This article is within the scope of WikiProject Colonialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Colonialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indonesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Singapore, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Singapore on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See Sisiluncai) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original orplagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
A few suggested improvements:
The title of the article should be Kapitan Cina, not Kapitan China, as it is a Malay, not an English, title. Most academic articles use the term 'Kapitan Cina': for example, see The Kapitan Cina of Batavia, 1837-1942: A History of Chinese Establishment in Colonial Society by Mona Lohanda; Political Legitimacy in Southeast Asia: The Quest for Moral Authority by Muthiah Alagappa; and Golden Dragon and Purple Phoenix: The Chinese and Their Multi-Ethnic Descendants in Southeast Asia by Khoon Choy Lee.
I think the main body of the article should be separated from the list of individuals who held the position of Kapitan Cina: see my article, List of Kapitan Cina
The article needs more references, and a great deal of more work in general
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Kapitan China → Kapitan Cina – It's a Malay language title, not an English title (anyway, a more correct English translation would be 'Captain of the Chinese'. The Malay form is more commonly used in academic and other written sources in English. On google, "Kapitan Cina" yields 15,400 results, while "Kapitan China" yields only 6,540 results. On Google News, "Kapitan Cina" yields 82 results, while "Kapitan China" only 43 results. And on Google Books, "Kapitan Cina" has 2,400 results, while "Kapitan China" only 2,070 results. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 06:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Both spellings are frequently used in English-language scholarly works on Southeast Asian history, but a Google Books Ngram search favors "Kapitan China". I suspect this is a question of different regional standards, with US/UK writers typically preferring "China" over "Cina". I vote to keep it where it is, but would not object to a move. Dowcet (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Dowcet: Hi, I've got an account now. I'm still in favour of "Kapitan Cina" over "Kapitan China" for the following reasons:
2. Google Search results should also be taken into account as they indicate that contemporary and common practice favours "Kapitan Cina"
3. "Kapitan China" is misleading as the title 'Kapitan' refers to administrative authority over local Chinese people, not over China. The Indonesian and Malaysian languages use the word 'CIna' to refer both to the Chinese people and China, but native speakers would understand the historic and cultural context of "Kapitan Cina" as referring to a headman of local Chinese, rather than a leader of China. The hybrid form "Kapitan China" brings into English the ambiguity of the Indonesian and Malaysian versions without the historic and cultural context to clarify the intended meaning of the title. And frankly, to me it reminds me too much of "Captain America".
4. And most importantly, English language references to the office during the colonial era were not standardised: "Kapitan China" could be found as readily as "Capitan China", "Chinese Captain", "Captain China", "Captain of the Chinese" and various variations thereof. In fact, older sources on Google Books Ngram seem to favour "Capitan China". It's clear that today there's no accepted standardised version of the title in English either. This sharply contrasts with the situation in Bahasa Malaysia and Bahasa Indonesia, where "Kapitan Cina" has become the standardised spelling. Both the Malaysian and Indonesian versions of this article use the spelling "Kapitan Cina". As "Kapitan Cina" is as much used as "Kapitan China" in English, and in certain cases (e.g., American English) more so; and as there is no official guideline from any English language authority on which version is preferred, I think it makes sense to use the accepted standardised spelling in Malaysia and Indonesia. I think we should use "Kapitan Cina" for the sake of uniformity between the English, Malaysian and Indonesian versions of this article, to acknowledge the foreign origin of the title, and to avoid the ambiguity that false familiarity ("Kapitan China") might create among English language readers.
Agree seems only logical. Devopam (talk) 10:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Support, since "Kapitan China" is fake, make-up mishmash of English and Malay. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 03:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Count me as abstaining, but I just want to emphasize that as the ngrams clearly show, correct or not, "Kapitan Cina" was rarely used in print until relatively recently. Because this is an antiquated and obsolete term, most people will probably be encountering and searching for the "incorrect" historical spellings, not the standard modern Malay. My point is not to oppose the move, just to say that if the move goes ahead, it's important to have redirects in place. Dowcet (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Support This seem reasonable. The commonly used spelling I have seen is Cina (possibly due to Malay). "Kapitan China" is also used, but not as widely. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Per very clear Ngram diagram. As opposed to Google, Google News and Google Books which render results in both languages, Google Ngram only searches in English. I get that "Kaptain China" can be confusing to the less informed, but unless someone can demonstrate "Kaptain China" has another meaning I think this is the WP:COMMONNAME in English. Timmyshin (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Support for all the above reasons. Also, 'Kapitan China' is only ever used in English when describing the institution in Malaysia. 'Kapitan Cina' is used in English in relation to both Malaysia and Indonesia. As the article is about the institution as a whole in Southeast Asia, its name should not follow a version only used for the institution in Malaysia. EenJavaanseChinese (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.