedia, but I have reached a compromise where I can accept BCE/CE in article where the first major contribution used them (or date terms were first used in a major contribution) because I know some people like BCE/CE. I have already moved to the middle ground as per WP:MoS - that is where I am happy to stay. John Smith's 10:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not much of a middle ground, as the first major contributor can just as easily be wrong or misguided as anything else; the sentence about the first major contributor is meant purely to prevent edit-warring during the period of consensus-finding. We can't rely on it for anything else. The question is, can you or can you not accept using BCE/CE on some articles that did not necessarily start with it in the first major contribution? If you can, then we actually do have a consensus. If not, you have to justify that position without reference to unilateral changes or obnoxious editting practices; that is, you have to state your specific objections to the use of the era style on Chinese-related articles. siafu 13:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I look at articles on a case-by-case basis - I have no hard-and-fast rule in regards to the possibility of changing from one date term to another. I do not accept that BCE/CE should be used here - so we do not have consensus. There was a clear usage of BC/AD from the start and I feel that it is perfectly acceptable for Chinese-related articles. I have a preference and I feel I am justified in supporting it in those articles that started out with BC/AD in regards to the first major contrib. John Smith's 13:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

So basically you oppose BCE/CE for this article in order to maintain the status quo for the sake of maintaining the status quo? You're basically asking, "why change it?" And what I'm saying here is, "why not?" - especially since you have no real reason for opposing BCE/CE other than the simple reason that it had been used. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hong, I am not going to play these "so basically you...." games with you. They are childish and don't help resolve the issue at hand. John Smith's 15:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

And you are now using the same argument on the History of Japan page as you accuse me of having. Again you show that you are a hypocrite - one rule for you, another for those you disagree with. John Smith's 15:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

We're discussing the issue and trying to get to the heart of why you oppose using BCE/CE, and you can't seem to give us a better rationale than the reason that you want to maintain the status quo for the sake of maintaining the status quo. I think many of us here can agree that that's really not a good enough reason. And might I remind you to remain civil and not attack other editors - if I am correct, this is not the first time you've called me a hypocrite. Please cease and desist. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The word "hypocricy" is not an attack - it is a statement of fact. If you want me to use a different expression, fine. But if you say one thing and do another I will draw attention to it.

I do not want to maintain the status-quo for the sake of it. I would also say that your objection to BC/AD because it is "Christian" and this article "non-Christian" is not a good enough reason. John Smith's 16:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

So what reason do you have to keep BC/AD other than that it had been used? If that's your only reason, you're maintaining the status quo for the sake of maintaining the status quo. The fact is, you don't have a good reason to keep BC/AD, you only want to oppose BCE/CE for the sake of opposing it. And I don't really care how you want to define the word "hypocricy", if you want to keep using that word to label me, we can ask some admins what they think of your usage of the word. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If you don't want me to use the word hypocricy then you don't want me to, so I won't. I was merely pointing out that it is a matter of opinion as to one's activities, not a personal attack.

As I said on the other thread, I have a personal preference towards using BC/AD in articles if possible, though I will not force it on articles where BCE/CE have been used from the first major contrib (unless there is a good reason). If you want to make changes to long-standing versions you need to sufficeintly justify your changes, not put the onus on me. John Smith's 18:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The onus is on you when you revert anybody's changes. I have provided my reason for supporting BCE/CE - Chinese history articles are not Christian-related. But you have not provided a reason for supporting BC/AD other than that the article was previously using it. In other words, you want to maintain the status quo for the sake of maintaining the status quo. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This dispute seems to be getting out of hand. In this instance it appears that it was started by Hong Qi Gong making edits that, given recent history on these pages of which Hong Qi Gong was a part, he would have been aware would have been controversial. If he wished to propose a change, he should have raised it on a talk page and gained a consensus on it. Wikipedia practice is clear on this. The only restriction the Manual of Style imposes with regards to BCE and BC notation, is that arguments based on the user's own personal preference are not permitted. Hong Qi Gong has not put forward an argument other than his own personal preference. The articles should therefore remain where they were - namely with BC notation.

I should note that the same principles would apply, but in reverse, if John Smith's tried to change articles using BCE notation to BC without first gaining consensus based on arguments other than his personal preference. Foula 18:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"I should note that the same principles would apply, but in reverse, if John Smith's tried to change articles using BCE notation to BC without first gaining consensus based on arguments other than his personal preference." Precisely, which is why I have stopped trying to change articles over that had consistently used BCE/CE for a long period of time, even if they started off with BC/AD as the first major contrib. Consensus needs to be reached first. John Smith's 18:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Except that we still don't have a good reason from John Smith's to maintain BC/AD other than to maintain the status quo. That's not a very good reason to me. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, as I have said many times, that isn't the only reason I have mentioned but I am not going to repeat myself. Also, as has been mentioned, it is up to you to gain consensus as you want to make changes on a controversial topic, not for me to justify why the current version should be kept. Foula said that wikipedia is quite clear on this. John Smith's 19:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

So what is the reason then? The only thing you've said is that I have no gained concensus - but there's no good reason to use BC/AD in the first place. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia practice is clear that changes that lack consensus should not be made (unless verifiability is in issue, where a change to remove an unverified statement is permitted on the grounds it is not verified - but this does not apply here). You are entitled to seek consensus. You'll know if you achieve that, as those that disagree with you will, maybe reluctantly, agree to relent. That has clearly not happened yet.

If you want a good reason to retain BC/AD notation (or to start an article using it), one such reason is that it is the most common usage worldwide, universally understood among English-speakers, and of the two choices of notation, the one with the far greater universal acceptance.

If you want a refutation of your arguments that BC should not be used because it has a Christian background, then one such refutation is that BCE is a Jewish designation and has a Jewish background. If you asked a Martian who is unaware of current usage patterns of the notation whether there's a good reason to change articles about the history of China from a notation with a Christian background to one with a Jewish background, then that Martian would surely say no. (The Martian would also say no if you asked the question in reverse.)

So whether it is on the basis of your arguments being flawed, or on the basis that you have no consensus at present to make the changes you request, the conclusion is that your proposed changes should not go through. Foula 11:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

A Martian would say, "BC is Christian, and BCE is not Christian". BCE may have had Jewish associations in its inception, but it has been adopted as a religiously and culturally neutral standard.

For me, the most convincing rationale why BC should be used is that it is the most common usage - everyone knows what AD/BC is, not everyone knows what CE/BCE is.

Again, I support using CE/BCE for Chinese history articles, but per WP:MOS there should not be gratuitous mass conversions - keep in mind the ordinary reader. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I think your Martian analogy doesn't quite work, as the point originally made was that both BC/AD and BCE/CE have religious and cultural backgrounds - you do acknowledge that, though. If you want to say that BCE/CE has become a "neutral" term then I can also point out that many people use BC/AD without trying to "push" or "assert" any background it may have. I think it's more accurate to say that some people who don't want to use BC/AD have adopted BCE/CE and declared it a "neutral" term, rather than imply it is universally accepted as a 100% neutral term whereas BC/AD is not (though I am not saying you were deliberately doing that). John Smith's 12:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem in this dispute as I see it is not why BC/AD may be better. John Smith's and Foula (who is most likely a sockpuppet) have mostly given status quo as a reason to use BC/AD. It was used before, so it should not be changed - that seems to be what they keep repeating. John Smith's has also ambiguously stated that he personally prefers BC/AD without giving a reason why he does. Well, maintaining the status quo for the sake of status quo is not really good enough. But if John Smith's and Foula have a real reason to prefer BC/AD, such as common usage (which is arguable really) or Jewish origin, they need to state it so. If your only reason is that it was used before, or that you ambiguously "personally prefer" BC/AD without telling us why, then I maintain that those are not good enough reasons and we need to change the articles, and urge all interested editors to make the edit. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"urge all interested editors to make the edit" So you're urging people to edit war and not seek consensus. That's against Wikipedia policy, Hong. John Smith's 15:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hong Qi Gong, Wikipedia practice is clear - maintaining the status quo is a good reason unless you are able to show a good reason for change (and your personal preference for a style is not counted as a good reason for change). I should also add that I have outlined two reasons why a change may be inappropriate, and that I have also argued in the past that it would be as wrong to mass-change articles from BCE notation to BC notation as it is to go the other way.

On a plus note, your recognition that common usage is a fair argument for resisting a change (albeit one that would not sway you personally) should be welcomed. Foula 15:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

John Smith's - if your only reason for using BC/AD is because it was used before, or because of some ambiguous "personal preference", then yes, I do urge all interested editors to edit relevant Chinese history articles to use BCE/CE. If you actually have a legitimate reason, then we should discuss. And no, I'm not urging people to edit war - I'm not urging you to revert any changes to BCE/CE. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Koreanname Chinesename

FYI, the above template has been nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 September 28#Template:Koreanname Chinesename — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 12:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Page Name

Almost the entire page "Manual of Style (China-related articles)" is concerned with the Chinese language rather than anything specific to China. The Chinese language is heavily used on other countries such as Singapore and Taiwan. It is also used in small pockets as a native language and as a second language in many other countries. It would make more sense to call this style guide "Manual of Style (Use of Chinese Language)" to clear confusion about when this manual should be used. Readin 17:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No one has responded to my comment above. Unless someone objects, I'll start trying to figure out how to rename, move, or re-organize a page so that issues regarding the use of Chinese characters, an issue that affects more than just China-related articles can be distinct from issues that affect only China-related articles.Readin 13:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

hey it since it seems to be the most logical thing to do, so lets make it a done deal. nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 03:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Wade-Giles

I have added a request to include the WG for subjects which existed before the invention of pinyin; after a frustrating time trying to find the article to which Chang-k'ien (as cited in a source printed in 1938) corresponded, I humbly request that including WG (and redirects from WG to pinyin) be standard in such cases. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

There's a redirect now, because I added it. Try any other person from the Han, without WG in the article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Relevance to articles

Some people have been slapping "Chinese names" on zillions of articles of people who were born and lived in non-Chinese speaking countries, who did not write in Chinese, or did not have any other connection with china other than remote ancestry from there. It is as improper to use Chinese in those cases as it is to spell someone else's name as their ancestors might have spelled it. For example, not only is Shannon Lee American-born, living in America, no Chinese publications, but also her parents were both American-born Americans, one of them with part-Chinese ancesry and the other with no Chinese ancestry whatsoever. A Chinese name is not relevant in any way to the English Wikpedia in this case, and in hundreds of other cases, some of them more egregious than this one. Gene Nygaard (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Shannon Lee's father may have been American-born, but he spent significant time in Hong Kong. It would not surprise me if he gave her a Chinese name in addition to her English name. If that is so, this is not as clear-cut as you make it out to be. The real question is whether she uses or has ever used the Chinese name. According to IMDB, she did make at least one HK movie, so it is possible she used the Chinese name there.

But in general you are correct that having a last name of Chinese origin should not automatically cause your name to translated into Chinese anymore than having a first name of Hebrew origin should cause your name to be translated into Hebrew. Readin (talk) 19:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not it would surprise you isn't particularly relevant; it still has no relevance to her article. Nor is the fact that he father spent time in Hong Kong. Like you point out, it may be different if she did use a Chinese name, but just having had her name translated into Chinese isn't enough either. But there are a couple of diehards who insist that English Wikipedia is supposed to be a repository of "Chinese names" whenever anyone can reasonably make one up—as is the case with Shannon Lee, these undiscussed additions are almost always unreferenced and don't belong in the article even if the first threshhold of relevance to the article is met. Gene Nygaard (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I and other editors have been reverting your removals and have presented many points to you and you refuse to understand. A Chinese name is not "made up" or "translated" (and you can't "spell" Chinese--it has no alphabet). It is given by one's parents or grandparents just like the English name. The name may not be legally registered by the government of the country of birth but can be very well known (like Michael Chang) once they become famous. Countless "overseas" Chinese do not have known Chinese names and their articles don't have it. There will be some Chinese Americans or Chinese Canadians who are without enough notability to have someone create a Chinese article, but their Chinese names are easily Google-able. (Don't even try to twist my words again, I am not saying if there is a Chinese article the name is not necessary.) People come to Wikipedia to look for someone's Chinese name (as expressed by one Taiwanese singer), and you're saying it should be wiped out? HkCaGu (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a non-issue. If the individual is a Chinese American (overseas Chinese) and has a given Chinese name, it should be given in the article in a gloss or infobox. The Chinese given name (such as that held by Michael Chang) is not a translation of the Western name but in fact has its own meanings, as can be seen by an examination of the actual characters at Wiktionary. Including the Chinese names for such individuals is encyclopedic; insisting on their removal is an insistence that our articles be "not quite encyclopedic." This is not beneficial to our users in any way and such an insistence, which appears to come from a willful ignorance of our purpose that is motivated by some strange notion of linguistic purity (or, even worse, a "hope" or "wish" that all immigrant North American families leave their cultures and languages behind), should be eschewed in favor of reasonableness; everything we do at WP should always be based on this practice. The fact that the editor attempting to blank such names constantly feels a need to direct foul language at others who do not agree with him/her is not a good sign either. Badagnani (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Michael Chang's Chinese name, it has a very specific meaning, with the first character being his surname, Chang, and the second and third being his given name, roughly translating to "cultivated ethics." His parents apparently gave him that name in the hope that he would grow up to be an upstanding and moral individual, as seems to have been borne out. The name is not a translation of his Anglo name. Overseas Chinese groups such as the Chinese Americans traditionally give a Chinese name as well as a more Americanized name, the latter of which is for everyday use. But if we aim to be truly encyclopedic (as I believe we do, as we are an encyclopedia), we should not willfully blank a name possessed by the individual, given by the individual's parents as a representation of who the individual is (or who his/her parents hope s/he will grow up to be. That would be entirely unreasonable. The editor making a big deal out of this is apparently trying to prove a WP:POINT; in this case, this is not proper or helpful to our project. It's time to move on to actually improving our encyclopedia's articles, which the editor seems to do in many other regards, and for which s/he should be commended. Badagnani (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I tried to find a Wikipolicy for when translations should be provided for names of people, but I couldn't find one. Perhaps you should make suggestions on the page for naming conventions. Absent such guidance, I tend to agree with HkCaGu that simply having a Chinese given name is insufficient reason to include that name. The name must also be well-known. Beyond that, I'm not sure I agree that simply having it well-known is sufficient either. Michael Chang may have a well-known Chinese name, but he probably has a well-known Japanese pronunciation for his name as well. I can imagine two reasonable policies for people who grew up using an English name:

• Provide the Chinese name only if the person did his famous acts using that name. For example, if an American actor became famous performing in Chinese movies, the Chinese name he used in those movies should be provided.
• Provide the if the Chinese name if it is a given name (that is, a real name and not a translation) and that given name is well-known and used in public functions.

Readin (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Despite his/her clearly stated plea, the user above has managed to misinterpret the posting of User:HkCaGu, who in fact said the opposite of what is being purported; s/he stated that if the name is given by the individual's parents, there are *not* sufficient grounds for the blanking of this name. A Chinese American would be highly unlikely, unless one parent was Japanese, to have a Japanese name, so that argument is also a red herring. Further commentary from editors that shows the comments above have actually been read carefully is, however, welcome. Badagnani (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Please be civil.

Simply having a well-known foreign version of your name is not sufficient grounds for having that foreign version in your article. Perhaps I didn't make that clear. The question I'm asking is whether the fact that the foreign name is a name the person had at birth, combined with it being a well-known name, is sufficient. I'm not sure that it is. Again using Michael Chang as an example, why would an English speaking reader be more interested in his given Chinese name than in the Japanese translation of his name? Compare this to the example of Shannon Lee who made a movie in Hong Kong. If I wanted to see that movie and look for her in the credits, I assume her name would be in Chinese and so knowing that name would be useful. If the article were about a Chinese ruler and I wanted to go look at original sources, his Chinese name would be useful. But why is Michael Chang's Chinese name important? His tennis career was largely handled in English, or perhaps in the local language of where-ever he was playing. His Chinese name wasn't significant in those events. If you want to include his Chinese name, shouldn't it be for a better reason?

Now, I happen to know that Michael Chang was very popular in Taiwan, perhaps he was popular in China as well. I suspect he made a lot of money in Taiwan from endorsements. If it can be fairly said that his work in Taiwan and China were a significant part of his career, then that's a good argument for including his Chinese name. I'm not sure that simply having a well-known Chinese name is a good reason though. Readin (talk) 02:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If you believe Michael Chang's Chinese name to be of no significance, all I can say is that that is an interesting opinion, though not one that would improve Wikipedia for our users, nor make it more encyclopedic. It also disparages editors who will come here looking for this name (myself being such a user). Willfully insisting on the blanking of this name, which was given to the individual by his parents, and which has a meaning and significance other than the European name "Michael," would render the article unencyclopedic, as 90% or 95% as informative as it should be for our readers. We do, for example, include the name Anthony Dominick Benedetto in the article about Tony Bennett. As stated earlier (and overlooked, it seems, yet again), it would be highly unusual for Michael Chang to have been given an additional, Japanese name by his parents, unless one of his parents were of Japanese ancestry. Badagnani (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This was a biased discussion to begin with. All the other language wikipedias are overwhelming dominated by english names example-1, example-2. Even people born in completely non-English-speaking places like this guy is using English names? The native heritage names should always be allowed. Not only does that go for chinese, but greek, italian and every other language. Benjwong (talk) 02:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

For individuals from Arabic- or Greek-speaking nations (or nations with other non-Latin-based scripts), the native script allows for bilingual searching (including pages in both languages), another benefit that hasn't been addressed until now. However, this discussion should focus on the inclusion of an overseas Chinese individual's given Chinese name. Badagnani (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

What a total non sequitur. We aren't talking about people from Chinese-speaking nations, so there isn't any relevance in talking about people from Arabic-speaking nations either. For he ones who are from Chinese-speaking nations, their Chinese names are generally relevant enough to deserve mention; however, there are some cases where the article name remains in the wrong place, not the name by which they are generally known. Those need fixing. Gene Nygaard (talk) 04:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we agree. Like Tony Bennett's Japanese interwiki link トニー・ベネット is unsearchable. But if it was actually in the article, then users can find it by that Japanese name. Benjwong (talk) 03:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"The native heritage names should always be allowed." Why? Should nicknames, pet names used by teachers or girlfriends, etc. also be allowed and included along with the person's name? In the case of Anthony Dominick Benedetto, I assume that was the name he used for a long time, until he went into show business. Or that at least that was the name he used in official documents. Did Michael Chang's Chinese name show up on his birth certificate?

By the way, Badagnani, I did not say Michael Chang's Chinese name is of no significance. I said that it could be argued that it is significant if he used it extensively for a large part of his career that was focused on Taiwan or China endorsing products. I only said that his Chinese name was not significant to his professional tennis career. I basically left open the question of whether Michael's Chinese name should be included. I don't care so much about that particular case; I care that we have reasonable guidelines for all cases. Readin (talk) 04:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok are you suggesting we go to George W Bush's page and delete the English name "George W Bush"? What is your reason behind disallowing native heritage names. I think Mr Bush's English name deserves to be on all language wikipedia. Benjwong (talk) 04:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It is simply unreasonable to insist on the blanking of the overseas Chinese athlete Michael Chang's Chinese name, given to him by his parents and containing a meaning distinct from his Western name, from his article at the English-language Wikipedia. Insisting that such a name is of no value to our users, then stating one never said that, is disingenuous and simply going too far. Our articles should not aim to be 90% comprehensive or 95% comprehensive, but as comprehensive as possible. Japanese or Swedish names are all red herrings, as demonstrated earlier. Let's get back to the business of productively and constructively creating and improving our content rather than attempting to deplete it for our users in an unreasonable manner, thanks. Badagnani (talk) 04:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't be facetious, Benjwong. George W. Bush is American-born, and of course his English name belongs in English Wikipedia. But even though he is also well-known in the Chinese language, his Chinese name doesn't belong here. Nor do hundreds of other Chinese names indiscriminately slapped onto articles where they have no relevance whatsoever. Gene Nygaard (talk) 05:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Badagnani, this has nothing whatsoever with being comprehensive; if it did, we would have George W. Bush's Chinese name, easily enough verifiable (verified sources, of course, are something t completely lacking in 90% of the cases in which you, Badagnani, have reverted my edits. Not only are those Chinese names irrelevant, at the most charitable characterization like the "trivia sections" which are discouraged on Wikipedia, but even in the cases where they so have some relevance and might legitimately be included in the articles, they are almost always totally unreferenced, no reliable sources whatsoever, improper original research by you or someone else at the best. Gene Nygaard (talk) 05:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

What are some other examples?Readin (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Has this last post lapsed into satire? It has been explained, and backed up, at least 10 times above why the Chinese names are of utmost relevance to the articles about the overseas Chinese individuals who hold them (and, in fact, were given them by their parents). Giving the reason why George W. Bush's Chinese name should not be given is a red herring, as Bush is not an overseas Chinese and likely was not given a Chinese name by his parents. Let's get back to the business of creating and improving great articles, making them as comprehensive as possible for our users, thanks. (I will remind users that the above postings were made by the editor who began this uninformed yet single-minded rampage in the first place, issuing foul language regularly along the way, and never apologizing for having done so. His postings should be read in this light.) Badagnani (talk) 05:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Gene Nygaard, you are just not accepting the point. What you are proposing is the equivalent of not allowing "George W Bush" the English name on a Chinese wikipedia, italian wikipedia, french wikipedia, or any other language wikipedia. It doesn't make any sense to debate this. Every time we add a native name, we have to decide whether the person plays football, tennis or is a republican. That's too much work. Benjwong (talk) 05:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The difference, however, is that Bush does not have two different names, as many overseas Chinese living in North America do. Badagnani (talk) 05:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a no brainer. The Chinese name of a Chinese person, however defined, is relevant to any comprehensive coverage of the person. It is essential to a full understanding of the person. The fact that some readers won't appreciate that aspect is no reason to deprive other readers, who are capable of such understanding, of the opportunity.

In fact, the name of a person in language A, which is not trivially derived from their name in native language B, and is used in relation to that person in a significant way, is notable. Thus the Chinese name of Chris Patten or Kevin Rudd are both relevant and notable. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

PalaceGuard008, I think you're pretty much correct that native Chinese speakers and people whose important work was done in China should have their Chinese names provided. But the point of contention is not whether to provide the Chinese name for Chinese people, but whether to provide the Chinese name of Americans, British, and other people from English-speaking countries if the only reason for doing so is that those Americans, Brits, Aussies, etc. were given Chinese names at birth. Michael Chang, because of his work in Taiwan in advertising, may not be the best example.

To clarify the issue, let's take a hypothetical George Chen. American painter George Chen was born in Maine, USA to American parents, also born in Maine, whose Chinese parents (George's grandparents) immigrated to Maine from Shanghai. George's grandparents chose a Chinese name for George both for good luck and to use if he ever traveled to China. His parents and grandparents always called him by his English name or by the nickname "Muddy" because he was always covered in paint. George never traveled to China or any other Chinese speaking country. He became a famous painter and while his works were sold all over the world, he himself never left Maine. In most foreign auctions of his work, his name was translated, but for Auctions in Taiwan, Singapore, and China, his given Chinese name was used. Now, is there any reason why this American's Chinese name should appear next to his English name at the beginning of the article? Note that there is a table on the left hand side of articles that link to foreign-language Wikipedia versions of the same article, so if someone ones to look a the Chinese version they can find it. For what reason should this American's Chinese name be given higher priority than his Japanese name, German name, or Serbo-Croatian name? For what reason should his Chinese name be given higher priority than his nickname? Readin (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

To answer Readin: Let's say George's Chinese name is Xiaoming. Like a lot of 3rd generation Americans, his legal name (in Maine) is George Timothy Chen, with no trace of given Chinese name. Let's say he is not famous enough that someone begins a Chinese Wikipedia article. My point is that it still deserves a Chinese name mention in the English Wikipedia. "Chen Xiaoming" is a name he's given at birth, although unfortunately unregisterable with the State of Maine. It is still a name he uses. When a reporter from a Chinese-language newspaper or magazine in NYC writes a story about him, s/he'll call him "Chen Xiaoming". (The standard practice for the Chinese writer is that if there is a Chinese name, use it. It's a rule of respect because "George" can be translated many different ways, and if the person has one or adopts one, that one should be used.) The most important point is that Xiaoming and George have nothing to no with each other. Such a Chinese name is not a translation from another language (unlike President Bush's "Chinese name"). George's Japanese, German or Serbo-Croatian names are doomed to be a phonetic translation of either Xiaodong or George. Just go to the Japanese Wikipedia's article on either of those Chinese-Americans. You'll find both their English and Chinese names listed. You might not find one in the Suomi one because there aren't enough Wikipedians who know both Suomi and Chinese, but almost all Japanese writers can type Chinese characters. HkCaGu (talk) 19:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

First "Chen Xiaoming" can be registered in Maine and in any other state in the United States. I know some people who were born in the US and do not have an English name, only a Chinese name.

Ok, now suppose we're talking about George Chen's best friend, Eddy Smith. Eddy Smith's parents and George Chen's parents have been friends since grade school. They're so close in fact, that George's grandparents gave Eddy a Chinese name as well. And they have a third friend, Robert Yamaguchi, whose Japanese grandparents gave them all Japanese names. So, your view, the opening sentence on the the articles for George, Eddy, and Robert, their English, Japanese, and Chinese names should all be listed even though none of them ever left Maine, never used their Chinese and Japanese names except in situations where a Japanese or Chinese reporter happened to need a name and used those names instead of a translation, and were famous in Asia only to the extent that they were famous everywhere? Readin (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about "陳小明" (pronounced Chen Xiaoming) not being registerable with the State of Maine--the Chinese script. As to your second paragraph, it seems to be beyond the scope of this discussion and highly unlikely to happen. HkCaGu (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me repeat a point that Chinese is simply not a language of China, it is a language of the Chinese. You have Chinese ancestry, you are given a Chinese name, you use it, it's relevant. It should not matter where you have or have not traveled outside of English-dominated countries or whether you speak, read or write the language fluently. As shown in the case of Chinese-American politicians, their names can get very well used (themselves advertising for campaigns or not) and recognized--Chinese is number 3 language in the U.S. and Canada--without traveling abroad. HkCaGu (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"The most important point is that Xiaoming and George have nothing to no with each other." Would you apply this logic to San Francisco ('Old Gold Mountain') and say that the article on San Francisco should include the Chinese name for the city?Readin (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

On San Francisco I would draw a line that "Old Gold Mountain" belongs only to the Chinese Wikipedia. The two names are not given by the same entity, i.e. San Francisco has no Chinese "ancestry". Meanwhile, Kevin Rudd has adopted a Chinese name and after some discussion, it was decided that "Lu Kewen" belongs to the content, not the infobox or lead paragraph. If San Francisco decides to settle the dispute between "Jiujinshan" (Old Gold Mountain) and "Sanfanshi" (i.e. adopts a Chinese name), it might worth a mention in the content. HkCaGu (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Chinese "ancestry" is your criteria? So because Eddy and Robert are not in the Chinese race, we don't include their Chinese names, but because George's race is Chinese we do include his Chinese name? You say that for Kevin Rudd, his Chinese name was included, but it's not found until halfway through the article. Aren't we talking about including the Chinese name immediately after the English name, as was done for Michael Chang? Readin (talk) 22:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a comparatively small number of individuals of European descent upon whom have been bestowed Chinese names; we usually do include them. It doesn't matter whether those names appear in the lead or later in the article, and I don't think anyone is insisting such names (that is, the given Chinese names for Anglo individuals "adopted" into Chinese culture, such as Joseph Needham) appear in the first sentence, only that the name not be blanked from the article. Badagnani (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Readin, I said Chinese people, however defined. Perhaps we come from different cultural backgrounds, but to me, a person who is Chinese by birth is Chinese according to the common usage of the word, as is someone of a Chinese ethnicity or ancestry. Michael Chang is considered Chinese by many, including himself. He satisfies all three criteria of physical ancestry, self identification and group co-identification.

As for non-Chinese people with Chinese names: if it is important to their life or work or if they are identified with it commonly in a particular context or in general, then it is relevant. That's what "relevance" means. As I said before, it's a no brainer. There's really no point trying to come up with a special rule for "Chinese names for Chinese people" or "Chinese names for non-Chinese people".

You talk about George Chen (was it?) being "American" and not "Chinese". I can't speak for the Americans in this discussion, but as a non-American, I can tell you that where I am, we would call him Chinese because he has Chinese ancestry. The important thing is whether his Chinese name is relevant to understanding this person in a comprehensive way. Given that, as you said, his Chinese name is used in some contexts, it is highly relevant. The case would be different if, say, (plucking someone at random out of a category search) Peter Wing has a Chinese name that nobody has ever used except in his family geneology book -- then it could be argued to be irrelevant. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If his parents gave him that Chinese name, it would be relevance to having a comprehensive article about this individual. Badagnani (talk) 05:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The MOS is here not to make special rules but is for general circumstances. Millions of Chinese names are bestowed upon overseas Chinese that are not registered with the POB government. Eddy and Robert are purely "what-ifs". Kids give each other nicknames or call each other names. Grand/parents don't invade others' authority and assign them names.

And please, we are here to illustrate multiple points to explain a reasoning. Stop taking out one point over all others and call it a day. You don't proceed through a green light when a road construction worker holds up a red "stop" sign facing you. Profanity is allowed on articles explaining its terminology. A language is spoken/used by its speakers/users wherever they go. HkCaGu (talk) 15:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I figued early on there was a strong race based component to wanting to put Chinese names in articles. The use of controversial terms like "overseas Chinese" were a pretty clear indicator. Yes, we do come from very different cultures. America used to be more like you describe as your view. For example in the 1940s America imprisoned imprisoned thousands of "Japanese" and for a long time had the infamous one drop rule. But that was the past. I think it also explains why, if I understand things correctly, Gene Nygaard was removing those names-he recognized the attempt to tie identity to race. There is a wiki-policy on providing ethnic identities. It does have self-identification as an important component for the very reason you mention, people have different ideas about what makes someone "Chinese".

The important thing though, is that there is a policy. I've tried to avoid specific real life examples because I don't want to get bogged down in researching every detail of that person. Instead, we need a policy for when to include the Chinese name, and where to include the Chinese name. Earlier I suggested the following:

• Provide the Chinese name only if the person did his famous acts using that name. For example, if an American actor became famous performing in Chinese movies, the Chinese name he used in those movies should be provided.

But I was wondering how much support there was for including a Chinese name in this situation:

• Provide the if the Chinese name if it is a given name (that is, a real name and not a translation) and that given name is well-known and used in public functions.

Now it sounds like you think we should also provide the Chinese name if the person qualifies as "Chinese" or "Chinese American" under the ethnic identification guidelines. Is that correct? Readin (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The motivations you impute above is solely in your mind. There is no "race-based" component, or else Joseph Needham would not have a Chinese name included. He is not an overseas Chinese. The examples you invented, including hypothetical childhood nicknames and Chinese names bestowed by Chinese American grandparents on Anglo- and Japanese American youngsters are red herrings. We must be reasonable in everything we do at Wikipedia. This has progressed from simple blanking (out of ignorance that the Chinese names were actually given by the individuals' parents, and not translations of the individuals' Western names), to edit warring from this same perspective, then providing examples that are not plausible, to finally "playing the race card," which is absolutely unnecessary and really quite reprehensible. One may wish that the United States and Canada contained only individuals of European descent, and that all other immigrant cultures checked their languages and cultures at the door--but to impose this on our international encyclopedia, which aims to be as comprehensive and encyclopedic as possible, is not permissible. The willful blanking of the Chinese name given to an individual by his or her parents does not enhance our articles for our users. Let's exercise reasonableness from now on, avoid implying that other editors are editing solely to favor their "race" (that was really uncalled for), and get back to the business of creating and improving great content. Badagnani (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of motives, why can't we figure out when it is, and when it is not, appropriate to include a person's Chinese name, and when the name should be provided on the first line vs later in the article? That way we'll have consistent standards that can be pointed to rather than edit warring. And if someone refuses to follow the standards, administrator action can be taken by locking the article or locking out the offending account. You say something was done "out of ignorance that the Chinese names were actually given by the individuals' parents". Perhaps an editor may not care where the name came from. Why is that such an important consideration? It would not be unreasonable for an editor to take this approach:

• A Chinese name is provided on the first line only if that is the name that the subject of the article is primarily known by in the local of that subject.

So for example, San Francisco would not have "Old Gold Mountain" in the first line, because few people in San Francisco call it that. Shannon Lee would not have a Chinese name in her first line because the friends, family and coworkers she spends 90% of her time with don't call her that. Chang Kai-shek would have his Chinese characters and pinyin pronunciation provided because the Chinese name is the one he used most often. I'm not saying we need to use that standard, but it one of quite a few reasonable possibilities. So before you can accuse someone of misbehaving, we need a standard against which to judge the behavior.Readin (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There has been no problem until now (until the blanking/edit war) because editors have edited in a reasonable manner, never adding Chinese names to the articles of individuals who are not Chinese (except in the case of those few rare individuals of non-Chinese descent such as Joseph Needham or Pearl S. Buck who have been "adopted" into the Chinese culture and been given well-known Chinese names). The "rule" should be exercising reasonableness and adding the names where appropriate; appropriate meaning include the name somewhere in the article (whether in the lead, an infobox, or in the first paragraph of their biographical section), if the person is an overseas Chinese and has a Chinese name. Badagnani (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

"editors have edited in a reasonable manner, never adding Chinese names to the articles of individuals who are not Chinese"? What about Shannon Lee? As was correctly pointed out, she was born in America to an American father and an American mother. She is identified on her Wiki page as an "American actress" and given Wiki's policies on self-identification I have to assume that she identifies herself as an American, not as a Chinese. And yet there is a Chinese version of here name right next to her birth name. You may wish she were Chinese, or you may define her as Chinese based on your personal criteria, but that is not Wiki policy for the very good reason that not everyone uses the same criteria. Readin (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There lies your problem of perception--that there is a conflict between being a Chinese and being an American. First, the U.S. government allows dual nationality. Second, we aren't even talking about nationality here. Chinese names are given to ethnic Chinese no matter what their nationality may be. In the Chinese language there is a distinction between "ethnic Chinese" (hua-yi, hua-ren) and "Chinese national" (zhong-guo-ren). In colloquial English the words "ethnic" or "national" may be omitted and context inferred. In the global community of the ethnic Chinese, Michelle Kwan is known as an "overseas Chinese" (living outside greater China). In international competitions, she's an American national. There is no conflict. People's last names reflect their ethnicity. (The days of anglicized first or last names are long gone.) The United States has no bans on languages other than English. If a contract is signed in another language, it's still legally binding. If Michelle signs a contract in Chinese and later says she's not "關穎珊" she'll be laughed out of court. Bruce gave Shannon a Chinese name and her movies sell to Chinese speakers and that name will automatically be used. Whether a person uses his/her name "locally" shouldn't matter.HkCaGu (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no conflict between having Chinese ancestry and being American. And there is no conflict between practicing Chinese culture and being American. As for the term "ethnic", it is quite confusing in that it combines race and culture, when the two often do not fit. I know many people of the Chinese race who speak no Chinese and who act and think like most of the Americans around them. I know many people of the European race who find European culture deplorable. And I know many poeple of the African race who speak no African language and would be quite bewildered among a group of cultural Africans. So when you speak of "ethnic Chinese" I'm not entirely sure what is meant. I believe that is one of the reasons the wiki policy on identifying "ethnicity" focuses on the persons self-identification, because it is so hard to identify it objectively when the term "ethnicity" doesn't make much sense.

Speaking of Michelle Kwan, if she signed a contract in Chinese, what difference would it make whether she later claimed she wasn't "Chinese"? The only question is whether she knew what she was signing, and that depends not on who her ancestors were, it depends on whether or not she understands the Chinese language. You say "Bruce gave Shannon a Chinese name and her movies sell to Chinese speakers and that name will automatically be used." So then why isn't Kevin Rudd's Chinese name given the same prominent position as Shannon Lee's? When you open the Shannon Lee page, you immediately see the Chinese name right next to her name. When you open Kevin Rudd's page, you don't see his Chinese name until the middle of the page. Isn't his Chinese name used in coverage of him in the Chinese media?

You say "People's last names reflect their ethnicity." Perhaps you should visit the interior of the United States and see just how ridiculous that assertion can be.

Look, some of your arguments for when to include a Chinese last name make sense, some I think need closer examination. Why are you so afraid of setting some standards?Readin (talk) 02:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If having the Chinese name in the lead is objected to so strenuously for the Shannon Lee article, it could be moved to the infobox (if a parameter exists in that box for "Chinese name"), or to the paragraph about her early life. This possibility has been presented earlier in this discussion. Regarding your calling other editors "afraid," this is uncivil and should be withdrawn. Badagnani (talk) 03:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I was accused of being imperceptive. Badagnani, you yourself have accused me of deliberately misinterpreting someone's writings, not reading carefully, and using a "red herring". Now you are concerned that I accused of being "afraid of setting some standards" when in fact you and others have resisted my call to do so? Perhaps you believe you have good reasons to be afraid. I'm afraid of a lot of things, and with good reason. I'm afraid of crossing the street without looking both ways. But since you object to the accusation that you are afraid of setting standards, shall we assume that you are not afraid and proceed? I have suggested several standards. Do you like any of them? Do you have other standards you wish to propose? I have an open mind on this and I hope we all do. Readin (talk) 03:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The standard is one of reasonableness. It has worked well until the recent campaign of blanking, which was backed up by ignorance of the nature of the Chinese names in question. Badagnani (talk) 03:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Forgive me if I'm repeating what has already been said - I've only skimmed all the discussion as it is getting way too long. The key issue is relevance, and I think a foreign (i.e. non-English name) is important to full understanding of that subject and should be included in the heading or namebox when 1) it is not trivially derivative from the main name presented in the article, and 2) it is commonly used in that language in whatever context, and the subject's identification in that language is important to the person's identity, work, or life.

Secondly, I think a foreign (i.e. non-English name) is relevant (but not important) to a full understanding of that subject if the above conditions apply, except that the identification of the subject in that lnaguage is relevant but not critically important to the person's identity, work, or life.

To illustrate the first point, consider this:

1. James Bruce, 8th Earl of Elgin's "Chinese" name is trivially derived from his English name, being a direct transliteration. Thus, although his involvement in China is critically important to an understanding of his life and work, his "Chinese" name is irrelevant.
2. Hu Jintao's "English" name is trivially derived from his Chinese name (and not the other way around), so his Chinese name has primary importance and should be presented in the heading or namebox.
3. Joseph Needham's "Chinese" name is not trivially derived from his English name, and his identification in Chinese is critically important to his life and work. Thus, his Chinese name is important enough to be included in the lead.
4. Kevin Rudd's Chinese name is not trivially derived from his English name, and his Chinese language abilities and work in China are relevant though not critically important to his life and work. Thus, his Chinese name is included but not in the lead.

The tricky part is whether the Chinese name of an ethnic Chinese person is inherently relevant to an understanding of that person. My view is that it is. The dispute here seems to me to be almost an ideological dispute between assimilationism (or "melting pot" theory) and multiculturalism. Regardless of your political leanings on that point, however, there is no denying that a person of Chinese ancestry will be identified as "Chinese" in the common sense of the word - regardless of whether they are also American, Canadian, or Papua New Guinean. The only circumstance, as I have said before, where an ethnic Chinese person's distinct Chinese name is irrelevant to an understanding of their identity, life or work is when it is never used by anyone in any context whatsoever.

There is a fundamental difference between Michelle Kwan and Kevin Rudd in regard to their Chinese names: the former is Chinese by ethnicity; her Chinese name is part of her identity, and thus belongs in the definitional paragraph. For the latter, the Chinese name is acquired as a result of his work and education. It does not belong in the definitional paragraph. Remember, also, that arguing from precedents is not a good approach on Wikipedia. Who knows - the editors at Kevin Rudd may decide tomorrow that his Chinese name is such an integral part of his defining characteristics that it should be moved into the lead. We need to keep to policies and basic principles.

There are no hard and fast rules - only questions of interpretation. In that regard, I would adopt what Badagnanai is saying about "reasonableness" being the only true standard. --03:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think your statement of a standard is entirely reasonable and one that I'm willing to sign on to. I think the examples you give of Bruce, Hu, Needham, and Rudd also work. But you are right that we differ on how those standards would apply to someone like Michelle Kwan. I do not think of her as Chinese. When I watch skating I'm not sure I've ever heard her referred to as Chinese. I'm pretty sure I heard that her parents were from Hong Kong, but that was her parents and not her. And again with the "ethnicity" thing, I'm not sure what that means in a case where someone's culture is different from that of their ancestors, as I'm suspect is the case with Miss Kwan. I think the reasonable thing to do would be to adopt the standards you suggest (or something similar, I'm open minded on it), but to not assume that someone's ancestry defines their current identity or ethnicity. In other words, the burden of proof should be on the person who wants to claim that the identity is important enough to require the use of the Chinese name. In some cases this won't be too hard. Michael Chang has done a lot of work in Chinese-speaking countries and I understand he has claimed he is Chinese. Bruce Lee grew up in Hong Kong and did much of his famous work in Hong Kong. However for Michelle Kwan I think some justification is required beyond her having a Chinese last name and her looks. I checked her website and it does say she grew up with a mix of Cantonese and English at home, so that probably does it for her. But we need to make sure we check for that kind of thing rather than just assuming.

There are no hard and fast rules, but there are guidelines against which reasonableness can be judged and discussed. If someone is going around deleting names it will be useful to be able to say "these are the criteria and this is how they are met in this article." Readin (talk) 03:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If Michelle Kwan did not have a Chinese name given to her by her parents, that might be a good argument for insisting that it not be included in her article. However, she does have such a Chinese name. In order to have an article that is not 90% or 95% encyclopedic, but fully encyclopedic, her Chinese name should be included. Badagnani (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like you're saying having a Chinese name given by parents is by itself sufficient grounds for inclusion. I think PalaceGuard is right that what really matters is usage of the name or identification with the name. For example, I know some children with Taiwanese ancestry who have given Taiwanese names that they almost never use. One was called by his Taiwanese name by his grandparents when he was a toddler and so is at least aware of the name. Another may not even know what his Taiwanese name is. Suppose these kids grow up to be world-famous, and for the purpose of publicity in Taiwan tell their PR guy, "I have a Taiwanese name, it would sure tickle my parents if I use it instead of using a transliteration of my English name". In that case, the Taiwanese name would have little more significance than the Arabic, Tagalog or Japanese transliterations.Readin (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(side query) When you say "Taiwanese name", do you mean a Chinese name or a Taiwanese aboriginal name? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)