Talk:Debate on traditional and simplified Chinese characters/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Page creation

This article was created with content moved from simplified Chinese character to separate descriptions of facts about simplified characters and descriptions of opinions regarding their use. LDHan 19:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I am still trying to find references for existing stuff that other people put in. It is not finished. Maybe I should put up an INUSE template? BTW please don't think this page sounds biased. Anyone can add any number of arguments. It is currently in the cleanup phase. Benjwong 06:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This one was removed

"The rationale for the simplified form of some characters is hard to trace. Many members of the Committee for Language Reform were purged in the Anti-Rightist Movement or the Cultural Revolution. They had no mandate to consult the broader Chinese academic community. Their personal notes, and the discussion behind this innovation in an ancient language, are lost."

I moved this out. I read the original committee who did the simplification came back between 1980 and 1986 to do more simplification work. Unless someone wants to dispute that they did get purged in those events? Benjwong 07:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Computer paragraph

"Another perspective on the emotional investment in the debate follows a similar issue with computer programming languages: people skilled in any particular language system derive more value from their pre-existing learning investment when more people use and produce works in the language. This provides a selfish motivation for people to encourage others to learn what they already have learned regardless of the details of the system, for the system's details are irrelevant in the face the value of compatibility. Programming language debates have argued over the use of GOTOs, the use of object orientation, and compilation versus interpretation that are sometimes seen later as having been largely pointless or overwhelmingly in favor of one side or the other (see History of programming languages). The basic message of this interpretation is that, as long as there are more than one language, languages will be fiercely promoted and debated no matter what the relative merits of their details are."

I moved this out. The problem with this argument is that it is very loose comparison to computer languages. Maybe even too hi-tech to bring up all these compilation, object-oriented talk. The time it takes to learn a computer language is a few years. A spoken language is a lifetime. Benjwong 15:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Four Olds campaign

The unsourced pov assertion referred to in my edit [1] 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 this article from simplified Chinese character, I have copied the above discussion to here from that article's talk page, and any further discussion can continue here. LDHan 16:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Continuation of "Old Fours" discussion

I have removed "However once he came to power, Mao did the opposite. He launched the Destruction of Four Olds campaign, which explicitly went out to destroy anything considered as "Old Chinese Culture"." from "When the core Communist party members pushed for alphabet, Mao raised the need to preserve Chinese culture and characters for Chinese nationalism. However once he came to power, Mao did the opposite. He launched the Destruction of Four Olds campaign, which explicitly went out to destroy anything considered as "Old Chinese Culture"." because it is factually incorrect, Mao (actually the CCP) modified characters not destroyed them, did not replace character with an alphabet, and Old Fours did not include character simplification or destruction of characters. LDHan 17:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes I saw that it was removed. I thought you were completely against any mentioning of it in the Simplified Chinese character article, which I understand. Which is why it was moved here. To continue the discussion from before.....

It is not in the campaign exactly. It is the intention behind the event + the double standard that is relevant. Mao says protect the characters one minute, then change the characters the next. You said Mao "modified", not "destroyed". So did the red guards who "modified" statues with hammer and "modified" paintings with a knife. Benjwong 20:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Whether characters were "modified or destroyed" is a matter of opinion, another view is that they were "reformed". The problem with the above paragraph is the unsourced and unreferenced linking of character simplification itself with the Old fours, you yourself accepts that character simplification was not a part of the Old Fours. However if some people hold the view that character simplification, the Old Fours, the Cultural Revolution were all part of the CCP's intention to destroy "traditional Chinese culture", then the article should just state it, and not make assertions that are original analysis of historical events and present them as fact. LDHan 22:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"Reformed" means it made something "better". There are way too many controversies surrounding simplification to be able to say it is truly "better". I am fine with putting down the Four olds was not the same campaign. Perhaps the Four Olds and simplification process does not have to start on the same day, same time, same town. The historical intention is probably more important than anything else. Benjwong 23:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I was merely giving "reformed" as an example of another point of view, I'm not trying to suggest that they were "reformed". Again you are suggesting facts and dates do not matter as long as your additions of original analysis of historical events into the article fit your point of view. LDHan 09:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

User 207.69.139.145

User 207.69.139.145 needs to stop using the article comments as a discussion board. If you have a problem with something, say it here. Benjwong 00:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Bernhard Karlgren quote

Sinologist Bernhard Karlgren suggested early in 1929 that "the day Chinese discard it (Traditional Chinese characters), they will surrender the very foundation of their culture" is used in the article as an argument that simplified characters are a "Destruction of traditional Chinese culture". I assume (Traditional Chinese characters) was not in the original quote. I think it's important to establish what "it" refers to and the context of this quote otherwise it may be misleading. Was Karlgren arguing against characters being discarded to be replaced by an alphabet, or was he arguing against character simplification? LDHan 17:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just noticed that (Traditional Chinese characters) has been replaced by (Chinese characters). LDHan 17:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Traditional Chinese characters is the only character around in 1929. If the statement was made in 1960/1970/1980 it could be interpreted differently. Benjwong 21:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

What is important is the context of the quote. If he was arguing against characters being discarded and replaced by an alphabet then "it" is simply "Chinese characters", as you already said there were no simplified characters at that time and the "traditional" label wasn't used then either. If he was arguing against characters being replaced by an alphabet, then this quote cannot be used as an argument that simplified characters are a "Destruction of traditional Chinese culture" because Karlgren wasn't refering to character simplification. However if he was arguing against character simplification, then of course "discard it" would mean "discarding traditional Chinese characters". LDHan 23:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

In the source this quote did not belong in any paragraph. You can dream of whatever the statement means. What you need to do is find out whether he said it to KMT, who was attempting a simplified character attempt prior to 1934. Or the CCP, who was thinking alphabet characters. Either way you argue it..... it is a "modification" to Traditional characters. Benjwong 11:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That is your own interpretation of this piece. It is very unencyclopedic to insert extra words into a original quote. The term Traditional Chinese Character and Simplified Chinese Character didn't exist in the 1920's. The quote by Karlgren was referring to abandoning the Chinese characters, not to any specific writing systems. In any case, you need to stick to the original quotation, or remove it since it might not even be an argument.--Balthazarduju 14:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a few comments ago, you can barely tell the historical difference between character simplification and alphabet simplification. With all due respect, you are not in the position to tell me what's "unencyclopedic". Everyone likes to make claims. I am not. I am digging stuff up that nobody bothered to make public. You are better off calling me a book worm than accuse me of misintrepretation. Benjwong 15:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that you shouldn't insert your own opinion into a quote, or worse, manipulating it. The quote by Karlgren did not specify any connection between Traditional Chinese or any other Chinese writing systems, since the term did not exist back then. If you don't know for fact that he was indeed referring his comment to Simplified Chinese characters or even switching to alphabets, then the argument is pointless.--Balthazarduju 15:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me put this into modern context. If democrats said "We are going to change English to ABC" and republicans said "We are going to change English to XYZ". And some culturalist saids "No! It is bad to change". Does it actually matter what English changes to? Benjwong 15:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It matters because this quote is used as an argument that simplified characters are a "destruction of traditional Chinese culture" when the context of the quote has not been made clear. If Karlgren was arguing against simplification, then this context must be stated along with the quote, otherwise the quote is being misused. LDHan 16:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me break this to you Benjwong, do you actually think that Bernhard Karlgren, who supposedly have said this in the late 1920s, was aware of the concept between Traditional Chinese and Simplified Chinese or these two terms? Do you think that he was actually referring the quote to the process of simplifying characters in his original speech? If not, anything else is revisionism.--Balthazarduju 17:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Show me some sources that said Karlgren was for "changes" instead of against "changes". There is nothing worse than debating with people who have not done any research on their own. You are trying so hard to hide something said by a credible sinologist, this is a disgrace to history. Benjwong 17:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Listen, the main problem is, the word "traditional" you inserted wasn't part of his original speech. Also, Chinese characters wasn't labeled Traditional Chinese characters back in the 1920s, so why would you want to adjust the word (which wasn't part of his quote) just to support a statement.--Balthazarduju 17:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Back to your comment above, "changes"? Who said anything about Karlgren's quote being about change? His statement is about discarding Chinese characters, not changing or modifying or others.... Read them carefully and be aware of how to interpret them.--Balthazarduju 18:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Adjusting the words? "Traditional chinese character" was the set that Karlgren was fighting to conserve against all changes. If you want to be exact about it, there are cursive scripts, variant characters. He is certainly not fighting for those. Benjwong 17:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You have to understand that the term "Traditional Chinese" wasn't part of his original quote, yet you keep insist on adding it back in. And if you really "think" that he was meant to comment on simplified Chinese characters, and the "it" in his statement was "Traditional Chinese Characters", you need to add extensive sources to verify it. Otherwise, it is your interpretation.--Balthazarduju 18:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Balthazarduju, and of course I can't speak for others but I think neutral observers will also agree; when quotes are used to advance an argument, its original context must be taken into consideration, and also if additional words are added to the quotes, they must be shown to be consistant with the quotes' original context. LDHan 19:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

When somethings is not clear in the quote, its original context must be stated even if no additional words are added to the quote . LDHan 20:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You can accuse me of "thinking" a certain way. But hey I am not putting it in a personal website blog. I am making it clear in the public that "Traditional Chinese" was the character set at stake, subject to changes. The saddest part is that you agreed with that much, but have a hard time accepting it. Then decide to hide the historical meaning, and then accuse me of XYZ. Benjwong 21:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The biggest problem is that you are manipulating the quote. As it is stated above, the term "Traditional Chinese" and "Simplified Chinese" did not exist in the 1920s, nor is the term "Traditional Chinese" existed in Mr. Bernhard Karlgren's original quote. You simply puted in there because "you" seem to think that he was referring to Traditional Chinese, yet you didn't verify with facts that if it is the case.--Balthazarduju 23:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Again I agree with Balthazarduju. LDHan 23:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok I added a compromise statement. Please take a look. While we disagreed, we are actually not that far off. There is a reference and I am practically inviting you to your local public library. The entire section in the book is dedicated to the character simplification process. This quote just stood out. Benjwong 05:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I have added this as an observation:

• Neutral observers point out that Karlgren's quote is possibly being misused and quoted out of context. At that time the concept of traditional and simplified characters did not exist, they were simply Chinese characters. From the quote itself it is not clear what "discard it" means. Since the quote is used to support the argument that simplified characters are a "destruction of traditional Chinese culture", if Karlgren was not specifically arguing against character simplification, then this is a misuse of the quote.

It does not support one side or the other, it's just to point out the quote is possibly being misused and quoted out of context. LDHan 17:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It's slightly confusing that the Karlgren quote is referred to and only in the next section cited. A person reading the article from top to bottom will wonder what quote is referred to. — Irrbloss (talk) 13:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Literacy

To use the assertion that The communist party does not credit the literacy improvement due to simplified characters in every day news as an argument that character simplification is not a cause of improved literacy is absurd, and it is unsourced as well, it's similar to The communist party does not say the moon is made of cheese in every day news as an argument that the moon is not made of cheese. LDHan 17:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a reasonable statement based on simple logic. What is absurd is the sheer amounts of other stuff that has been found in years of books that still haven't made this article. Some of which even I am afraid to put down (and probably will avoid). What's currently listed is fair, and IMHO leaves other users plenty of room to debate. Benjwong 21:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You may beleive it is an reasonable statement and argument, but it is based on your opinion not on reason nor logic. Take my example, do you think "The communist party does not say the moon is made of cheese in every day news" is a reasonable and logical argument that "the moon is not made of cheese"? Here's another example: is "The communist party does not say 2+2=5 in every day news" a reasonable and logical argument that "2 add 2 does not equal 5"? I'm not sure what the technical term is for this but it might come under something like spurious argument or false reasoning. LDHan 00:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Just because something is published in a book does not make it neccessarily acceptable in an encyclopedia. I suspect most of this "other stuff" is mainly based on personal opinions, prejudice, national and cultural identities, and political beliefs, with reasoned arguments at the bottom of the list. LDHan 00:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"the moon is not made of cheese" is just a horribly weak defense. I cannot even take you guys seriously on it. It sounds like you are unhappy about the statement, and I can understand. But please consider literacy is possibly the easiest item to defend. About the book sources, the person who did the research has the right to decide whether it is appropriate for the article. I am not going to stop you from going to your library. So far, I have already done some filtering of my own to make this a fair debate. Benjwong 12:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not defending the statement, I am neither happy nor unhappy about it. I'm not how you managed to arrive at the conclusion that I'm trying to "defend" it (actually I'm not even sure what I'm supposed to be defending, anyhow I am not defending anything in this discussion). I am criticising your argument's internal lack of logic and reasoning, and that the statement cannot be used in an argument that character simplification is not a cause of improved literacy. My examples are given as illustrations to show your argument's absurdity, not to defend the statement. Please look at the wikipedia policies if you really think that whoever looks up something in a book has the "right to decide whether it is appropriate for the article". LDHan 17:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a statement in the article right now that saids "Thus the political implications and affiliations of the writing systems are seen by some as the emotional impetus for the debate." Can you find some references for this? Or I will mark it as absurd. Benjwong 17:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm using "absurd" in its more technical sense, in this case an argument that's logically inconsistant, not the everyday meaning that something's odd, unlikely or hard to believe. There is nothing internally inconsistant in the sentence you've quoted ("Thus the political implications and affiliations of the writing systems are seen by some as the emotional impetus for the debate".).

Not for the first time, I notice that when you have no reply to my comments, you change the subject. LDHan 19:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I changed subject purposely to prove anything can be considered absurd if you want it to be. It is not much of a debate. Let's pretend there are 1000 sources from beijing crediting better schools, etc. And they put out 10 sources crediting simplified chinese for literacy improvement. It is still fair to say beijing doesn't credit simplified chinese enough. Except in this case, there are zero sources to show they credit simplified chinese on a regular basis. If you can find something before August 2007 from the capital, let me know. I'll gladly change it from "not crediting" to "not crediting enough". Benjwong 21:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

And how have you "proved that anything can be considered absurd if you want it to be"? I've already said that there's nothing absurd about "Thus the political implications and affiliations of the writing systems are seen by some as the emotional impetus for the debate". Merely saying you have proved something does not mean that you have.

I think I'd better put this more slowly and clearly: I am not questioning whether or not the following statement is a factually true statement:

"The communist party does not credit the literacy improvement due to simplified characters in every day news".

I am criticising your argument: ""The communist party does not credit the literacy improvement due to simplified characters in every day news" is evidence to support an argument that character simplification is not a cause of improved literacy."

I am criticising your argument: ""The communist party does not credit the literacy improvement due to simplified characters in every day news" is evidence to support an argument that character simplification is not a cause of improved literacy." because your argument is internally lacking in logic and reasoning, and that the statement cannot be used in an argument to support the claim that character simplification is not a cause of improved literacy.

Whether or not a statement or a line of reasoning is internally inconsistant in logic ie absurd, is not a matter of opinion. LDHan 22:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Woo, people can really argue for everything...Augest 04:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding me. You never were criticising the statement. You are denying the fact that Beijing doesn't give any credit to their own simplification committee. So far your arguments are "there is no cheese on the moon", and "2+2 does not = 5". Benjwong 22:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Are "Are you kidding me." and "You never were criticising the statement." both question? If they are questions, then my answers are: no I am not kidding you, and I was not criticising the statement (The communist party does not credit the literacy improvement due to simplified characters in every day news). Please show me where in this discussion have I been "denying the fact that Beijing doesn't give any credit to their own simplification committee" or that I was criticising the statement itself (The communist party does not credit the literacy improvement due to simplified characters in every day news)?

I'll try to put as simply as I can: the fact that something is not reported on the news is not evidence that it does not exist.

From your last reply, it seems either you have not understood a word I have written in this discussion and do not understand concepts such as logic, analogy or reasoned lines of argument, or alternatively you do understand and you are in fact very clever, and have worded your replies very carefully to appear to be of limited intellect because you know that you do not have any valid arguments. Whatever is the case there doesn't seem to be any point in developing this discussion any further with you, so this my final comment. Anyone reading this is can draw their own conclusions from this discussion, and of course are more than welcome to add a comment. LDHan 23:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Please go find some sources that proves the communist party praise simplified characters as the #1 reason for improving literacy after spending years "modifying" it. I have endless references lined up to prove Beijing loves bragging about how their state-run economy should take all the credit. To show I have a valid argument, I'll even do a 2 for 1 match on references. When we say "news", consider it a friendly way of saying broadcast (propaganda). Benjwong 05:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Background

The background isn't a summary of the development of simplified characters - it is a background to the debate on simplified characters, including how dissent was silenced on the mainland - it also provides the necessary background for a reader to understand the rest of the article in context.

If you think it's too long, feel free to trim it. However, Summary Style requires that references are made to other appropriate articles - you can't just assume that the reader knows exactly what you are talking about when you talk about "debate", "simplified", or "traditional".

Also, no reason was given for reverting my changes to the lead, which I am defending on grammatical and expression grounds. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

With the exception of dates, the new and background makes it seem as if simplified characters were here first and under attack. Sorry but this is far from the truth. If anything is the other way around. The equivalent would be if we wrote the background about CPC kicking KMT out. Then dominating the government with all the guns. And then silence all the traditional users with their campaigns. And whenever pro-traditional protests are held, they all get ignored. And they completely pretend (HK, Macau, Taiwan) doesn't exist during the simplification process. Is ok to use the characters because millions of people use it. Is not ok to glorify the history on how it became so widely used. Benjwong 02:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're not making sense. What do you mean, simplified characters were here first?

Stop reverting my edits unless you explain yourself.

All of the information in the "background" section is already in the various articles about script forms - with perhaps the exception of some of the dates, which are missing from the articles and need to be added in.

What, exactly, makes you think simplified characters were here first? It clearly says "but the modern set of "traditional" characters is usually defined with reference to the Kangxi dictionary, published in 1716."

Again, look, if you have any objections, raise it here and we can work out how to fix them. Don't just go blanking content for - words fail me, as I don't even know why you are blanking them. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Intro and background

I did not say simplified chars was here first. I said the exact opposite, and I think you misread. If you want to analyze line by line I'll show you why the background and new intro is not acceptable.

• "The debate on traditional Chinese characters as against simplified Chinese characters"

This is insane. Is more like the debate on simplified chars against traditional chars since 1960s. And nobody in the PRC are allowed to say anything. Benjwong 14:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps "The debate on traditional Chinese characters versus simplified Chinese characters"? O₂ (息 • 吹) 22:14, 15 November 2007 (GMT)

• "The modern set of "traditional" characters were settled definitively in the Kangxi dictionary, published in 1716. Traditionally, many Chinese characters possessed informal, simplified forms depending on the script form."

This is not background, it is debate material. Characters changing through thousands of years is not simplification. Is a natural cultural change. Benjwong 14:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• "However, the orthographical reform process became a political process when Mao Zedong became involved. In 1952"

It was political even before he got here. Why single him out in the background section? Thats like saying it all of a sudden became a political process because the KMT tried it. Benjwong 14:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• "For example, in Hong Kong, these are regarded as "simplified characters" and are acceptable in school examinations."

If you mean HK simp. This involves a mere few chars that were popularized in the short form. A natural street simplification used by waitors and waitresses in restaurants while ordering french toast. This statement create a completely false impression that HK has been adopting the literacy reform. Benjwong 14:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• "in Taiwan, where the issue of simplification is much more of a political question"

This is already in the debate section. Why is it put into the background section. Benjwong 14:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• "At the same time, the rise in number of recent migrants from mainland China has also fueld a demand for print matter using simplified Chinese characters."

This is not background, it is a complete mainland POV. You can say the exact opposite. Like migrants from mainland China fueled the demand for traditional chars since they want to be consistent with everyone else since they left their native home. Benjwong 14:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Ergh... I have no idea why you think I'm writing with a mainland POV... Seriously, I just think this article needs a background section and a revamped intro. I mean, your first objection -- that's almost exactly what it said before, but said in a more grammatically correct way. I don't see how you can possibly read it as putting simplified characters over and above traditional.

I think you're letting preconceived notions get in the way of interpretation. I'm going to ask for opinions on Wikiproject China and get back to you. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The background section as it existed added to the article significantly, as it detailed the debate, even though there may have been "excessive" inclusion of the language history itself. Besides that, for this article to have a neutral POV, it needs equally have content that relates to the mainland, the S.A.Rs, and the ROC. What PalaceGuard008 was doing is not writing "a mainland POV", it is actually making the article more neutral. O₂ (息 • 吹) 22:14, 15 November 2007 (GMT)

Please I understand you are trying to add some background coverage. But this is mixing debate material into the background as if it is neutral. It is not. Not even close. The statements I pointed above are not appropriate for introduction or background as you can debate those at will. This is not about grammar. Is hiding POV into the intro and background to avoid debate altogether. Benjwong 23:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't really see PalaceGuard008's version as biased. I think it adds important background, and the article suffers without it.--Danaman5 00:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the article version before Benjwong removed those points that he raised. None of those points were referenced. My opinion is that unless we can find some sources (add them as footnotes), then let's keep them out. But if they can be referenced well, then I don't mind adding them back in. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

True. O₂ (息 • 吹) 03:52, 16 November 2007 (GMT)

I wish you (Benjwong) would just assume good faith. I am not here to write propaganda for the Communists. I'm just trying to introduce a sorely needed background section to an article that assumes the reader is familiar with the context - a big no-no.

Hong makes a good point - and yes, citation is needed - but so does most of the rest of this article.

Can we work through Benjwong's objections? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Issue one: meaning of "as against"

Point number 1: The debate on traditional Chinese characters as against simplified Chinese characters

Tell me if I'm wrong, but "as against" means "as compared against". It means exactly the same as "compared to", "compared with", "as opposed to", "in contrast to". It doesn't mean "I am raising traditional characters to overthrow simplified characters", or however Benjwong is interpreting it.

If I say "The debate on Coca Cola as against Pepsi Cola", I don't feel that's assuming anything about either drink variety.

Perhaps I've been speaking broken English all these years - can you guys confirm whether that is the case?

Benjwong - would it be acceptable if it said (1) "as opposed to", or (2) "as compared against", or (3) "as compared with"? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

"Versus" is the only word that will work. This means both character sets are opposing one another. Coke "as against" pepsi would be like saying coke started the fight. We are trying to keep this neutral. Sorry I am not trying to blank out your contents. This topic is just way too controversial. Benjwong 04:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It's grammatically awkward to use "versus" in the opening as it stands, because the whole clause describes "debate", which is the subject of the sentence, and so should properly be hyphenated - but hyphenation of such a long phrase would not be normal.

As I said, I think "as against" doesn't connote anything about which is opposing what, because it means the same as "as compared against" or "as compared with". I'd like to hear what the other editors think about this.

Plus, "versus" means everything that "against" stands for: if you have a look at the Oxford English Dictionary, you will see that "versus" simply means "against" - so whatever might be wrong with "against", it is even more the case for "versus".

The OED definition of "versus" is: "versus, prep. Against; employed in Law to denote an action by one party against another. Also transf. Freq. abbrev. v. (also ver., vs.)."

As you can see, it only has one definition, which is "against", its literal translation from the Latin. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we say "between". The debate between tradition and simplified chars..... -- Benjwong (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I've also put in the footnoted explanation on the two different names. Let me know if there's a problem with it. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I just made a change. Well that was easy. -- Benjwong (talk) 22:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Font Size

Can anything be said about font size in terms of advantages simplified may have over traditional or vice versa? I know personally I find it very difficult to read traditional on a computer display without blowing up the font size because some of the characters with lots of strokes look like blobs. Even simplified characters I find can be difficult in small sizes on high dpi displays compared to other writing systems like the alphabet and hangul.Anawrahta (talk) 08:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Redundant revisions

The obvious answer to this question is yes, it is ugly and ridiculous. I issued this RFC to get some attention to this article, because I'm not very hardworking at contributing to the mainspace, but I'm sure that somebody out there is, and can work on this. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"Ugly and ridiculous" seems a bit harsh, but the current layout is far too tedious and listy. A pro/con layout is generally discouraged even in individual sections. This article doesn't use it just occasionally, but bases the entire article around the concept. A smoother style of prose should be adopted.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Simplified vs Traditional characters users ratio and trends

I'd like to add this to the article but I don't have enough info.

• How many Chinese speakers are fluent in simplified and how many are fluent in traditional.
• Can we assume 95.0% PRC (excluding Hong Kong and Macao dwellers) are more fluent in simplified than in traditional? Is 5% enough for older generation who received the education before Mao reform?
• Can we assume 99.0% of Taiwanese are more fluent in traditional than in simplified? Is 1% enough for recent migrants?
• Can we assume 95.0% of Hong Kong and Macao citizens are more fluent in traditional than in simplified? Is 5% enough for recent migrants from mainland?
• What's the current ratio in Singapore? Officially the simplified characters are used in education and all official documents, signs, etc.
• There is a popular myth that overseas Chinese use exclusively traditional characters. Well, overseas Chinese include a huge number of migrants from PRC. Now, most Western Universities teach simplified, so do the Chinese schools for kids. The media is mainly in traditional characters (excluding Singapore and Malaysia, where simplified characters are used).

This ratio is not to show the amount of media - number of newspapers published daily or number of published web pages published but merely a number of users/readers.

Population of China: 1,321,851,888 Population of Taiwan: 22,911,292 Population of Hong Kong: 6,963,100 Population of Macao: 520,400 --Atitarev (talk) 22:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You would need some reliable sources for those ratios... "Assuming" things is original research. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Pro-simplified/pro-traditional

There are a lot of pro-simplified points in the pro-traditional section... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.200.200 (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Government Enforcement

Is the reference to Ron Scollon & Suzie Wong Scollon's “ Discourses in Place: Language in the Material World” [the title is missing from the reference] reliable?

Indopedia writes:

"People unfamiliar with how the PRC deals with simplified versus traditional characters erroneously claim that the PRC permits only simplified characters and has “banned” traditional characters. While it is true that the mainland uses mostly simplified characters, traditional characters are still used -- mainly for ceremonies and for cultural purposes (e.g. tici, or calligraphy). The Law of the People's Republic of China on National Language and Common Characters helpfully explains that traditional characters aren't banned altogether on mainland China, but their usage is instead relegated to certain aspects and purposes."

So which source is right? Can someone check the law mentioned in the Indopedia article? --ChristopheS (talk) 16:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Historical tourist sites are some place that will have trad chars. Some places of neglect like poor towns and undeveloped rural areas will get away with it. Benjwong (talk) 23:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutral observers

Doesn't sound like weasel word to me. It only refers to a group of people. It does not imply how many there are. Ex. Neutral observers like to watch alot. Here neutral observers is not a weasel word but alot is. The superscript who? that follows neutral observers also implies there is no neutral observers. 161.185.151.218 (talk) 20:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The tag isn't there to imply there are no neutral observers, it's there to state that using it implies that anyone who doesn't share this view isn't neutral. The fact that all the "neutral observers" in this article seem to agree with the pro-simplified camp is especially suspicious. I agree that this article (which is effectively just an argument in article form) does have weasel words by both sides, but you clearly don't understand why all these "neutral observers" are being tagged. (Perhaps because your English isn't that good?) I for one recommend we keep the communist propaganda (joke) that follows them but find some sources for these (and all other) arguments. In the meanwhile, I will be purging this article of the phrase "neutral observers" and replacing it with "some argue"

And yes, I know that "some argue" is a pretty hated phrase as well, but at least it will change these statements from "the correct view is _______" to "my view is _______"

I invite anyone who has done more research than me on this to look for sources for anything that doesn't already have them.

Simplification in Japan and China

Someone requested a source for 30% match.

From the Japanese Joyo Kanji (常用漢字) list - on the left the Chinese simplifed, on the right Japanese simplified: The percentage is quite high.

萬 萬

與 與

兩 兩

乘 乘

亂 亂

予- 預- 豫 予

爭 爭

亞 亞

佛 佛

假 假

會 會

傳 伝

體 體

余-餘 余

價 價

儉 儉

偽 偽

兒 兒

黨 黨

寫 寫

處 處

劍 劍

劑 劑

剩 剩

勵 勵

勞 勞

效 效

勸 勸

勛 勛

區 區

醫 醫

單 單

嚴 嚴

參 參

雙 雙

收 收

??? 喫

墮 墮

多 多

學 學

屬 屬

峰 峰

彈 彈

摩 摩

櫻 櫻

淚 淚

濟 濟

窮 窮

纖 繊

缸-缶 缶

韻 韻

風 風

Some characters that were simplified differently have some similarity still.

--Anatoli (talk) 05:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This list contains Japanese simplified Kanji Shinjitai where there's 100% match between Jiantizi and modern Japanese:

醫 醫

歐 歐

毆 毆

畫 畫

會 會

學 學

舊 舊

區 區

徑 徑

莖 莖

獻 獻

號 號

參 參

蠶 蠶

慘 慘

殘 殘

辭 辭

寫 寫

稱 稱

觸 觸

囑 囑

隨 隨

樞 樞

數 數

聲 聲

竊 竊

淺 淺

踐 踐

潛 潛

雙 雙

屬 屬

墮 墮

體 體

台 臺

擔 擔

膽 膽

斷 斷

蟲 蟲

點 點

當 當

黨 黨

獨 獨

屆 屆

麥 麥

蠻 蠻

並 竝

併 倂

寶 寶

萬 萬

譽 譽

亂 亂

禮 禮

勵 勵

戀 戀

爐 爐

樓 樓

灣 灣

狹 狹

國 國

濕 濕

壽 壽

敘 敘

將 將

條 條

狀 狀

真 真

慎 慎

盡 盡

靜 靜

禪 禪

壯 壯

爭 爭

裝 裝

滯 滯

晝 晝

秘 祕

翻 飜

與 與

來 來

--Anatoli (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying the word "Asia" in simplified chinese (亞) is close enough to the japanese (亞), and that makes it a 30% match? The japanese (亞) is closer to the traditional character (亞). The simplified character for "Asia" (亞) can be considered a screw-up, since it looks like the word "furthermore" (並). Benjwong (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No, not this one. It is used mainly phonetically, anyway. The 2nd list shows the matches, not the first one. Similar looking characters are too common. In the simplified, they got rid of plethora of variants, really standardising the usage + it's more towards the Mandarin pronunciation, which is not always considered a downside. Anatoli (talk) 03:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't you think it is alittle odd that 3 countries (PRC/singapore/malaysia) located in Asia didn't even know the chinese character for "Asia" was being modified to look like the character for "furthermore"? And the word furthermore (並) is pretty commonly used. I mean if some government officials showed up at your house and start telling you from now on "Australia" will be written as "furthermore", you're actually going to support that? Benjwong (talk) 04:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. Is it a political discussion? These characters are still different. I am not fluent in Chinese but my teachers and Chinese friends are comfortable with simplified characters. They don't politicise the issue like many editors of this article do. Whatever the reason or history, it is now the standard and common way to write in Chinese, the rest is habit and attitude. Users of traditional continue using traditional if it's their habit or the only way they know. I am of Russian origin and there was a reform too, which wasn't well-accepted first... Anatoli (talk) 06:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok this is getting way off topic and not wiki related anymore. Anyhow I don't think it is right to shrug off traditional chars as "habit" and "attitude". That's pretty bad. Benjwong (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I meant simplified chars, if it makes it easier. Anatoli (talk) 06:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion spree by 120.83.138.198

There has been a deletion spree by user 120.83.138.198. This needs to be discussed. Or further inputs by others are needed.

Added by 120.83.138.198 - The literacy rate in mainland China is higher than that of Taiwan, HongKong and Macau when compared at the the same GDP per capita.

This is really controversial and not likely. Benjwong (talk) 04:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

literacy rate will be more accurate based on the same GDP per capita, , eliminating the economic factor, which has a huge influence on literacy rate.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pangear (talk • contribs)

This need some source. You can easily say the opposite. Benjwong (talk) 05:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

just use the "fact" mechanism, i will fill it up.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.49.2.15 (talk • contribs)

When you delete someone else's stuff, you must have something better. Otherwise it is vandalism. Benjwong (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

If someone can't wait to see the citations of this issue, go to the Chinese Page: http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%BC%A2%E5%AD%97%E7%B0%A1%E5%8C%96%E7%88%AD%E8%AB%96#.E7.B0.A1.E5.8C.96.E5.AD.97.E8.88.87.E6.8E.83.E7.9B.B2 .

The something-better is to stop the vandalizer misleading people by adding bullshits without citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.49.2.93 (talk • contribs) 06:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Woh you are the one putting info and statistics up. Just add the source later then. Benjwong (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, so you are really the someone can't wait to see the citations, just click the link above. For this page, like what i said when i post it, Reference will be added after the account block.

Deleted by 120.83.138.198 - Further, Taiwan underwent a period of Japanese rule and not only did Taiwanese people need to learn Chinese but also learn Japanese, yet they still achieved high literacy rate learning traditional Chinese. The same argument also goes for Hong Kong and Macau residents, who had to learn two languages at once.

The reason by the IP user was that "Chinese needed to learn Russian in 1950s and 1960s, and to learn English after that." Wasn't this actually limited to some regions like the north only. Benjwong (talk) 04:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

My father, in his 70s, Cantonese, Russian was compulsory when he was in high school.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pangear (talk • contribs)

The russian + simplified chinese overlap was much shorter than what HK and Macau did with dual languages. This is like 20 years vs 100 years+ by the colonies. Benjwong (talk) 05:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

In 1970s, Russian was not compulsory in mainland any longer, but English kicked in. For the Taiwan situation, Janpanese has a large amount of Chinese Charaters.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.49.2.15 (talk • contribs)

Why not just add both. Benjwong (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Everyone has eyes to read but in diferent colors. Should we add that, too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.49.2.93 (talk • contribs) 06:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Literacy rates in Taiwan or HK, or even in Mainland are not just defined as Chinese literacy rate, that means those who use only but Japanese in Taiwan or English in HK contribute to their literacy rates. Should that actually a pro-Simplification issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.49.2.93 (talk • contribs) 06:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleted by 120.83.138.198 - Sinologist Bernhard Karlgren suggested early in 1929 that "the day Chinese discard it (Chinese characters), they will surrender the very foundation of their culture."

IP user removed this with no reasoning. However others have disputed this before. Benjwong (talk) 04:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

who define discarding? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.49.2.15 (talk • contribs)

The reformists, governments etc. Benjwong (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

So Mr. Karlgren never mention that simplification means discarding. If you cannot dig up something like "Mr. Karlgren mention, simplification means discarding", this issue should be discarded for irrelevance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pangear (talk • contribs)

Here is the source on google books now pg 143. Famous quote from Bernhard Karlgren is printed by a Princeton university press source. You know mainland citizens pay 958,000 yuen (US$140,000) for a degree there. Benjwong (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

S. Robert Ramsey ,author of the book, wrote "Will the Chinese one day write with an alphabet?" after Karlgren's quotation. So Mr. Ramsey did define discarding as "write with an alphabet". And apparently, writing simplification chinese do not need an alphabet. That means simplification is not discarding.

The book is about the simplification process. When they first started this there were a couple possibilities, alphabet, short-hand, simplified chars etc. The quote idea is that traditional chars will never be traditional chars again. Benjwong (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The book "The Languages of China" is just about the simplification process? you ever read the book?

Just cite the pages which hold your claimed possibilities meaning discarding? For i read through the hold simplification part, never find your claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pangear (talk • contribs)

His quote is the intro to chapter 8 which is p143. On page p146 the same chapter talks about simplified chars. The question is whether you have any source that proves "discard it" does not mean traditional Chinese characters? What else is there to discard in 1929 when he made the statement. There was only one set of scripts then. So far anything you don't want to hear, you don't admit. Benjwong (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course the book will talk about simplification, for its name is "The Languages of China". But you deliberately ignored the sentence "Will the Chinese one day write with an alphabet?" just after Karlgren's quotation.

And Page 145, at the end of the fist paragraph, S. Robert Ramsey wrote "The Chinese would not discard their script after all." (Notice that Karlgren's object of discarding is also script )

After that paragraph, S. Robert Ramsey depicted how Zhou Enlai's report shift "the reform program from alphabetic writing to character simplification".

S. Robert Ramsey's definition of discarding is "alphabetic writing", not "character simplification". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pangear (talk • contribs)

Uh no. The full quote from Bernhard Karlgren is "The Chinese script is so wonderfully well adapted to the linguistic condition of China that it is indispensable; the day the Chinese discard it they will surrender the very foundation of their culture". The comment "Will the Chinese one day write with an alphabet" is what the book author is saying to begin this chapter. That doesn't mean the entire chapter, book or quote is about alphabet. In this wiki article we are using Bernhard Karlgren's quote, not Robert Ramsey. You can find this same quote from Karlgren in another book. It makes no difference. You are pushing the view that this quote talks about the alphabet because that was mentioned first. Benjwong (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Modified by 120.83.138.198 - Accord to the IP user, this 50+ stroke character was not simplified because it is not in the "List of Commonly Used Characters in Modern Chinese"(7000 characters), i.e. not fit the first rule that "simply the characters that are commonly used".

The biang character is common enough that they have Biang biang noodles in Beijing. Wasn't the most commonly used character list flawed to begin with since it left out common characters from non-mandarin dialects anyways. Benjwong (talk) 04:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Common in Beijing means common in the whole nation? Simplification just for Beijing people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.49.2.15 (talk • contribs)

The most common list of characters is crap propaganda. Words like 東 and 的 has 8 strokes. But 東 was simplified while 的 was not. 的 is even more common. Benjwong (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Your anti-communist propaganda is also crap to me. 東 is a one-part character, 的 is left-right two-part character, read the radical priciples of the simplification scheme. The biang character original editor(s) claimed that it fits every rule of simplification, so when someone challenges that, he or she shall prove that it do fit every rule of simplification, instead of asking the challenger to prove if another charaters fit some other rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.49.2.93 (talk • contribs) 06:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually the rules you mention are the worst propaganda. The "most common character list" and "rules list" are flawed. That is why the government stopped after 2 rounds. About your left-right two part scheme. How about:

(single) 貝 -> 貝

(left) 賄 -> 賄

(right) 贛 -> 贛

(doubles) 賏 -> no variants

(triples) 贔 -> 贔

There is NO rule that said the reform is for high stroke characters "common in the whole nation". Words like 甚麼/什麼 is so mandarin centric. But common high stroke cantonese character like 嘢 gets no reform. So biang with 50+ strokes in Beijing do fit the criteria for simplified chars. Benjwong (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

So list your claimed criteria up here to convince other editors, and stop bringing up some other chars.

This is the last time i explain the radical priciples to someone with radical bias.

Click http://www.china-language.gov.cn/gfbz/shanghi/002c.htm , check the third last paragraph.

It mention that not all the simplified chars with multiple radicals are listed in the "Third Table" but those in the "New China Dictional" (1962, 3rd edition, about 8000 chars), and those not listed are also actually simplifed by the radicals rules.

OK, let's check the "Third Table" , http://www.china-language.gov.cn/gfbz/shanghi/002f.htm ,

賏 and 贔 is not list in the "Third Table", but they actually are simplified.

So why the (貝貝) can't be typed up, because it dosen't has a unicode.

And (貝貝) is not alone. (歹貴) dosen't has a unicode too, though 殨 is listed in the 貝 family of the "Third Table".

This is actually a coding problem, not a sim-tra problem.

Why (貝貝), (歹貴) (or some other sim. chars )don't get their unicode (yet)? That's the unicode committee's problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pangear (talk • contribs)

Radical bias is not me, is you. According to your gov.cn site it does not say 賏 is simplified. You are just assuming there is a single 貝貝 character. This is not a unicode problem. These rules and common character lists DO NOT MAKE SENSE. A rule that supports the simplification of 東 and 貝 but not biang with 50+ strokes is crazy. People outside the mainland have long accepted problems with these rules. Benjwong (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The gov.cn site does not say 贔 is simplified, too, but 贔 is actually simplified as 贔.

Like 貝貝 and 歹貴, you can't type the biang char up here. Does that means there is not a biang char? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pangear (talk • contribs)

There is no single 貝貝 or simplified biang. Benjwong (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a simplified character of 殨, it's "殨". --PhiLiP (talk) 07:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

As for the char 嘢,甚,麼 go http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/chifreq/chifreq.php?year=60&place=hk&sort=no&method=1 and

http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/chifreq/chifreq.php?year=90&place=hk&sort=no&method=1 ,

check how common 嘢 is used in HK. 嘢 is not even in the 4800-row frequency table, while 甚,麼 is in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pangear (talk • contribs)

Um no, 嘢 is not on the humanum.arts.cuhk.edu page because it is not a formal character. As insulting as it sounds Written Cantonese is practically mandarin. So 嘢 does not exist according to Beijing, and the simplification process ignored it. Your "whole nation" rule does not exist. Benjwong (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

So you ignored listing your claimed criteria, again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pangear (talk • contribs)

嘢 is a commonly used, but informal character. That was my explanation. Benjwong (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

So you ignored listing your claimed criteria about the biang char fitting every rule of simplification, again. And again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pangear (talk • contribs)

I don't think you understand. So why don't you tell us what the biang picture caption should say? Benjwong (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You are the one who is defending the biang char " was not simplified " and "fitting all the rules necessary for simplification", it's your obligation to prove that, not me.

If you can't prove that, admit the fact by changing the comment to "A 50+ stroke character that we don't know if it is simplified or fitting all the rules necessary for simplification" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pangear (talk • contribs)

How about "A 50+ stroke character that is not simplified". That is short and factual. Do you agree? Benjwong (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleted by 120.83.138.198 - Accord to the IP user, '幹' means fuck only in Taiwan in recent years. '干' or '幹' never get the 'fuck' meaning in Mainland (use '操') and Hong Kong (use '屌' ). Therefore there is no mis-simplification.

HK should not have been mentioned as a reason to delete this since mandarin is very different from cantonese in this case. Benjwong (talk) 04:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Then "discard" the HK fuxking reason. Focus on "'台幹'(cadre from taiwan) often mistranslated into English as 'fuxk Taiwan'?". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.49.2.15 (talk • contribs)

Even if this is a recent term slang, does not make it invalid. This is not the most scholarly material, but deleting is bad. Benjwong (talk) 03:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You did not answer the question "Is '台幹'(cadre from taiwan) often mistranslated into English as 'fuxk Taiwan'?".

And you shall prove that the picture is not photoshoped, and the fuxking english words was translated by mixing the sim-tra character transition but not by an English illiterate. For fun, i sincerely suggest uncyclopedia.wikia.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.49.2.93 (talk • contribs) 06:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

To answer your question 台幹 (cadre) is not going to be confused as "taiwan fuxk" for the same reason that 事幹 (business) is not going to be confused as "business fuxk". Both 台幹 and 事幹 come out to one meaning. Without 台 or 事 to support 幹, it would mean something entirely different. In this case 乾 (dry) and 貨 (goods) when used independently does not mean something different.

So 乾貨 ---> 干貨 <--- 幹貨 as "fuxk goods" is very possible. Especially for a non-mainland traditional chinese user learning simplified chinese. Not the most scholarly material, but should be on wiki. Benjwong (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Just prove that the picture was not photoshoped, and the fuxking english words was translated by mixing the sim-tra character transition but not by an English illiterate. Saying something "is very possible" is not proving.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pangear (talk • contribs)

I don't see any photoshop data. Maybe it was taken with an old camera by Larry in 1980s? Who knows. If you are trying to hide it. The most offensive thing is not this picture. The most offensive thing is this translation is actually possible today. Benjwong (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The most offensive thing , is to force people to accept something by repeating "something is very/actually possible". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pangear (talk • contribs)

If the picture showed 干貨 was mistranslated to "tree trunk goods", you would not complaint. You would be happy someone uploaded a picture. Benjwong (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

you think i'm happy, so i'm happy? that's how you judge things? So i find the reason why this article is full of craps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pangear (talk • contribs)

Pictures about English mistranslated should be moved to the English mistranslation article, either "main goods" ,"fuxk goods" or "tree trunk goods", if not "dry goods".

Hey check out some blogs marketing the "fuxk goods" sign with famous Hong Kong actor Danny Lee next to the advertisements. This gets worse and worse. Here is another image of the possible bad translation appearing in other places. I do think this photo is a good example of a reform that has gone bad with too much character merge. However because this photo has appeared in so many places, there is no way of knowing whether Larry is the original photographer. This image may have to be removed due to license reasons. Benjwong (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Only prove the first thing that the picture was not photoshoped, nothing more. The second thing, Like I said before, the fuxking english words may be translated by English illiterates.

乾貨 may still be translated as "heaven goods"(according to 乾坤), "Emporor Qianlong's goods"(according to 乾隆) by English illiterates or resentful employees, for both 乾 and 干 get multiple pronunciations and multiple meanings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pangear (talk • contribs)

I am removing this picture due to LICENSING REASONS. This image while somewhat ridiculous, is still very possible. Benjwong (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

sarcastic and funny, block me in the communist way, while i'm using the break-communist method to login —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.49.2.10 (talk) 07:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

No, the Wikipedia process is more democratic than totalitarian. Specifically, a single editor cannot dictate what the article should contain against the will of multiple other editors. If you've made an edit and had it reverted, at that point, you stop making the edit and discuss the matter on the talk page to try to get consensus among the editors of the article; you do not keep making the same edit over and over to the article. —C.Fred (talk) 12:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

What if the original editor did not show up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.49.2.15 (talk) 13:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, at this point, Benjwong is the only editor that's made constructive contributions to this discussion. If you'd like to make a suggestion of changes, you can explain the changes you want to make here. Given time zones and the like, if the comment is up for 36 hours or so without reply, then I'd say you can be bold and make the change to the article. —C.Fred (talk) 13:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

So if Benjwong did not agree anything i propose, this article will not change? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.49.2.15 (talk) 13:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. It depends on what other editors say. Myself, because I'm involved in this on the administrative side of things, I'm not going to comment on the validity of the versions, unless I see an egregious error (e.g., misrepresentation of sources). —C.Fred (talk) 13:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, because I'm wielding the administrative mop for this discussion, let me remind everybody that the debate is about the content of the article and not the other editors. Verifiability is key: additions should be backed up by reliable sources. Content should not be included based on novel research; if the fact is reported by a reliable source and is not contradicted by other reliable sources, it's accepted as valid. —C.Fred (talk) 12:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Page protection?

I've invited Pangear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his succession of IP addresses to discuss the needed changes to the article here on the talk page. I don't want to protect the article, but if Pangear is going to continue edit warring on the article without participating in the discussion here, then I will. —C.Fred (talk) 13:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

My Account block is time up, but I still can not edit the page.

If wiki can't contain views it dosen't like, fine, I'll leave forever.

bye, communist wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pangear (talk • contribs) 12:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Correlation Between Literacy Rate and GDP per capita

Added by Magnet larry - "implies people from Mainland China are required more education than others in order to make the same amount of money or to be as productive".

So he believe that mainland's relatively higher literacy rate is because of more education.

Well, let's see how more education people from Mainland China got.

go to http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDI_2008_EN_Tables.pdf

Check the "Combined gross enrolment ratio"(GER)

and http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index#cite_note-2 , English, 2008

check Taiwan's "combined gross enrollment rate"

In 2008 Mainland got a 68.7% GER, US 92.4%, Japan 86.6%, Taiwan even got a 100% GER.

Wow, people from Taiwan get the most education in the whole world. ( Thanks to Dr. Yuan Tseh Lee? )

If someone want to argue that Taiwan has a less graduation rate than the others, or Taiwan got less education at the same level of GDP per capita, please present figures like i've done.

I'll wait 36hr, if no evidence is brought up to support Magnet larry's point of view, that issue will be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pangear (talk • contribs) 06:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The entire GDP argument should be removed, including your table. This is all too confusing. Benjwong (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

See, Benjwong drew a conclusion without a piece of evidence again. That really remain me of how CCP judge something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pangear (talk • contribs) 17:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you blame me. Your evidence source so far is a forum message. I looked over some of those other sources at zh wiki. Sorry, I do not see literacy issue from a financial perspective especially during the Communism era. However you and Larry can make it less confusing. Benjwong (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

forum message? GDP per capita from IMF, literacy rate from both side's gov sites, GER from UN and stat.gov.tw. Did I ever ignore any data source?

You just let your anti-Communism lead your eyes, that's why you do not see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.49.2.153 (talk) 03:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

None of those data sources alone tie them all together. That's the synthesis that Benjwong is referring to that's inappropriate for the article. —C.Fred (talk) 03:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The "Pro-Traditional characters" part of Literacy has not a single source, but you and Benjwong never blame them . Is that appropriate for the article? or just let your ideology choose which one to blame? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.49.2.153 (talk) 04:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

And C.Fred, you overestimated Benjwong by considering him referring to synthesis. Benjwong was talking about the citation of the Second point of "Pro-Simplified characters" when he mentioned forum message

What do you mean? I clearly said "I looked over some of these other sources at zh wiki". See my comment above. I just don't believe finance make any sense in this arguement. Is not about anti-communism. GDP per capita was not something the government cared about when it was doing character reforms. Like I said you and Larry can do whatever you want. Benjwong (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I take back that words.

Still you were not referring to synthesis, and C.Fred discriminatorily blamed synthesis while ignoring Source Lacking.

Neutrality questioned

The article is full of political references, having little to do about practical or current usage of simplified/traditional characters. Generally, the idea throughout the article is that simplified characters were forced onto China and they represent Communist China. Admittedly, it is true, it does not have to be repeated in each section. Anatoli (talk) 10:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Why CCP's "force" was overrated so easily? Actually the second version were withdrawn by the opposition of the people.

If the first/current version were really that bad as this article describes, it would have been overthrown, either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.49.2.153 (talk • contribs)

There are more character debates over at zh. Many new users are showing up here to wipe this page clean. This is getting ridiculous. They delete things with references or no references. Also this link does not come up properly. Anyone else seeing alot of missing characters? Benjwong (talk) 23:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Three users Anitagfie, Snowswamp, U94fifo who have no history of contributing to wikipedia. Show up and wipe this page clean. They need to join the above discussions before deleting. Benjwong (talk) 14:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The "neutrality" template (Template:POV) has been conveniently edited. This article doesn't represent an unbiased view of comparison between simplified and traditional but more about criticising China (Communist party, Red guards, etc.)in most of the Pro-Traditional sections and even some "Pro-"Simplified. The information about how simplified characters were forced and are still being forced may be useful but it appears in section have little to do with the intention. Anatoli (talk) 02:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The neutrality is not being addressed. I can start removing "useful" and sourced but irrelevant sections?

1st candidate for removal - in the Pro-Traditional:

• Ratio of current usage or pragmatism of the choice between the two systems

To make it more the article balanced and objective and not so anti-Chinese (i.e. country and government), some sections need to be cleaned up. Anatoli (talk) 05:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed the irrelevant politicised section. Anatoli (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The criticism of the Chinese government and policy has little to do with discussed sections, there are enough articles dealing with the Chinese politics. The article is a political mess about Communism vs Democracy, the digress from the topic of SC vs TC is too big. Anatoli (talk) 00:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Based on what are you saying politics are not relevant. The (simp) characters were practically rushed out the door, so the CCP could use it to gain political support sooner. If they were to simplify it the RIGHT WAY, they'll still be working on it now. Benjwong (talk) 04:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

As I said, there are too many articles to talk about politics, human rights, democracy, etc. The article about the debate of SC vs TC is gone too far politically. What's the point of weeping in every section of the article about how badly China behaved? How relevant is to the current situation? The leading paragraphs have enough. If the emotions are so strong make a relevant article but the arguments pro and contra should be to the point. Anatoli (talk) 05:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The point is to tell it like it is. I am not disagreeing with you that politics is everywhere. Just no where is politics more obvious than in this article. Really, you should write about those campaigns where they put cone hats on people who write TC, and they let illiterate peasants beat them up. And then the government send missionaries to other countries to promote SC as a "natural progression". Anytime the government takes action, is politics. Benjwong (talk) 05:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

If you find a verifiable source for your story, why don't you add it to the article? There are many things China might have done but it's not all about destroying TC, come on, TC are still used in many places in the mainland, the old signs are still to be seen and there are some new signs as well. The politics is much less relevant to the current debate but if you read this article, you get the impression that all that China is worried about is how to destroy TC and their supporters. It's not true in some and exaggerated in other sections. The section you keep restoring, has sources but they are not linked to TC vs SC debate or it is too indirect. The Cultural Revolution was very bad but again, if one wants to say what impact it had on the TC usage or ratio, the links have to say that specifically. Anatoli (talk) 06:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The only absolutely way to prove politics is not involved is if you can prove the Communist party and no government officials have ever interfered with the simplification process. I'll tell you that is impossible. Also the government never released exact figures on how many TC supporters it killed. So your request for sources is really tough to please. We can only point out relatively vague sources that suggest schools were shutdown and people were beat up.... to give an idea. Benjwong (talk) 04:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Anatoli's last comment. The fact that academics were persecuted, and universities and schools were shut down during the Cultural Revolutions is not evidence that "The high ratio achieved by simplified characters are by force." LDHan (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

As I said earlier, you should help Anatoli prove the ratio was not achieved by force at all. And that it was a harmonious transfer of TC to SC. Benjwong (talk) 03:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Why should anyone need to "prove the ratio was not achieved by force at all"?

If someone adds something to an article that says a certain thing happened, then is for that editor or others to provide evidence that it did so. It is not the responsibility of any editor to provide evidence that it didn't happened.

Instead of addressing my point, you have asked for something that no one is obliged to do (according to Wikipedia policies). Therefore I assume that you accept that the fact that academics were persecuted, and universities and schools were shut down during the Cultural Revolutions is not evidence that "The high ratio achieved by simplified characters are by force." I recommend that the following to be removed because it is unsourced, original research and synthesis:

The high ratio achieved by Simplified characters are by force. Red guards ransacked homes, persecuting teachers and took part in other violent activities. One example is the faculties at Nankai University who were beaten and publicly reviled. Some were murdered. Many faculty families were left homeless. In 1966 universities were even shut down to allow students to participate in the Cultural revolution. Traditional literature were also halted. LDHan (talk) 07:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It is entirely your opinion that the cultural revolution and other school shutdown does not affect traditional chars. Of all the things on this article, this is the most obvious one. Is almost not even worth debating. We could be digging up much worse stuff. I added a little more info in that section. Benjwong (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

And "We can only point out relatively vague sources that suggest schools were shutdown and people were beat up.... to give an idea." would be against Wikipedia policies, see Wikipedia:No_original_research and in particular WP:Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. LDHan (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry you cannot use WP:OR and other wikipedia rules against someone's talkpage comment. These rules only applies to actual articles. Benjwong (talk) 03:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry that you may have misunderstood my point. I didn't mean your sentence: "We can only point out relatively vague sources that suggest schools were shutdown and people were beat up.... to give an idea." was itself against WP:OR or other wikipedia rules. I meant any edits to an article based on it contravenes Wikipedia rules. LDHan (talk) 07:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"它" is used for inanimate objects or animals in simplified chinese, "他" is used for men, "她" is used for women

Pro-traditionals claim " the "he/she" character (他) used is actually either the normal "he/she" (for humans) or the one used for inanimate objects or animals. ", but actually "它" is used for inanimate objects or animals in simplified chinese, "他" is used for men, "她" is used for women. So the second part of that issue has nothing to do with the merger of characters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by U94fifo (talk • contribs) 18:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you mean 它 as in 其它, just meaning generically "others". We are talking about he/she/it simplification. Do people really formally say "he is a boy" in simplified chinese as "其它 is a boy"? If it was, then guangdong's 佢 would also be simplified to 它. Which I highly doubt.

Also using 長/長 is interesting. That is equivalent to pointing out "Einstein" as a good way to prove alot of english words beat the "I comes before E except after C rule". When in fact, there probably aren't too many english words like "Einstein". But in simplified chars the mergers are everywhere. Benjwong (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

you are ignoring the original issue " the "he/she" character (他) used is actually either the normal "he/she" (for humans) or the one used for inanimate objects or animals. "

It's not the first time Benjwong ignores the apparent wrong or unsourced issues. I support U94fifo's deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pangear (talk • contribs) 08:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm very happy someone else finally come up to fight for the truth. U94fifo, you are doing a good job, please give advices to the issues i brought about above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pangear (talk • contribs) 08:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Uh you are all the same person. You created 4 accounts via 4 different IPs. Benjwong (talk) 15:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

captalism?

whats this BS about traditonal characters represnting capitalism? the chinese dynasties who used these characters have always had SOCIALIST POLICIES. the government controlled important industries like steel, salt, silk manufacture. this part is definetly a lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.135.216 (talk) 02:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Just like Mao used to say landlords represent capitalism and they all have to be killed. And simplified chars represent "new china" blah. Symbolism is just a comparison. Is really your call. Best to go by the source. Benjwong (talk) 04:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

the bottom part of "聖" is not "王"

the first stroke is 撇(piě) instead of 橫(héng), making it another character "壬" (tíng as in "廷", not to be confused with rén "壬" in the heavenly stems, which is a different character). In Shuōwén Jiězì, "聖" is of radical "耳" and sound "呈" (從耳呈聲), and "呈" is of radical "口" and sound "壬"(從口壬聲). The origin of "壬" itself is very different from "王", this can be seen in the very different form of the two characters written in small seal script and the comment of Xú Xuàn(徐鉉), "壬" looks like man on the earth (人在土上, a possible origin from the seal script POV). So, using this as an example to demonstrate political impact on Chinese Character Simplification is inaccurate if not invalid at all, and quite misleading. Qinghe (talk) 05:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Government Enforcement ...

is not an argument in the debate, either in favour of traditional or in favour of simplified characters. It is listed as one, quite awkwardly. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

A suggested addition to 'phonetic' section

I suggest that the character 時('shi) should be cited as a good example of where the simplified (時) is 'inferior' to the traditional-- i.e. the radical for 'temple' 寺(si）is very close to 'shi', whereas the radical for 'inch' 寸（cun)is 'absurd'. It could also be noted that the charcter 時 is very commonly pronounced 'si' in south China. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.0.244.225 (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Important additions/revisions =

A suggestion to incorporate some of the information written in this useful essay http://www.pinyin.info/chinese_characters/simplified_traditional/zhang_liqing/english.html Thanks!

Potentially useful sources

This looks like it may have a lot:

• "The Chinese Character—no simple matter". China Heritage Quarterly. 19 March 2009. Retrieved 27 June 2009.

Probably less (since they're news articles rather than analyses), but still might be useful:

• "Chinese script: not as easy as it looks". The Economist. 23 April 2009. Retrieved 27 June 2009.
• "China to issue new list of simplified Chinese characters". Xinhua. 9 April 2009. Retrieved 27 June 2009.

rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)