Talk:Chinese New Year greetings

Requested Move

There was previously a requested move on this article. The request was unsuccessful. Discussion on the move can be found here.

Random Comment

Looking at the size of all the contributions here -- I must say -- if everyone put as much effort into editing the article as they did in the discussion -- we surely would have a comprehensive article on both the canto / mando version by now! :) novacatz 10:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. Same can be said of edit/revert wars too.—Gniw (Wing) 14:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

More useful uses of Google

Instead of googling for number of hits, which I don't think is valid (esp. for Chinese-related things!), let's try googling for some real information. If we just google for the most obvious keywords "恭喜發財 典故", near the top of the results is the page [1] which states that

• The phrase did not originate from Hong Kong
• It entered into English in 1826 through an English person who wrote a book after noticing this phrase in the city of Guangzhou

It is not evident from the short article in what form the phrase entered English, but obviously it would be some form of Cantonese romanisation (because it was used by Guanzhou natives before Mandarin became the national dialect). Also, obviously, the phrase itself predated 1826, and the place of origin is unknown (may be Guanzhou, or some other place).

These findings refute a number of points in the existing article, and hopefully help bring some sanity to the current voting discussion.

PS: I want to find some search results in simplified Chinese too; so far I am not able to find any. People who know how to use google effectively in simplified Chinese can help steer the discussion by looking for such information.—Gniw (Wing) 22:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Updated the page based on this info. novacatz 23:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Disputed

Yaohua2000, I noticed that you put a disputed tag on this article. What statements do you have a problem with? Can you please let me know so I can edit the article to be better. novacatz 14:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Some problems here (after reading the discussions above):

1. The article is so western-centric.
2. Better use a much neutral title instead.
3. Kung hei fat choi and Gong Xi Fa Cai is actually the same in (written) Chinese, they are only different translations in English.
4. If it really orginally from Hong Kong? source?

I am not an expert, so if someone can make it better, it would be very nice. — Yaohua2000 16:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions:

1. How is this "Western centric"? This article has been accused as "Hong Kong centric", but "Western centric"?
2. This hinges on the next problem (whether the current title is objective reality, or whether this is unfairly Cantonese-centric), which is part of the discussion
3. This hinges on the current discussion of whether "Kung Hei Fat Choi" is considered an English phrase, or just a transliteration; please read the discussion; in any case, some of the proposed solutions to the move request will obsolete this point (and therefore also automatically obsolete the previous point)
4. This has already been solved (the answer is no), please see the discussion

I have a sense that you have not actually read the discussion before putting up the disputed tag. This is not very responsible even though "disputed" is a fair characterization of the current state of affairs. Also, by the time you put the disputed tag in, point 4 was already obsoleted and no longer valid; you did not seem to have even read the article.—Gniw (Wing) 16:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I did not read all above. But actually, it is a transliteration, even though not just a transliteration. Personally, I still feel this article is not neutral enough, and things can be better. Well, whether use Kung hei fat choi or Gong Xi Fa Cai make no sense to me and it is not my interest. So stop talking me this stuff. Thanks. — Yaohua2000 17:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair. But, by the time you put the disputed tag in, point 4 was already obsoleted and no longer valid; you did not seem to have even read the article.—Gniw (Wing) 19:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

So, as I understand it, the only disputed aspect remaining is the title? So I guess the tag can go when the above discussion wraps up after the 5 day period. Enochlau 13:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

You expect a resolution in 5 days? Based on the "contributions" you gave to this talkpage, I have little doubts over your misplaced sense of optimism.--Huaiwei 14:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Requested moves. Discussion wraps up in 5 days. It may be extended if there is no consensus, but typically, I would imagine (as an admin who has closed discussions before) that would apply where there are so few comments as to judge what the community consensus is, not in situations where no-one is going to move from their positions (as is the case here). Enochlau 22:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The thing I dont understand is ... what exactly is the dispute about. I thought the 'disputed' tag was if there is statements in the article that are, well, disputed. From the questions above, there does not seem to be any factual opposition. Just opposition about the naming of the article the discussion should be on this talk page . I dislike having the tag there because I feel there is no problem with the article. novacatz 15:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, the contention that the article is "western-centric" remains to be explained and addressed, although I can guess what his concern probably was. Why is this article seemingly more concerned over how it was introduced and used in the west instead of on the origins, meanings, significance, etc, of the Chinese phrase itself? Because some folks wanted to justify its Cantonese title? Do a page on Dim sum talk extensively on how the word ended up in English texts, or on Dim sum itself? Besides this, the article continues to be Cantonese-centric, as thou other Chinese around the world dont use similar messages between each other via other dialects. "Congratulations and be prosperous", btw, is not a standard nor fixed meaning, which this article dosent allude to. The section on gesture reads like a textbook example of how people from different cultures would use, when in reality, no such standard exists. And the entire section on Gong Xi Fa Cai is horrendously POVed. Does the term not exists prior to 1950, as thou communism has always been around to prevent usage of the phrase?--Huaiwei 16:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Being (or not being) Western-centric is not a factual dispute. Wikipedia is an English encyclopedia - audience is just as likely to be non-chinese than to be chinese. Western person hears KHFC and goes to his favourite encyclopedia <g> to see what the fuss is about -- having the etymology is useful. As for origins, meanings, significance - BE BOLD and go write it! I don't see why you can't add all that stuff right now (instead of dicuss all this instead!). As for the gesture -- I remember in CNY when my collegue said a big KHFC to my boss and then did 'the gesture' to him (he is American) (just as boss was coming round to hand out red packets) -- now if the gesture isn't explained in this article -- what is the point of this article??? novacatz 16:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Why I am not bold? Coz I dont have the neccesary references or factual data to add them? Compared to some who seem to consider it perfectly alright to add information without any form of verification and doing so only via "personal knowledge"? There is a limit to being bold, and this was one of them. Next, Western-centric in terms of the scope of the article is something you cannot claim to be acceptable in an English encyclopedia, and I find it tiring why some Asians somehow still consider this as an acceptable excuse. English is considered an international language as far as cosmopolitan Singaporeans are concerned, and who says we cant write about Asia in English without introducing Western bias? As I have said, why is this article talking so much about how it was introduced into English? As a result of this rename proposal? Or coz there is nothing else which can be added to this stub? As for the gesture, I dont think I am implying that it is non existant, nor am I claiming Americans cant use it when greeting HKers. I am asking you: is it a universal way of "emphasizing the greeting" amongst all users of this term? Do everyone of us do so by "slapping a fist of one hand into the palm of the other, in front of one's chest"? Cant I choose to clench both fists and place them side by side, resembling a pair of Mandarin oranges? Cant I choose not to do so at all, prefering to say it while giving offerings or gifts instead? This article reads horribly like a teenage HKers workbook (all the more apparant when observing the kind of English used), and it was worse until some face-saving work has been done on it recently. I would think more can be done, so why are individuals here saying they "dont like the disputed tag", and saying the article looks perfectly fine for all its worth?--Huaiwei 17:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

If you want more than just etymology, please go out, grab a book from the library and write it. There should be no problems with referencing sources that are not in English. Enochlau 22:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Completely agreed. Lots of articles are Western centric in the English Wikipedia, and sometimes attempts to make it more non-Western gets reverted as "citing no sources" (meaning, "no sources written in the English language", or "never before discussed in English", or even "I can't find anything when I tried to do a Google search in English—no, I didn't bother to try hard".) If "Western centric" is a problem (as perceived by most of the more active "editors" here), lots of Chinese people will gleefully put "disputed" tags on lots of articles here. (Perhaps not a bad idea for a "demonstration" or "protest", but certainly useless…)—Gniw (Wing) 16:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Read above. This is still no excuse, and who says we cannot cite non-English sources if need be? As I said before, I interpreted his "western centric" thingy using my viewpoint. Why speculate over what he means by this, instead of waiting for his views?--Huaiwei 17:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I was not referring to you, but to the Unicode article and other articles. Please do not accuse others too quickly. Or maybe you haven't run into this situation; lucky you.—Gniw (Wing) 18:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

My comment was not made in response to some reference to me or my works either, so may I get some clarifications over your statement above?--Huaiwei 13:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Is Kung hei fat choi Offensive in Singapore?

According to a Chinese web page regarding The Republic of Singapore [2], this term is offensive in Singapore. Is this true or not?--Skyfiler 02:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I highly doubt it. We used it all the time. Might be offensive to communists, though... hahahaha. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 02:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Dictionary entry

This is a non-English standard phrase, and as such it does not belong in an encyclopedia. I'm not keen on keeping even English phrases, but at least that is a reasonable compromise. This is etymological trivia in an encyclopedic context.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

So would you think it a feasible compromise whereby we have a general article on Chinese new year greetings (or if need be, that of greetings in Chinese festivities in general) instead as suggested earlier?--Huaiwei 12:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with Peter. This particular phrase in this form appears to have entered English as discussed above. As for it being a dictionary-like entry, I note that we have an article on "the". Why not this? Currently, it's just a little more than a dictionary entry, but it has the potential to be expanded with information on the cultural context. What title it goes under is another matter discussed above. enochlau (talk) 22:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Could you quote any English dictionary or encyclopedia which lists this phrase?--Huaiwei 02:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

This has not entered english. The examples of politicians using it is them obviously just pandering to their audience - if I spoke chinese natively and a politician mangled my language like they do, I'd cringe. The article SHOULD be moved, not to the putonghau pronunciation, but to something generic like "Chinese New Years Greetings" (or even Lunar New Years greetings, with Korean and Thai). Or merged into an article about Lunar New Year celebrations. SchmuckyTheCat 04:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

If you feel that is the case, then please put in a new request at WP:RM. If everyone agrees that the above proposed move to the Mandarin pronunciation should be closed with a rejection, then I will do so. enochlau (talk) 08:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the votes as of now, we have 5 Supports, 13 Opposes and 5 neutrals. There is definitely no consenus supporting a move. novacatz 08:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Not so fast! The support/oppose/neutral numbers you have quoted are for a move from the Cantonese to the Mandarin. They seem to now want to move it from the Cantonese to an English expression. So... we'll have to go through another voting process! Fun! enochlau (talk) 08:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

(deadpan) Oh... Thrilling... (/deadpan) Isn't red tape wonderful :). novacatz 08:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Ooook. Our friend User:SchmuckyTheCat has been bold and redirected. Do we all approve? enochlau (talk) 10:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I dont. Do you?--Huaiwei 12:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Not really. I think that's one thing we agree on. Shall we move it back, and discuss it further first? enochlau (talk) 12:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Why do you demand it be moved back just for your wish to discuss it, when you arent even thinking of expressing disapproval? The so-called boldness you demand from me has already been demonstrated. While you still whine and grine in this talk page, the entire content has now ended up as a subsection of Chinese New Year where it rightfully belongs without debate.--Huaiwei 13:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I am getting a bit confused. You seem to have switched your own (and enoch's) position. From my understand, Enoch is not 100% agree on the move. You initially didn't agree (grand-grand post) but now you do and you claim Enoch does? Are you maintaining a consistent position at all here???? novacatz 17:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

So "Not really" is not 100% agreement? My bad, but I cant care less over individuals who enjoy filbustering. I initially dont agree? Mind telling me where "grand-grand post" is? I am not sure what you are getting at, but even if my position is changing, am I not entitled to, for isnt this precisely the way dispute resolutions are supposed to work? If everyone just sticks to their positions and refuses to budge, are you going to have any resolution at hand?--Huaiwei 17:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

In Australian English, "not really" means, "I don't think it's a good idea", hence I am expressing my disapproval at the move. You, Huaiwei, with your "I don't" seems to have expressed disapproval at the move. So, shouldn't we move it back? enochlau (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed Disputed Tag

I removed the disputed tag. There does not seem to be any factual disputed raised. novacatz 16:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. enochlau (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree as above.--Huaiwei 02:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

This discussion is getting nowhere, and it's turning into a bit of a tit-for-tat exercise. I'll start an RfC or something soon if no-one objects to me taking that course. enochlau (talk) 02:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, at least for the rename request above, it should have been concluded long ago; it's just that there's a huge backlog at WP:RM. I can't do it myself since I'm involved, but I might buzz a neutral admin to close the above discussion. enochlau (talk) 02:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The page move is one issue, this article's dispute on its factual content is another. Have you bothered to at least acknowledge the existance of disagreements over what has been written here before trying to pretend no disputes exists and singularly removing the dispute tag? The callous attitude being displayed and the general disregard for others' viewpoints is beginning to be a cause for concern.--Huaiwei 03:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Huaiwei, I removed the disputed tag because (as I have mentioned several times) I do not believe there to be any disputes on the facts in the article. In the discussion that followed Yaohua2000 putting on the disputed tag, it seems that the only issue is the 'western centric' slant of the article. I removed the disputed tag because this is a dispute about the factual content of the article. novacatz 04:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I may not be the one who added the disputed tag, but I saw more justifications for its use than he could. I have clearly indicated my points above, but none of you appear willing to address them, even suggesting that "western slant" is acceptable for an English wikipedia. I find this kind of attitude highly unconstructive and defeatist, and is certainly not healthy for the advancement of this project.--Huaiwei 04:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Huaiwei, As I have said, slant of any stripe should be addressed by editing the article to remove any such bias. Disputed tag (imho) is address statements in the article which are not correct. Do you agree with this or not? If not, there is not much more to discuss. If you do agree, could you please point out specific statements in the article you are not happy with and I will see if I can dig up some research for/against them. novacatz 04:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I think I have raised three issues above already, but if I have to touch on them again:

• Kung hei fat choi = "congratulations and be prosperous"? Actually, this translation is not fixed, which the article makes no mention of.
• The "Gesture" section suggests it is a universal means of adding emphasize to the phrase, which people are prone to thinking it is similar to the Thai greeting hand gesture for example, which is more or less standard. It is quite obviously not as stated above.
• The entire "Gong Xi Fa Cai" section is horrendously POVed and reads suspiciously like the personal assumptions made by anti-communists than via researched references. So GXFC only exists in contemporary China when communism values are dwindling in the face of capitalism?--Huaiwei 04:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hup sup (Thai gesture) should be different from the fist-holiding Chinese gesture, shouldn't they? -- Jerry Crimson Mann 04:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not refering to similarities in the gesture itself. I am refering to standardisation in terms of how/when/why the gesture is used, and the position of the hands.--Huaiwei 04:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Huaiwei, I am not your gimp. I won't just jump in and put in edits at your command. If you want to have changes for the above then go edit the article. So far the only things I've seen is complaining on this talk page about POVness or some vague preceptions you have from the article. It isn't like anyone has actually reverted changes you've made. The only dispute here is one that you generate. novacatz 06:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

If you edit the article to put in what you want to put in, and you reference it, everyone's going to be super-happy. Now, wouldn't that be nice. enochlau (talk) 08:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thats funny. First someone puts in a dispute tag. You demand to know why. He responded, while I also gave some more indications of why the tag is probably relevant. You conveniently ignored my comments, and tried to remove the tag. I reinstated it and lambasted your collous attitude towards others' opinions. You asked me again why, so I simply repeated the points I raised before which you ignored. I obliged. Now you ask me if you are my slave and you have to acceed to my reasonings as to why the dispute tag stays.

Is this just me, or do I notice folks from the same locality seem to exhibit the same kind of attitude when it comes to similar situations like this? So the supposedly "open" and "free" society they pride themselves in arent exactly so "free" afterall? I have already explained why I did not add to the article. Go back and read it yourself, for I bear no responsiblity for your lack of respect for others' opinions. This does not mean I cant critique disputable additions to this article by others who couldnt care less about adding unverified information. So conversely, who you are to restrict my desire to comment on this article?--Huaiwei 12:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

"I have already explained why I did not add to the article." Sorry, where abouts? (I'm just getting lost in this long long long conversation.) enochlau (talk) 12:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It was even bolded for your eyes to see, unless of coz you are demonstrating your visual handicap. Your lethargy in reading long conversations in which you are a part of is no valid excuse.--Huaiwei 13:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Can we try to keep the personal attacks down please. Address the article, not the man. novacatz 17:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure. Quit posting here then, since the only thing still on-going are personal attacks anyway.--Huaiwei 18:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

In case you didn't know, I do have a life outside of this website, and it is impossible for me to remember precisely what everyone has said since the dawn of time on this issue, so it was a very polite request for you to indicate what you meant. You've highlighted novacatz's "go edit the article". Now what on Earth does that mean? I asked you for your explanation of why you are not editing the article. Huaiwei, I really do suggest that you go and look over your comments. I suggest that you are the one stirring trouble with your provocative language; novacatz and I have been trying to be civil in conducting a conversation here. Stop attacking us. enochlau (talk) 22:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Before you find it befitting to bring others for an WP:RfC, and before you wish to consider yourself worthy to criticise others about their wikibehavior, perhaps you might wish to be extra careful over what you say here. You've highlighted novacatz's "go edit the article". Oh did I? You asked for an explaination. I asked you to look back in this talk page. Does that neccesarily refer to this section only? The kind of behavior exhibited by both you is veering way too close to filbustering, when it seems constructive suggestions were repeated ignored such that I was asked to repeat what I have to say, when comments I bothered to highlight before were again ignored (intentionally or otherwise), only to have you demanding to know where the point was made now...again. Repeated requests on resolution proposals are either ignored, or given half-hearted responses (and this is going by that "not 100% agreement comment...not via my own assumption). I would think anyone who is serious about coming up with a resolution will experience the same frustration by the behavior of a few individuals. The so-called "civility" you preach seems wanting on your part as well, so is the "attack" I am supposedly mounting against you one sided? Go reflect on it.--Huaiwei 03:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

My patience is wearing thin you do realise. RfC it shall be. I really don't want to waste more time on fruitless argument. I'll let you know when it's ready. enochlau (talk) 10:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

move

The content was merged into Chinese New Year, where it's been edited, fixed up, and integrated into that article. Now restoring it here just makes duplicate content. Why does anyone want duplicate content? Forgive me for being bold, but I just don't care about an argument between two foreign language pronunciations of the same phrase in an English encyclopedia. The content fits well into that other article and it covers both phrases in a non-biased manner.SchmuckyTheCat 00:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that you've moved it without consensus. Your argument doesn't make sense; say I merged cat into dog, and you claim that you can't recreate cat because that would lead to duplication of content. Note that Merry Christmas exists! enochlau (talk) 00:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Uh, Merry Christmas is in ENGLISH and this is an english encyclopedia? This phrase is chinese, which is distinctly not english.

Cats and dogs are opposites. Merging this into a larger article about the specific holiday when you would use this phrase is... not opposite?

As to consensus, there wasn't any either way to keep it at one pronunciation or the other. NPOV trumps consensus. Each side that pronounces it feels the article is biased by presenting the other side. So, the third way, moving a stub back into a larger article that presents each pronunciation in a non-biased way - that's better for everyone, and better for the information as well. SchmuckyTheCat 00:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

If anyone actually bothers to read this talk page, it is clear that many has already agreed that the best foot forward is to simply abandon both phrases and to redirect them into a general article title. While I didnt preempt the merger back to Chinese New Year, the end result certainly looks perfectly fitting to me, for do we have enough information for a seperate article? I have asked numerous times if anyone objects to the first move. No one voiced any objections. Do we still wait for a few individuals who are clearly trying to filbuster before we effect the move? Tell us.--Huaiwei 03:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Huaiwei, I believe you are misrepresenting this discussion. There has been no discussion/agreement that the best move is to abandon both phrases (as demonstrated by the push and pull as soon as the move was made). I do not understand how we can have a discussion to move the article to GXFC (which failed to reach consensus) and you draw the conclusion there is agreement to move the page somewhere else. Can we try to reach agreement among all editors before making any more moves which will just get pushed back? novacatz 03:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Then lets look again at what some had to say, particularly those who voted nuetral:

• I am neutral regarding the move, provided that there are redirects in place, and the actual article text does not favour one or the other transliteration.—Gniw (Wing) 22:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Niether KHFC nor GXFC is a good name for an encyclopedia article. The formal name of this article should be Chinese New Year congratulations(中國新年賀詞/吉祥話) with KHFC page and GXFC page redirected to it. --Theodoranian 07:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Use the english meaning as the title, and put all the transliterations in the article. Done. Feel free to make redirects. SchmuckyTheCat 18:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Why not? This at least has the advantage of favouring no one. Or something like “Gong Xi Fa Cai/Kung Hey Fat Choi”. Lots of redirects and good, neutral explanatory text could do.—Gniw (Wing) 22:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• That is bold. I like it! Neutral. Clear. Looks like a good solution to me. novacatz 00:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• I think a good solution would to change this article into a general one on Chinese New Year's greetings, examining the whys and the wherefores of such a custom, Then we won't have to choose. Mandel 11:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• I noticed instantnood reverted STC's page move. Seems like we are generally agreeing that both versions should be renounced in favour of a more nuetral page title? Any objections?--Huaiwei 12:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• While I think STC big move was bold, it looks like a bit too bold for people to swallow (I agree with Enoch here - "Congrats and be propsperous" is a bit silly - we replace something commonly heard with something never uttered). But is there any big problem with, as a poster above mentioned, having one page with a list of chinese phrases for new year and their various etmologies and pronouciations and stuff. I think that a Western person would be interested to know what else is out there (and I think it would be nice-in-a-wikipedia-way if they go looking for KHFC and end up at a page with much more info!). I for one was interest to hear what the PTH/mainland people say in new year (sun nin ho) and besides, we can populate the page with the other phrases you hear around CNY (sun tai geen hong, man si jau sau) and we can have info on what is heard where (Cantonese in Sydney Huiawei!). One article, lots of redirects - anyone who is interested gets a wealth of relavnt info. Comments ??? novacatz 15:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• I would think STC's move was quite funny. It just shows how silly this whole argument was in a spectacularly simple fashion, and at least for me, I had a good laugh over it. Anyhow, I like your idea for a centralised, general article on various CNY greetings (which btw actually has scope for a fantastic article. The so-called "Jixianghua" is certainly something worth investigating and writing about!), which is in-line with that suggested by others before. Anyone else still objecting to this proposal?--Huaiwei 15:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It is apparant from the above, that even you, Novacatz, has given your blessings for the move. The only one who seems unable to let his opinions known is Enochlau, who somehow equates this effort into one on Dim sum, and even at the last moment, claims the above "doesn't help us resolve the issue with the page title" without explaining why. In the above, he somehow said "Not really. I think that's one thing we agree on.", then backtracks by claiming "not really" (when asked if he disapproves) = "I don't think it's a good idea" as thou Australian English is another language. So what exactly does he "agree on" now? As for instantnood, the only thing he appears to be able to do now is to revert moves and claim "no consensus" has been made, which basically just reflects the filbustering of Enochlau, and the seemingly confused Novacatz who would agree on it, yet insist on "getting concensus" when at this time, no one has directly opposed the move except via beat-round-the-bush comments made by Enochlau and the knee-jerk "I am still around so dont mess with me" reactions by instantnood.

Do we have to kowtow to the antics of these individuals? Tell us why. If these folks cant make up their minds, and cant come up with feasible reasoning as to why they agree or disagree, instead choosing to adopt a defensive attitude, then yes, I would think the rest of us have every reason to ignore them and move on from here.--Huaiwei 04:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me summarise my opinions for those of you who seemingly cannot understand my English. I would like to have an article at Kung Hei Fat Choi similar to what we have on Merry Christmas. I do not want it at the Mandarin title, but that is not an issue anymore since that RM was closed. Now, I don't want it at Chinese New Year either because it's a phrase that can be discussed on its own merits; do you suggest that we merge Merry Christmas into Christmas? And claiming that it's an English Wikipedia is nonsense; a good expression that I hear around is that it's an international encyclopedia that just happens to be written in English. enochlau (talk) 05:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Funny. The folks who onced argued that this is an English Wikipedia, and hence it is acceptable for Western-bias to exist and that KHFC should be discussed in terms of its usage in the English language is now adopting my viewpoint that it is indeed an international encyclopedia in English. i dont think its your English I am failing to comprehend. What I fail to comprehend is your apparant dificulty in coming up with at least reasonable arguments for your demands. We all know what you want. You have not been able to address concerns raised when your demands are met thou. You have not been able to tell us if you support an article on general CNY greetings. And if you are opposing the merger of this to CNY based on the Merry Christmas example, then are you assuming we will support the existance of Merry Christmas as an independent article? Its way too short, and KHFC is even shorter, made worse with its loads of POV issues and content inaccuracies. The present merger in CNY works just as well. Do you have anything mature to comment on all these issues?--Huaiwei 05:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I personally have never said that there should be a Western-bias in articles. Do not attribute the words of others to me. OK, you are confusing the discussion; this is not a discussion about the neutrality of the (former) article. Let us concentrate on discussing whether it is appropriate to have an article at Kung Hei Fat Choi, and not merging that content into Chinese New Year. That is the issue.

Now, would you be able to point to me in what section of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not tells you that Kung Hei Fat Choi should not exist as an independent article? The arguments put forward have been:

1. It is a dicdef: It is more than a dicdef and there is the cultural context to discuss. If you truly believed it to be a dicdef, then you would have stuck {{move to Wiktionary}} onto it.
2. It is biased: Assuming that it is biased, that doesn't mean the article shouldn't exist and it should be merged into another article.
3. There is consensus: All of the previous comments that you have quoted were in the context of the move from Cantonese to Mandarin title. There was no expressed consensus for you or SchmuckyTheCat to merge into Chinese New Year. The most consensus that you could have read from that was to move to Chinese New Year greetings (note there is a typo in this title, there should be no 's' after the word 'Year', but let's leave as it otherwise it's going to be more messy than it is), and not merge into CNY. And from the fact that novacatz and I are still have concerns about such a merger, you really cannot claim that consensus exists. What gives you and SchmuckyTheCat more power over content on Kung Hei Fat Choi than novacatz and me?

I have some questions for you:

1. Would you support a merger of Merry Christmas to Christmas? If not, why not?
2. What Wikipedia policy supports you your desire to have no article on Kung Hei Fat Choi?
3. Are you this bitter and insulting in real life? Being an online conversation doens't meant that you can make generalisations on others.

I await your replies. enochlau (talk) 06:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Confusions...confusions. My comments above were actually attributed primarily to your failure in addressing this particular format, ie, "Chinese New Year greetings". All quotes I made attribute to support in having a general greeting article, as opposed to your demands for KHFC to stay. The suggestion for a general article was put forth when it is clear there is a dispute in the Cantonese vs Mandarin debate. The discussion section further demonstrated general agreement for a general article to help stem perceived bias. I asked multiple times if such a move is feasible for all. No one came forth to object, with only you making strange noises over "Dim sum to Chinese dumpling" when nobody is talking about Dim sum. Based on this, one can easily see there is concensus to at least keep this page, as opposed to keeping KHFC. Are you able to show otherwise?

Next, STC decided to merge this article to Chinese New Year. Previous discussions did not pre-empt this move, but when it was done, I felt it was reasonable to do so. No one said it "is a dicdef" to effect the move. I said it was simply too short and undeveloped to warrant a seperate article. That it was already biased and had content problems does not directly attribute to the merger, but the merger did resolve this issue somewhat. Are you able to show otherwise?

As for your questions, are you going to ask for Merry Christmas to be merged into Christmas? If so, do it, and I will make my feelings known. As I said a million times before, quit pulling in other examples to support the one under contention. Can I then also highlight the fact that Happy New Year redirects to New Year's Day as reason for making this a redirect? Second, I have made my point clear over why KHFC should not stay, in favour of a general article which helps reduce POV issues and bias. Your constant questioning leads me to wonder if you are trying to force out a particular answer. Can I then ask, in direct, blatant terms, if your insistance on keeping KHFC is nothing more than an issue of personal pride in your regional dialect? As for whether I am "bitter and insulting in real life", why dont you fly over and meet me in person to discover for yourself? So you dont make generalisations on others be it online or in real life? You arent human?

I am wondering if I am still interested in your replies, but lets see how it goes? :D--Huaiwei 06:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

At the end of the day, when push comes to shove, you need to refer to Wikipedia policy. You haven't answered my second question, which was probably the most important. Which Wikipedia policy supports your claim that Kung Hei Fat Choi should not exist as it did before? In case you don't know where to look, start at WP:POL. If no policy says that it should not exist, then barring common sense, it should exist. Does that make sense?

No, I am not going to request Merry Christmas be merged, because I think it should stay. I want to know how you can explain its existence? Why does it exist? Pulling in evidence that this article exists suggests to me that there is no blanket rule saying it should be merged into CNY - that we need to examine it on a case by case basis. We haven't even discussed it and it got merged! Be bold, but make sure that most people actually agree with you.

I don't see how you can use discussion on the previous move discussion as evidence of consensus. A distinct minority suggested that this be moved to Chinese New Year greetings. Let me repeat, a minority. Furthermore, no one suggested a merge to the main Chinese New Year! enochlau (talk) 09:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)