Talk:Republic of China/Archive 10

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposed removal of Simplified Chinese. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Result was no consensus to remove SC / Keep SC per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Use of Chinese Language)

We (both sides of the argument) have stated our views over and over, and have still failed to reach consensus.

I think that because Simplified Chinese is not used in Taiwan, it should not be in the article. Nobody has given a single NPOV reason or citation supporting the inclusion of Simplified Characters in Taiwan's articles (or its widespread use in Taiwan). If there were no controversy, indeed, an NPOV reason or citations would be unnecessary. But now that there is disagreement on the issue, I ask again for an unequivocal response to my question: what merits the inclusion of Simplified characters?

This has absolutely nothing to do with political agendas or splitting cultures. Let's keep the discussion free of emotion-driven responses about cultural identity, from either side.137.189.239.27 07:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If the discussion already failed to reach any consensus, why do u want to restart it again? Chris! _{my talk} 22:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you check the archive, there was 2:1 support for removing simplified Chinese in the last discussion. However, other users (nat and others) have stated that this is not consensus, just a majority vote. I want to re-start the discussion becase (1) I feel not enough (registered) editors have weighed in on the issue (just a few who actively check this and related articles), and (2) because I feel that it is against NPOV to keep simplified Chinese in the articles - our discussion has been lacking and the policy, in my opinion, needs to change. 137.189.237.213 08:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but you're not registered either (or you haven't logged in) - registering yourself might lend a bit more weight to your argument about registered editors weighing in on the issue. Regarding the issue itself, I'm curious as to why you think it's not a NPOV to keep Simplified characters. I can't imagine that having two different renderings of what's essentially the same language suddenly makes an article skew towards one point of view or another. I don't really have strong feelings either way (keeping it or dumping it), but I don't really see a compelling reason at this point to remove Simplified Chinese from the article. --Folic Acid 12:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

(I am 137.189.239.27, but logged in - my apologies) My main objection is that simplified characters are simply not used in Taiwan in any official capacity (for which I can provide citations if the discussion continues). I see including both scripts as (1) unnecessary - if they are essentially the same language, why do we need to render it twice? Wiki is not a Chinese Dictionary, so including the only set officially used is enough - and (2) non-NPOV in that the Taiwanese government and education system also do not use Simplified Chinese characters. Simplified Chinese, since its creation, has been universally associated with (mainland) China, and its inclusion in the articles is inextricably linked to political/cultural issues. In addition, the rendering of both sets of characters, for the most part, occurs only in the initial sentence of Taiwan articles, whereas the rest of the article content, when including the Chinese equivalent of place names/people/etc only makes use of Traditional Chinese. In this sense, I feel that (some) editors are haphazardly trying to force a "standard" on all Chinese and Taiwan articles (but not following through), whereas consensus, in terms of article content, seems to be choosing only Traditional Chinese in these articles. Although other editors have given understandable reasons why (mainland) China-related articles include both character sets, for Taiwan to immediately fall under the same standard is also NPOV - in terms of one-china support or other political views.

But as a linguist, I don't really care about the political side of things. For now, the de facto reality is that Simplified Chinese is not part of Taiwan, and including both character sets (which again, are essentially the same language) under the guise of "standardisation" feels politically motivated. I realise that I am not owed an explanation, but it says a lot to me that nobody has been able to give a NPOV reason or compelling reason to keep Simplified Chinese in these articles, either.

In brief, deleting simplified characters does not advocate Taiwan independence or any political things; it simply reflects the reality. Keeping simplified characters, however, must indicate political stance; why else would we keep a script not used in Taiwan in the articles? Would like to have more discussion about this. Xrhtwf 12:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You make good points, X. Let me give it some thought. Cheers, -Folic Acid 13:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Having read the previous discussion on this issue (and continuing to have no strong opinion), I'm not sure that I can contribute anything substantively. While I think you make good points, I'm not sure that they present a compelling enough reason to remove the Simplified Chinese from the article. I'd rather those with stronger opinions contribute to the discussion. --Folic Acid 16:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

For those of you who like to reason by analogy, here's some contradictory food for thought about typical practises we've adopted on Korea-related articles:

• Hanja (Chinese characters) are always provided where known or reasonably guessed at, even on North Korea related topics (even though, unlike in South Korea, Hanja have never had any official status in the North)
• For North Korean topics, the South Korean spelling is sometimes given alongside the North Korean spelling (e.g. Rodong-1); I am not aware of any example of a South Korean topic where the North Korean spelling is given

Of course, these practises may be a result of the fact that we have no editors from North Korea ... though I'm sure we must have some from among the Korean community in Japan, many of whom also use the North Korean spelling, or at least learned it in school. Cheers, cab 07:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Simplified text does not belong in this article unless some specific context requires it - which I don't currently see. SchmuckyTheCat

AGREE There is no justified Neutral Point of View reason to leave Simplified Hanyu Pinyin Chinese on Taiwan related pages. Only Traditional Tongyong Pinyin based Ancient Traditional Chinese should be used!

You're confusing (a) the rivalry betwen Simplified and Traditional characters, with (b) the rivalry between Hanyu Pinyin and TongYong PinYin. The first is visible only to people who can read some form of Chinese characters. The second has to do with romanized phonetic systems. On the first issue, I see no need to add Simplified characters--Chinese readers can figure things out just fine. As to the second, Hanyu Pinyin has become the international standard. TongYong PinYin has only existed for a few years (it was created by a civil servant working for Taiwan's Ministry of Education), and has won little acceptance even in Taiwan. (I expect it to be forgotten after next year's elections.) A better case could be made for Zhryin Fuhao (The "bo-po-mo-fo" system) but that's primarily for children--the addition of these symbols would be unlikely to really help anybody here.

I agree to remove simplified chinese from article. Actually the international standard for romanization is the Wade-Giles systems which is extensively used in the majority of Western and Eastern publications. User:Porn Star

There is Majority agreement already as there was before in the previous similar discussion to remove Simplified Chinese from Taiwan related articles, it is now justified to begin removing all traces of 50+ year old communist-PRC simplified Chinese writing system and use only the 9000 year old Traditional Ancient Chinese writing system as it is used in the country of Taiwan!

Reply

Again, it is through the general agreement of ALL editors before we make any controversial edits. Before I explain my position in terms of this article, here are my personal views:

1. I have always preferred the usage of Traditional Characters, because I believe that they have beauty, elegance, and meaning
2. I hate simplified because it killed the beauty and the meanings of the characters

Now to my position in terms of this article: I disagree with and will oppose any proposed removal of the Simplified Characters for the following reasons:

• We have to look at this through the world's views, which means a few things:
  • We cannot solely base what we decide one government or the other, but we must base it on an international standard. Therefore we must ask ourself these questions:
    1. What type of characters are used by the major international organizations, such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, and the World Health Organization?
    2. What type of characters are used by the most people around the world than the other?
    3. What type of characters are taught more often in post-secondary schools around the world than the other?
  • All three questions are answered by one answer: Simplified Characters.
  • Some of you might say "if your argument says we should go by international standards, then by those arguments shouldn't this article not not exist?". Well, if you think that way, good for you, but nope. That is not what my argument is. My argument is that we must decide based on what the global standard and recognition is. And the fact is the World does recognize the "Republic of China", just most of the World's recognition of the ROC is done in an unofficial and indirect capacity. That is why an article exists for this State.
  • The end result is that we must keep Simplified Characters

And by the way, what is the big deal with the need to remove the simplified characters? The only simplified characters (four characters) are in the first sentence, and all the other characters in the article are traditional and the simplified characters aren't even in the infobox. Seriously, you people are making a big deal out of something that:

1. Won't hurt the article
2. Won't hurt you
3. Won't hurt anyone else
4. It's just 4 little characters

Another thing, the statement that Traditional Chinese Characters is 9000 years old and that it's "ancient" is false. Traditional Chinese was only widely introduced and stabilized during the 5th century or about 400 AD/CE, which is about 1500 years ago not 9000 years ago and it is not ancient by the standards of mainstream historians as the ancient period end in 200 BC/BCE in China with the crowning of the Qin Emperor, also known as Shi Huang Di, and it isn't even considered ancient by western standards as the classical/ancient ages of Europe ended with the fall of the Western Roman Empire which was the same time as when the Traditional Character came to be. Serious back your comments with fact not fiction next time. Anyways, I say keep the Simplified Characters based on my arguments/statement above. nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 13:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

STRONGLY OPPOSE User: Nat lame pro-Communist PRC arguments! First, please read the following link from the BBC (British Broadcasting Channel) for confirmation about the 8000-9000 history of Ancient Chinese writing which predates Egyptian and Mesopotamian scripts: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6669569.stm I will personally oppose any effort by User Nat to keep placing simplified Chinese onto Taiwan related articles. If we are to use his lame "international standard" argument as means to keep simplified Chinese then we might as well put French onto the article of the United States of America as well as the United Kingdom, and why you ask, because "French" is also considered an international standard language, so much so, that during the funeral of Pope John Paul II, all of the names of the countries of the visiting diginitaries and presidents were pronounced in "French," not English, on international TV. We must use the language and systems of writing that are OFFICIALLY USED by the respective countries themselves, this is the only way to maintain accuracy and is only justifiable mode of editing Wikipedia. It is now time, that we must remove all traces of Simplified Chinese and use the Traditional Chinese system on Taiwan related articles, Simplified should only be used in People's Republic of China related articles!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.219.176.64 (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Nat - he's laid out a well-reasoned, plain argument as to why we should continue to include Simplified characters, despite any personal dislike we might have for them. That personal dislike, feelings about the current government of the People's Republic of China, or our opinions about the current political status of the Republic of China are not sufficient reasons to remove Simplified. -- _{Folic_Acid | talk}  15:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it would appear that MAJORITY CONSENSUS AND AGREEMENT has been in favor of removing Simplified Chinese from this article both last time during the previous discussion and this time in this repeat discussion of the same topic in which only a small number individuals continue to squeeze the PRC created Simplified Chinese onto the ROC (Taiwan) page. The Republic of China (Taiwan) does NOT use the Simplified Chinese writing system, and as a result, it is justified to use only the official writing system that is used on the Republic of China (Taiwan), which is the Traditional Ancient Chinese system. The statement about Traditional Ancient Chinese writing being 8000-9000 is true and scientifically supported with archaelogical evidence, you should read the BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6669569.stm ? Again, ONLY the People's Republic of China (PRC) uses Simplified Chinese, and just because the PRC is "attempting" to make it the "international standard" they are still not 100% successful, as various Chinese communities around the world, SAR of Hong Kong, and the country of ROC (Taiwan) use the Traditional Ancient ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.219.176.64 (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, your first sentence shows me that you do not comprehend what consensus is: Consensus is the general agreement of ALL editors on a particular issue, not just the majority of editors. Secondly, the People's Republic of China is not the only State to use simplified characters as their official script as Singapore also uses simplified. Thirdly, the script and character you are talking about aren't what we call Traditional Character today but Oracle bone script which is the earliest know Chinese script, however, it isn't even 9000 years old as you claim. The oldest Oracle bone script found is believed to from the 16th Century BC/BCE which is about 1500 BC/BCE, that would make the earliest known Chinese script, the Oracle bone script, about less than 4000 years old, less than half of what you're claiming. nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 17:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Correction, yes there were Chinese scripts about 8000 years ago as stated in the article, however the article also stated that these scripts are pictoral scripts not the modern "traditional" scripts which again only came to be about 1500 years ago during the Han Dynasty era. nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 18:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Nat on this issue. It won't harm anyone by including simplified characters, and it helps people who only learned simplified characters to relate to traditional characters. --Will74205 19:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Nat, thank you for weighing in.

I was waiting for someone to point out why Simplified is being kept in these articles. I understand your points, but I am unable to agree with your logic in a few areas:

1. You said that "we must decide based on what the global standard and recognition is" - but Traditional Chinese is recognised and used officially in HK, Macao, Taiwan (even if one considers it part of China), and even in parts of the mainland (for certain purposes, e.g. calligraphy). HK runs just fine without Simplified Chinese, despite going against the "global standard". Even as a SAR for the last decade, Simplified Chinese has NOT become the standard here. In this I hope to show that the lack of Simplified Chinese in a SAR or other disputed territory is apolitical in nature.

2. "It's just 4 little characters" That's exactly the point. The rest of the article does not include Simplified Chinese, just Traditional Chinese. It would be more fitting to delete those Simplified characters. They're just 4 characters, right? Consensus in editing shows that beyond the first sentence they are unused. As I have said all along, wiki is not a Chinese dictionary. Is it really so hard for readers of Simplified to understand the Traditional Characters? And if so, does it matter in the English wiki? (ETA a lingering question: if I were to agree with your logic completely, why is the new "global standard" only recognised in the first sentence anyway?)

3. Your logic about which character set is "taught more" is suspect at best. If Mandarin and Simplified Chinese are so widely taught, why are they not included in every article? Because they are outside the range of application for non-Chinese articles. Simplified Chinese is part of Chinese, which limits is application to Chinese-related articles (not Japanese, not Korean, etc). However, it is NOT used in Taiwan (or Hong Kong, where I am). In HK and Taiwan, Simplified Chinese is never taught, so by that logic (instead of political reasoning), shouldn't we have deleted the Simplified from the Taiwan/ROC and Hong Kong articles already?

I realise that this is a sensitive issue, but I do want to discuss this more (especially with those who do not agree with me). Xrhtwf 03:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Xrhtwf, I would like to also thank you for your participation and being civil.

• What meant to say is not "we must decide based on what the global standard and(pause)recognition is." but "we must decide based on what the global standard and global recognition is" meaning that as a article world view of the language. And as this is the case, we must look at what the international community see as Chinese, and the fact that simplified is the script is used more amongst the major international organizations in the world as well as sometimes being the official Chinese script in these organizations.
• Where you state that this issue and the lack of Simplified Chinese in HK, and Taiwan is apolitical. That is slightly false. Simplified Chinese was created because so many of China's population was illiterate and did not know how to read or write. The reasons why the Republic of China (who actually had try to develop their own before they were booted of the mainland) and Hong Kong was all political. For the Republic of China, it was because each side of the strait was in a state of war and each side refused to recognize each other, while at the same time reject any linguistic changes therefore maintaining the hostility towards each other. All this also has to do with the fact that Mao and Chiang had big egos and couldn't simply work together, especially after the defeat of Japan in the Second World War. For Hong Kong, it was due to the Cold War, NATO, Capitalists and the West, versus the Soviets, the Communists and the East. And Hong Kong being one of the major outposts for the UK, one of the powers in the West and in NATO, could allow a so-called "Communist" invention to be allowed in their precious hold in Asia. Now the perfect example of an apolitical adoption of Simplified was in Singapore, they were and is still consider, Capitalist, and West-friendly, and yet they adopted Simplified Characters as one of their official scripts.
• As you've said, Wikipedia is not a Chinese dictionary. However, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and Simplified Chinese is essentially the standard Chinese script in the International Community, we must introduce the locally used form of the script as well as the internationally used form to compare and to educate the audience of the article in the introductory paragraph, what script is used after the introduction should be the local script only.
• The reason why it should be removed from this article, I have already stated why they should remain. For the Hong Kong article, the editor there have avoided the entire discussion by not including the full name of Hong Kong SAR in Chinese as the Simplified Version and the Traditional Version is quite different. So what they have instead, is just starting off with "Hong Kong (Chinese: 香港), officially the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, is one of the two special administrative regions of the People's Republic of China (PRC)" As you can see they have pretty much avoided the problem as Hong Kong in Traditional and Simplified is the same.

--nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 11:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply

(Regardless of the outcome, I am enjoying the opportunity to debate this issue)

• Historically, the usage of both Simplified and Traditional Chinese come from their own political motivations. I do agree with this. However, as I have said, HK has been a SAR for the past decade, and has not been made to switch to Simplified Chinese. Similarly, if we consider Taiwan a prefecture of China (or a country, doesn't matter), Simplified Chinese is just not used in these areas. For us in HK, as a SAR of China, I would argue that the continued usage of Traditional Chinese is now apolitical. If we also need Simplified Chinese in these articles to reflect some "international standard", where do we draw the line? Do we delete all British spellings in favour of American spelling because more people use it? Currently, no, we allow British spellings to stand alone in wiki articles, not changing them for the convenience of Americanised spellings (for those readers). Articles about Britain have British spelling, as should Taiwan articles have Traditional Chinese only - there's nothing wrong with letting it stand alone, is there? Traditional Chinese already stands alone in the article's content, so what is the use of including a few Simplified Characters at the top? If I were to agree with your argument about "international standards" (response below), why does only the first sentence matter?
• "Simplified Chinese is essentially the standard Chinese script in the International Community" - I have to disagree with this assumption. (Will add citations as I find them) I am sure that neither script is standard, but rather that they co-exist at an international level. While Simplified Chinese (alone) is the standard in some international organisations, I would hardly call Traditional a "local script" the same way I could call Hakka a "local language". Traditional is still used in many organisations (alongside Simplified), and in many overseas Chinese communities, as well as Taiwan, HK, and Macao. (International) universities are split on the issue as well, teaching either Traditional or Simplified. In this sense, it is quite difficult to objectively determine what the "standard" is. At my most neutral, I would concede that there are two standards, which co-exist (with some exceptions, e.g. the UN - though the abolishment of Traditional Chinese is a source of contention for us). As such, as with British spelling, I still believe that Traditional Chinese should stand alone in these articles, until we can objectively determine what the "international script (or scripts)" really is.
• The HK article would be another involved discussion about (1) why the "pronunciation of HK" article is a bad solution and (2) how to reconcile the Traditional/Simplified and Cantonese/Mandarin issues. We can discuss elsewhere if you are interested. Xrhtwf 12:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

semi-reply to the reply:

• For English, there is actually no international standard of spelling as many countries use Commonwealth English while others prefer American English.

--nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 12:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply

First of all, to the anon who keeps on blabbering about how Chinese is 8000 years old: please, get a grip. One news site going crazy with speculation is not science. Also, what you're saying has nothing with this article, and your personal attacks are just making you seem silly. Please don't make a fool of yourself.

nat: I disagree with you.

There's a pattern on Wikipedia:

• Japan gives the name of Japan in Japanese, not Chinese
• Korea gives the name of Korea in Korean, not Chinese
• Vietnam gives the name of Vietnam in Vietnamese, not Chinese
• Mongolia gives the name of Mongolia in Mongolian, not Chinese
• etc.

In all of the above, the only standard used to judge whether a certain language should be included, and Chinese excluded, is the language actually in use in those countries. Chinese is known by a lot more people than Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, and Mongolian combined. Chinese is also an official language of the UN unlike Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese and Mongolian. Yet those are not good enough reasons to, say, insert Chinese translations into all of those articles.

Now, the situation here is the same, except that the analogy has been taken over by Simplified and Traditional Chinese. The fact that Simplified Chinese is used by more people and has international recognition has nothing to do with whether it should be included here. The standard we should be using here is usage in Taiwan. In Taiwan, Simplified Chinese is not used. Hence Simplified Chinese should not be included here.

-- ran (talk) 01:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Ran:

• No, the situation is not the same. We are not talking about two or more different languages, we are talking about one language, one language that is officially used in 3 sovereign states: the People's Republic of China, the Republic of China, and Singapore. And we are discussing about a Chinese State, a state that uses Chinese as its official language, not some state that has been influenced or controlled by a Chinese state in the past. As Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, we, as editors, should not restrict ourselves and the standard only to fixed boundaries, to geographical location or to the standard that one governmental or state authority has set, but we should look at how the world sees and thinks and compare it to what the local view of things. That means, that yes the locally used form of the language plays a big role in forming the standard and what we use, however, due to the fact that this is an international encyclopedia, the the form of the language that is more widely used internationally should also be included. Essentially, it is important for us to include both Traditional Chinese and Simplified Chinese to the article, to compare both of them, what the local population uses and what the most of the world sees as the international standard.

--nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 01:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Xrhtwf

• The first sentence is important as it is the introductory sentence which introduces the subject. As I've said before, as this is an international encyclopedia, we should include Simplified as well as Traditional in the first paragraph or sentence. However, it should not be added to the rest of the article as you said it is not the locally used form and it would be cumbersome and cluttering if we had both throughout the article, however, it is still important to keep both scripts and the romanizations in the beginning to maintain the comparision between what the locals use and what most of the world considers the international standard.

--nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 01:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply

I've seen several contentions that Simplified Chinese is somehow more 'global' or 'international' than Traditional Chinese. However, until reading this discussion, the only place I've every heard of Simplified Chinese being used is inside mainland China. Formerly British Hong Kong doesn't use Simplified Chinese. Taiwan doesn't use Simplified Chinese. I wonder what the various Chinatowns in the U.S. use. The one I'm familiar with uses Traditional Chinese. When I studied Chinese in the U.S. we used Traditional Chinese. Someone pointed out that the U.N. and its various brances use Simplified Chinese, but that's hardly a NPOV because China has a veto in the U.N. and because Taiwan is excluded from the U.N.. I have to reject the notion that Simplifed Chinese is more international than Simplified Chinese. I believe just the opposite is true.

As for the larger issue of whether to included Simplified Characters, I think it does depend no the rules and how it is handled elsewhere. In articles about China, where terms that are used pre-date the change to Simplified Characters, it makes sense to include both Simplified and Traditional. How are articles about China handled that touch on purely modern issues. I looked up "one-Child Policy" as an example and found that only the Simplified Characters were given. On the other hand "Special Economic Zones of the People's Republic of China" included both Simplified and Traditional.

There is a page Wikipedia:Manual of Style (China-related articles). The name is misleading but it deals mainly with usage of the Chinese language. Currently, it says "In order to accommodate all viewers, both sets should be used in all cases where a difference exists. The traditional form should go first in contexts involving territories where traditional characters are used; otherwise, simplified characters should go first. If you do not know or cannot input the other character version, then leave it out and someone will put it in for you." I can see an argument that an article about the Republic of China is not a "China-related article", and for that reason I've added a comment to the discussion suggesting a name change. So far no one has responded. But based on that manual both the Simplified and the Traditional should be included.Readin 05:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment from 212.51.199.173

FULL SUPPORT FOR COMPLETE AND IMMEDIATE REMOVAL OF SIMPLIFIED CHINESE FROM ARTICLE user:JohnP

Reply to Readin

• I would like to correct the misconception that Mainland China or the PRC is the only one that official uses and developed Simplified Chinese. Singapore, a major financial centre in Asia, and Malaysia (although does not officially use Chinese) has both developed a set of Simplified Chinese, although they later adopted the PRC modifications.
• For what I have heard several Universities in the United States have not switch to Simplified Chinese, does not mean that major Universities around the world have switch in the last decade or two. This is all based on fact that the World economy is now oriented towards the People's Republic of China, and Universities sees the need to train its students in Simplified Chinese rather than Traditional Chinese due to this shift in the World Economy's Orientation. Sure the Republic of China and Hong Kong are still to a certain degree major financial powers in Asia and in the World, but not to the same degree the People's Republic of China and Singapore are at, which essentially pushes amongst the business leaders of the World to learn Simplified Chinese and Mandarin, or at least hire people who have those skills. And again, Universities understand that. Ten, maybe twenty years ago, I might have agree that Traditional Chinese was still prevalent in the Universities and in the Business World, however, times are changing, and as I've said before, both of them see that. Let me give you an example from North of the Border (your border), Canada - the capital of accepting Hong Kong residents before the so-called "Communist" takeover of Hong Kong in 1997 - have evidently one of the largest concentrations of people from Hong Kong, especially in Toronto and Vancouver, where in Toronto there are at least 5 or more Chinatowns (in reality at least 4 of them are more or less Hong Kong-ish centres) . This is a place that has one of the world's largest concentrations of Traditional Chinese usage, and yet all of Canada's Universities, including the University of Toronto - North America's Third largest publicly funded research university and the largest in Canada - have switch from Traditional Chinese to Simplified Chinese over a decade ago due to the understanding that the world economy has been shifting it's view on the People's Republic of China and now sees it as one of the greatest future economic and financial powers in the world, and that is a fact and its hard not to accept it as the People's Republic of China has a serious hold over the financial and economic World and major players in the Financial and economic world both have debts with the People's Republic of China, including the United States who's debt with the People's Republic of China is currently at 500 billion dollars, which is equivalent to where the Canadian National Debt is currently at. When you look at from the view of the business world, which its leaders essentially control all the major Western powers of the world as well as the nations that it constantly exploits, Simplified Chinese is the international standard even if Traditional Chinese still plays a role in it.

--nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 13:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply

You've given plenty of reasons to say that Simplified Characters is widely used, even more commonly used than Traditional Characters, but that doesn't make "the international standard". U.S. English has many of the same characteristics you describe. In most countries where English is taught, American English is used for the same reasons Simplified Characters are used, the U.S. has a lot of clout due to it's economic and political powers. But that doesn't make American English "the international standard", as British English is also used internationally, just as Traditional Characters are used internationally. Simplified Characters are AN international standard, and so are Traditional Characters.

Let's consider for a moment a real international standard, English. When I travel overseas, most places I visit will have English speaking government workers available to deal with foreigners. English translations will be available for many documents. The same effort is not made for Spanish or German or Japanese, because the thinking is that most Germans, Spanish, or Japanese who do a lot of international travel will learn English first, and they're right. Most non-Americans expats I met outside the U.S. do know English.

Compare this with Chinese. People from Hong Kong or Taiwan who intend to travel outside their home and expect to do business with other Chinese speakers don't necessarily plan to learn Simplified Characters, or expect that the people they meet will know Simplified Characters. They expect the people they meet to know the character set the people were raised with. If government services are provided in Chinese, as they sometimes are in the area where I live in the USA, the choice of character often is made based on the characters known by the translator, or based on where they think the majority of the audience is from. In my section of the USA, Chinese language newspapers are avaible, often with a pro-China slant, and yet Simplified Characters are used.

In short, even if one character set is more commonly used, there is no single standard. Neither you nor I have the clout to declare a standard, and neither set is obviously "THE international standard" beyond reasonable doubt. If there were an unbiased international institution with a lot of clout we might look to them to set a standard, but as you know when it comes to issues surrounding Taiwan, there are few if any such organizations.

So we cannot select a standard ourselves.

Yet the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (China-related articles), despite the poor name choice, does say "In order to accommodate all viewers, both sets should be used in all cases where a difference exists. The traditional form should go first in contexts involving territories where traditional characters are used; otherwise, simplified characters should go first." Readin 23:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Readin

Good...so we are now good on why we should keep Simplified Chinese. --> Wikipedia:Manual of Style (China-related articles) Y

I would just like to say that English is a language you cannot not compare to the Traditional/Simplified issue, as there is clearly no one standard for English. Out of all the English speaking nations including the ones that don't have it as an official language, half of them use Commonwealth/British English and the other half uses American, and in the World of Finance and Economics both are widely used and sometimes, interchangeably used, I know I do it sometimes (sometimes on term papers :-S ...man oh man...my profs and TAs hate it so much when I do that).

What I'm trying to say is that, sure, in everyday life and amongst the general population, there is no exact standard of what script should be used, however, due to the orientation that the world economy has take, with the fact that most (I'd say about 80% to 90%) of the World's major corporations and conglomerates dealing with the People's Republic of China, the Financial and Economic World essential uses Simplified Chinese as their de facto standard of Chinese in their everyday operations and business dealings.

--nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 01:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Nat

Nat:

I apologise for the long response; for the sake of simplifying things, in writing this I am going to assume (whether I agree or not) that (1) Simplified Chinese is the international standard and that (2) it is what most Chinese-readers use.

What is an international encyclopedia's responsibility (about language)?

First of all, I have to agree with Ran's comment. You responded that:

"As Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, we, as editors, should not restrict ourselves and the standard only to fixed boundaries, to geographical location or to the standard that one governmental or state authority has set, but we should look at how the world sees and thinks and compare it to what the local view of things." " it is important for us to include both Traditional Chinese and Simplified Chinese to the article, to compare both of them,"

Your strongest points in this debate have been that Simplified Chinese is the new international standard. I don't agree (yet, as times are still changing), but we have several other responses about that from other users. The question I want to focus on is, does assuming Simplified Chinese is the international standard necessitate its presence in the Taiwan/ROC articles, a State (de facto) which deliberately avoids Simplified Chinese? My answer, of course, is no. Your weakest points in this debate have been re-posted above my own comments. I do not understand the importance of comparing the few characters (and few differences that exist between them), especially just at the beginning of the article:

1. Convenience for (English reading) users who learned Simplified, because it is the international standard? - I think that oversteps the boundaries of our responsibility in these articles. It would be similar to necessitating Hiragana in all Japan-related articles (with Kanji/Romaji, for English reading Japanese learners), or necessitating Chinese characters in modern Vietnamese articles (e.g. Vietnam's article does not include 越南, Japan's article has only 日本/日本国, without Hiragana). You have agreed with me that including Traditional AND Simplified in the contents of the article is cluttered and tedious; as such, I would still recommend removing them from the Taiwan articles.

2. "should not restrict ourselves and the standard only to fixed boundaries" - Does this mean, in theory, I could include Traditional Chinese in all China-related articles? That is, what does "restricting ourselves and the standard" mean? Political boundaries are what they are, and we have to respect them to a certain extent; I'm sure old encyclopedias have articles about the Soviet Union, because, whether we like it or not, that was the situation before. Even if Taiwan and China re-unify, there will be an article about the ROC's past existence. I realise the Manual of Style is an issue (to be handled later), but even if Simplified Chinese is the world's new standard, it simply does not belong in ROC/Taiwan articles. The best analogy I can give is Okinawan vs. Standard Japanese (標準語). Okinawan is included as the "local variant" after the standard Japanese is given (e.g. article on Okinawa Prefecture). Were Okinawa governing itself as a de facto nation for the past 50~60 years (and previously holding a spot in the UN), I would have a case to remove standard Japanese from the article. However, Okinawa is unquestionably governed by Japan in ways that cannot be said for the ROC/PRC relation. I do not see deleting Simplified Chinese as condoning Taiwan's status, but I think we do have to respect the current situation UNTIL it changes.

3. "we should look at how the world sees and thinks" - I could debate this point as well, but I don't see what this has to do with language. Even if the world thinks Taiwan is part of China (debatable, e.g. the US), it is common knowledge that Taiwan does not use Simplified Chinese. Taiwan is a country (or renegade prefecture), and the linguistic situation is more free than perhaps the article on Tibet could be, where Simplified Chinese is unquestionably necessary UNTIL that situation changes, if ever. Most of the lesser-read Taiwan articles lack any Simplified Chinese in the introduction already, so would it be wrong to suggest removing Simplified Chinese from ROC/Taiwan articles for now?

Thanks again for your responses. Xrhtwf 03:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Xrhtwf

Xrhtwf, no apology needed for the long response as it would be expected in such a controversial topic and plus I've dealt with the problem by adding more edit points and breaks.

Back to business:

• Answer to point 1: What I meant when I said "including Traditional AND Simplified in the contents of the article is cluttered and tedious" was if it were throughout the article BUT it would not be "cluttering and tedious" in the introductory sentence.
• Answer to point 2: Yes, you should add Traditional Characters to all China/PRC-related articles per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (China-related articles)
• Answer to point 3: Yes, it would be wrong to remove Simplified Chinese from ROC/Taiwan articles for now per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (China-related articles) (not the greatest name...i think it should be called Chinese-language Articles but whatever.)
• As I've I said in past debate, the international community has stated that the name of the area under the control of the ROC is Taiwan, Province of China, and as I've said before the term is ambiguous in the sense that it does not specify which or what China they are talking about, is it:
  1. the People's Republic of China
  2. the Republic of China

People might think, probably including yourself, the name Taiwan, Province of China is mean to be Taiwan, Province of the PRC. False. Politicians, or people that work closely with politics, such as myself, often try to be as ambiguous about terms like China as we possibly can, therefore, never will you hear a politician or a person that works closely with politics say that Taiwan is a province of the PRC. never.

My point is that Simplified Chinese should be included into ROC/Taiwan articles and that Traditional should be included in PRC articles and both should be in any chinese-language article per per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (China-related articles). nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 12:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Nat

To point 2

In fact if you look at the People's Republic of China article you will see both Traditional and Simplified characters given.Readin 13:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

To point 4

What the "international community" has stated is not relevant. We seek NPOV, and the international community lacks NPOV regarding Taiwan.Readin 13:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Readin

You're probably right that the international community lacks NPOV. However, I was just explain Taiwan, Province of China bit, and I was not try to added that point to the debate. Also, as I have stated, as this is an international encyclopedia, what the international community states does have relevance as it often determines the majority view of the world. I'm not saying that it has all the say, or that its voice is louder on Wikipedia than a single state, or a local populous, what I am trying to say is that each of these entities or groups have an equal say. This also means that a state, an entity or a local populous has all the say on this issue. nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 16:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia, "The International community is a vague term used in international relations to refer to all the countries of the world or to a group of them." This is an international encyclopedia, but it not an encyclopedia sponsored by or managed by nations or a group of nations. You say "what the international community states does have relevance as it often determines the majority view of the world". That is not true. First, the "majority view of the world" has no meaning unless you add a word or two to clarify "the majority of the the world's what". At most the international community represents the majority view of the worlds governments. Governments have their own interests, often in direct contrast to the interests of the people, even in democratic countries. And in much of the world, the government represents the views of only a small portion of the people. So the international community cannot be said to represent the majority of the world's people.Readin 17:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I must apologize for the confusion, and thank you for your reply. Yes, what I meant to say was that the international community often sets and determines the view of the world's states and governmental entities. nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 17:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Remove Simplified Chinese

Let's remove simplified chinese from this article because the issue at hand involves the form of written language that is being used by the respective countries of the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China (Taiwan). Since People's Republic of China created and uses simplified Chinese, their respective articles should have ONLY simplified chinese. While the Republic of China (Taiwan) uses ONLY the Traditional System of Chinese script. In response the anonymous editor 212... about the issue of Chinese scripts being 8000 years old, this information was also on the National Geographic website as well as several Archaelogical publications. It is scientifically confirmed that the Chinese script of antiquity, dating back 8000 years, is in direct lineage to the current form of Traditional Chinese writing as used in the Republic of China (Taiwan) and the majority of the Chinatowns around the world. It is justified for us to use a written script that is used only by their respective countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.113.228.97 (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I cannot believe that these 8000-year-old signs are still being brought up. The best conclusion that we can draw at this point is that these signs look like they could be the precursors of what would later be the first attested Chinese writing of 3000 to 4000 years ago. There is a difference between proto-writing, which seem to pop up in every continent regardless of whether writing developed there later, and writing, which is by definition something that sequentially and systematically represents spoken language. The earliest attested Chinese writing remains the Oracle Bone Script (Jiaguwen) of the Shang Dynasty, and this will continue to be true unless more evidence surfaces. -- ran (talk) 05:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

In addition I find it rather disingenuous for people to claim that Traditional Chinese is "4000 years old" (or "8000 years old") and therefore "better". The transition from Oracle Bone (甲骨文) to Bronzeware (金文), from Bronzeware to Seal Script (篆書), and from Seal Script to Clerical (隸書) was each much more intense than the one from Traditional to Simplified. If the "age" of Traditional Chinese can be given as 4000 years while completely disregarding all these transitions, then by the same logic, Simplified Chinese is also 4000 years old!

If you want to compare the ages of Traditional and Simplified, you should use a consistent standard for the two. If the "birth" of Simplified Chinese is the promulgation of simplifications in the 1960's, then the "birth" of Traditional Chinese should be, by the same standard, the change from Seal to Clerical (what is usually called 隸變) during the Qin and Han Dynasties. By this standard, Traditional Chinese is about 2000 years old, which is impressive enough without resorting to fudging figures. -- ran (talk) 05:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply to 217.113.228.97

On the point about the age of the script:

• Let me make something very clear. the scripts that were from 8000 years ago are pictorial scripts and are the basis for many scripts in East Asia.

On the issue with the TC and SC:

• Simplified Chinese should not be removed based on the guidelines set by Wikipedia:Manual of Style (China-related articles), which states: In order to accommodate all viewers, both sets should be used in all cases where a difference exists. The traditional form should go first in contexts involving territories where traditional characters are used; otherwise, simplified characters should go first. If you do not know or cannot input the other character version, then leave it out and someone will put it in for you.

--nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 18:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Nat:I thought of something just now that changed my mind: from the point of view of Mainland China, the ROC is a historical dynasty. Our articles for historical dynasties give both Trad and Simp simply because modern PRC sources are going to use Simp to refer to them. -- ran (talk) 05:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposed removal of Simplified Chinese. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.