Talk:Debate on traditional and simplified Chinese characters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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." 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)