Talk:Xiao Xian Chun

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Move suggested

I suggest that this page be moved as per above. She is called either Empress Xiaoxian in older literature and Xiaoxian Empress in newer literature, in accordance with the use of names such as Kangxi Emperor or Qianlong Emperor. The move is accordance with Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)#Names_of_emperors and should be uncontroversial.--Niohe 01:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I have posted a request for a move at Wikipedia:Requested_moves#9_January_2007, but I haven't had time to post Multimove tags to all concerned pages yet. The complete list of empresses needed to be moved can be found under Category:Qing Dynasty empresses. I hope we can discuss this at a principled level here.--Niohe 05:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
If Xiao Xian is her (personal) name, then the article title should be Empress Xiao Xian, or a formal title. The naming convention for the emperors depends on it being the name of the reign; since she was the empress of the Qian Long Emperor, her corresponding title (not name) surely would be the Qian Long Empress? Imc 20:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, Xiaoxian was not her name and I don't think we even know what her personal name was - as is the case with most women in imperial China. Xiaoxian was her title, which is properly put in front of the noun "empress" producing the expression Xiaoxian empress. Please see the article by Norman Kutcher, which I have added as a reference.
By the way, in pinyin, Qianlong forms a compound, just like Xiaoxian, and we should stick to pinyin usage if we are to use pinyin at all.
I have just realized that there is another candidate for Xiaoxian empress, namely Xiao Xian Zhuang. We might need to modify the move to something like Xiaoxian Chu Empress and Xianxian Zhuang Empress.--Niohe 02:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I take the above points, and I note the reference, but currently I oppose the move. The names of the empresses look (to my non-Chinese speaking and reading eye) like many family/female names of Chinese. The renaming should not take place until this is agreed and stated in the naming conventions page, along with the emperors. There is a long tradition, in most cultures, of titles becoming the names that people are known by. Imc 09:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, as far as I know, this empress and other empresses with her are never referred to in the way this article is set up, i.e. Xiao Xian Chun. The name of the article is confusing and non-standardized, and there is already a discussion going on at Xiao Zhuang Wen about this.--Niohe 12:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, but there should really be a link from the Rename proposal, to whereever the substantiative discussion is taking place. for each article. This talk page needed searching out, and people should be able to find it or the other one easily. Imc 14:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
There are links: Special:Whatlinkshere/Talk:Xiao_Xian_Chun.--Niohe 14:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you're right, I must have found one of them in the first place. I posted the above after seeing the requested moves page Wikipedia:Requested_moves, where there are usually obvious direct links (Discuss) to discussion pages. I see now there is a link there as well, but that one is presented differently. Imc 15:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. --Stemonitis 00:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.


Xiao Xian Chun → Xiaoxian Empress — Xiao Xian Chun, etc., are not the standard names for this type of royalty in the English language literature. There are a whole series of articles on Qing empress that need to be moved. I have listed a number of them below and will keep adding. --Niohe 04:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add "# Support" or "# Oppose" in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

[edit] Survey - Support votes

  1. Support. Current forms are incorrect format (WP:NCZh) and incorrect pinyin. —  AjaxSmack  07:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC). Neutral. This is a good time to work out a system for naming Qing empresses. When it is done, I'll support the consensus. —  AjaxSmack  00:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support. This move is long overdue and the longer we wait the greater the risk is that the incorrect formats spread to other language versions of Wikipedia.--Niohe 12:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey - Oppose votes

  • Weak oppose. I still don't see the evidence for the rename myself - not denying that it may be there, but it is not obvious. Leaving aside the matter of correct Pinyin, the existing format is standard for names in English. Renaming them (to e.g. Xiaogong Empress) implies another meaning other than a personal name for Xiaogong (as in Roman Empress). So what is Xiaogong? a personal name, a dynasty, a reign, a country? There is a justified meaning (reigns) for the corresponding emperors, but these do not seem to agree with the empresses. There is a brief suggestion in Wikipedia:History standards for China-related articles that the correct name for one of these empresses is Xiaogong Empress Dowager. I suggest that this topic should be discussed in the aforementioned talk page for naming standards before any move here. Imc 09:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. Actually there is support for this move in the schoalrly literature and I don't think it is up to us to decide on convention. You can check the article quoted in the reference section to begin with.--Niohe 12:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
If there is scholarly backing for this, then it should be first discussed and included in the guidelines for naming Chinese royalty. Imc 18:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose We should not rush to embrace the latest fad in scholarship; we are supposed to write for the "general reader and not for experts". For all we know, another decade and the fad will die away again. Xiaoxian Empress is not idiomatic; Empress Xiaoxian may be. To accept this would require substantial evidence that it is in fact overwhelmingly used in English. (The corresponding phrase for the Emperors is not universal; and Qianlong, like Meiji, is a reign period, and therefore an adjective.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - This was not a particularly helpful comment. Who is talking about fads? You can dismiss anything with that. Anyway, if you cared to read my other contributions here, you will find support for Empress Xiaoxian going as far back as 1943 or even further. Take a look at Hummel's biographical dictionary, for instance. Besides, Qianlong and Meiji are not adjectives.--Niohe 01:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I would have weakly supported Empress Xiaoxian; but it wasn't proposed. As for adjectives, I'm not going to argue East Asian grammar; they are in English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

[edit] Alternatives

As per the convention for the emperor names based on posthumous names (which these are -- as opposed to their husbands' or sons' conventional names, which are era name-based) -- it is my belief it should be, for example, Empress Xiaoxianchun. (See, e.g., Emperor Xiaowu of Jin.) However, I also believe that the ultimately better form is to use their surnames (and personal names, where available). Since this empress, for example, is of the Fucha clan, I'd prefer "Empress Fucha." --Nlu (talk) 12:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment. That's all well and good, but can you provide us with a scholarly reference for such a naming? I think it is very important that we don't reinvent naming conventions here at Wikipedia.--Niohe 13:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
No "scholarly reference" at the moment (other than Bo Yang's Zhongguoren Shigang and Zhongguo Lishi Nianbiao, although Bo, while a historian, is not usually viewed either by himself or others as a "scholar" in the traditional sense), but I think that consistency is important, and it is clear that, for example, Empress Guo Nüwang will not be referred by anyone conventionally as "Wende," "Wen De," or "Wende Empress." As you mentioned, we shouldn't reinvent naming conventions, and setting Qing Dynasty empresses apart from their counterparts from earlier dynasties is a form of inventing a naming convention, I think. --Nlu (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I see no problem with setting Qing emperors and empresses apart from their earlier counterparts, as long as it is supported by credible sources. That is not inventing naming convention, just following common usage. After all, many Ming and Qing naming practices were different from those of earlier dynasties, and especially the Qing dynasty stands apart from earlier dynasties. I do not see any point in trying to impose a degree of consistency on Chinese history that may not exist in reality. Furthermore, the quest for consistency can lead to absurd page moves, like this one by Highshines.--Niohe 16:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
But Wikipedia has the built in function of redirects. Where there are multiple usable names, we can and are supposed to let the redirect point to where the pages are, anyway, and therefore we can afford to use the most technically correct name (if there is one -- I realize there might not be a single "most correct" name) and let the others redirect to that one. For example, I'd dare say that Horny toad is more commonly used than Desert horned lizard, and yet the former redirects to the latter, not the other way around. --Nlu (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
You didn't really respond to what I said.--Niohe 20:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I would rather see "Xiaoyi Chun Empress". I don't think "Xiaoyi Empress" is satisfactory because that is not how such persons are referred to traditionally in Chinese, and there is a disambiguation issue as pointed out by Niohe.

Secondly, it's not correct to have "Xiaoyichun Empress" because "Xiaoyi" is the first title in her posthumous name, and "Chun" is the last. They are different names, and should be separated.

Of course, "Xiao Yi Chun" is wrong firstly because it's bad pinyin and second, "Empress" has to be there somewhere.

Hence, "Xiaoyi Chun Empress" or "Empress Xiaoyi Chun" would get my vote. --Sumple (Talk) 21:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I second the above. Actually, I think we can ignore the second element in the title, i.e. Chun, whenever there is not any risk of confusion. If you check Arthur Hummel's biographical dictionary, the articles usually refer to empresses by the first two characters.--Niohe 22:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
A correction: I meant, of course, "Xiaoxian", not "Xiaoyi". =P --Sumple (Talk) 23:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the assertion that the third character can and should be omitted. It's considered an integral part of the posthumous name. See Draft History of Qin, vol. 214[1], for example (in contrast with the fourth and trailing characters, which are omitted in the title when referring to the empresses). --Nlu (talk) 06:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

By third character, you mean the last character right? The Chun in Xiaoxian Chun is the last character of the posthumous name: "孝贤诚正敦穆仁惠徽恭康顺辅天昌圣纯皇后" --Sumple (Talk) 08:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Correct. Badly worded. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 08:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see Xiaoxian Chun Empress as well. This is simply because the Chinese wiki for her is 孝贤纯皇后. The separation of Xiaoxian and Chun is based on the nature of posthumous names. Hanfresco 08:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This is all well and good, but we have to stick with common usages, not try to figure out what the correct name is or invent new names. In Hummel's dictionary, empresses are most often called "Empress Hsiao-hsian", etc.--Niohe 12:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so it comes down to last character or not... Niohe, could you give us a bit more information about why you think the two character name is the common usage? For example, is Hummel's dictionary regarded as authority on such matters? Do other reference works follow the same conventions? --Sumple (Talk) 02:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Hummel is still an important authority on Qing dynasty royalty, the work consists of biographical entries written by the best Sinologists in the US in the 1940s using Chinese language primary sources. Most of the articles were written by Fang Chao-ying and his wife Tu Lien-che.
As for whether we should include the third character or not, I don't think have never seen a single example of a Qing dynasty empress being referred to by the third character. I think the third character should not be interpreted as part of the title, but more an honorific, like "Xiaoxian, the Pure Empress Dowager".
On a related matter, I have noticed that Highshines has not particpated in this discussion, all the while we have been involved in a revert war on the empress related pages. I don't know how to interpret his silence on this matter, but I just want to make clear to everybody that whatever consensus we come with her may be reverted by him. I will take responsibility for making the move of these empress pages when we come up with a consensus, but I will no longer engage in any revert war with Highshines. That has to be part of some collective effort if anyone else than me cares about it.--Niohe 02:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Has anything been decided, or should we remove this from WP:RM? Patstuarttalk|edits 03:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep it for a little while, I think we can sort it out in due course.--Niohe 03:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

As per discussion, I have decided to change my move proposal. What about Empress Xiaoxian?--Niohe 23:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.