Talk:Weixian Internment Camp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

==Apologies to the more professional Wikipedia editors here for my clumsy edits in the past few days. I have tried to add more details to the page but perhaps the most obvious adjustment is the use of Weihsien over Weixian. Granted, as below, this is a somewhat obscure piece of history, but it continues to be reported on, mostly in English and Chinese media, and I would point out that these reports continue to use the spelling of Weihsien to refer to the camp--even the Chinese version of the wikipedia page does so, and there are bilingual publications and references in China that continue to use the Weihsien spelling. I'm normally in favour of pinyin, but for cases where the old spelling continues in contemporary use for whatever reason (ie, Peking University, etc), I think that Wikipedia should probably reflect that.

Choosing a name for the internment camp at Weihsien is not clear-cut. Only the Japanese referred to it as a Civil Assembly Center, perhaps echoing the euphemism for internment camps in the United States. The internees themselves called it an internment camp, prison camp, or concentration camp. Nobody, to my knowledge, has used the phrase "Weihsien Compound," although it does seem to play off the book "Shantung Compound," by Langdon Gilkey, that is about the camp. Also, the town of Weihsien is now known as Weifang, with Weixian being the contemporary pinyin spelling of the old name of Weihsien, which sometimes appears as Wei Hsien or Wei-hsien.

Just to add to that: the Pinyin spelling Weixian suggests the proper pronunciation is similar to "Way-Shian". Why exactly has Weihsien ("Way-Sien") become the standard English spelling? Is it even standard? Would be nice to get some clarity on this point.Nojamus (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree, it shouldn't be called Weihsien Compound: it was known as an internment camp to its internees,not a compound. 81.154.143.3 (talk) 09:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
A Google Books search gives 294 results for "Weihsien Internment Camp", 53 for "Weihsien Compound", 34 for "Weixian Internment Camp", and 1 for "Weixian Compound", so per WP:COMMONNAME the article should be moved to "Weihsien Internment Camp". As to the spelling, "Weihsien" is the old Wade–Giles Romanization corresponding to modern pinyin Weixian, and was standard at the time -- they are both pronounced the same. BabelStone (talk) 09:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 10 January 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Weixian Internment Camp. The nominator and single support vote agreed on making the move, but did not completely agree on whether to use pinyin or not. I sense the conversation was leaning towards using the pinyin version, per the house style, WP:PINYIN, so going with that. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 13:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)



Weihsien CompoundWeihsien Internment Camp – Common name as indicated by discussion on this page and Google Books search: "Weihsien Internment Camp" 294, "Weihsien Compound" 53, "Weixian Internment Camp" 34, and "Weixian Compound" 1. --Relisted.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC) BabelStone (talk) 09:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

  • I am fine with the proposed move per nom but would prefer a move to Weixian Internment Camp per WP:PINYIN. Pinyin didn't really exist in English sources until the 1980s so there will naturally be more hits for the older Wade-Giles spelling of Weihsien, but as pinyin is increasingly dominant in English-language scholarship and is the Wikipedia sanctioned transliteration, I prefer to go with that. —  AjaxSmack  20:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
    @BabelStone: do you have an opinion on the alternative spelling proposed by @AjaxSmack:? I am also relisting this now, to see if we can get some more input.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't object to using pinyin (i.e. Weixian Internment Camp), but thought that WP:COMMONNAME was the appropriate policy here. WP:NC-CHINA states that "Use pinyin for place names in China unless another form is more well-established in current English usage" -- I guess the question is whether "Weixian Internment Camp" is now replacing "Weihsien Internment Camp" in usage. Might be worth asking for input on WT:CHINA. BabelStone (talk) 08:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with counting hits à la WP:COMMONNAME for major topics like Sun Yat-sen and the Nanking Massacre but this is a relatively obscure topic in English and with so few references overall, the WP house pinyin style should kick in. We do this with many other figures and events in Chinese history where usage is mixed. See, for example, Category:Battles of the Second Sino-Japanese War for a few of such cases.  AjaxSmack  23:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Weixian Internment Camp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)