Talk:Nixon in China

Nixon in China is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 22, 2012.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 4, 2011	Peer review	Reviewed
April 16, 2011	Featured article candidate	Promoted

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 22, 2022.

Current status: Featured article

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 1 section is present.

Pinyin vs Wade-Giles

I sympathize with the instinct to correct names of historical figures to more widely used (and IME more intuitive) Pinyin system, eg Zhou Enlai rather than Chou Enlai. But in this case, the libretto uses Wade-Giles, probably because it was dominant in the historical sources. Should we stick with pinyin throughout, but use both in the list of characters? Or vice versa? -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Conflatuman (talk o contribs) 22:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article should use names and places in "Roles", "Synopsis" and below as they are written in the libretto. In "Historical background", current (pinyin) transliteration is fine. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would be potentially confusing if the same name was given two renderings. AnonMoos (talk) 16:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have to go with what Adams wrote when we are referring to the characters or to the scene of the opera. We should freely use parentheticals to deal with any potential confusion.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AnonMoos: Who would be confused by Zhou Enlai/Chou Enlai, Mao Zedong/Mao Tse-tung? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I bet that the majority of Americans under 40 (at least) have little idea who Zhou Enlai was (he died in 1976, after all, and was not a major world leader and cultural icon in the same sense as Mao). Therefore they might be confused if both "Zhou" and "Chou" appear in the article, with no explanation. AnonMoos (talk) 10:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling Zhou Enlai's name consistently in this article will not improve his recognition among Americans under 40. The interested reader can find out more by clicking on one of his links in this article, no matter how it is spelled. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

However, if both "Zhou" and "Chou" appear in the article without any explanation or cross-referencing of the two names, then many who don't click on further links would be confused... AnonMoos (talk) 11:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have bitten the bullet and added pinyin alternatives in the roles section. Conflatuman (talk) 06:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]