Email this user

User Talk:Benlisquare

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

Chaoji niubi.png

718smiley.png


Hyperdimension Neptunia characters[edit]

Recent discussion on Talk:Hyperdimension_Neptunia#Proposed_merge_with_List_of_Hyperdimension_Neptunia_characters that you might be interested. Thanks. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Are these the correct Chinese characters?[edit]

In File:HappyAllRestaurantHoustonTX.JPG did I type in the correct Chinese characters for the restaurant?

BTW I think I got the correct characters for File:MetropoleCenterHoustonTX.jpg but I would like to double-check...

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 22:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: They're all correct. --benlisquareTCE 00:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Follow up on Han Taiwanese[edit]

Hi Benlisquare, sorry to bother you as I know you are probably busy, but I want to follow up on our Han Taiwanese discussion. The creator of the Han Taiwanese article Lysimachi has added a lot of citation tags to the Han Chinese article, such as this [1] and many more (the user has added a lot more citation needed tags). While I have no problem with adding tags to unsourced statements, some of the sentences Lysimachi added tags to are fairly obvious knowledge and now paragraphs after paragraphs are flooded with tags. I'm not sure if Lysimachi is trying to do this to show that Han Chinese/term doesn't exist, or other reasons, but the over flooding of tags is a bit strange. What do you think?--Balthazarduju (talk) 23:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll probably find some time to get back onto Wikipedia and catch up on the time that I've missed eventually. For the time being though, I genuinely have zero time. --benlisquareTCE 13:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you really know the definition of dialect?[edit]

Do you really know the definition of dialect?

I'm in the UK now. Most british classmates agree with me, they say Welsh is another language, dialect is the same language that you can communicate with each other, but the accent or pronunciation of some words may be a little different. That's why I always tell others we should call Mandarin, Cantonese, Shanghainese different Chinese languages, not dialects.

Can you communicate with someone if you speak Mandarin but he/she speaks Cantonese? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonwu889 (talkcontribs) 17:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jasonwu889: This is not about me, this is about community consensus. If you want to make changes, you need to obtain WP:CONSENSUS through talk page dialogue, rather than edit warring. Varieties of Chinese can be called different things ("language", "dialect", "variety", etc.) depending on your personal point of view, and based on the most recent community consensus established at WP:WikiProject China last year (in 2015), varieties of Chinese are to be referred to as dialects; if you disagree with this, start another community discussion on this issue. Per Wikipedia policy, do not engage in edit warring even if you believe that you are correct and everyone else is wrong; Wikipedia is built upon consensus and verifiability, and not "the truth". The problem with your edits is that, although you believe that your edits are "truthful", no academic scholar within the fields of linguistics ever refers to Mandarin as "Beijing accent", they use the word dialect or variety. Your edits refer to Cantonese as a "part of Chinese", which makes no sense from a language glossary standpoint; some scholars call Cantonese a language, some scholars call Cantonese a dialect, but never a "part". Your edits introduce words that are not used in academia, which constitutes WP:Original research. --benlisquareTCE 02:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Also, your Welsh example is rather poor, since English is a Germanic language (Anglo-Saxons migrated from northern Germany and invaded the British isles, they were not indigenous like the Celts), and Welsh is a Celtic language, that's like comparing Russian (East Slavic) and French (Romance). You would have been better off comparing the Croatian language with the Serbian language. In regards to Chinese, the status of "dialect" and "language" is a complex one because not even scholars can agree upon what Chinese varieties are. The disagreement is documented in greater detail within the Chinese language article. --benlisquareTCE 03:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
they [academic scholars within the fields of linguistics] use the word dialect or variety. That's interesting and as far as I'm aware, unheard of. Do you know if this has been discussed on Wikipedia before? It may be worth bringing to discussion. Σσς(Sigma) 01:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
@Σ: Per Varieties of Chinese and Chinese language#Nomenclature, academics based in mainland China generally refer to language varieties of Chinese (e.g. Mandarin, Cantonese, Wuu, Hakka, Hokkien) as dialects. There are many reasons for this, the largest probably being politics-related (since the late 1920s, the Kuomintang government of the Republic of China (1912–49) pushed a somewhat nationalistic mindset that the varieties were merely dialects of the one language, in an effort to promote a sense of national unity); currently in mainland China, arguments often repeated by Chinese linguists include a cross-intelligible writing system (which has more to do with diglossia and linguistic prestige than actual linguistic closeness, in my opinion), parallel etymologies for words and the identical manner in which various expressions are used.

Many linguistics experts in the west, such as Victor H. Mair, refer to Chinese varieties as "Chinese languages" instead, on the basis that there is as much difference between spoken Mandarin and spoken Cantonese than French and Spanish. Conversely, however, those such as Jerry Norman argue that it makes no sense to refer to Mandarin, Cantonese and Hokkien as languages based on the mutual unintelligibility argument because they themselves are language groups with local geographic variants that may not be mutually intelligible with one another (e.g. Hong Kong Cantonese is not mutually intelligible with Cantonese varieties from a wide number of rural Guangdong villages further north). John DeFrancis similarly argues that Chinese varieties cannot be "dialects" due to lack of mutual intelligibility, but cannot be called "languages" either as there is a historic lack of dividing force (e.g. religious, economic, political) to keep them separated.

Note that in the 1930s there was a similar case in Japan, where the Japanese government officially considered Korean and Palauan (see South Pacific Mandate) as dialects of Japanese due to political reasons, and even today the Japanese government considers Ryukyuan languages dialects of Japanese, even though they are not mutually intelligible with Japanese and western linguists consider them a separate language group.

Ultimately, I feel as though the disagreement has more to do with national identity rather than a scientific rationalisation of the aspects of language. Nevertheless, Wikipedia refers to them as Varieties of Chinese, mainland Chinese scholars call them "dialects", and many scholars outside of China call them "Chinese languages". A language is a dialect with an army and navy probably applies here as well. Previous discussions on Wikipedia relating to the issue of Chinese languages and dialects include this, this, this, this; there could be more discussions that I've missed. --benlisquareTCE 04:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. I'm vaguely aware of the political efforts by the Chinese government, indeed to promote national unity. And I'm also aware that western linguists often call them languages, and not dialects.
Chinese varieties [...] cannot be called "languages" either as there is a historic lack of dividing force (e.g. religious, economic, political) to keep them separated. And langues d'Oc or Picard can, why?
And I didn't know about Japan and Ryukyu; that's very interesting, thanks. And I've glanced at those past discussions.
Concerning the article in question, I don't think fully reverting Jasonwu889's replacements is completely warranted, eg in usage of varieties other than Standard Mandarin (Putonghua) is officially discouraged by the government [...] As a result, younger populations are increasingly losing knowledge of their local dialects. (bold indicating the change). And I think leaving the use of "Cantonese dialect" as it is throughout the article may misleadingly suggest that Yue and Mandarin are closely related. Thoughts? Σσς(Sigma) 04:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
@Σ: This discussion primarily arose due to edits that he made which consisted of terms that he essentially made up:
  • This edit is problematic in that it uses the WP:OR "Beijing language" (there is no such thing), and referred to Cantonese as a "part of Chinese" (refer to my comments above, there is no such thing as a "part" in linguistics)
  • This edit is problematic in that it uses the term "Beijing accent", which again, is not used within any academic publications focused on the Chinese languages.
In regards to this article, Wikipedia uses "dialect" within articles throughout the project to describe varieties of Chinese, and so the revert was made on the basis of uniformity, being consistent and systematic between different articles sharing a similar topic, and years-long consensus where the status quo was to use one set of terminology over another (and to explain the differences and disagreements to the reader). Of course, consensus can change, however we would need a formal discussion over the issue to address that before we can move forward. This is why I asked the user to start a discussion thread on the talk page so that editors could come up with an eventual agreement. --benlisquareTCE 05:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Hm, I didn't notice those edits. I found out about this whole thing from reading this article due to unrelated circumstances, and seeing the page history.
Wikipedia uses "dialect" within articles throughout the project to describe varieties of Chinese In the WP:CHINESE discussions you linked to, I didn't see that they ever ended in an agreement on whether to title them as dialects or languages or what, or how to refer to them in articles. They mostly fizzled out after making the moves to remove "(linguistics)" from the titles. And WP:CHINESE itself currently says Which name for each particular variety is best, often depends on the article and its context, for titling. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/China-related_articles#Language says The question of whether the primary lects of Chinese are languages or dialects is disputed. In mainspace, (non-exhaustively sampled) Dialect#Greater China reads: Cantonese is still the most commonly used language [...] (emphasis mine), and Talk:Dialect doesn't seem to have much discussion about it though.
At Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China-related articles, there are discussions about whether "Chinese" means Mandarin. But there's minimal discussion (also in the archives) about languages/dialects etc.
Σσς(Sigma) 19:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
There is a lack of agreement on how to write about Chinese varieties, hence why I would prefer there to be discussion taking place so that we can eventually finalise an ultimate decision on the issue, rather than have different editors at different times make back-and-forth changes all over the place. What we have right now is the current status quo remainingly largely unchallenged for quite a long time, however there are sporadic changes in various articles made by editors who change the terminology to what they personally believe should be used (language/dialect/topolect/regionlect/etc.), and since it's impossible for people to watch over every single article, this is why we are getting more and more inconsistencies between different articles. Rather than having the current situation continue, we really need a formal discussion to be initiated for the purpose of finding an outcome, however until then I'm not sure about letting more editors make back-and-forth changes for terms like the most recent ones mentioned above. --benlisquareTCE 00:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, if that's the status quo then it's hard to come up with cases that actually do challenge it, as vaguely nonexistent as it is. I agree that we should seek a final solution to this question. Do you think an RfC on how to refer to the languages in articles would be reasonable? If so, we might want to compile the necessary evidence and context to prepare for one. Σσς(Sigma) 05:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, a RfC is definitely the way to go. There are various places to advertise it, including WP:WikiProject Linguistics and WP:WikiProject China, to gain the attention of editors familiar with the topic. As for context, we can simply list out the pros and cons for each of the terms that are used by different people, unless you had a more detailed summary in mind. --benlisquareTCE 08:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, you're certainly more knowledgable about the political side, so I'm sure you've already got something in mind. What aspects of linguistics (and its intersection with politics) do you think the summary should focus on, that are most consistent with NPOV and COMMONNNAME for this? Σσς(Sigma) 06:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Check your email. Σσς(Sigma) 03:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
@Σ: My apologies, I've been extremely busy for the past few weeks, and have not have any chance at all to touch base on anything Wikipedia-wise. I have read your email, and think that there isn't a clear-cut solution, but ultimately we would have to make a practical balance between what's verifiable and what's neutral. The situation ultimately is that we are required to place more WP:DUE emphasis on verifiable claims, but it might be the case that this will increase the perception that WP is "taking sides" within the debate as ultimately there is a limited volume of English-language publications which takes the government's side of things.

Accessibility to Chinese print publications is quite difficult as there aren't many internet resources that are reliable by Wikipedia's standards and freely provide the content free of charge (I don't even think Chinese journals use the DOI system). There probably are a few Chinese online websites that discuss the issue of Chinese dialects/languages, but many fall within the realm of non-RS due to being of questionable quality (poor editorial control, resembles more of something from the blogosphere, etc). --benlisquareTCE 14:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary[edit]

Two years ago ...
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Babel
... you were recipient
no. 898 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

About the artical:Chinese Wikipedia (关于Chinese Wikipedia这个条目)[edit]

I can not speak English very well, so please allow me to talk with you in Chinese.Thanks.
en-2 This user can contribute with an intermediate level of English.
zh 該用戶的母語中文
该用户的母语中文
由于在下英文不好,所以请允许我用中文跟您交流,谢谢。

我之前看到Chinese Wikipedia这个条目(article)的第二段“The Chinese Wikipedia is the fourth largest online Chinese encyclopedia after Hudong Baike (互动百科), Baidu Baike (百度百科) and Soso Baike (搜搜百科).”有一个来源请求(Citation needed)的标记,所以就进行了修改。然后刚刚发现了阁下对我的编辑进行了回退(undo),所以想问一下您的回退原因是?

我对那一段的编辑原因是:我不认为中文维基百科是“第四大的网络中文百科全书(the fourth largest online Chinese encyclopedia)”。

首先,我认为这个排序没有意义,而且这个排序也缺乏来源,至少我目前找不到有对中文网络百科全书的排序。如果要我排列的话,我认为中文维基百科至少应该有“第二大(the second largest)”,甚至是“最大(the largest)”。因为我认为这个排序的依据是多方面的,不能单纯从使用人数来排列,还应该综合使用范围。百度百科、搜搜百科、互动百科的主要使用者是来自China中华人民共和国大陆地区。而中文维基百科的主要使用者除了来自China中华人民共和国大陆地区,还来自Hong Kong香港、Macau澳门和Taiwan台湾地区,还有一部分来自 Malaysia(马来西亚)以及 Singapore(新加坡)。所以中文维基百科的使用者很广,比搜搜百科、百度百科和互动百科广。

其次,在中文版本中,也没有提及排名第四这个问题。

所以,我就对那句话进行了修改。如果阁下认为在下的修改不妥,也欢迎阁下提出其他的修改建议。谢谢!

以上です。 --Dqwyy (talk) 06:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@Dqwyy: 回話有點晚,很抱歉。關於回退,你說的有點道理。當時我的看法是,本來條目用的比較方法是看誰的總條目數量最大,把這個改成分地區的比較完全把意思也改變了。我們知道中文維基百科有多少條目,也知道它沒有百度百科和其他百科那麼多;這樣的話,寫成“第四最大的中文百科”不是最自然的比較嗎?來源請求是因為我們沒有來源說它是“第四最大的中文百科”;條目數量數據我們確實在網上可以找到的。

分地區有個問題:大部分英文讀者不會特別明白為什麼我們分地區。別忘記,大部分西方人不太了解兩岸情況,也不怎麼了解馬新半島的語言情況——我們知道這些,因為我們關心這些東西。對於西方讀者的要求,他們的數量比較最容易了解的就是所有中文百科的排名,最簡單寫出來誰大誰小,不分地區。這樣是最自然的比較方法,大部分英文百科讀者不關心這些地區政治,這些互聯網百科都是"Chinese"的,不是嗎?

因為大陸人口最大,這些大陸百科他們編輯者多是肯定的,然後照樣編輯者多就條目寫得多。中文維基百科沒有那麼多,因為大陸以外的地區人口沒那麼多,然後也有中共的防火牆限制大陸編輯者寫條目。如果我們在這個條目中分開大陸的百科和其他地區的百科,這樣看起來好像我們故意的想強調中文維基百科的重要性。 --benlisquareTCE 14:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Benlisquare:嗯,謝謝閣下的回復,我覺得閣下說的也有道理。只是希望閣下有空的話可以幫忙補充一下來源。 --Dqwyy (talk) 13:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Hokkien and Hoklo Americans and Hakka Americans[edit]

Hi, can you take a look at these new articles Hokkien and Hoklo Americans and Hakka Americans.--Balthazarduju (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)