Talk:Simplified Chinese characters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
 
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
WikiProject China (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Writing systems (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Linguistics / Applied Linguistics  (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linguistics 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Applied Linguistics Task Force.
 
Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

Contents

removed[edit]

For example, 鬥 (fight) as a radical was merged with 門 (door) into 门 (door). was in the Radical subsection and is untrue. 鬥 is simplified to 斗, not 门, so I've removed this sentence. Jutari 05:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

What about the case of 熱鬧 --> 热闹 ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.81.18.35 (talk) 07:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Current revision[edit]

To: LDHan

I find it difficult to follow the content you restored in the debate section. The argumenents were confusingly listed before, and now seems to be randomly located under irrelevant sub-heading. It's also exhausting to read the arguements: Too many examples with an over-sized explanation.

Also the final remark at the end of debate section is actually duplicated with the opening remark. Yau 1 May 2006

Thanks for your comments. I find the arguments to be fairly well laid out, I can't see how they can be said to be randomly located under irrelevant sub-headings. For readers who are not familar with the subject, examples and explanations are useful and necessary. Of course anyone is free to improve the article but relevant content should not be removed. I have restored the paragraph re the problem in having two systems, it is not a duplicate of the opening remark. LDHan 18:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
now I've opened a new sub-heading to include the argument on 書 and 天, though i think it's actually a duplication of the sub-heading "confusion". Also, we need to clean up the text in summary which is apparently a personal view rather than an exhibition of pros and cons. Don't forget we're not giving verdict.
The question in the summary: 1. are two systems making "sheer difficulties" in communication. 2. is it really "not a trivial task" in translating chinese character into a particular system with the help of software? Yau 1 May 2006 (GMT+8)
Seems that the discussion is finished now. i've removed the summary. I think if there's any proponent's view, we better put it back in the sub-heading, instead of making it as a summary which may mislead readers. Yau 2 May 2006 (GMT+8)

In section "Distribution and use", last paragraph, the statement "Simplified character publications other than dictionaries are published on mainland China, for domestic consumption." has me confused. Since I think the paragraph was elaborating on use of Traditional character publications within PRC, shouldn't the first word of the sentence have been 'Traditional'?

Shenme 00:08, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


I removed the line about literacy in Mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong being comparable before character simplification. This requires a reference since it's not clear to me that this is the case.


I think simplified characters are also incompatible with some non-Mandarin Chinese dialects. For example, 遠 (yuan) was simplified into 远 because 袁 merely suggests 遠's sound and 袁 is the same with 元 in Mandarin pronunciation. However, 元 had 'ng-' in ancient Chinese and it is preserved in Japanese and some Chinese dialects:

袁: http://www.chinalanguage.com/cgi-bin/doc.php?query=8881
元: http://www.chinalanguage.com/cgi-bin/doc.php?query=5143

In short, 袁 and 元 had different sounds in some dialects, so the simplification is inappropriate.

In the same way, 億 was simplified into 亿. However, 億 had '-k' and 乙 had '-t' in ancient Chinese. Both were completely lost in Mandarin but is still preserved in Japanese, Korean and some Chinese dialects.

億: http://www.chinalanguage.com/cgi-bin/doc.php?query=5104
乙: http://www.chinalanguage.com/cgi-bin/doc.php?query=4E59
--Nanshu 01:52, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)


Yes, I also believe that the changes regarding the phonetic alteration of several simplified characters is inappropriate for regionalects unrelated to PuTongHua, however, in comparision, they (the non-Mandarin regionalects) constitute a minority in that about 71.5% of the population are able to natively speak Mandarin. Given the situation of having one unified writing system and several mutually unintelligible regionalects, the government would be hard-pressed to find a solution that could both simplify characters and cater to all known ways of pronouncing them. They chose the lesser of two evils, I suppose.

About 97% of all characters in the some 50,000 odd character array consists of semantic-phonetic characters (since the 18th century Kang Xi), wherein the semantic radical provides the idea and the phonetic portion defines the sound and the tone. The problem has existed throughout time because of such, and it cannot be avoided so long as regionalects exist. It should also be noted that children learn the characters by strict memorization; they often do not realize the individual components of the characters until later on in life. --Taoster 14:36, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hey Taoster, why do you think adding comment on "better education system" is POV? I just want to point out that the improvement of literacy rate may not be the result of the introduction of simplified characters. wshun 03:35, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Of the two the books that I've read concerning this topic (i.e. The Chinese Language, John DeFrancis and A History of Chinese Civilization, Jacques Gernet), both seem to agree that the decline of illiteracy among especially the farmers and laborers was resultant of the simplification initiative.
Personally I don't think that DeFrancis knows what he is talking about. He is a distinguished scholar of the Chinese language, but that doesn't make him an expert on educational systems or language acquisition. -RR

True, the new government played a huge part in this overall increase in the ability to read and write as the once "educated elite" were brought to their knees during the Cultural Revolution, however, the logical revamping of the characters and the conflation of redundancy is directly linked to people's cognitive ability to memorize such vast quantities of characters (particularly the farmers who did not have the resources and the conditions necessary for devoting an entire day's time for the learning of characters).

And they still don't. I know some illiterate people on both sides of the straits. The increase in literacy in both the PRC and Taiwan was accomplished in elementary schools. If you look at literacy rates, they are very age dependent, and you can see the drop where primary education started.

Taiwan cannot be compared to the Mainland in terms of literacy rates per se given their economic situation and the (lack of) governmental disarray.

DeFrancis makes this point. I disagree. First of all, its wasn't clear until the late 1960's (i.e. after the elementary educational system was implemented) that the Taiwan's economy was superior to that of the PRC. Second there was a huge amount of disarray in Taiwan in the 1950's.
Something that *is* noteworthy is that Latin America and India have low literacy rates even given alphabetic scripts.

As such, I will concur that several factors contributed to the ultimate rise of literacy among peasants, but these should be laid to speculation before grounded evidence is introduced. -Taoster

---

Need some eyes to expound on which sets are used to teach overseas Chinese. I know that in the United States, the situation is mixed. I don't know about southeast Asia. User:Roadrunner

Overseas Chinese schools[edit]

Where do mainland expatriates make up the majority? The statment that it "varies by region" is hardly accurate. When there is a significant number of people, there will be more than one school - schools teaching traditional and schools teaching simplified are not far from each other. --Jiang 06:27, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Where do I make the claim that Mainlanders are the majority? I merely indicated that both are taught in equal volumes, which are offset only by certain regional disjunctions. You are making the assertion that Traditional is taught primarily in the US to all overseas Chinese and not Taiwanese or Hongkongese, a broad generalization at best. The Xilin Chinese school system located in Chicagoland is a prime example of this -- they teach Simplified exclusively being that they are targeting overseas Mainland Chinese and not Taiwanese. However, that is not to say that Traditional is not similarly taught, but what evidence have you to claim that Traditional surpasses Simplified? -Taoster

I am making the inference based on the fact there are more overseas Chinese not from mainland China or whose ancestors left mainland China before simplified was introduced. Therefore, these people would logically start traditional chinese schools or send their children to such schools. If such is the case, and there are not equal volumes of overseas mainlanders and overseas taiwanese/hongkongers/etc, then the claim that they are in "equal volumes" cannot be true. What evidence have you to claim that both are taught in equal volumes?

There are probably also plenty of traditional chinese schools in Chicago too - schools that teach the different forms are not segregated regionally, as the current text implies. I am not "making the assertion that Traditional is taught primarily in the US to all overseas Chinese and not Taiwanese or Hongkongese". More likely, mainlander families send their kids to simplified schools and Taiwanese families send their kids to traditional schools, both in the same area.--Jiang 07:32, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The claim in question is "Chinese language schools designed for overseas Chinese are vary, but predominately teach traditional". I omitted the last portion of this sentence, but kept what followed thereafter in the paragraph. They do not "predominately teach" any single character system, and unless you can introduce viable statistics as to which one takes precedence as far as overseas Chinese (a term that is ambiguous unto itself) are concerned, then this claim should not be included. -Taoster

[1] [2] [3] If this is false, the converse is true. No one is claiming the converse. --Jiang

And can you vouch for the veracity of those "sources"? None of them have any relevant statistics to back up their claims. For example:

  • "However, a larger proportion uses the Traditional Chinese writing." (Cao Li)

-- According to whom? Many, if not all, of my Chinese associates write exclusively in Simplified, but does that mean that I should automatically assume that the vast majority does as well? No.

The third website should not have been included. Anyone, delusional maniacs included, can create websites on Geocities to mass-propagate falsities.

As I see it, there is no need to include the interjection in question, as schools of both character disciplines exist and therefore should not be subject to which one reigns supreme. Both Traditional and Simplified have their respective advantages and disadvantages, so neither should be pushed.

Yes, I'll agree that no one on the listed websites are claiming the converse. But are you looking to convey facts based on bias or based on grounded evidence? -Taoster


Character etymology[edit]

Certain Traditional characters do provide useful mneumonics for long-term retention of the character; however, this is not lost in Simplified as the majority are based on variant forms, which are ultimately derived from lesser-known ancient characters. Therefore, etymology does not seem to play a part in the cognition of the character. --Taoster 20:50, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

While it is true that many simplified characters did exist in one form or the other before, in scores of cases parts that hint at its meaning have been removed. And it is a very frequent argument among sinologists that learning traditional is easier, while many others say it doesn't matter. And as it is discussed, I think you have to refer to it when presenting pros and cons. I don't know how you come to the firm conclusion that it doesn't play a part, I, for one actually find learning traditional easier. In any case, a full presentation of the pros and cons must, in my view, contain all the arguments brought forward. --Laca 21:25, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

I was raised on the Simplified set, and while I certainly try to be unbiased towards either of the scripts, I find that -- at times -- Simplified does tend to be better at conveying the meaning (other instances exist, of course, where Traditional is much more cogent as far as clarity is concerned). In addition, it should not dismissed that the two are closely related (with minor nuances at best as a result of the divergence). It is in this manner that I have removed the sentence in question, as it should not be asserted that either set is superior as a result of adhering to the ancient forms. However,if it must be included, then a full dissemination (including examples) should follow. --Taoster 21:51, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

I do admit I'm havily in favour of Traditional characters, for several reasons. However, I was in no way trying to make a case for its superiority here. The part where you erased my text was simply stating some arguments people brought forth in favour or against it, and none of them is dealt with in a full dissamination. In the same way my adition simply wanted to point out a certain oppinion being held by some. I will try to rewrite it once more in a way that I hope will not seem as an assertion of superiority. If you still can't live with it, well I don't want to deal with it in much more detail right now. I might expand it at some time in the future.

The reason why I removed the text in question is because it was POV, and although it was listed in the "Pros and Cons" section, it nonetheless a loose opinion and should not be included unless it can be referenced to a credible source. Addendum: I've viewed your edit and it appears to be worded better now. --Taoster 00:11, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, good we could sort it out then. --Laca 00:39, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Laca and Taoster (I don't think I've worked with either of you folks before, so 'greetings') - I've tried to rewrite pros and cons to be more of a coherent piece, but ask for your help there. Previously, it was simply "Opponents say..." many times over, which not only reads poorly, but isn't very well balanced. We should endeavour to stick with the point of trad vs. simp and not go too far afield, which is why I reverted a sentence on computerization. Please don't take it personally, but I thought it was drifting from the points and instead a criticism of the reality that people do in fact use computers (thank goodness instead of manual typesetting!) and people do watch TV. Look forward to moving the article forward, although I do think it is in quite good shape already from your work. Fuzheado | Talk 01:21, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Hello to you as well, Fuzheado. As for the article, I think the "Pros and Cons" section is invariably POV due to the opinionated nature of it, so we'll have to rearrange it so as to juxtapose the positive and negative aspects of both sets (sects). --Taoster 01:27, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
I think the computers point is worth mentioning: one of the advantages of the simplified system is that fewer strokes are quicker to write manually, but there's no advantage if you're using a computer. Markalexander100 02:20, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
That's what I was trying to say. It might have to be reworded perhaps, though. I certainly do not complain about people using computer (after all that's what I am doing right now...), but I was trying to point out another aspect of computer use that is actually in favour of traditional characters. --Laca 18:45, 23 May 2004 (UTC)


Tang Origin of "simplified" characters?[edit]

This is a fascinating discussion. I come from the Japan side of things, but have a general interest in how the Chinese have "simplified" their characters. I hope we can all agree that a true simplification of the written language would have been to mix their characters with pinyin, dumping as many characters as possible. One only needs to look at the way the Chinese write foreign place names, for instance, to see why this would have been a good idea. Anyhow, as it stands, educated Chinese (a number that is increasing radically) must now know both the original character and the "simplified" one, an unnecessary complication and hardly a reform in any real sense of the word. Now, the reason I put "simplify" in shock quotes is that my understanding of the "simplification" (via a Hong Kong Chinese classmate) is that the new characters are not "new" at all. Rather, they many were taken from Tang-era caligraphy that basically abbreviated the characters for the sake of expediency. Therefore, the PRC reformers simply dipped back into the Chinese past (a traditional Chinese response for dealing with the present) in order to find a solution to their mass illiteracy problem. So, can anyone verify if this is true or not? --John Treiber, PhD Candidate, University of Hawaii at Manoa, dept. of History

By no means were the simplified characters all from the Tang era. Some of the simplified characters were from the past; others from unofficial simplifications prevalent among the population; others were completely new and invented by the simplification board.
Also, regarding: "I hope we can all agree that a true simplification of the written language would have been to mix their characters with pinyin, dumping as many characters as possible." Actually, the exact opposite conclusion was reached by both the PRC and ROC language reform boards; though giving up the characters for romanized forms was once discussed, both boards eventually gave up on the idea because it was simply impractical, because of the large number of homophones in Chinese.
Also, many people are deeply committed to traditional characters and would be strongly opposed to giving them up.
Lowellian (talk)[[]] 01:13, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
I added an external link in the article today regarding the Chinese to Chinese conversion on Computer text processing. The paper may give you an insight on how meanings are lost after you fold several characters into the same one just because they sound the same. Just imagine you try the same trick with English, try merging "beat", "beet", "our" and "hour" etc. and remove all redundent spellings. Its tru that u kan stil gas what the nu writing mins by reeding within the kontext. But the language wil not b the same animor. I am never a supporter of English spelling reform. Mixing homonyms may be managable in English, but Chinese is difficult when one pronunciation can map to 50 to 60 different characters with different meaning. In China, some books are published in romanized pinyin. They are just too hard to read. Kowloonese 02:56, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Can Two Traditional Characters Simplify to the Same Form?[edit]

I have read that the simplified forms of some traditional characters are the same as those for other traditional characters. In other words, there is not always a 1:1 mapping. Is this true? How common or rare is it? Can we have a few examples here? — Hippietrail 01:17, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it's actually pretty common. One example that comes to mind is that 幹 (tree trunk), 乾 (dry), and 干 (sheild and several other meanings) were all simplified to 干. There are many, many others. -Ming888 01:37, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Thanks Ming888. I really feel this should be made clear on a few relevant pages. Do you know anywhere I might find a lits? — Hippietrail 02:00, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
the Chinese version of the article lists more, and also http://www.sungwh.freeserve.co.uk/hanzi/index.html Xah Lee 15:05, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
I found a web page on the internet discussing the confusion of combining multiple Traditional characters into one Simplified character. For example, there is no way to tell between "Stem Cells" and "Dried Cells" when 幹 (tree trunk), 乾 (dry) are combined to 干. Interesting reading if you can read Chinese. Kowloonese 02:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Bad Example?[edit]

Method of simplification currently says, "獨餘余一人(only I am left alone) will become 独余余一人." Doesn't the 飠radical simplify into 饣, and thus 餘 into 馀? While Unihan does list 余 as a simplified version of 餘, it seems that one would use the simplification that avoids the ambiguity, rather than choosing the one that creates it. Perhaps a better example could be found for this? 208.180.124.100 07:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


Response: In Traditional Chinese Characters, 餘 yύ means remain, surplus and 余 yύ is a pronoun for "I, me" so 獨餘余一人, literally translated is "only remaining I one person" and in simplified Chinese is 独余余一人. The traditional character 餘 is most commonly simplified as 余. And to the second part, this example is trying to show that some confusion can come from simplification.

It's fair to say that it's poor example, though... If it can be written both "獨餘余一人" and "獨余余一人" in traditional and "独余馀一人 and "独余余一人" in simplified, as my dictionary seems to imply, then it's not really the simplification process that leads to the ambiguity, just the author's choice of character. Of course, the dictionary I'm using could be wrong, but it seems rather unlikely that noone's ever used 余 to mean 餘 before the 1950s, given the examples of phonetic loans present in classical Chinese. Rōnin 23:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, I went ahead and removed it. There's no source for the statement to be found anywhere except for Wikipedia itself, so until we can get an expert on Hanzi characters to publish a statement about it, it might be best to leave it out. Rōnin 23:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Details of history of simplifications[edit]

I'm very interested in finding a complete list of characters that were officially simplified in the 1956 and 1964 reforms. Documents must have been published at the time. I have seen scans of equivalent documents released in Japan for their 1947 character reform but have been unable to find the same for Chinese.

Does anybody know of online versions? Does anybody know the exact dates and names of these publications? It would be very useful in an article of this nature. How many characters were covered by the 1956 reform? How many by the 1964 reform? Were other characters officially simplified outside these two releases? I guess I could use Unicode sources but I'd much prefer to find something historic. — Hippietrail 12:12, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In answer to my own questions after some lucky research today, I believe the relevant documents are:
  • 1956: 汉字简化方案 (漢字簡化方案), "Scheme of Simplified Chinese Characters"
    • 2 lists which map 544 traditional characters to 515 simplified characters
    • A list of 54 simplified basic components
  • 1964: 简化字总表 (簡化字總表), "General List of Simplified Chinese Characters"
    • A complete list of 2,236 simplified characters from the 3 lists of the 1956 document.
    • This document was re-published in 1986 with major changes including reverting a few characters back to the traditional forms.
Google finds these terms on the Chinese and Finnish Wikipedias but no the English. If anybody is capable of translating even part of this information I think it is of key importance to this article.
I am also very interested in finding more information about what was changed in the 1986 document, including a list of reverted characters. Are the reverted characters included in Chinese character encodings including Unicode, were they never popular and now largely forgotten? — Hippietrail 09:47, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Easier to read, harder to write statement[edit]

<snip>

Simplified Chinese is easier to read but harder to write than Traditional Chinese.

</snip>

Somewhat disputed (30%). This statement is 70% correct (which is why I didn't remove it from the article, but there are a few points contrary to what the statement states (sorry -- ran out of words):

  • Simplified Chinese easier to read: Personally, not exactly so. I was in Hong Kong in December 2003; on the road signs there, they have small-print text in traditional Chinese, which appears Herculean to read if you don't get to see the sign through your own eyes; however, I found that they were very easy to read. However, that's not to say that simplified characters aren't easier to read, but some Mainland roads have small-print simplified text which -- your point taken -- should be easier to read. Thing was, it wasn't.
  • Harder to write than Traditional Chinese: Not so if you take "qiang" (strong). I'm sure there are (a few) other characters that fit this except to the rule. Some characters are only one or two strokes more, and some (e.g. "huang" (yellow)) are four strokes, but written differently in SC than in TC.

As said before, your edit is mostly correct -- and a good edit (to a certain extent). Keep the good work up -- edits, even from first-time newbies, are welcome. :-)

--DF08 14:20, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)



This is very rambling. I'm not sure what this has to do with the point of the article.

A useful distinction?[edit]

Speakers and students of Chinese often broadly categorize Chinese characters into simplified and traditional. The latter are generally taken to be the characters used on the Mainland before simplification. While these labels are both widespread and useful, they are not strictly exhaustive. For one thing, they neglect variants specific to Japanese, Korean, and (historically) Vietnamese. Even within the context of Sinitic languages, however, character use is not uniform. While it is commonly asserted that both Taiwan and Hong Kong use traditional Chinese characters, one will find considerable variation in their respective character inventories, largely as a result of their different languages. Cantonese, the language spoken in Hong Kong, has many specific characters that are in widespread use locally, but will not be found used in Taiwan (such as 唔). Taiwanese introduces a number of specific characters as well. To get an idea of how divergent this can be, it is estimated that Cantonese employs several thousand special characters that are not widely used outside of Hong Kong and overseas Cantonese-speaking communities. Though these special characters are often considered by native Cantonese speakers as slang characters made up only to represent the Cantonese spoken slang and are not recognized as a part of the written language, they nonetheless have their times and places.

It is therefore useful to point out that when one speaks of simplified Chinese characters, one is referring in fact to an established standard set; whereas traditional characters can, in this context, be simply defined as characters used by speakers of Sinitic languages which have not been simplified. But even this definition is problematic, because many simplified forms of Chinese characters are actually traditional forms in their o

Wikipedia[edit]

Are there two Chinese language Wikipedias - for Simplified and Traditional, or just one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.48.187 (talkcontribs)

There is one. The software does automatic conversions. --Nlu (talk) 06:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Isn't the software broken? The last time I checked, there was a notice that said that it was broken. Now, there is only one inconsistent page of both simplified and traditional characters, which I find really inconvenient. Also, since zh.wikipedia.org is now banned in mainland China (not including Hong Kong and Macau), what is the point of a simplified Chinese page? (for Singapore maybe?) --Shuttlecockfc

Comparison of Japanese reform to Chinese reform[edit]

In the section titled Extent, the statement "Compared to Chinese, the Japanese reform is more moderate" is made. At this point I am not sure of the degree of severity of the Chinese reform. The first section of the article states: "Only a fraction of characters were simplified," so I am inclined to believe that the Japanese reform is more severe than its Chinese counterpart. It would be nice to have an indication one way or the other in the article, since a thing more "moderate" (closer to the center of the scale) than an unknown can be either greater or lesser than the unknown.

Your logic is flawed. Or you need a dictionary. By moderate it of course means lesser. -- G.S.K.Lee 01:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll accept that (following a review of the dictionary entry for the adjective), though I still feel it could be less ambiguous.

Moderate has numerous meanings in English, and it is not clear here which meaning Mr. Lee intends. If there were fewer reforms in Japanese than in Chinese, that is a result of the fact that Japanese uses only about 20 % of the total characters that Chinese uses. So are you saying that the Japanese reforms may be moderate because they only affect a few thousand characters, whereas the Chinese reforms are more severe because they affect tens of thousands? I suspect what you really mean is that the Chinese reforms affected a greater percentage of the characters in daily use than did the Japanese reforms. But that idea is not stated, and the effect of the use of the term "moderate" is to leave the section unclear in its intent, and to leave the reader confused as to why this comparison is being made.

Also, does this refer to how many simplified characters are used, or to how many strokes are dropped? I'm referring to characters such as 龍 and 爲 for which the Chinese simplification is very much simpler than the Japanese. Collin237 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.203.187.77 (talk) 05:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

weasel words[edit]

There are tons of weasel words in this article.

  • "Proponents..." (Who are the proponents?)
  • "Opponents..." (Who are the opponents?)

Frosty 11:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"Proponents" and "Opponents" are hard to pin down exactly... certainly no one has taken a poll anywhere to gauge support for Traditional or Simplified Chinese. All we know is there are vocal supporters for both sides and that there's no consensus on this matter. -- ran (talk) 19:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, a lot of specific statements about the Chinese language, including the use and value of traditional and simplified characters is attributed to these supposed "proponents" and "opponents." If there is any evidence that someone actually expressed these sentiments, or actual citations for the written expression of these opinions, then it should be included. If all the evidence for these statements is to be excluded with the statement that "no one has taken a poll" then certainly the section should be removed, or at the very least prefaced with a description of the lack of evidence for these supposed opinions.

Spam[edit]

The link "Chinese language material", pointing to to http://www.mqzy.com/ is definitely spam. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.101.229.234 (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Article name changed from "Simplified Chinese characters" to "Simplified Chinese"[edit]

I've just noticd the article's been moved to "Simplified Chinese" with "Naming conventions mandate to name articles according to what the thing is known as to most people" as the justification. I think this should be discussed before such a move. I would dispute whether most people know these characters as "simplified Chinese characters" or "simplified Chinese". I think the terms "simplified Chinese characters" and "simplified characters" are much more common. Not only is "simplified Chinese" less common, it is also inaccurate and ambiguous. LDHan 15:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I have personal doubts (without the support of any evidence yet) that "simplified Chinese characters" is more commonly used than "simplified Chinese". It was only in wikipedia did I witness this phrase being used widely.--Huaiwei 15:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with LDHan on the ambiguity point. "Simplified Chinese" would make sense where the context makes clear that we are talking about written languages. However, without such context, "Simplified Chinese" carries all the ambiguities associated with Chinese. I suggest reverting the move until consensus for the move is established. --Sumple (Talk) 03:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree, too, that Simplified Chinese is ambigious. — Instantnood 20:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Why?--Huaiwei 22:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
They should be renamed back to Simplified Chinese characters and Traditional Chinese characters. - Privacy 21:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Why?--Huaiwei 22:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Reply to Huaiwei: The most obvious reason is Simplified Chinese what? "Simplified Chinese" without context is ambiguous. Some readers might know what "Simplified Chinese" is, but someone who is not familiar with Chinese language(s) will probably think it's some sort of simplified version of Chinese, in the sense of reduced grammar and vocabulary. I really cannot see any problems with using "Simplified Chinese characters" as the title of this article. LDHan 23:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with LDHan. Traditional Chinese can mean both traditional Chinese language and traditional Chinese character. I will move these articles back to their original titles. --Neo-Jay 10:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

And vice versa?[edit]

For computer automated translation, one simplified character may equate to many traditional characters, and vice versa.

One simplified character may indeed equate to many traditional characters, but vice versa? Is that true? Are there any cases where one traditional character equates to several simplified characters? I know if you include dialects (like Taiwanese versus PRC Mandarin), that may be the case due to different vocabulary, but I don't think that it's the case for the characters themselves, is it? - furrykef (Talk at me) 11:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

麼: me5 (么) / mo2 (麽) Rōnin 04:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
The example by Rōnin is also one of the "one simplified character may equate to many traditional characters", because both and are traditional Chinese characters mapped to 么 as a simplified character.
And I am unaware of any example of the reverse, "one traditional character may equate to many simplified characters". I would be surprised if there is any, which means that multiple characters are announced as the simplification of a single traditional character.
I propose to remove "and vice versa" if no example can be found. siuman 21:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I posted an incorrect example! However, I've found some real examples now, although they're rare:
瀋: 沈 渖
畫: 划 画
鍾: 钟 锺
靦: 腼 䩄
餘: 余 馀
鯰: 鲇 鲶
鹼: 硷 碱
These are all the examples that can be found in the Unihan database at this time.Rōnin (talk) 00:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I know some of those examples may not be very good. Obviously 余 can be used in place of 馀, but if one searches among the traditional variant characters, one will see that it can also be used in place of 餘. A computer could thus convert 餘 to 馀, 馀 to 餘, and leave 余 unchanged. 畫 seems to be relevant enough, but with less than 7 problematic cases, it should be easy for a conversion program to detect them and deal with them. Still, this sort of thing is interesting in a way. Rōnin (talk) 12:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Banned in Taiwan?[edit]

The article seems to say that simplified characters have been banned also from civil publications in Taiwan. Is this actually true? I also just saw an article about the Taiwanese government putting out a publication in simplified Chinese, aimed at the mainland. Rōnin 04:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not banned but official documents are solely written in traditional. There also are some political reasons to write traditionaly. Which I am sure you would agree. 129.173.136.98 15:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the explanation! I can see what you mean.Rōnin 15:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

See also: traditional chinese[edit]

article like this must have a see also link to it opposit side traditional Chinese don't you think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.201.107.103 (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Japanese dialects and such[edit]

The author of this article states that Japan "has no diverse dialects or dissimilar language communities." Although the diversity of Chinese dialects and language communities is greater, there certainly is great dialectal diversity in Japan--for example, people from the west, or those from the north, have very different ways of speaking, and the dialects of those who live on some of the farther away islands are not or are just barely intelligible to speakers of standard Japanese. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.192.247.221 (talkcontribs) 00:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

I fixed the statement. In the future, feel free to be bold and perform corrections yourself. —Umofomia 01:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Heh. Try flying from Naha, Okinawa to Tokyo. There is a huge difference between them. Dialects run amok in japan just as much as in China. Jaguitar (talk) 23:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Do they understand each other's script?[edit]

Hi,

I came to this article in an attempt to find information on whether those who have learned the traditional script can read simplified (and how easily), and vice versa. I think some information on that could be nice in the article. --SLi 19:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The answer to this question is not a simple one. Of course, it depends upon the individual's exposure to either set of characters and familiarity with the changes that have occured. However, it's said that those who learn traditional script first have an easier time understanding simplified characters than vice versa. In my own studies, I get the impression that this is indeed the case, but ultimately I would defer to someone with 1) mastery over both scripts and 2) experience in teaching them. Good luck. Twalls 03:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I would say it is easy to get the meaning out of a piece of writing in Chinese if you know one system. As for me, I must guess what a simplified character is in traditional, since some characters are simplified or morphed to a point that it is impossible to read without a conversion dictionary. I think most people who only studied one system are like this. They must extract the pronunciation and meaning from the context of the sentence or compound verb. Shuttlecockfc
I began my Chinese education in Simplified, but now read Traditional more often. In the "transitional" phase, what I found was that I could usually understand the Traditional characters because the majority of the different characters had the same overall shape and layout. Others can be gussed at from context.
There were one or two traditional characters which caused me difficulties because they were similar to the point of indistinguishability, but were very different in simplified: e.g. 書 vs 畫 (traditional) which is 书 and 画 in simplified --Sumple (Talk) 09:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that if there is hard scientific evidence as in a published scientific study complete with control groups of native simplified users learning traditional for the first time, and native traditional users learning simplified for the first time, conduct an examination after a specific amount of time and compare the tested results, then one may conclude which way is the easier way, put up a citation and place it into the article. Otherwise simply basing on heresay is highly unscientific. One could say that when one learnt the simplified set, one learnt the basic skeleton of the shapes of the characters; conversely for a native user of the traditional set, one could say that after learning the complete and full shape of the characters, the skeletons of these characters could easily be deduced and recognised. In the end, it could simply be the fact that the simplified set is derived from the traditional set, and thus that both sets are similar, and therefore they are objectively easy to be learnt and recognised one after the other, so that the order by which they are learnt are of no consequence. --70.21.22.21 13:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


Having learned in simplified with the occassional nod to traditional, I find that traditional is a tad more difficult to read quickly, and a great deal more tedious to write. On the flip side, traditional is a great deal more expressive, giving more thorough reresentations of their meanings based on the parts of the character. While al characters can be 'sounded out' by corelating the radical to the remainder of the character, some of the simplified forms are just lacking in depth. That's my take on it. Jaguitar (talk) 23:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposing sectional move for debate section[edit]

I am proposing the debate of simplified vs traditional move to a page all by itself. Please go here for discussion. Benjwong 02:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Aesthetic Section debate[edit]

Recently, user LDHan frequently attempted to alter/remove the word "aesthetic" from the following sentence, but I believe it is best if the word stays for following reasons ( indicated with "+").Da Vynci 05:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)



Traditional Chinese Characters are often used as the de facto standard characters set in Chinese calligraphy in Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau and even in the People's Republic of China, presumably because of its aesthetic value or at least partly thereof . This is one of the very few exceptions that the PRC government permits the use of traditional Chinese Character in mainland China.


  • (-) LDHan argued that "well actually usage of trad hanzi in calligraphy doesn't HAVE to do with aesthetics, what about history and tradition? "
  • (+) Calligraphy is an visual art, so it would be reasonable to consider that aesthetic is at least one of the essential parts of the art of calligraphy. Thus, it would be incorrect to assume that the choice of character set has NOTHING to do with aesthetic. Saying calligraphy (an visual art) does not necessarily related to aesthetic is like suggesting kungfu (a sport) does not necessarily related with physical exercise. Aesthetic forms an indispensable part in calligraphy, hence it is reasonable to state that aesthetic is one of the reasons when traditional character set became the choice of character set in the practice of calligraphy. Da Vynci 05:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • (-) Yes calligraphy is an aesthetic art, but the use of traditional characters in calligraphy in itself does not necessarily involve aesthetics. The reason for the use of traditional characters in calligraphy could be purely due to to history and tradition. I’m not saying that aesthetics is not a part of the reasons but to put a paragraph about the use of of traditional characters in calligraphy under "aesthetics" is misleading because it assumes that aesthetics is the only reason for the choice when in fact there are other reasons. LDHan 12:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • (+) Your argument appears to be self-contradictory. At one point you said "use of trad. characters in calligraphy could be purely due to history & tradition" ( meaning aesthetic consideration could be zero); and the other point you said "I am not saying that aesthetics is not a part of the reasons" ( meaning aesthetic consideration exists ). Anyway, since you said "I am not saying that aesthetics is not a part of the reasons", so I'm going to take it as you agreed aesthetics IS indeed one of the reasons, therefore, we can move on to address your concern about the sentence may "mislead" people to think that aesthetic is the ONLY reason. Well, I acknowledge your concern thus I updated the sentence to "presumably because of its aesthetic value or at least partly thereof", meaning aesthetic could be one of the reasons, but other reasons may also exist along with aesthetic. Da Vynci 19:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • (-) My statements are not self-contradictory, I merely said there maybe several possible reasons for the use of traditional characters in calligraphy, aesthetics may or may not be one of the reasons. It is for this reason why it is inappropriate to use a "aesthetics" heading. Perhaps you have misread what I wrote but no, I do not agree that "aesthetics IS indeed one of the reasons". LDHan 19:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • (+) Just look at what you wrote, in case you forgot:
12:29, 17 July 2007 LDHan said "I’m not saying that aesthetics is not a part of the reasons..."
19:34, 17 July 2007 LDHan said "I do not agree that "aesthetics IS indeed one of the reasons"."
If you still don't see the self-contradiction then your English must be questionable.
Calligraphy is an visual art, so it would be reasonable to consider that aesthetic is at least one of the essential parts of the art of calligraphy. Thus, it would be incorrect to assume that the choice of character set has NOTHING to do with aesthetic. Furthermore it is also related to the use of traditional vs simplified character set, it deserves to be acknowledged in this article, thus the current section should be retained. Da Vynci 22:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • (-) Please read my statements again, "I’m not saying that aesthetics is not a part of the reasons..." does not mean "aesthetics IS a part of the reasons", it means "aesthetics maybe is a part of the reasons" or "aesthetics could be a part of the reasons". Yes calligraphy is an aesthetic art, but the decision to use traditional characters in calligraphy in itself does not necessarily involve aesthetics. LDHan 23:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • (+) See, your English is really questionable, both the words "is" and "could" contain positivity to a statment to a varied extent. So, when you write another sentence to say otherwise , your writing becomes self-contradictive. --Da Vynci 00:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • (-) There is nothing questionable about my use of "is", "could", or "maybe", "possible" etc, I'm absolutely sure fellow native English speakers who are reading this discussion will completely agree with me. LDHan 01:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • (+) Yes, there is nothing questionable about your use of "is", "could", or "maybe", "possible" etc. The problem comes from your logic ( if not language) because in one sentence you said, e.g. "A is/maybe/possibly is part of the reasons"; then the next sentence you said "A is NOT part of the reasons", consequently, your writing became self-contradictive.
If you can't remember, let me refresh your memory:
12:29, 17 July 2007 LDHan said "I’m not saying that aesthetics is not a part of the reasons..."
19:34, 17 July 2007 LDHan said "I do not agree that "aesthetics IS indeed one of the reasons"." --Da Vynci 00:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
So you agree there is nothing questionable about my use of "is", "could", or "maybe", "possible" etc. Then by logic you must agree that my statements "I’m not saying that aesthetics is not a part of the reasons..." and "I do not agree that "aesthetics IS indeed one of the reasons"." do not contradict each other.
Please base your replies on what I actually wrote, not your misinterpretations. My statements do not mean "A is/maybe/possibly is part of the reasons" and "A is NOT part of the reasons" as you claim, but "A is/maybe/possibly is part of the reasons" and "I do not agree that "A IS indeed one of the reasons".". "I do not agree that "A IS indeed one of the reasons"." does not mean "A is NOT part of the reasons" (your misinterpretation), it means "I agree that "A maybe is one of the reasons".".
"I’m not saying that aesthetics is not a part of the reasons..." (my statement) does not mean "aesthetics IS a part of the reasons" (your misinterpretation), it means "aesthetics maybe is a part of the reasons" or "aesthetics could be a part of the reasons". Calligraphy involves aesthetics, but the decision to use traditional characters instead of simplified in calligraphy in itself does not necessarily involve aesthetics. LDHan 04:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)



  • (-) To use your analogy, kungfu involves physical exercise but the choice to do kungfu instead of another martial art eg karate does not necessarily involve physical exercise, reasons could include availability of classes, personal preference etc. "Presumably because of its aesthetic value" is speculation and it violates wikipedia policies, it will be removed by me or other editors. LDHan 12:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • (+) Again, are are stretching it ( or you misunderstood the analogy XD ). It is about the choice of style within a activity, not the choice of activity. Da Vynci 19:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • (+) Here we are talking about traditional character set is chosen in calligraphy, since calligraphy is a visual art so it is reasonable to consider that aesthetic is one of the reasons. In the kungfu analogy would be, if a certain style is chosen as a standard that everyone has to practice in kungfu , it would be untrue to assume that decision base purely on culture etc while excluding physical consideration. In fact, physical consideration should be a major part because if people interested in other culture, they may well choose other activity (such as karate,etc). But here in this article, we are not talking about whether one should choose Chinese calligraphy or Western calligraphy. We are talking about the choice of character sets (b/w trad & simp) when writing the same text, same poem, since the meaning of the poems remain the same with whatever character set you use, the choice is about aesthetic, or at least partly thereof. Da Vynci 19:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • (-) You are not understanding my point, "martial art" is the activity; kungfu, karate etc are the different styles. I could have used the various styles within Chinese martial arts in my analogy, the same argument still applies: kungfu involves physical exercise but the choice to do one style of kungfu instead of another style is not necessarily due to physical exercise, reasons could include availability of classes etc. The choice whether to use traditional characters or not is not necessarily aesthetic. LDHan 19:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • (+) You are the one don't understand, we are not talking about classes availability on a specific day, we are talking about countries and cities under 4 different autonomous governments, all choose traditional over simplified to be used in calligraphy, a visual art. It is wrong and untrue to assume it has nothing to do with aesthetic. Also, your class availability argument is invalid because it is a administrative decision( eg. timetable, classes), while the choice of character set is an artistic decision. Da Vynci 23:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • (-) You are mixing the specific details of one analogy with another. I am not "talking about classes availability on a specific day" in relation to calligraphy either, "availability of classes" was given as an example in relation to kungfu, so your reply is completely invalid as it does not relate to what I wrote. I was expanding on your kungfu analogy, my point is that there are maybe one or more possible reasons to do one style of kungfu instead of another style. I could have used another possible reason as an example, the same argument still applies: kungfu involves physical exercise but the choice to do one style of kungfu instead of another style is not necessarily due to physical exercise, reasons could include (fill in whatever reasons). To make it absolutely clear: calligraphy is an aesthetic art, but the decision to use traditional characters in calligraphy in itself is not necessarily due to aesthetics, there maybe one or more possible reasons, the reasons could include (fill in whatever reasons). LDHan 23:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • (+) Nope, major decision like the choices of character set in the practice of a visual art of calligraphy, whatever the combination of reasons is, aesthetic consideration is inevitable. I suggest you study the concept of visual art, calligraphy and reasoning further. Da Vynci 00:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • (+) Also I have just added a governmental reference to the article to support my argument (aesthetic is one of the reason for using traditional characters in calligraphy) , unless you find a governmental reference that states "aesthetic has nothing to do with the use of traditional characters in calligraphy", I recommend you to relinquish on this subject matter.--Da Vynci 00:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • (-) I have stated my argument in clear logical terms, and I have refuted every one of your replies by showing they do not follow logic and correct reasoning. Please can you state why aesthetic consideration is inevitable in the choice of character set used in calligraphy? Your argument is that it is because calligraphy is an aesthetic art is not a valid reason. LDHan 01:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • (+) Well, since you have been constantly changing your positions by denying arguments (including your own) with excessive use of double negative, I don't think you stated your argument well, nor they are in logical terms. --Da Vynci 03:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • (+) For your question regarding aesthetic consideration. It is because it is a visual art (not "aesthetic art" as you stated, because there is no such term). In visual art of calligraphy, the primary goal is to create aesthetic pleasing and meaningful works. Both above concerns must be considered when a artistic choice need to be made, be it the choice of paper, the choice of ink brush, the choice of ink, and in this case, the choice of character set. Hence, aesthetic considerable is more or less inevitable because aesthetic is a primary concern of that art. It is a valid reason supported by formal reference. --Da Vynci 03:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I have been completely consistent in my statements and have never denied what I actually wrote, it is you who is changing your arguments each time I have refuted your replies by showing they do not follow logic and correct reasoning. First you say aesthetics is inevitable in the choice of character set, now you say it is "more or less inevitable". Your reply is invalid because it is based on your changed position that it is "more or less inevitable", whereas my previous reply to your argument was based on your previous position that it is "inevitable". It is because you have no valid replies to my argument that you consistently use false analogy, false reasoning that are not based on what I actually wrote but your misinterpretations, accusations of non-existant self-contradiction in my statements, and now finally a complete U-turn in your argument, from something being "inevitable" to "more or less inevitable". This is akin to changing eg "it is inevitable that I will die" to "it is more or less inevitable that I will die". The first means "I will die", the second "I’ll probably die but might not". This is just an example to illustrate the qualitive difference between the two statements, not an argument on whether or not human beings can live forever, have a soul, or if there’s an afterlife, nor is it a comment on medical science etc, so please don't reply with something like "Actually if human consciousness can be transferred to non-organic matter...".
Please do not be offended, and none is intended, if I suggest that if you do not fully comprehend English sentences such as "I did not say that I did not do something" or that you think it means the same as "I did do something", then perhaps this discussion cannot go any further.
Sorry about my mistake about "aesthetic art", you are correct it is a visual art. Of course calligraphy involves aesthetic choices, all I am saying is that the choice of character sets in itself does not necessarily involve aesthetics. I'm sorry but you will not be able to prove that this is not a valid statement. LDHan 04:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • (-) I did not say and never have said nor claimed that "aesthetic has nothing to do with the use of traditional characters in calligraphy". And please provide a translation, or use references in English because this is English language wikipedia, and also because assertions supported by references need to be worded in a NPOV and reflect accurately what the references say. LDHan 01:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • (+) Well, there you go, you said it yourself, you said you disagreed that "aesthetic has nothing to do with the use of traditional characters in calligraphy", do you aware what you have just said?? The above sentence means you agree that "there is a connection between aesthetic and the use of traditional characters in calligraphy". If it is really what you think, our debate can end here. --Da Vynci 01:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • (+) Also, I added in the translation. --Da Vynci 03:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your translation. Please base your replies on what I actually wrote, not your misinterpretations. I wrote I did not say and never have said nor claimed that "aesthetic has nothing to do with the use of traditional characters in calligraphy"., it is not the same as your misinterpretations of what I wrote: that I "disagreed that "aesthetic has nothing to do with the use of traditional characters in calligraphy"" nor that I "agree that "there is a connection between aesthetic and the use of traditional characters in calligraphy". If I have not said something, how is it possible for me to disagree with it? Not saying something e.g. "aesthetic has nothing to do with the use of traditional characters in calligraphy" does not mean disagreeing with it.
Your statement major decision like the choices of character set in the practice of a visual art of calligraphy, whatever the combination of reasons is, aesthetic consideration is inevitable. because calligraphy itself involves aesthetic choices and is a visual art, is logically false. I can state now that you will not be able to prove by logic that it is a valid statement. I have refuted every one of your replies by showing they do not follow logic and correct reasoning. Please can you state why aesthetic consideration is inevitable in the choice of character set (trad vs simp) used in calligraphy? Your argument is that it is because calligraphy involves aesthetic choices and is a visual art are not valid reasons. LDHan 04:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Four Olds campaign[edit]

The unsourced pov assertion referred to in my edit [4] was "It is important to note..." not whether or not the Four Olds campaign happened in whatever year. Was character simplification, which had started many years earlier, a part of the Four Olds campaign? If it was then more can be added to the article about this. If not then then it is irrelevant. LDHan 16:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It is absolutely relevant. The Four olds campaign destroyed anything old and "traditional". Traditional Chinese character, the name saids it all. You don't see me referencing the detonation of atomic bomb in 1964 and tie it with simplified characters, right? Benjwong 16:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Are you saying character simplification, which had started many years earlier, was a part of the Four Olds campaign? LDHan 17:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It might be best if you see it in reverse. Do you agree that a round of simplified characters and the old fours campaigns were pushed out around the same time. Benjwong 17:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

By not answering my question in both your replies, and also because your reply of "It is absolutely relevant." to my comment of "If not then then it is irrelevant.", I take it that you are saying that character simplification, which had started many years earlier, was not a part of the Four Olds campaign. LDHan 07:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I am shocked that you suggest the Four Olds is not relevant.... that is equivalent to saying the nanking massacre is not related to the sino-japanese war because it wasn't part of a military campaign. Whether the Four olds came a few years before or after character simplification, it actually doesn't matter. The "intention" behind character simplification is what matters. Every statistics released by the party from 1950 to at least 1989 Tiananmen Square has been challenged to some degree by the international community. If they released a report to show low literacy level and suggested a need to change characters, would it be far fetched to say those statistics have flaws too. Benjwong 14:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, we've established a basic fact; character simplification was not a part of the Four Olds campaign. I'll clarify what I wrote earlier; "Was character simplification, which had started many years earlier, a part of the Four Olds campaign? If it was then more can be added to the article about this. If not then then the Four Olds campaign is not relevant to character simplification." Your statement The Four olds campaign destroyed anything old and "traditional" is of course nonsense, the Four Olds specifically only targeted certain aspects of "traditional" Chinese culture. So the facts and dates do not matter? This is like the saying "let's not let a few inconvenient facts get in the way of a good story".
As you know, a wikipedia article is not a random collection of facts nor a vehicle for original research or interpretation of historical events for the purpose of advancing a particular viewpoint. However, if character simplification, along with other movements and campaigns e.g. the Four Olds were all part of the intention to destroy "traditional" Chinese culture, then of course the correct article to deal with this is Movements and campaigns that had the intention of destroying "traditional" Chinese culture.
If you want to add content to this article about the "intention" behind character simplification, then please do, with appropriate sources and references, and written in a NPOV of course. LDHan 15:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

This is hardly random. You make it seem like I have some political agenda against simplified chinese. If I did, why am I putting the characters in all the food articles? I am interested in the historical reasoning, which is practically being censored. First off, if you look at links like this, every day the PRC admit to literacy decline. Now you got to ask, why are they not doing "more" character simplifications now, especially when the economy is stable? The reality is that it was all part of the series of events around the time of the Four olds destruction. An article like Movements and campaigns that had the intention of destroying "traditional" Chinese culture would serve no purpose but create another list. Benjwong 16:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Why would such an article have to be a list? I didn't say it would be called "List of movements and campaigns that had the intention of destroying "traditional" Chinese culture".
Please see Wikipedia:No_original_research and in particular WP:Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. I am also interested in the reasons for character simplification. No one is censoring anybody from adding relevant information on the reasons for character simplification, provided of course it is not original research and is sourced from reputable published works. At the moment the sentence about the Four Olds in the article reads just like a random fact, all it says is that it happened or started in a certain year, it doesn't say what connection it had with character simplification. LDHan 05:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you realize there are quite a number of statements in this article with no references that can also be classified as original research.... serving to advance a position? Benjwong 05:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

So? What has that got to do with this discussion? If you want to discuss these other statements, please start a new discussion. In fact I have done so for you, assuming you are talking mainly about the Simplified Chinese character#Debate on traditional and simplified Chinese characters section. LDHan 18:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Since the section of the article this discussion is about has been moved to its own article: Debate on traditional and simplified Chinese characters, I have copied this discussion to that article's talk page, and any further discussion can continue there. LDHan 16:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Debate on traditional and simplified Chinese characters[edit]

I think this section should be moved to its own article because it will help to separate descriptions of facts about simplified characters and descriptions of opinions regarding their use. Then any discussion on descriptions of opinions regarding their use can take place in that article. LDHan 18:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

So seeing that there doesn’t seem to be any objections, I’ll go ahead and do it. LDHan 18:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do. Benjwong 19:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. LDHan 19:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Teaching Chinese as a Foreign Language[edit]

I added some additional information to help globalise this section in the article on simplified and traditional Chinese. Perhaps those with additional knowledge could add their pieces as well. 218.102.185.189 14:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

NOTE ABOUT TEXT:

Hi, as a student at SOAS university I would like to point that chinese characters, simplified and traditional are taught from the beginning, even doing the course as a minor, which I do, you are taught characters, here is a link to my own course at SOAS.

http://www.soas.ac.uk/studying/coursedetail.cfm?coursesunitsid=1276

We are expected to learn 400 character (simplified, however, in some cases the teacher has shown us the traditional version where they believe that it will help further our study after completing the course)

This is a link to the Chinese BA outline, which is 4 years, 2nd in China. http://www.soas.ac.uk/studying/courseinfo.cfm?courseinfoid=65

128.86.172.159 14:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC) SOAS Student

DLI's course is harder. We learned the pronunciation of the initials and finals, and has a list of 50 characters we had to memorize before class the next day. Jaguitar (talk) 23:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Locked?[edit]

This page should be locked as it does attract some controversy. -68.4.73.34 02:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Viewing problems[edit]

I am having problems seeing the characters and i presume a lot of other people are as well. Can someone add pictures instead please. Gaia Octavia Agrippa (talk) 12:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


Please do not undo the add-on in the Simplified Chinese characters page[edit]

This discussion was copied from Benjwong's user talk page. Please continue here. --Atitarev (talk) 04:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Benjwong, your attitude to simplified characters is clear but this page is about the Simplified Characters, not about the argument against them. If you wish to talk pro and contra, this can be taken to another page. The HK and Taiwan products have been supplying subtitles in simplified in addition to the traditional, no need for a reference to the obvious fact - it's demand driven. Sorry, but I think you won't achieve anything by removing the facts. --Atitarev (talk) 02:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not fact. For starters if a product is NOT pirated, and is legit mainstream.... it will not have simplified characters in HK. If it does have simplified characters, it will be specified exactly as mainland version. This goes for real CDs, movies, products. What you see online in web stores is not an accurate depiction of what's actually sold in HK or Taiwan. Benjwong (talk) 03:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
It IS a fact. The US Amazon.com and many others sell these products to anyone and usually you don't even need to check if subtitles in simplified characters are available. Can you name a movie made in the last five years or so in HK or Taiwan, for which there is no simplified version (sold officially, not pirated)? The same applies to these products off the shelf in Australia. Looking at your profile, I see it's no use to discuss this with you one to one, will have to get more attention from other users.
No need to hate simplified characters, remember that they serve the communication purpose for a huge number of people and is the preferred version for many Chinese speakers and also learners. BTW, I respect and am learning the traditional characters too. --Atitarev (talk) 03:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I still don't think you are understanding. Ok I just said what you see online stores is not an accurate depiction of what is sold in HK. And then you mention US Amazon.com right back. That kind of completely ignored everything I said. Let me re-explain. First off China does all the CD sealing and minting in their factories. They can do whatever they want. That part is fact. Though on a normal day everything in HK is traditional chinese, that goes for 99% of the products. If it is available in simplified chinese, the CD/movie is immediately classified as "mainland China" version and it is often 25 to 40% cheaper because of it. These products are almost treated like mis-prints. For you to tell everyone HK offer simplified char products is almost an insult if you know what I am trying to say. Benjwong (talk) 03:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I am done for now, if you reply I'll answer you back later. Benjwong (talk) 03:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Movie 無間道/无间道 ("Infernal Affairs") sold in HK? Does this help? As Mandarin is important for selling these type of products to a broader range of customers, so is the inclusion of the simplified characters.
What was the topic about? PRC citizens are exposed to TC because they watch HK/Taiwan movies? What was my addition about? It's not the case in the last years, since HK and Taiwan add SC. Where's the insult? You don't consider inclusion of English as an insult to the Chinese culture? I am copying this discussion in full to the appropriate page. --Atitarev (talk) 03:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Simplified Characters on Hong Kong/Taiwan producst. (Please do not undo the add-on)[edit]

Please do not undo the add-on in the Simplified Chinese characters page[edit]

This discussion was copied from Benjwong's user talk page. Please continue here. --Atitarev (talk) 04:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Benjwong, your attitude to simplified characters is clear but this page is about the Simplified Characters, not about the argument against them. If you wish to talk pro and contra, this can be taken to another page. The HK and Taiwan products have been supplying subtitles in simplified in addition to the traditional, no need for a reference to the obvious fact - it's demand driven. Sorry, but I think you won't achieve anything by removing the facts. --Atitarev (talk) 02:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not fact. For starters if a product is NOT pirated, and is legit mainstream.... it will not have simplified characters in HK. If it does have simplified characters, it will be specified exactly as mainland version. This goes for real CDs, movies, products. What you see online in web stores is not an accurate depiction of what's actually sold in HK or Taiwan. Benjwong (talk) 03:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
It IS a fact. The US Amazon.com and many others sell these products to anyone and usually you don't even need to check if subtitles in simplified characters are available. Can you name a movie made in the last five years or so in HK or Taiwan, for which there is no simplified version (sold officially, not pirated)? The same applies to these products off the shelf in Australia. Looking at your profile, I see it's no use to discuss this with you one to one, will have to get more attention from other users.
No need to hate simplified characters, remember that they serve the communication purpose for a huge number of people and is the preferred version for many Chinese speakers and also learners. BTW, I respect and am learning the traditional characters too. --Atitarev (talk) 03:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I still don't think you are understanding. Ok I just said what you see online stores is not an accurate depiction of what is sold in HK. And then you mention US Amazon.com right back. That kind of completely ignored everything I said. Let me re-explain. First off China does all the CD sealing and minting in their factories. They can do whatever they want. That part is fact. Though on a normal day everything in HK is traditional chinese, that goes for 99% of the products. If it is available in simplified chinese, the CD/movie is immediately classified as "mainland China" version and it is often 25 to 40% cheaper because of it. These products are almost treated like mis-prints. For you to tell everyone HK offer simplified char products is almost an insult if you know what I am trying to say. Benjwong (talk) 03:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I am done for now, if you reply I'll answer you back later. Benjwong (talk) 03:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Movie 無間道/无间道 ("Infernal Affairs") sold in HK? Does this help? As Mandarin is important for selling these type of products to a broader range of customers, so is the inclusion of the simplified characters.
What was the topic about? PRC citizens are exposed to TC because they watch HK/Taiwan movies? What was my addition about (the one you removed)? It's not the case in the last years, since HK and Taiwan add SC. Where's the insult? You don't consider inclusion of English subtitles as an insult to the Chinese culture? I am copying this discussion in full to the appropriate page (done). I can see no point in you saying where the product is actually sold. The subtitles in SC (soft or hard) are done in HK and Taiwan (in addition TC). --Atitarev (talk) 03:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
English is really different. It was always a bonus add-on. Simplified chars is practically a replacement by force. If you want to compare from a HK store view. Here is a sample taiwan film in traditional chinese for $21.99. Here is the same movie in simplified chinese for $11.99. Benjwong (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

87555[edit]

gao shen me a xian zai hai mei wai guo ban .........qie! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.3.156.17 (talk) 03:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Ni zai shuo shenme? Dasani 07:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
"What are you doing? There stil is no foreign version..... cheh!"  ??? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Malaysia?[edit]

When were the Simplified Chinese characters introduced to Malaysia? My mother is Chinese, but was born and raised in Malaysia (1960, if it matters). She moved to the US in 1984 and is fluent in speaking, reading, and writing Traditional Chinese characters (Cantonese, Mandarin, and Chaozhou). However, I see more recent and younger Chinese residents of Malaysia posting in online communities, writing Simplified Chinese. Anybody know? Perhaps it could be added to the article. Dasani 07:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I was working on Second round of simplified Chinese characters from a book called Planning Chinese Characters: Reaction, Evolution or Revolution? and there was no mention of Malaysia one way or the other. But the sentence in the article (as it was when I got there) says, "These are the simplified Chinese characters that are used today in Mainland China, Malaysia and Singapore." If someone does add to this article, please add the source used to that article as well.
And of course any translation help on that article would be great too. A few contacts never got back to me... Recognizance (talk) 06:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Merger[edit]

The Multiple association of converting Simplified Chinese to Traditional Chinese is unlikely to ever be much more than a stub and is currently orphaned. I think we should move the page here to have it in context. Thoughts? Akerbeltz (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion has ended; please see here. Airplaneman 19:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

External links[edit]

First, this page should definitely link to the multi-association page -- it is extremely useful. Since that one is more in the nature of a reference, it doesn't really make sense to actually merge it in to this one though.

Second, instead of miscellaneous links to commercial programs (is wikipedia supposed to be an ad clearing house), it would be nice if external links to something useful like an official list of simplifications could be given. (It's in the process of a google search for just such a list that I came across this page.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.27 (talk) 16:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Template overlay bug[edit]

don't know if it is my browser but the template "Template:Contains Chinese text" is having some of the initial main body text written over the top left hand corner of it. the template itself is protected but I wouldn't know how to edit it anyway. The window my browser is a bit narrow which is why i can see this problem. I leave it up to a wiki guru to sort this! Hornsofthebull (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Text template overlay.jpg

here's a screenshot of the problemfeel free to delete the file once you've fixed the template ...HORNS OF THE BULL... 16:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Comparison with shinjitai[edit]

So how does this compare with shinjitai? In that article, it states that some shinjitai characters are simplified in the same way as their Chinese counterparts. This can't have just been coincidence! Did the Chinese simplifiers take some cues from the Japanese? Or vice versa? Brutannica (talk) 06:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Many simplified characters have existed since the 12th Century, as Variant Chinese characters. Such characters were employed into official, day-to-day use during the 20th Century because they appeared more simple than their commonly-used equivalents, and thus were easier to write. They did not just pop out from nowhere in the middle of the 1940s-60s. For example, 国, 干, 云 and 爱 are all present in antiquity from texts, even though they have traditional equivalents of 國, 幹/乾 (merged character), 雲 and 愛. The problem lies in that governments and organisations have a strong preference for character unification; that is, it would be inefficient to have many characters for the same word (i.e. in the education system, or reading a paper), which is why the PRC, ROC and Japanese Governments regulate which Kanji/Hanzi to use, and what is discouraged. There are about 7 different ways to write , for example, namely 國, 国, 囯, 圀, 囶, 囻, and Guo korean variant.PNG. That said, although many simplified/Shinjitai characters are from antiquity, there are those that are not, those that are modern inventions. This is how we come across differences between Simplified and Shinjitai, for example, 東 and 东 (东 is a modern invention, derived from the Cursive script of traditional 東, which is not simplified in Japanese), 電 and 电 (removal of detail), 開 and 开 (removal of a 門 door radical), 語 and 语 (replacing a radical with a simplified form), 樂/乐/楽 as with 氣/气/気, 龍/龙/竜, 龜/龟/亀 (different ideas by Chinese/Japanese linguists as to how to simplify a character). -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 01:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

简化字?[edit]

简化字 is never used nor seen in Mainland China... the term 简体字 is exclusively used... those who are reverting to 简化字, can you provide a source stating that 简化字 is officially used? And don't cite ZH Wikipedia, as it is an open-content site and thus do not meet criteria for WP:RS. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 01:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I also fear that there is a point trying to being made by users; "简化" can be synonymous to "reduce culture" or "simplify culture", and so may have a political reason. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 01:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Benlisquare, it's the same issue with 正体字, which, of course, is used by some Taiwanese who are snobbish enough to think they are inherently better than their mainland compatriots and are thus intolerant towards them. ---何献龙4993 (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
They also have separate articles for zh:简化字 and zh:简体字 now, which is rather odd, if they refer to the same thing. Makes one wonder how they organize things over there. Rōnin (talk) 09:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

So now someone's gone ahead and changed 简体字 to 简化字 in the intro... I've looked at the Chinese wikipedia, and it's got no less than three articles corresponding to this one; zh:简体中文, zh:簡化字 and zh:简体字. Is there some sort of conflict going on on the Chinese Wikipedia or what? Rōnin (talk) 11:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Heh, we could always put a case to include 簡筆字 as we call them in Cantonese ;) However, returning to the topic, most books I have list them as 簡體字/简体字 - I too would like to see some evidence that in terms of a generic term for simplified characters that's not the one to use anymore. Without the accusations please. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I've just rewritten (and corrected lots of mistakes while I was at it) the Method of Simplification section of the Chinese version of this article (see diff). Without going into lots of details, I will just say that 简化字 indeed is the right word. Not only is it the word used to name the official documents (zh:简化字总表, etc.), it also correctly describes the process of simplification. The process of simplification is not limited to "structure simplification" which 简体字 means. The process includes eliminating equivalent characters thus reducing the complexity of the lexicon. So soon I will change it in the lead section to 简化字, as part of my upcoming rewrite of many parts of this article. Fred Hsu (talk) 01:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Overseas Chinese[edit]

"Among overseas Chinese communities (except for Singapore and Malaysia), traditional characters are most commonly used." Says who? The reference given was published in 1997, which is 13 years ago; much has changed since then. In overseas communities in Europe and the Americas, simplified is becoming more widespread as immigration from mainland China increases. The number of immigrants from mainland China outnumber those from Hong Kong, Malaysia and Taiwan in Australia, for instance. More recent sources are required to verify this claim. The one currently being used is outdated, and thus is no longer as reliable in representing the current situation. You wouldn't use a book written in 1985 to discuss the current political situation in the Arab-Israeli conflict now, would you? It's the same principle here, where printed sources will inevitably become outdated. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 10:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Until one finds cite-able evidence to the contrary, one has little standing to dispute the validity of the claims from a cited source, irrespective of age of said source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.74.149.194 (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2010

Page 800 in Wang, Horng-luen. "National culture and its discontents: The politics of heritage and language in Taiwan, 1949-2003." Comparative studies in society and history 46.4 (2004): 786-815. "The Chinese language standardized by the PRC has gradually won overall dominance over that of the ROC. To begin with, the total number of users of simplified characters is overwhelmingly greater than those who use traditional characters. At one time some might have argued that simplified characters were only used in the confined territory of the PRC, but the situation has changed, as Chinese characters are becoming ever more visible globally with increasing flows of people, commodities, and culture from and through the PRC. The politics of Chinese language has now overflowed territorial boundaries into transnational arenas. There have been debates within overseas Chinese communities regarding whether their descendants in North America should learn Chinese in simplified or traditional characters (United Daily News, 1 Dec. 1996). On 1 July 1992, the PRC's official mouthpiece, People's Daily (Renmin Ribao), changed its overseas edition from traditional characters to simplified ones, claiming that "the condition of using simplified characters [overseas] has basically matured, as simplified characters have become an accepted fact among the absolute majority of Chinese people in the world." In response, the ROC government made extra efforts to countercheck what one ROC high official called the "globalization of simplified characters." 12
12 The ROC's Council for Overseas Chinese proposed to spend US$ 3,000,000 in promoting complex characters among overseas Chinese communities (Central Daily News, 4 Oct. 1998)." Shrigley (talk) 06:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

One of many standards[edit]

See Talk:Traditional_Chinese_characters#About_standards_and_Traditional. Asoer (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

[edit]

I was taught that the traditional form of 够 could be written either way, 句多 or 多句, then for the simplified form they decided to stick with the former and discarded the latter.Ancius (talk) 08:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. This character is in fact dealt with in "Series One Organization List of Variant Characters", not "Complete List of Simplified Characters". This is not part of structural simplification, but part of lexicon reduction. Please refer to the newly rewritten section "Method of simplification" of this article. Fred Hsu (talk) 03:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

"mainland Chinese immigrants"[edit]

"Overseas Chinese communities generally use traditional characters, but simplified characters are often used among mainland Chinese immigrants."

Excuse me if I'm being slow here, but does "mainland Chinese immigrants" mean people who have moved from mainland China to another country? The implication of this would then be that "overseas Chinese communities" are generally composed of people who have not moved from mainland China? I feel this could be worded more clearly. 86.160.222.55 (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to reorganize a few sections[edit]

I've just rewritten the Method of Simplification section in the Chinese version of this article (diff). I plan to rewrite the same section here. But before that, I think a slight reorganization of sections is in order. I propose the following initial sections. The 'Extend' section should be split then absorbed into these two groups. Fred Hsu (talk) 01:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

  1. Origins and history
    1. Mainland China
    2. Singapore and Malaysia
    3. Hong Kong
    4. Comparison with Japanese simplification
  1. Method of simplification
    1. Structural simplification of characters
    2. Derivation based on simplified character components
    3. Elimination of variants of the same character
    4. Adoption of new standardized character forms

So I've made these changes. And more. I went through the lead section as well to enhance it a bit. Here is a pictorial preview of what is to come. I haven't yet added layers to my master SVG file to provide English captions. Fred Hsu (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Temporarily removed contents[edit]

While rewriting the Method section, I am removing some contents which I may resurrect later. Fred Hsu (talk) 01:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

(the first bullet is actually just an excerpt of the full Retired Variants list which contains one thousand characters. The second is probably not very important in the grand scheme of things)

  • Appendix, which contains:
    • 39 characters that are officially considered to be cases where a complicated variant character has been abolished in favour of a simpler variant character, rather than where a complicated character is replaced by a newly-created simpler character. However, these characters are commonly considered to have been simplifications, so they are included here for reference purposes.
    • 35 place names that have been modified to replace rare characters with more common ones. These are not character simplifications, because it is the place names that were being modified, not the characters themselves. One place name has since been reverted to its original version.
  • 1,027 variant characters deemed obsolete as of the final revision in 1993. Some of these are obsolete in Taiwan and Hong Kong as well, but others remain in use.

Merging a character into another one that sounds the same or similar:

  • ; ; ; etc.

简笔字/簡筆字[edit]

Is there a reason this name variant isn't listed? Akerbeltz (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You meant zh:簡筆字. I don't even know how this should be named in English. There is a reason why that article has zero sister-wikipedia links. Fred Hsu (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
No I meant up in the lead where other names than Ganfaji are mentioned. Akerbeltz (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Example of Incorrect Derivation Based on Intuition[edit]

The entire section by this name is essentially someone's personal opinion. The title alleges that the derivations are "incorrect" (by whose judgement?), and the text describes ostensible irregularities in the simplification process as "alleged", students who observe them as "oblivious", examples supporting the hypothesis as "appearing to support" it, and any person who concludes that it is as "tempted to conclude".

"In reality," it continues, " appears in Chart 1. is listed in Chart 2. And is a derived characters found in the non-exhausted list in Chart 3. Therefore, , not , is a 'simplified character component'." then comes more references to the charts, before the author concludes that "Thus one can conclude with confidence that they are not simplified characters. And in fact they are not; they remain unchanged from traditional forms in the "List of General Used Characters in Modern Chinese". As demonstrated, the simplification process and rules are completely consistent internally despite claims to the contrary by opponents of simplification."

While the author has shown the simplification process to be consistent with the charts, most of the other claims made are pure matters of opinion. I'm going to rewrite it a bit to reflect this. Rōnin (talk) 10:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I've rewritten the text slightly and put the information into its own section. The old version contained a bit of circular reasoning: It attempted to prove that the simplification process was regular by referring to the charts detailing the simplification process, but the regularity of those charts is in itself part of the issue in question. Therefore, instead of claiming that the simplifications are provably regular, the section now emphasizes that the simplifications are in accordance with the charts. Rōnin (talk) 10:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I placed these clarification paragraphs in their appropriate 'methods' sections. But I have no issues with your rearrangement. I also have no issues with your rewording to make the sentences less confrontational. That's fine by me.
Despite the color of the language which you have since toned down, these writings are not my own personal opinion. Please see the two references I cited. You should also check out the Chinese version of this article before I rewrote it. In particular, that 'example of incorrect derivation based on intuition' was taken from our very own Wikipedia article. To wit: the methods section before I completely debugged and rewrote it. The web is filled with garbage and misinformation when it comes to actual simplification methods. As a lifelong traditional Chinese writer, I was not very happy with the state of things. Thus I studied the simplification process and wrote both Chinese and English versions of this article. I invite you to find a better written and more accurate account online. Fred Hsu (talk) 04:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Also check out the Talk page of the Chinese version for additional info if you wish. Fred Hsu (talk) 04:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Ah, thank you for pointing that out. My statement about it being all personal opinion was slightly uninformed. However, I'm glad if the slightly reworded text still captures the original intention. Rōnin (talk) 07:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
No problem, my friend. We are all working to make Wikipedia better. Thanks for editing :) Fred Hsu (talk) 05:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Minimum font size for readability?[edit]

What is the normal smallest font size for readability? Since web browsers started out from non-Chinese authors, font sizes appear to be designed for the simpler English characters with much broader and thicker strokes than Chinese characters.

Personally, I don't see how native readers of Chinese can find these complex symbols to legible at all at the sizes they appear in this article.

Are all Chinese just simply expected to have exceptionally sharp vision to see tiny important shapes represented by 1-2 pixels of detail?

Is part of the simplification to improve readability for small font sizes with typographic printing and computer displays?


Browser font sizes, using article intro: "simplified Chinese: 简体中文; traditional Chinese: 簡體中文"

1: 简体中文 / 簡體中文

2: 简体中文 / 簡體中文

3: 简体中文 / 簡體中文

4: 简体中文 / 簡體中文


5: 简体中文 / 簡體中文


6: 简体中文 / 簡體中文


7: 简体中文 / 簡體中文


Which of these would be considered a "more normal" minimum font size for fully legible typography of simple vs traditional?

Also, which one would be considered the minimum size for legible handwriting/hand-stamping of simple vs traditional?

(Set browser page zoom to 100% for accurate sizing)


DMahalko (talk) 02:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC) (...I don't speak or read Chinese)

I can read the phrase at even smaller sizes than the smallest one you've posted. Just as with the Latin alphabet, when one already knows a character or word, one can recognize it without even looking at the finest details. As for which character set is more legible; it probably varies from character to character, as extra strokes can facilitate recognition in some cases and impede it in others. I don't have any data on which is more legible in general. Rōnin (talk) 12:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Chinese characters are often whole words in English, but the size of a character printed in books is not much bigger than a Latin letter. The result is that books translated into Chinese are thinner.--89.14.74.28 (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Simplified Chinese with more strokes[edit]

I can swear there are simplified Chinese characters that have more strokes than the traditional ones although the difference is little. Could you give some examples?--89.14.74.28 (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)