This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hong Kong, a project to coordinate efforts in improving all Hong Kong-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Hong Kong-related articles, you are invited to join this project.Hong KongWikipedia:WikiProject Hong KongTemplate:WikiProject Hong KongHong Kong
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Macau, an attempt to better organize and improve articles related to Macau.MacauWikipedia:WikiProject MacauTemplate:WikiProject MacauMacau
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage
I undid the edits by Shrigley. This is not just a broadcast regulation. Streets signs are not considered broadcasts. This also does not limit to targeting TV and radios. There are many sources to show it. Also the part about asking for approval to have Cantonese broadcast, is that really in the source? Under what circumstances would it be approved? Please add new sources. Thanks. Benjwong (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All the information which you asked for was already in my version of the article, and in the cited sources within. South China Morning Post says that "Central or provincial radio, film and television administrations" would do the approving. China Radio International suggests that approved broadcasts would need to include accommodations for putonghua speakers, such as subtitles. According to the English-language sources which I provided, which supersede your Chinese-language sources, the broadcast regulation is indeed limited to TV and radio (extended to internet video produced by TV and radio stations). I'm not sure about your street sign stuff. Since your sources supposedly said that the regulations totally banned Cantonese, I'm inclined not to believe them on the signs (the simplified/traditional issue has nothing to do with Cantonese by the way, so the title is still wrong). Anything as drastic as you say would be reported in the English language media, so either you or your source is exaggerating somewhat. Shrigley (talk) 03:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying this is limited to TV and radio really? Seems like it targets educational areas also.
Clearly these sources mention ending traditional chinese. Which I agree technically has nothing to do with any specific dialect. Actually English language media doesn't pick up alot of this stuff. To be honest I did not know scmp even had an article on this. Anyhow you have 10 other reliable sources here. Benjwong (talk) 03:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that the CRI source said, "Schools and other educational institutes are required to use Mandarin and standard Chinese (simplified Chinese) to conduct regular teaching, conferences, publicity work and group activities." So it does seem to affect government print publications in addition to broadcasts. But since use of traditional characters is rare, the broadcast aspect is stressed in all of the articles. It is a problem that you are framing this as "anti-Cantonese" rather than "pro-Standard Chinese", because it really is the latter. Despite the easy cliché that Cantonese is some beleaguered and endangered language in mainland China, the ratio of Cantonese to putonghua TV channels is about 7:1 in Guangdong.[3] The primary beneficiaries will be non-Cantonese migrant workers in Guangdong;[4] the intention is not to force some language shift among native Cantonese. Shrigley (talk) 04:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about setting any standard Chinese. If it was, we would be seeing anti-Min, anti-Wu, anti-Tibetan or whatever other dialects are still in use as needing to be standardized. This law explicitly targeted 1 group of speakers. I am not aware of any other groups that need to make a similar transition on March 1st. Benjwong (talk) 11:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And please discuss before making a page move. "Guangdong broadcast regulations" is a joke. This is to be imposed nationally across all of the PRC, not just in one province. Benjwong (talk) 02:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware that Zhu Xiao-dan, governor of Guangdong, has the authority to impose regulations across all of the PRC. The sources which I provided above note that these regulations, eg [5], say that the regulations are new in Guangdong but are similar to what has been the case nationally for the long time. Again, the regulation promotes putonghua and place restrictions on all non-putonghua Chinese; they don't target Cantonese in particular. I read somewhere, but can't find the source right now, that the only reason Guangdong historically had an exemption from the national regulations was to be able to broadcast Cantonese-language media into Hong Kong. Shrigley (talk) 03:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Chinese politics. They find the smallest lowest rank individuals to sign the biggest regulations. It would be more convenient to point out maybe only Guangdong has any Cantonese speakers left. And this is considered "minor" in the eye of the rest of China. Benjwong (talk) 03:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't seem to make sense. If all the minority dialects are gone, then what need is there for laws to suppress them? (In any case, the eradication of minority dialects isn't at all China's language policy[6]) I refer you again to the CRI and other sources that note that the regulations being implemented in Guangdong now are already in place at the national level. Guangdong just seemed to be lagging behind for some reason; probably because of its proximity to Hong Kong. Shrigley (talk) 04:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It only makes sense if you see it from the government perspective, which is to stop any type of Cantonese movement. Which would be a shame, because these regulations only make people want to start more movements. The fact that GDTV even tried to promote cultural ties between Pearl river delta and HK, makes these stations a victim for no good reason. The regulation is pushed very hard. I mean, to the point where it is forcing people to abandon their own culture by a certain date. Anyhow it is not limited to one province, the sources do not suggest that anywhere. Benjwong (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like with northern Vs. southern Vietnamese Wikipedia shouldn't call mere accents into dialects, and instead of calling it the Cantonese dialect it should be called the more WP:NPOVaccent. --Hoang the Hoangest (talk) 07:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
