Talk:Chinese New Year greetings/Poll

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I hereby open a poll to discuss the situation with the article formerly at Kung hei fat choi, now moved to Chinese New Years greetings, and with some of it merged into Chinese New Year. I note that there was a previous discussion of a move from "Kung hei fat choi" to "Gong Xi Fa Cai", which failed; the discussion is preserved at Talk:Kung hei fat choi/Move Discussion. In a sense, this is an extension of that discussion.

The issue to be resolved is that at the previous move discussion, some (a minority) of users suggested that the article be expanded and moved to "Chinese New Years greetings", in the hope that it can be more useful. However, as it was not considered by many of the voters, consensus is unclear and has been debated at length at Talk:Chinese New Years greetings, resulting in a deadlock.

This poll, therefore, is to clarify what users think should happen to this content. Although polls typically are "yes" and "no", there is a need to make this poll tripartite.

Please choose between:

  1. An article at Kung hei fat choi and a summary at Chinese New Year - back to what it was before.
  2. An article at Chinese New Year greeting and a summary at Chinese New Year - note the slight change from the current title, which is grammatically incorrect
  3. No article at either of the above; instead merge all relevant content into Chinese New Year.

Thank you. enochlau (talk) 14:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Support Option 1

  1. Let's keep the two pages separate and revert the greeting page to Kung hei fat choy. I'd put forward three reasons for this:
    • KHFC, as a term widely used both by the Chinese people in practice during CNY and as a term used by non-Chinese to associate with CNY, deserves an entry of its own.
    • The current title is a bit misleading since it doesn't address any other common CNY greeting(s?) other than KHFC itself.
    • Ample support has been given on Talk:Kung_hei_fat_choi/Move_Discussion that a significant number of English media uses "Kung key fat choi" or its variants to transliterate this CNY greeting, but virtually no English media uses "Gungxi facai". The criterion to rebut this test would be, upon a diligent and fair research on those English media who publishes a transliteration of this term, that those who uses GXFC are more than those who uses KHFC. This test is a test on the strength of a term in the English speaking world -- after all we are talking about the proper title of a term in the English version of Wikipedia.
    --Pkchan 17:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support. Kung hei fat choi is a separate entity to the holiday. There is room for elaboration on the greeting which does not necessarily belong on the page for the holiday. Jogloran 06:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support. novacatz 17:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support. HenryLi 19:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support. Agree with above. enochlau (talk) 21:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Instantnood – As an encyclopædia, a repository of all human knowledge, there should not be any discrimination towards knowledge in languages other than English. Further, kung hei fat choi has entered English for about two hundred years already. — 09:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support. --Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 10:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Should this option be selected, I suppose it also allows for the seperate article Gong Xi Fa Cai to be writern based on past arguments over bias and usage in English?--Huaiwei 00:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

  • That's not a necessary consequence of option 1 being selected, but I would support this idea if and only if there is sufficient material to warrant a second article, which wouldn't just be a copy of KHFC with the name changed. enochlau (talk) 01:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
    • So if anyone is serious about reducing bias (which was the main reason why the page move proposal was made in the first place, and why options 2 and 3 came about), then this option should include the possibility of having GXFC as a seperate article too. And so, folks who voted for this option should also indicate they are prepared to accept the existance of both articles. Otherwise, this voting option is void. This is the problem with poorly-conceived votes, and again demonstrates how poor an option voting is when it comes to dispute resolution.--Huaiwei 01:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
      • You're making unwarranted generalisations again, but I shall not argue with you; here I think a poll is necessary because there really would have been no way forward from the deadlock in our previous discussions. I think because this option does not even mention GXFC, therefore it should be implied that an article should be created at GXFC as usual if such an article is warranted, i.e. there is sufficient material. enochlau (talk) 02:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Not that I am interested in any arguement, but which aspect of my comment is deemed as a form of "unwarranted generalisation" as far as you are concerned? Meanwhile, if there is not enough material for an article solely on KHFC, can we then vote for its deletion based on your point that GXFC can only exist if it has enough material too?--Huaiwei 02:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
          • I am proposing that the current material reside at KHFC based on the result of the previous requested move, which established that the consensus is to have the current material at KHFC as opposed to GXFC. However, if there is sufficient new material that does not belong in KHFC, then by all means an article at GXFC should be created to accommodate it. enochlau (talk) 02:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
            • In other words, those material which applies to both GXFC and KHFC should be similarly removed from GXFC, since GXFC is not secondary to KHFC. How much material do we have left for KHFC to support its continued existance, then?--Huaiwei 02:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
              • We have the current material residing at Chinese New Years greetings. This option is to have this material at KHFC. And yes, any material that applies to both GXFC and KHFC would then have to be removed from GXFC (possibly summarised at GXFC, but GXFC should then link to KHFC): replicated content is bad, and if you're wondering why we can't have it solely at GXFC, that's because of the previously failed requested move. enochlau (talk) 03:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
                • That is because I helped to write the material at Chinese New Years greetings to reduce likelihood of bias. If you are demanding that that information reside at KHFC, then we are going back full circle and you can be sure we will be back to square one for round two in this dispute. If you think the previously failed move request is binding, why do you do this poll then? It is obvious that the move request has ignited serious points up for contention despite the voting result, and if this option is selected, it once again throws up those concerns, if not even more so. Is this vote an attempt to restore things to previous versions, and a demonstration of your reluctance in accepting viewpoints from the opposition?--Huaiwei 03:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
                  • Nothing is binding; however, the previous move discussion is relevant only for a choice between KHFC and GXFC. As noted above, the reason why we're here is because there are other possible locations for this material not considered in the requested move. We're getting off-track so let's get back to your complaint; that this option is "void" because it does not address GXFC. Yes, I agree with you, the option defintion doesn't explicitly mention GXFC, but that does not necessarily "void" this option. As you will note, the current article mentions GXFC. This option does not preclude the creation of a GXFC article which you seek; but as I mentioned above, it should be created such that it does not replicate content from KHFC, because that would be pointless. enochlau (talk) 03:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
                    • It is void unless you can show all seven voters above are willing to accomodate a GXFC article as well? This entire voting exercise is conducted from a biased base, with no consideration for GXFC and causing voters to interpret it as a for-KHFC/against-KHFC vote. With a fundamentally flawed vote to begin with, I dont see how everyone will respect its results. I, for one, abstained from voting in it for quite some time simply because of my disapproval over how it is being conducted. Do you intend to address this issue, or you are going to tell me to back off and call me an irritant? Its your choice now...--Huaiwei 09:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Support Option 2

  1. Weak support. novacatz 17:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Weak support as well. enochlau (talk) 06:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Instantnood – If and only if option 1 is voted down. — 09:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support. There are many Chinese New Year greetings. "greetings" in the title should be plural because there are many greetings. Any Chinese New Year greetings should be posted on that page. Other parts of this option I haven't mentioned, I support. Let it be noted that I speak Chinese and am familiar with Chinese culture. --LakeHMM 04:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I can see where you're coming from, but Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Prefer_singular_nouns suggests otherwise. Although we may discuss many different greetings on such a page, I would say it's like how the article cow is in the singular even though it discusses different cows? So perhaps having the article title as plural isn't such a good idea... enochlau (talk) 05:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
      • There's also SOME article titles should be plural. cow is discussing the characteristics of cows. However, Chinese New Year greetings wouldn't be discussing the characteristics of a Chinese New Year greeting. It would actually list and describe each one. I believe in this case a plural makes more sense, and would be warranted.
        • If your intention is to make this page list-like, what do you think about List of Chinese New Year greetings? enochlau (talk) 06:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
          • (Perhaps this is better placed under Discussion below, but here I go anyway for better visibility and continuity with the thread) I wouldn't have objected setting up another separate entry to the tune of List of Chinese New Year greetings; however this shouldn't prevent certain entries thereon from existing on their own (just as the existence of List of idioms in the English language doesn't preclude the existence of, say, Stiff upper lip) and, if there ever is one CNY greeting which deserves a special mention, it has to be KHFC for the reasons given above in support of Option 1. --Pkchan 13:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
            • This would be good if option 1 were to be selected (maybe also option 3?). For option 2, it wouldn't make sense to have an article called Chinese New Year greeting, and then have a list at the same time... enochlau (talk) 01:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
              • Sure. All I was suggesting in my immediately preceding point is that the existence of List of Chinese New Year greetings does not contradict that of, say, Kung hei fat choi or any of its variants, if this particular point is what prevented LakeHMM from voting in favour of Option 1. --Pkchan 05:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
        • A small point but the link you provided isn't much of a guideline. It's merely part of a discussion that doesn't seem to have won many people over, as the links provided (Bell numbers etc) have actually been moved back to their singular counterparts. This page is distinguished from the other example provided, The Beatles, because that's their actual name with the 's' at the end. enochlau (talk) 06:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Also, there's, for example Asian languages, which isn't called "List of Asian Languages" and isn't called "Asian language". East Asian language (singular) just describes the general characteristics that East Asian languages share. --LakeHMM 07:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
    • As mentioned about by Pkchan, I'd think kung hei fat choi would still need an entry, even if there's a list of Chinese New Year greetings. It is the only one that has entered English, and is in prevalent use. — Instantnood 16:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Then Gong xi fa cai should have an entry too, since it has also entered English, and is used by more English-speaking Chinese in the world.--Huaiwei 00:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
        • If there is enough content for GXFC that warrants a sepearate article - there can be certainly be one. novacatz 01:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Alright, a lot of arguments that make sense here, at least with basing on the style guides, but I just don't think that "Chinese New Year greeting" makes any sense. I understand the idea of a list, but I think it would be different from a list because we would also describe them. I don't think any of them warrant an entire article on them, because all you need is a couple pronunciations, a translation, and the meaning. On the topic of having a separate article for KHFC, it's hardly any non-Chinese people say to each other unless they're elementary school children having just learned about it from some non-Chinese person. If anything it should be Gong Xi Fa Cai, seeing as how Mandarin is the official dialect. But I wouldn't go so far as to say that KHFC has entered the English language and become a word in its own right, like, for example Taoism. --LakeHMM 04:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm not really fussed either way now. My original intention with leaving off the 's' was to have the article describe the general qualities and characteristics of a Chinese New Year greeting, anhd it just happens to provide a list of them. So back to the cattle example, the basic aim of the cattle article is to describe the qualities and characteristics of cattle, while providing a list of cattle further down the page. I'd say think about it later, if Option 2 does indeed prove to be the way to go. enochlau (talk) 04:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I do think some of the CNY greetings do justify the existence of a separate article. Imagine a non-Chinese just hearing an utterance of KHFC on the street or on the Guardian, and would like to look its meaning up by keying in "Kung hei fat choi" in Wikipedia's search box. It would make sense to him/her if the search yields directly to a dedicated page of KHFC, which says that it is a CNY greeting and, if he/she happens to be so interested, he/she would follow the link to browse other CNY greetings. It would confuse him/her if the search yields instead to a page listing numerous CNY greetings (via a redirect from the KHFC page) and the term KHFC is buried deep under that list; the impatient reader (one who doesn't bother to scroll down) would regret looking it up at Wikipedia at the first place as it doesn't help, and the more patient reader would get the somewhat tilted impression that KHFC is a CNY greeting as commonly used in the English-speaking world as, say, 出入平安. --Pkchan 05:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
        • But I don't think this is just about appeasing the ignorant monolingual English-literate person. If they type that in, and it takes them to this page, then obviously it is a Chinese New Year greeting. And I think you're overestimating the commonness of 恭喜发财 in the English-speaking world. Like I said before, the only place people ever learn or use it is once or twice durin Chinese New Year in elementary school. I can't say I've really encountered 恭喜发财 a significantly less amount of times than 出入平安. I was given a Celtic necklace from a non-Chinese person reading 出入平安 on the back. 恭喜发财 is just generally not used outside the Chinese community. --LakeHMM 06:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
          • This was discused previously at the Requested Move. There is evidence to suggest that, at least in Australia, it has entered the vocabulary of the media and politicians. enochlau (talk) 06:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
            • Alright, if you feel that it's necessary, I would think it would be okay for it to have its own page, but I still think that there should be a Chinese New Years greetings page with information on other ones, and a link there to Kung hei fat choi. Could you give me some examples of the things that would be included in a Kung hei fat choi page? --LakeHMM 07:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
          • 出入平安 is not only for new year's time, but a general blessing that can be used whenever. Banners like 安平入出 are common above doors or gates all the year round. — Instantnood 07:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Support Option 3

  1. SchmuckyTheCat 18:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC) See below in discussion as to why.
  2. R. S. Shaw 22:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC) no reason to be separate, not size, not distinctness; variations in English also problematic for a separate article.
  3. Wikipedia is not a foreign-language phrase directory. And polls suck. / Peter Isotalo 04:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. King of All the Franks 20:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Huaiwei 10:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC) Arguments have pointed to the fact that nuetrality is far more important, and this is best done without any single transliteration being used to represent other dialects in a phrase as common to all Chinese cultures as this. This particular article as a stand-alone entry has proven to be unable to expand to a satisfactory level, and the one we subsequently expanded in the CNY article itself shows it fits in perfectly well there.
  6. Terence Ong Talk 10:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC) It is better not to have any article like KHFC or Chinese New Years greetings. We can put it under Chinese New Year. It is much better. This is an English language Wikipedia, dialects do not represent the whole Chinese community. If the article is under this page, everything should be in one page.
  7. Yaohua2000 23:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
    • This is less of a popularity contest than a discussion. Your reasoning? enochlau (talk) 00:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Why Option 1 shouldn't be an option:

KHFC or GXFC is a false dilemma. The point isn't about which phrase came first, which language popularized it, or which language most native english speakers encounter most often. They are both used by large numbers of chinese speaking people around the world. The number of non-chinese speakers who even know the difference between cantonese and putonghau are vastly overwhelmed by people who don't know (and don't care).
Presenting the article at the KHFC title presents a cantonese-specific POV. Rather a trivial one, IMHO, but obviously one that matters if it's resulted in edit wars, WP:ANI flames, and a user RFC. We should avoid this POV.
Presenting the article at GXFC would also present a putonghau POV, which to some people raises latent PRC-phobia. This should be avoided as well.
The title of KHFC actually seems to preclude adding other phrases (even GXFC!) used during Chinese New Year. The maximum length of an article on KHFC is rather short. Why be exclusive? Adding more phrases makes a KHFC title irrelevant to the contents.

Why I first chose Option 2:

Let's avoid POV! By having a generic article title we avoid the POV inherent (as witnessed by the talk page discussion gone rabid) in choosing one variation of Chinese over the other.
Let's be inclusive! It also lets us add MORE phrases, because KHFC and GXFC are not the only phrases used.

Why I choose Option 3:

Article length: Option 2 is still going to result in a very short article. As seen by the current state of Chinese New Year, the greetings section works wonderfully well as a section.
Context is everything: The section in Chinese New Year provides other traditions, putting the greetings into a larger context, exposing more readers to that specific content, and making the Chinese New Year article better as well.

SchmuckyTheCat 19:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The phrase itself used to be very regional, mostly in Cantonese-speaking areas and the rest of southern China. It was not until very recently that it became popular in the rest of China (China here refers to the geographical region, not any particular regime/jurisdiction). Although I agree there should be no discrimination towards any language, we have to acknowledge the fact that this is the English-language version of Wikipedia. Some certain English-centricism is unavoidable. When it comes to matter related to languages, most readers are looking for, and more interested in what the matter is in English, instead of in other languages. There's nothing to deal with regional or linguistics superiority, but to reflect the fact that the saying is regional, and entered English through a particular language. For this reason, I've reorganised the article by taking all transliterations off the lead sentence, while I'd still support moving it back to "kung hei fat choi" or any of its variants. — Instantnood 19:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Validity of this poll

I suggest that Option 1 be revised as thus: "An article at a transliteration (Kung hei fat choi, Gong Xi Fa Cai, or others) and a summary at Chinese New Year", and then call for all participants' attention to this revision.

Since the previously worded option would be included in this revised option while the revision would not made Option 1 co-incide with the other two options, such revision should not call the previously cast vote into question. --Pkchan 17:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)