Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China: Difference between revisions

Line 162: Line 162:

# Unit (per [http://www.china.org.cn/english/government/152636.htm])

# Corps (per Supreme people’s court [https://www.court.gov.cn/fabu/xiangqing/314981.html], and state council of china [http://english.scio.gov.cn/pressroom/node_9016184.html])

# Command (Per civil aviation administration of china [http://www.caac.gov.cn/PHONE/XXGK_17/XXGK/CZXX/202309/P020230914340424492378.pdf])

”’3: 支队”’

Line 195: Line 196:

Based on advice received, evaluation of sources and translations, here is my proposed solution:

”’分局”’: Translate to branch in most circumstances, subbureau should only be used for shenzhen

”’总队”’: Use corps per NIA and supreme people’s court unless local bureau has different translation for said unit(e.g. Department for shanghai special police department)

”’支队”’: Use Branch in most circumstances(per supreme people’s court official translations), Detachment for border management or cases like “1st detachment, 2nd detachment”

”’大队”’: Use Group in most circumstances per supreme people’s court

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 6.

Hello. I recently discovered Shelterbelt destruction at Yangguan Forest Farm, a new article translated from zh:阳关林场风波 by a student editor as part of their university course on a very interesting topic. It has all sorts of issues, and needs work; possibly a rewrite, or at least, a reorg. Dclemens1971 has tagged a few issues at the top, and I have done some stylistic and linkage improvements, but I don’t know Chinese, so there is a limit as to how far I can go. The translation was very literal, and retains the original section organization of the original, and is not at all how we would organize an article here; the section titles sound very ‘translated’ and probably need to be entirely redone, and so do the citations. I did a web search, and it turns out that there actually *are* some English sources on this topic, and they should be used wherever possible. I hope someone can take this article further, and integrate it into English Wikipedia as it seems very worthy of a good write-up. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:51, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Still needs eyes; can you help? Mathglot (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2016 Jiangsu tornado#Requested move 16 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 12:32, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:History of Chinese immigration to the United Kingdom#Title Change that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 12:58, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Axis of Upheaval#Requested move 24 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 12:00, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Taiping_Rebellion#”Southern Grand Battalion”. Pamela Kyle Crossley seems to have a pet translation for a Qing unit that shows up nowhere else on the internet. Any idea what she’s actually talking about? — LlywelynII 19:59, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve commented at the talk page. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:46, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should the article Cowhells cake be moved to Cowheel cake or something similar? Cowhells in the original version looks like a typo, the references are all in Chinese and I can’t find any mention of it in English. TSventon (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that “cowhells” looks like a typo. I would calque the name as “beef tendon cake” rather than “cowheel cake”, but like you, I can’t find any English-language sources at all. Given the lack of English-language sources, I think we should simply title the article with the pinyin transliteration (Niujingao) rather than inventing our own translation. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:36, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that sounds like a plan. I think “beef tendon cake” should also be mentioned as context for the story of the magician. I added translated titles to the sources via Google translate, and that used “beef tendon cake”. Oddly the cake does not seem to use any cow products. TSventon (talk) 21:11, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Chinese hyperinflation#Requested move 25 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 06:11, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Anti–People’s Republic of China sentiment#Requested move 2 August 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 03:18, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:China’s dark fleet#Requested move 10 August 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Remsense 🌈 论 13:55, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure if anyone here noticed yet but, wow, that article has become awful.

The very worst parts seem to come from a recent WikiEducation ‘improvement’ so a quick fix would be to restore to a version of the page from 2024. Even those versions weren’t great, though. Maybe there are earlier versions that were better or maybe we just need to roll back to that and improve from there.

In the meantime, could anyone with the right authoritative sourcing on the early Han at least make the article consistent throughout on when exactly the city was actually founded? What we currently have contradicts itself throughout and Historical capitals of China gives a still different date while conflating Xi’an and Xianyang. — LlywelynII 17:18, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Much less important than Chang’an, but see Talk:Bi (state) and Talk:List of Zhou dynasty states. Bi/Cheng seem to just be alt names for the same polity near Xianyang under the Western Zhou and then relocated near Luoyang under the Eastern Zhou but it’d be nice to have something authoritative saying so or saying they’re similar but explaining how they’re distinct (possibly originally different locations for Bi and Chengyi in the Shaanxi area). — LlywelynII 13:57, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No article on en/zhwiki about a text called 切韻指掌圖 (Qieyun zhizhang tu); it was a Song-era rhyme dictionary and considered a respected authority on Chinese linguistics (fanqie) for at least a century or two after its publication. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 01:42, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Gugyeol#Requested move 10 August 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 04:27, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Abdulkerim Abbas#Requested move 12 August 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 13:18, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Dangun#Requested move 12 August 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. CNC (talk) 13:19, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Chinese Singaporeans#Requested move 12 August 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. CNC (talk) 14:41, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of protected areas of China that may be of interest. Chinese-speaking editors would be appreciated to help with sourcing. — Reywas92^Talk 23:16, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Due to a recent video game anouncement, Zhong Kui has had some attention and new edits. Many phrase are excessively praising the character. Validity of this references is hard to assess because most are Chinese. Additional attention needed. ReyHahn (talk) 10:44, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Baiguo railway station (Hubei) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced for 13 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. No reliable sources on Google. No hits on Google News. Might have been built, or might not.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article’s talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 20:18, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mount Kailash#Requested move 16 August 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 12:07, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Zhang Cong (Ming dynasty)#Requested move 25 August 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 13:11, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Xu Jie (Ming dynasty)#Requested move 25 August 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 13:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments appreciated at Talk:Chinese sticky rice, as we have two folks not very familiar with Chinese food trying to figure out if we need two articles or one 😛 _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 07:59, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Balhae#Requested move 22 August 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 02:14, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Zhu Yousong#Requested move 2 September 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 05:25, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, there’s an issue regarding how to reasonably use Chinese historical sources. I also frequently use many Chinese sources like Shilu for characters or events that cannot or have not yet been found in English materials. Min968 (talk) 05:39, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was a short discussion on a very similar topic 10 years ago at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chinese history/Archive 1 § Direct dynastic histories citations. I’m glad that you brought this up Min968, because I had been thinking about raising it for discussion too. I suppose my personal thoughts, in a very small nutshell, are that Chinese historical sources should not be used to establish notability and used sparingly for verification. Rather, more modern (20th & 21st century) scholarly sources should be used, and if they do not exist, we should not have an article on the subject. Mainly because articles based on historical sources often tend to be essentially translations of primary or near-primary source material, veering dangerously towards original research. I’d be interested in hearing others’ thoughts. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:59, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are policies about this. WP:PRIMARY: Ancient histories are primary sources, and any statement they make needs interpretation by modern scholarship, which is what we should cite. WP:NONENG: That scholarship need not be in English (and clearly most of it won’t be in this case) though if there are English-language sources of equal quality and relevance, they are preferred for the English-language Wikipedia. Kanguole 09:42, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tried raising this at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 479#Asia, but got a rather unclear response. I suspect asking folks unfamiliar with Chinese historiography to opine on this issue without much context is not the best way forward. If we go for a project-wide RfC, we should provide sufficient context in a “Background” section, and allow for a range of options to be discussed. These should include separating notability from reliability, as SunloungerFrog has done, and discussing potential carveouts (see below).

Though I would like to review the scholarship on this some more, I am fairly amenable to allowing citations of the traditional histories, because as far as I can tell historians generally accept their tellings of events at face value outside of certain topic areas. Examples of potentially problematic areas include: sensitive political scandals and palace drama like the Xuanwu Gate incident; the level of success faced in certain battles, especially against “barbarians”, which Chinese sources tend to exaggerate; and of course numbers, which the Shiji is famous for using very…abstractly. Also, these histories tend to have certain biases about their own dynasty and the one immediately preceding theirs, especially the later emperors thereof. For example, was Yangdi really so evil, or is that just a Tang invention? I think if we ask editors to tread more carefully in some areas while generally allowing their use, we can improve coverage of Chinese history using these sources while avoiding many of their potential pitfalls. Toadspike [Talk] 03:24, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think discussion of the “Veritable Records”-style sources could be bundled with revisiting WP:SILLOK due to the very similar method of compilation (though perhaps the Chinese ones are less reliable). Toadspike [Talk] 03:40, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are clearer answers at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 475#Veritable Records of the Joseon Dynasty, and that is for a more recent and well-thought-of example of the genre.

Your list of examples can be extended indefinitely. That is why we need modern scholarship to interpret these sources. If modern historians accept some accounts at face value, we should be citing the modern historians. Kanguole 09:39, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is also a reasonable argument. But the status quo is that 1. zhwiki contains a vast body of articles based largely on these sources, which well-meaning editors regularly translate into English and 2. well-meaning editors also write articles based primarily on these sources directly on enwiki, which leads to fiascos like the recent AfD of Princess Changde. For these sources to be discounted as primary or unreliable (whether for notability or reliability) would likely be a departure from the status quo and thus require a strong consensus in favor. Which again makes me think that we need to seriously WP:RFCBEFORE any concrete proposal before putting it forward. We may also want to consider incremental steps, rather than going for “are these reliable yes or no” all in one go. Sorry if I’m talking in circles; I really don’t want us to rush a proposal and end up with yet another no consensus close. Toadspike [Talk] 11:26, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To walk the walk, here’s a rough draft of a potential guideline wording: East Asian dynastic or traditional histories, such as the 24 Histories, Zizhi Tongjian, and the Veritable Records of the Ming and Joseon, should be used with care. As they may contain bias, exaggerations, and fabrications, editors should cite modern scholarly commentary on these sources wherever possible, and not use them for exceptional claims. Toadspike [Talk] 11:33, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current framework of WP:EXCEPTIONAL does a good job at encapsulating my exceptions from above. No people descended from bears and birds or million-casualty battles cited to the Shiji alone, but leaving “boring” biographical details etc. intact. Toadspike [Talk] 11:35, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that use of these sources is pervasive in East Asian historical topics (and for other parts of the world too), and that it was done in good faith, but that is not a reason to declare the area exempt from a core site policy (WP:PRIMARY, part of WP:NOR). That is not what WP:EXCEPTIONAL says.

Non-experts face difficulties in accurately interpreting these sources at every level, starting from whether a particular character in the received text was what the author intended, what the semantic range of a particular word was in the author’s time, what people or place a particular name referred to at that time, and all the way up to the larger questions you mention. There are modern scholars who make these things their life’s work, and for good reason. Those are the sources we need.

I am not suggesting that all of this material be immediately excised. I am suggesting that we acknowledge that this is a problem, and say what the direction of travel should be, i.e. to the same standards of sourcing expected (but not always achieved) in the rest of WP. Kanguole 12:53, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the nod to avoiding mass excision. That is my main worry.

Re: primary – it’s not clear that these sources are primary. Even though the footnote at WP:PRIMARY includes “medieval and ancient works, even if they cite earlier known or lost writings”, that is not supported by any of the definitions given, Wikipedia or external, and based on the RSN discussion I linked may be mainly aimed at European sources. Some of the later works aren’t even medieval – to declare the Ming Shi “primary”, we would have to really stretch all reasonable definitions of “primary”, including that unsupported “medieval” footnote line. But if it isn’t primary, and doesn’t substantially differ from the other 24 Histories, we have a consistency issue. I suppose we can throw this up for an RfC to answer, but I doubt it’ll produce a conclusive result. I think it’s easier to just admit these sources aren’t ideal (“high-quality”) and use EXCEPTIONAL. Toadspike [Talk] 14:42, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There’s yet to be real consensus on the translation on some chinese police units(in terms of civilian police);

1: 分局

Different sources use different translations; the National immigration administration website and shanghai government websites(and several others), translate this to “branch”; meanwhile, in shenzhen government websites(along with the police stations in shenzhen themselves, though i can’t use that as it would be WP:OR) typically translate this to “subbureau”. What should be the standard translation for 分局?

Always use branch
Always use subbureau
Depends on location and sources

2: 总队

Possible translations:

Department (per [1] and [2]; both sources are about shanghai police though)
Force (per [3] [4], both are beijing though)
Unit (per [5])
Corps (per Supreme people’s court [6], and state council of china [7])
Command (Per civil aviation administration of china [8])

3: 支队

Possible translations:

Detachment (per [9], [10])
Branch (per [11])
Division (per my old translation, using US police departments; division is the official translation for 处 though)

4: 大队

Possible translations:

Team (previously used translation)
Group [12]

5: 中队

Not used as common, so less articles on;

I used to translate this to “Squad” though Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For 分局, maybe it would make sense to use local terminology (e.g. branch for Shanghai articles, subbureau for Shenzhen articles) and defer to the National Immigration Administration’s terminology for articles with a national scope. For added clarity, articles can use language like branch (分局, also translated as subbureau).

I wouldn’t worry about making the translations match US police usage. The US is just one country and its police aren’t necessarily organized with the same terminology as other English-speaking countries.

IMO the most important thing is to give readers enough information to clarify a term’s meaning if necessary. So for all five of these terms, we should provide a wikilink or Chinese characters, or both, on the first usage in any article. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:01, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So for 分局, use branch except for in the case of shenzhen, where subbureau is used?

As for the others, depending on situation;(fyi, what I previously did was Unit for 总队, Division for 支队, Team for 大队 and squadron for 中队) Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:45, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

more intrestingly, corps was used by the state council in regards to a shanghai psb unit

http://english.scio.gov.cn/pressroom/node_9016184.html Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:23, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking me to comment here, Thehistorianisaac. I generally agree with Mx. Granger that it’s okay to follow the official translations used by each bureau, even if they differ from each other and from US practice. The Chinese characters or article link are key. I do think it’s best we choose a translation for each term for cases where there is no official translation; I will look into this some more and reply later. Toadspike [Talk] 03:43, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you! Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:44, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on advice received, evaluation of sources and translations, here is my proposed solution:
分局: Translate to branch in most circumstances, subbureau should only be used for shenzhen
总队: Use corps per NIA and supreme people’s court unless local bureau has different translation for said unit(e.g. Department for shanghai special police department, command for the china air marshal command etc)
支队: Use Branch in most circumstances(per supreme people’s court official translations), Detachment for border management or cases like “1st detachment, 2nd detachment”
大队: Use Group in most circumstances per supreme people’s court
中队: Use squadron per previously used translation

Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:44, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mx. Granger@Toadspike any opinions on the proposed solution? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 02:14, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me, with the caveat that we should leave the option open to use other local translations where applicable (for instance, we might discover other cities besides Shenzhen that translate 分局 as subbureau). As mentioned above, we should provide links and/or Chinese characters for any of these terms that might be unclear to readers. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 07:26, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply