Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Yue Chinese article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Macau, an attempt to better organize and improve articles related to Macau.MacauWikipedia:WikiProject MacauTemplate:WikiProject MacauMacau
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hong Kong, a project to coordinate efforts in improving all Hong Kong-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Hong Kong-related articles, you are invited to join this project.Hong KongWikipedia:WikiProject Hong KongTemplate:WikiProject Hong KongHong Kong
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
An uninvolved admin, Angr, moved the article to Yue Chinese after reviewing months of debate. RegentsPark just reverted on procedural grounds, saying not enough time was given for comment. The argument that "not enough time" has been allowed for discussion has been made for five months now. We'd all gotten to the point of repeating ourselves, and nothing new was being said. A new move request is not likely to do anything but rehash the archived debate. At stake is whether we move according to the MOS ("X Chinese" for primary branches of Chinese), our sources (the ISO code is "yue", Ethnologue calls it "Yue Chinese", etc), conflict with the name of Cantonese (which consensus decided was the primary meaning of the name "Cantonese" in English) and logical problems with the name "Cantonese (Yue)" (Cantonese is also Yue, and there is no non-Yue Cantonese, so that is not a viable dab), or whether we allow a walled garden to be set up by editors who say that Cantonese speakers should determine what their language is called in English, and object to their language being treated the same as Wu, Mandarin, or Hokkien. kwami (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Although I suppose this is "nothing new...being said", I want to ask for consideration of the status quo ante (or one of them) of Cantonese (linguistics) (or another parenthetical) for the macro article and standard Cantonese for the micro article. The articles resided at these locations for several years. Both of the articles are about Cantonese and all Cantonese is Yue so neither the current situation nor the propose solution make sense. An argument was made that standard Cantonese doesn't meet the (OR) criteria for a standard language but it seems that all but the fourth apply to standard Cantonese (the same, incidentally, as English).
The problem is that no-one has been able to come up with a satisfactory parenthetical. WikiProject Linguistics wants the tag "(linguistics)" used for linguistic topics, not as a fudge for articles we don't know what else to do with. Otherwise we'd have "German (linguistics)", "Italian (linguistics)", etc - in fact, things actually started going that way. There were dozens of such articles that I cleaned up. Also, assuming that it were a linguistics topic, so is Cantonese -- that is, there's no reason for that parenthetical to go on this article rather than that one. "(language)" is objectionable to many Chinese who consider the language to be Chinese as a whole, not it's mutually unintelligible parts. "dialect" is even worse (no distinction, and incorrect by the lay conception of "language"). "(Yue)" is incorrect, as once again Cantonese is also Yue, but worse, it does not disambiguate from some "non-Yue Cantonese". I suggested "Yue (Cantonese)" as a more accurate name - that is, the Yue that is also called Cantonese as opposed to "Yue (ancient)" - but there was little enthusiasm for that name, and it never went anywhere. Can you think of anything that is both accurate and differentiates iso3=yue from Cantonese? kwami (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
The problem with Standard Cantonese is it's not standardised like e.g. Standard Mandarin. I would say that it meets none of the criteria under Standard_language#Features fully. Mostly Cantonese standardisation is of the sort done by academics and publishers, trying to pin down the language, to e.g. teach it or sell books. But that happens to all languages, is not a single standard and so does not mean the language is a standard language. But we've covered this before, in the merge discussion for Standard Cantonese and Canton Dialect, the former into the latter before it was renamed Cantonese.
As that's been resolved, if not to everyone's satisfaction then at least with broad consensus, this article needs a better name that does not confuse it with Cantonese. The current name does that as it looks like the primary subject of this article is Cantonese, or a "Yue" variant of it. It's even less clear than that as brackets are usually used for recognisable classes: "(book)", "(film)" etc.. I suspect lots of people reading this article's title will simply ignore the bracket and assume this article is on Cantonese, overlooking Cantonese completely.--JohnBlackburnedeeds16:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
"Mostly Cantonese standardisation is of the sort done by academics and publishers, trying to pin down the language, to e.g. teach it or sell books." - Correct me if I'm wrong, but Hong Kong universities and the government have a very defined "standard" for Cantonese, does it not? After all, it is the de facto official language of the territory. Colipon+(Talk) 17:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
It is the language spoken by most Hong Kong residents, but that does not mean there's a single standard: it varies between speakers, such as between those brought up in Hong Kong and those not, and has also changed rapidly in recent times as Hong Kong has modernised and become more international. As for academia, what standard? But, again, we've discussed all this before, and agreed to merge Standard Cantonese and Canton dialect because there was little evidence of a language standard, as defined at e.g. standard language.--JohnBlackburnedeeds18:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
It has a standard dictionary? A standard grammar? A standard pronunciation? Three of the books I have here are books published by the HK govt. on Cantonese - Sidney Lau's course - and they identify no such standard: rather they describe variations in pronunciation and usage that learners should be aware of, identifying none as the "correct" or "proper" way speak Cantonese. Similarly there's no "standard" Cantonese promoted by the courts, schools or media. But again, this is something that was resolved months ago: it's not a standard language in the sense Mandarin, Arabic and French are.--JohnBlackburnedeeds20:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay, this is supposed to be an RfC for outside comment for procedural reasons, not a debate among old hands here. Responses to newbies like Ajax are fine, but we shouldn't start rehashing old arguments with each other.
Ajax, there was a separate consensus on the name of Cantonese, and it's been stable under that name, so that's off the table for the current discussion. (Indeed, "Cantonese (Yue)" was a temporary name so that a consensus could emerge for "Cantonese".) If anyone wants to consider that name for this article, we first need to close a request for move on that page, but meanwhile we still need to decide on a name for this article. kwami (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Cantonese is just wrong, indicated by the variability of all Cantonese articles, "Cantonese" should be a dab page. It should not be a page for any particular page. And the last RM on it was also very flawed, since it only considered linguistic grounds, which is badly biased against anything else. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 08:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I haven't read much of your month-long discussion, but here's what I have to say.
First, it seems that you need help defining what a standard language is. I'll give you material from my linguistics textbook (ISBN 9781413030556). First, so that you may see the situation with English, "No single variety of English can be called the standard. After, all, there are different national standards - for British, American, Australian, and Cambodian English, among others. Furthermore, at least with respect to pronunciation there may be several standard varieties of a national variety. The simple fact is that many varieties of standard English exist."
And about standard varieties, "What then is meant by a standard variety? We could identify as the standard the variety used by a group of people in their public discourse - newspapers, radio broadcasts, political speeches, college and university lectures, and so on. In other words, we could identify as standard the variety used for certain activities or in certain situations. Alternatively, we could identify as standard the variety that has undergone a process of standardization, during which it is organized for description in grammars and dictionaries and encoded in such reference works."
Also, "An important point to note about any standard or standardized variety is that it does not differ in linguistic character from other varieties. It isn't more logical or more grammatical. Nor is there any sense in which it could be said to be linguistically better."
Also about standardization, "Typically, varieties that become standardized are the local dialects spoken in the centers of commerce and government. In those centers a need arises for a variety that will serve more than local needs, such as in distributing technical and medical information, propagating laws, and producing newspapers and books. The centers are also where dictionary makers and publishers are likely to be located. Samuel Johnson lived in London while he wrote his dictionary, Noah Webster in New England. Had circumstances been different, the varieties represented in their dictionaries might well represent the dialects of other groups. Dictionaries serve first to describe and then to enshrine a variety of the language that can be used for public discourse across social groups, regions, even countries."
Notice that the existing material on Misplaced Pages about standard varieties has no source. I think it is safer to use my textbook's description. From this, I find the Guangzhou dialect to be a standard variety.
You might also want to know about distinguishing among dialect, register, and accent. "The term dialect refers to the language variety characteristic of a particular regional or social group. Partly through his or her dialect we recognize a person's regional, ethnic, social, and gender affiliation. Thus the term dialect has to do with language users, with groups of speakers. In addition, as we saw in the preceding chapter , all dialects vary according to the situation in which they are used, creating what in the previous chapter we call registers: language varieties characteristic of situations of use. In this chapter we deal with dialects - language varieties characteristic of particular social groups. Languages, dialects, and registers are all language varieties. What this means is that there is no linguistic distinction between a language and a dialect. Every dialect is a language, and every language is realized in its dialects. From a linguistic point of view, what is called a language and what is called a dialect are indistinguishable." About accent, "Dialect refers to a language variety in its totality - including vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation, pragmatics, and any other aspect of its linguistic system. The terms language and variety also refer to an entire linguistic system. By contrast, the word accent refers to pronunciation only. When we discuss a 'Southern accent' or a 'Boston accent,' we mean the pronunciation characteristic of a Southern dialect or the Boston dialect."
From this, that some want Yue Chinese to be a separate language and some want it to be a dialect of one Chinese language doesn't really matter, because there is no linguistic difference. But you need to call Cantonese something and the Guangzhou dialect something, so here is my suggestion: Be consistent with the rest of Misplaced Pages. Relatively similar varieties are usually called "<Region demonym> <Common language name>" or "<Region> dialect." For example "Western American English," "New York dialect," "Jilu Mandarin," "Sichuan Mandarin," "Beijing dialect," "Mexican Spanish." However, standard varieties as defined by my textbook are usually called "Standard <Common language name>." For example, "Standard English," "Standard Spanish," "Standard German," "Standard Tibetan." Therefore, the Guangzhou dialect should be called "Standard Cantonese." Relatively different varieties are usually called "<Common name> language." For example "English language," "Spanish language," "Italian language," "Mongolian language." However, relatively different varieties of Han languages are usually called "<Region> Chinese." Therefore, you need to decide whether to be consistent with the rest of Misplaced Pages (entailing changing the naming style of the other articles about relatively different varieties to "<Common name> language") or to be consistent with only the articles about relatively different varieties of Han languages. Therefore, Cantonese should be called "Cantonese language," while changing the names of the other articles about relatively different varieties of Han languages, or "Yue Chinese."
Cantonese is not going to be called "Cantonese language". See the previous discussions here, the article at Varieties of Chinese and especially WP:NC-ZH#Language/dialect NPOV - essentially you have to be aware of the history of spoken Chinese, and how Western rules can't be simply applied because of it. Apart from that I'm not sure what you think this article should be called ?--JohnBlackburnedeeds01:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Grammatically, that only means the Yue variety of Chinese. Like "American English". It's agnostic as to whether that's a dialect or a separate language, and so avoids the point of contention. kwami (talk) 01:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Then I find that a nice compromise. I would call them all "varieties," but I recognize that "Cantonese variety" and "Anything variety" are stupid ambiguous names that common readers would never search for, so after that I'd prefer that you just be consistent with the rest of Misplaced Pages, but Chinese commoners would say "But we all speak the same language." So then to avoid the language/dialect thing, at least until there is a relevant change in Chinese culture, "Yue Chinese" is a good option. Also, note that "Mandarin Chinese" is the odd one out when it comes to naming relatively different varieties of Han languages, which I suspect is because there is no common name for the Mandarin-speaking region (whatever that is). If you think "Cantonese Chinese" would be more common than "Yue Chinese," use it. I'm sure all of you have gone over Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions#Deciding an article title so...I have nothing else to say, although I can look for stuff in my textbook if you want. Asoer (talk) 02:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not at all knowledgeable about the subject at hand, but based on the material in the talk pages I've read, "Yue Chinese" sounds like the least-bad, and maybe the best, option.--Atemperman (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
LL, this really is supposed to be a request for outside comment. It sounds like Atemperman has read those comments, and I don't want this to degenerate into another argument among the rest of us as it started to above, with debate as to how important Ethnologue is etc. — kwami (talk) 20:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Article name instability
Hey awesome. This is the second time that my concern has been deleted from this Talk page. Let me rephrase then - I would like to request that nobody moves this article without a proper move request. Unilateral moves have caused naming instability in this article. Every few months when discussion dies down, an editor comes and moves the article, causing a long and drawn-out discussion to flare up, only to have the article move again eventually. Then a few months later when discussion dies down again, the same thing happens. PLEASE I beg of you, do not move the article anymore! Build concensus, file a move request, then let a neutral admin make a decision. It's simple. We're all experienced editors here, we know this. This is not directed to anybody in particular, but directed to everybody who is involved in the discussion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I think the RfC is pretty much a move request. My suggestion is that we let the RfC run for a few more days its one month term, and see what it throws up and then go with the consensus. That way, everyone can move on to other (greater!) things. --RegentsPark (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
