Talk:Debate on traditional and simplified Chinese characters/Archive 2

Lu Xun wasn't in the CCP
"The earliest members of the Communist Party of China including intellectuals like Lu Xun". Lu Xun was never a member of the CCP. Wikipedia itself says this in the article about him: "Though sympathetic to the ideals of the Left, Lu Xun never actually joined the Chinese Communist Party". Also stated by http://www.reference.com/browse/Lu+Xun and http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/luxun.htm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeriph (talk • contribs) 10:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

NPOV debate
Can we have a proper discussion about the article's NPOV so that we could remove the tag? Please adhere to WP:Talk_page_guidelines. Please state which one of the WP:NPOV criteria you are disputing, which part of the article is affected, and briefly explain your reasons. Just a quick reminder: "This article is stupid" is not amongst the listed NPOV criteria.

Example:
 * This article does not avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts.
 * Affected part: the sentence "The high ratio achieved by Simplified characters are by force."
 * Proposed fix: the sentence should be in a subsection titled "pro-traditional characters" to avoid confusion and clarify that it is not a fact, but the opinion of one of the sides of the debate. The opinion of the other side on the matter should also be reflected.

--Farzaneh (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Article has a valid purpose, but let's feel free to cut it
I don't agree with those who say the article is stupid. It has a few valid points that are interesting and worthwhile. I do however agree with quite a lot of what the "article is stupid" camp is saying. There is a large portion of the article that should simply be removed because is is not factual, or not relevant. As it is the article is very long and repeats many ideas several times, some of those ideas are of not up to standards anyways. I am taking it upon myself to cut some of the article. I do not have a position in this debate, but I would like to make the positions stated in the article more concise and easy to understand. I hope that others will help me with this. I feel that I am backed up by the wikipedia editing guidelines and by an informal concensus expressed on this discussion page.

I am only cutting section I am sure about. The rest I'll bring back here for debate. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Ratio of current users POV issues fixed?
I edited one of the most problematic sections of the acticle and I'd like to explain the rationale as well as encourage further editing. I believe the wording is significantly less biased in tone, stating things in a manner more in line with the language of wikipedia but I'm not convince the section is really fixed. I kept most of the argument intact and just tried to shorten and boil it down to get across the original logic without it sounding like an individual with an axe to grind and internet access.

Is it relevant to bring up some violent from the cultural revolution in a discussion of the difference in the number of users of simplified and traditional chinese. I don't think so but I hesitated to cut the whole thing. I think the whole argument should be removed and replaced with a more directly relevant statement. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 22:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Translation?
In the 'Split orthography: a problem?' section, I noticed that they're calling replacing simplified with traditional characters and vice versa as 'translation'. This is not 'translation', and is equivalent to saying writing Chinese in pinyin is 'translating' to pinyin. This is supposed to be called transliteration.122.57.62.38 (talk) 06:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

This has been fixed, The section now uses "conversion" instead. Perhaps "transliteration is more accurate but I hesitated to use it because it is common to refer to the process as "conversion" in English. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

'Government Enforcement' section -- a lie?
This is completely bullxxxx. The author gives two notes. Note 32 is an academic book which I consulted on GoogleBooks but didn't find anything to support the claim. Yes, it may be on some pages not available on google but any academic research should be based on facts, and note 33, referring to some document of Chinese law is supposed to be the 'hard evidence'. However, I read it WORD BY WORD, nowhere does it mention any form of FINE for using traditional characters on any occasion. Above all, I used to live in mainland China for almost 20 years and had been using traditional characters from time to time in all kinds of situations. And guess what? I did NOT get fined a single penny. This section is apparently an absolute lie. If the author can't give a reply in reasonable time, I'll remove it. Abel.CHN (talk) 13:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually the book cited does include a statement that such a fine exists, but it does not say more about it than the section in this article does. I would like to know more about this and would like to know if there's a way to form this into some actually argument. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Repetition
The biggest problem with this article seems to be that it repeats alot of things. I have fixed some of this problem but In several places it still says the same two things:


 * pro-simplified - The issue is a linguistic one and should not be made into a political one especially because no political party has a monopoly on either simplified or traditional chinese.
 * pro-traditional - simplified characters are communist and the communists did a lot of bad things, furthermore we are not communists nor do we wish to be perceived as communists so we must use traditional characters.

Whether or not you agree with either of these statements I believe that is a summary or many of the ideas presented in this article. I'll take the fact that they are repeated so often as being a sign that they are important. Nevertheless the repetition is not useful, so I'm going to go through the article and collect all the ideas that fit with the above and cosolidate them so that they are not repeated. If this offends someone, I'll expect you to explain why. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I've rewritten a good portion of the article grouping together the repetitive and contentious bits into a NPOV-compliant section at the end. Politics is certainly relevant to the debate but it seems most sensible to keep it in a separate section, allowing readers to consider the other arguments without being bombarded by unrelated political concerns. The political section, I believe preserves all of the legitimate arguments made on both sides in an ordered, clear, neutral, and concise manner. I'm done and I've removed the NPOV banner because I believe the issue has been resolved. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 23:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I looked at some of your edits. It went from a 47k sized article down to a 40k.  You did nothing but point out sections are NPOV and just deleted everything. This is not even cleanup.  You just removed anything negative about simplified chinese. Is a debate article.  Shouldnt you be pointing out negative things about traditional chinese to balance it out. Benjwong (talk) 06:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I expected you would revert my edits within a couple days. I recommend you look more closely at my edits. I did remove some content but I rewrote and reformatted alot and I certainly didn't just remove anything negative about simplified chinese. Some of the things I removed were on the pro-traditional side but I assure you that is only because those bits happened to be poorly written, biased, and and irrelevant to the debate. Often i was just removing repetition and clearing up wording. I think an argument is made better when it has a discernable point so I hope that I have actually strengthened the pro-traditional arguments in this way. I‘m not sure what you think you are defending but I suggest you take a closer look at what I've done before you rush to such conclusions. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I made 24 edits yesterday, some of them quite significant, some of them were grammar and spelling errors I was correcting and you reverted every single one of them. I am trying to improve this page and I commented every one of my edits as well as posting here to the discussion page. I made a good faith effort to preserve and to build upon the work of other editors. What you did is wreckless and disrespectful and it does nothing to improve the page, the edits I made were in line with the consensus on this discussion page that that the page has major NPOV and other problems which must be fixed. If you don't like that then go to a website which supports your crusade, because I'm not interested in it and I believe the rest of the editors on this page feel the same way, from reading the discussion page. I am undoing your revert. Please do not simple re-revert my edits. You are free to edit this page just like anyone else but it would be helpful if you'd provide some comments for your edits and make a good-faith effort to uphold the wikipedia editing guidelines. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Most of the edits that Metal.lunchbox made were an improvement over what the page was. However,, whether conflating book burning with use of simplified characters (Benjwong's version) or conflating Taiwan's economic prowess with use of traditional characters (Metal.lunchbox's version) cites basic facts used to establish an original argument instead of citing the arguments themselves, which is a type of editing that should be avoided. Quigley (talk) 20:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok Quigley the issue of burning traditional books is a legit debate topic. Is not like these people were burning everything in sight including little redbooks.  These people selectively targeted objects with traditional chinese. OTOH Taiwan manufacturing electronics is not relevant to the topic. Benjwong (talk) 02:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. I'll see what I can find Metal.lunchbox (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I've revised the section citing a press release from the Taipei Economic and Cultural Affairs office and an editorial in The China Post. I don't think I'm adding anything to what they are saying, just synthesizing a little, picking out a single thread and paraphrasing. tell me what you think, because I think debate articles are a little funny, and a little confusing Metal.lunchbox (talk) 21:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Admittedly, I haven't edited many debate articles myself, but the new sources you found are much more relevant to the debate. However, what you wrote about the ROC's purge of simplified characters does not seem to support the preceding sentence in the article, "a pragmatic argument can also be made for the continued use of traditional Chinese Characters". The press release says that the change was "to protect Taiwan’s position as the world’s leading guardian of Chinese culture", which seems to be more ideological than pragmatic. Quigley (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm actually trying to avoid that argument. the wording is a bit tricky and I agree it can be improved but what I'm trying to focus on is the practical consideration. Those who want to visit the ROC will have to learn traditional. I'd like to avoid the exact motivation for the president's decision, because they are quite complicated, it seems, instead I think it is useful to just focus on the consequences of the decision. Perhaps I am actually making the argument myself which is a violation of NOR, but its such a basic argument that I feel it has to be included, maybe you can help me. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 22:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

You were deleting more of this article than any previous user to come across the page. Look at what's gone


 * The section with Lu Xun alphabetization
 * Karlgren's quotes on the surrendering culture part
 * The discussion on the word for the simplified character for "none" looking like the character for "sky"
 * The part about teachers scolding simplified char students as "uneducated"

This is not the way to edit a debate article. You simply deleted an entire view. Just because you made 24 edits, doesn't automatically make it right. I'll make 240 edits next time. Benjwong (talk) 02:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It would also help if you discuss here the reasoning behind some of these deletions. Quigley at least seems to have been involved with many China topics. Maybe we can all discuss these slowly one by one. Benjwong (talk) 02:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I would like to bring a few things up before we go further. First, I appreciate your interest in this topic but you do not own this article. Second, It does not matter if I have edited China related topics before. This is wikipedia anyone can edit. Third, you are Edit-warring. I am not going to immediately revert your revert because of course that would not do anything to resolve the issue. But let me be clear. I do not have to discuss with you every single edit I wish to make before I make it, which is what I think you are suggesting above. I did not delete an entire point of view. I made the reasons for my edits very clear, either on this page or in the comments. If you disagree with any of the edits then it is actually up to you to argue against them one by one. What you are doing is inappropriate and against the rules here. Editors are free to be bold, and I am not willing to die on this hill. If you have a problem with any of my edits then you are free to edit on top of them but simply barring me from making any edits is not going to work. I realize that you may not be aware of all the rules. I recommend reading OWN and Edit Warring before continuing. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 03:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * First off, you have virtually NO edit history. Not just in China topics, but just about any topics. Of all my time editing wiki, I have never randomly seen a user jump this deep into a political topic and start deleting at will.  I don't know what your agenda is. Benjwong (talk) 04:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * my edit history is not relevant and I have no agenda outside of wanting to improve the article. I believe my edits and comments show that quite clearly. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 05:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * In the 24 edits that Metal.lunchbox made, there were 24 edit summaries that explained each individual change to a section. A lot of it claimed to delete repetition. If you want to dispute the edits, Benjwong, be more specific and address each of Metal.lunchbox's edit summaries. "This version has more bytes" is not a convincing argument. Quigley (talk) 03:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's start with these 4. Which ones are repeat? Benjwong (talk) 04:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The section with Lu Xun alphabetization
 * Karlgren's quotes on the surrendering culture part
 * The discussion on the word for the simplified character for "none" looking like the character for "sky"
 * The part about teachers scolding simplified char students as "uneducated"


 * Benjwong, I've reported you for violation of 3-revert rule, which says that with common-sense exceptions you aren't allowed to revert another editors work more than three times in a 24-hour period. I hope you understand why I have done this. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 03:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Also I should tell you that I did not delete the section where the characters for "sky" and "none" are discussed. I don't believe I made any change to that section, but I did reorder the sections in the article. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 03:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You are NOT editing. You are straight up deleting, reducing the article by 20% its size overnight. The sky part was deleted under your edit. Is it possible you are over editing to the point you don't know what you are wiping out anymore.  Benjwong (talk) 04:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Look again. Its there, I never removed it. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 04:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Section Developments in Recent Years needs cleaning up
I haven't touched the Developments in Recent Years section, partly because I find it a little overwhelming and I'm not entirely sure what the purpose of the section is. At present it is very long and contains a lot of paraphrasing of people speculating about future developments. Wikipedia isn't a news catalog and its hard to tell what much of this has to do with the debate. I think it should be dramatically trimmed down to include only actual developments in language that is concise and appropriate in an encyclopedia article. Alot of it should stay, but I think it needs to be rewritten to bring it up to quality guidelines. Alot of it is simply unclear and it lacks balance. Much of it is not grammatically correct. Here's a couple of specific things I noted about the section:
 * 1) "It is believed by many", "Chinese officials claimed","He also believes" X2, "feels","She expected", "better evaluations of the suggestion of reintroduction" - Extremely imprecise language throughout
 * 2) "Voices of official permit of co-existence" - What?
 * 3) the entire final mega-paragraph is confusing speculation from 2009 about what might happen, maybe we should replace this with a follow-up summary of what actually happened.

What do you think? Is it okay the way it is. What should the criteria for inclusion be? I think What Wikipedia is Not can be a useful guide here. But we should also consider what further makes a good article, not simply what passed minimal restrictions for inclusion. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * What struck me, reading the "Developments in Recent Years", is how the section almost exclusively gives a soapbox to people with pro-traditional viewpoints, including those of the extreme minority view that mainland China should revert back to traditional. I think that relevant events in significant world bodies, such as the conclusion of the Eighth Annual International Conference of Chinese Language Study, should stay. However, the personal opinions of people like Göran Malmqvist, notable as he may be, should not be captured in such extensive quotes. Quigley (talk) 19:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I've added a POV-section template to mark the section as having disputed neutrality for the reasons described above. Hopefully this is the first step to fixing the section. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The traditional side do a lot of "claims", "feels", "expects", "believe by many".... that's because the people supporting it today (HK, Taiwan, Macau) has no power. Meanwhile PRC, singapore, the party etc has all the resources supporting simplified chars.  So the traditional side always sound like it is whining, when in fact the other side just pushes chars out with no challenge.


 * If it is a negative fact about simplified chars, and the wording is toned down... Metal.lunchbox will accept it. If the wording is rough... Metal.lunchbox can't handle it.  Like it has to be deleted or reworded to a neutered level.  Yet the party monopolized simplified chars to the point where if you didn't know it in a span of 20 years, you were useless in society. Quigley at least you have to understand this.  I will get back to this article in a few days. Benjwong (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Benjwong, I find you repeated accusations of bias, bewildering. If you gave even a cursory glance at my edits you would see that I am not on some campaign to remove everything negative about simplified characters from the article. I have even added arguments, citing from reputable sources, to the traditional character side, as well as deleting extraneous, dubious, or POV content from the pro-simplified side. Quit attacking me. Take a look at the section we are talking about and then have a look at WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV, and surely you will agree that the article should not have such a long list of quotes and speculation in support of the views of such a small minority, using the language that it currently does. This is a debate article but its still Wikipedia. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 17:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I will not edit this article in a few days. That's all the comments I have for now. Benjwong (talk) 19:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

First off I have restored the "Government Enforcement" and "Late recognition of flawed process" section which were just wiped out. These are legitimate views that should be here. There is a shorter section on the alphabetization part now. That should be more acceptable than before which was a whole section. Benjwong (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The part about simplified chars being "uneducated" while true, I have left out. Perhaps that is an unfair statement. Benjwong (talk) 23:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I have already made it clear what I think, and I have edited accordingly, and then again after reverts. I do not think it would be fair for me to continue to make the same changes. So at least for the time being I am going to leave those sections alone except where grammar and style of prose are concerned. I am, however, still interested in cleaning up the recent developments section. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit Wars
In an effort to resolve this strange conflict I think I should clarify that I do not think that commenting my edits prohibits any further discussion, but it's up to you to open that discussion, well it's up to you to at least say something compelling to help us understand what your disagreement is. I'll start:
 * The bit about adopting an alphabet is incoherent and doesn't form an argument for or against simplification nor does it support any argument. History of simplification belongs in the article Simplified Chinese characters. If you still think that that paragraph is relevant to the debate then maybe you could reorganize it a little or something because I just don't see the point.
 * Mentioning teachers scolding students is fine, I have no particular problem with it, but I thought I preserved the idea of this paragraph in a consolidated section about politics and attitudes, "School children in these areas are strongly discouraged from using simplified character." If you don't think that's worded correctly or long enough then add to it or rewrite it.
 * Kalgren's quote- this has come up before. I thought it was a tremendous waste of the readers time to include a qoute that has nothing to with the debate without giving any context and then having the reader wade through a paragraph about how a quote somewhere below is a misuse of the quote. Kalgren is obviously not talking about simplification. I frankly don't understand why you don't think it is reasonable to remove the quote and the corresponding rebuttal. I'm not the only one to make this point, my actions were based on previous discussion here Metal.lunchbox (talk) 04:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I apparently misunderstood what exactly counted as a revert when reporting a violation of the 3-reverts rule. Now that that is settled, I've decided to undo the last revert. I hope that this will not be met with an immediate revert. Benjwong, I am plenty willing to discussion changes, but I'm not interested in gaining your approval prior to edits, that's not how Wikipedia works. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 05:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * First off is not about needing approval. You just didn't have any edit history at all to be trusted. Please look at your own contribution history. Secondly your editing style is troubling.  For every 1 deletion there is 5 grammar fix.  Yet you are on the talkpage debating as if you added a counter viewpoint into the article?!


 * 1. On the alphabetization, if you don't see the point a point to debate it, why did you delete it in the first place?
 * 2. "Discouraging" is not the same as "scolding", not even close. This whole section should be restored.
 * 3. Kalgren quote's and opinion is worthy because he studied the traditional aspect and watched it transition to simplified chars in his lifetime. You could have debated it a different way.  Like Kalgren wasn't anymore valuable than any other scholar.  But he was an outsider and didn't have to take sides. That makes his opinions at least unique. Benjwong (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter if simplification happened in Karlgren's lifetime, the point remains that he was certainly not talking about simplification in the quote so it is misleading to include it. That is not just my opinion, that is the consensus. The quote has been removed before, each time restored by you.
 * I don't understand what you are saying about the alphabetization, since it isn't an argument but rather a string of related, inacurracies, quotes, and facts, I removed it from this debate article, the logic of that seems pretty straight forward to me.
 * Why do you constantly bring up my edit history? What on earth does this have to do with the article? you bring it up every chance you get but I don't even understand why you say I have no edit history. I've been editing wikipedia for five years. Besides which, you are suggesting that there is some kind of minimum number of edits to do before one is allowed to edit this article. Let's stay on the topic of the article and not get distracted with discussion of whether or not I am qualified to edit.
 * as for my editing style, i'm also not sure what you are referring to. I have made a variety of different types of edits on the article based on what seems necessary to improve the article. Some of those edits, such as deletions merited more explanation then others, so I've discussed those here. What's troubling about that?
 * I'm certainly not "adding a counter viewpoint to the article". I'm cleaning it up because of serious POV issues that several others have discussed previously on this talk page. I did not come here for a debate, simply to clearly lay out the rational for some of my edits. However, if you insist, I am willing to defend many of my edits, but frankly I've already done an adequate job of that and we've yet to hear anything compelling from you about why I was wrong to make those edits you oppose so completely. Consensus and the guidelines support my actions.
 * I'm not going to argue about "Scolding" v. "Discouraging". I stand by my edits and I never claimed to have the final word. If you want to improve the wording, or feel like the paragraph needs fleshing out or something then go ahead, I have no desire to stop you, nor any authority to do so. If you just want to add POV then you can expect that an editor will modify or delete it. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The quote by Karlgren I have put back to just a small sentence instead of the whole section. Unless you have a more mild replacement, I still see no reason to avoid it. And he is talking about the preservation of the characters. And as far as concensus goes in the PRC today, you don't know what the concensus is. I would even say these pro-simplified scholars are the concensus because they are state-paid. Benjwong (talk) 23:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * So we're clear about this, when I say consensus I'm talking about the consensus among editors of this article as seen in the discussion and evidenced by the edit history. I will remind you that consensus is the primary way in which editing decisions are made here on Wikipedia. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 05:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Japanese kanji
I find it kind of odd that the argument under "Aesthetics" cites that simplified Chinese "makes it easier for people who know simplified characters to be able to read and understand Japanese kanji". As far as I know, kanji is much closer to traditional Chinese (it is more likely that a Japanese character will match the traditional form than the simplified form) than it is to simplified, and it rather inaccurate to say that it is easier for people learning simplified to learn kanji, actually it seems like quite the opposite. T.c.w7468 (talk) 23:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Some of them are closer to Japanese kanji, for example body in Japanese is 体 is exactly the same as the simplified 体 and nothing like the traditional 體. I think the point of that argument is that many of Japanese shinjitai were borrowed for Chinese simplification (such as the example given) and that since these were intentionally made to look alike, it would be easier to read kanji. HOWEVER, much more simplifications were done that did NOT occur in Japanese, such as the simplified 识 from 識, which look nothing alike and the Japanese one is the same as the traditional form. I agree that I think the number of characters that fall into this latter category is much greater and that this argument is not compelling whatsoever. I understand the reasoning behind the statement, but I would also vote to remove it for being far more untrue than true. Jmolina116 (talk) 23:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Clarification: I understand it starts out by stating that it's only 30% of them that were simplified this way, so it's not necessarily misleading, but even so, the statement "This makes it easier for people who know simplified characters to be able to read and understand Japanese kanji" is still untrue. Jmolina116 (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Clarification: The Simplified Chinese characters are NOT closer to Japanese Kanji! Japanese originally used only Traditional Chinese but later on simplified the characters where some are in the same form as the Simplified Chinese used in China, but some are not, because they were simplified using a different process than what the people in China used. Example: 芸 is used both in Traditional and Simplified as the same character, but in Japanese, 芸 is used as the simplified form of 藝. In China, 藝 is simplified to 艺. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.27.136.33 (talk) 01:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Aesthetics
With the exception of the last argument in this section, pretty much nothing in there has ANYTHING to do with aesthetics. They include practical arguments, an appeal to tradition (the third pro-simplified argument), and statements that may be evidence in support but not arguments. Certainly aesthetics is a big part of why people side with one camp or another, but how one expects to present ARGUMENTS on a matter of taste is beyond me. A better approach would be to present quotes from people who have spoken/written on the issue.

"AESTHETIC

1. a : of, relating to, or dealing with aesthetics [i.e., the "branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of art, beauty, and taste, with the creation and appreciation of beauty"] or the beautiful b : artistic  c : pleasing in appearance : attractive  2. appreciative of, responsive to, or zealous about the beautiful; also : responsive to or appreciative of what is pleasurable to the senses"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aesthetic

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.251.157.117 (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Literacy
Ok so we know for a fact that GDP and literacy rates are made up by the gov't of PRC so why not note this in the table? An asterisk at least is needed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.121.158.205 (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope. Take your conspiracy theories somewhere else. If everything in China was made up by the government, how do we know that China even exists? It might be a government conspiracy! --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 18:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I'd actually be in favor of removing the table. There are so many sources of error that it's hard to establish that they are comparing anything similar. I can't find a reference of the table appearing en toto so I'd almost say this is approaching original research... and not very good research at that 206.248.171.144 (talk)

So I've gone over the sources for that chart. As usual, there is absolutely no standard raised for literacy that can be compared (this is a problem in literacy comparisons across the board not just here). So it's not clear what "literate" means in each country or even from one year to the next. The monetary figures are normalized which is a good thing but they are GDP - since very country alters it's spending %GDP in education. It's not clear if all that's being observed is an increase in education spending. There is some discrepancy between the figures from the Government website and the CIA world factbook on the actual data points. There is a pretty huge discrepancy in terms of which years are being reported and which one's aren't. For example PRC had a 4% drop in literacy in 2003 - representing a 5 year regression. It's also unclear how much error is involved or if the error rates are comparable. For example you can't assume that a population difference of 1.5 orders of magnitude doesn't effect how accurate your error rate is.

Also as mentioned this isn't simply a chart representing data from a single source. It's a chart trying to make a statistical argument which is unsourced. I.e. No reference to a researcher who says that GDP vs literacy rates is a remotely good measure of simplified/traditional uptake. This is, as far as I'm concerned original research. So unless there are some objections over the next week I'm going to remove the chart and the text argument above it. 206.248.171.144 (talk)


 * I think your argument is reasonable. The table is WP:OR not because it is a synthesis of several sources, but because the data points from differing sources are thinly assembled into a unique argument which the is not presented in any of the cited sources. More importantly the data is weak and suffers from several apples to oranges problems. Most importantly, no evidence is provided to support the implicit argument of the table, which is that the literacy rate has a relationship to usage of either simplified or traditional characters. The text below the table is a clear and sourced argument against it's inclusion. If someone wishes to revert the removal of the table I hope they will contribute to this conversation. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 13:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Good source
Here's a useful reference: Keahapana (talk) 19:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Handel, Zev, "Can a Logographic Script be Simplified? Lessons from the 20th Century Chinese Writing Reform Informed by Recent Psycholinguistic Research", SCRIPTA, Volume 5 (September 2013): 21-66.

One simplified character may equate to many traditional characters.
...and vice versa." Otherwise the statement is biased and in favor of traditional characters. There are simplified characters which have split traditional characters with two meanings into two characters. A simple example would be 呵. The character is still used in simplified Chinese, but only for one meaning. The other meaning is now represent by 啊, which has even more strokes. Another example is 於 simplified to 于 for one meaning, but unaltered in another context. In both cases, the characters are pronounced differently. That's one reason they were split. --2.245.213.216 (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Radicals - Pro-Traditional characters
"The simplification of the word electricity/lightning 電 to 电 also took it out of the natural context. It no longer belongs with snow 雪, thunder 雷 and clouds 雲."

电 isn't supposed to be "lightning" anyway, at least nowadays. It only has the meaning of "electricity" unless it's used in the compound 闪电 for "lightning". Electricity only doesn't belong to the group "weather". --2.245.213.216 (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The simplified version of "聽(to listen)" is "听". Isn't it weird to have your mouth (口) listening to something instead of your ears (耳), which should rule the act of listening (王, king)? Minfremi (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Practicality - Pro-Traditional characters
"Those wishing to communicate or do business with overseas Chinese communities in the Western World require knowledge of traditional characters given their dominance in such communities and the negative connotations many in these communities associate with simplified characters."

Do "overseas Chinese communities" only mean Chinatowns all over the world? Then I agree on communication in general, but not on business. You go to Chinatowns mainly because of restaurants. And since there are no traveling restrictions in the PRC and there are by far more people in the PRC than in the ROC, it is safe to say that there are also more Chinese from the PRC doing business outside the Sinosphere. Sorry, I created so many topics, but the article is semi-protected and hardly anyone answers here. --2.245.213.216 (talk) 22:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Boston Chinatown, although there are some simplified characters, is mainly a traditional-character area. I don't think I have seen a PRC flag, but there are ROC flags in a lot of places. It is either a Taiwan based area, or anti-PRC(communism). There are some Cantonese, but those use traditional characters as well; I can't tell the difference between Cantonese and Mandarin. Minfremi (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Suggest rewording the notes section
In the notes section "In Taiwan, traditional characters are officially known as traditional Chinese: 正體字; simplified Chinese: 正体字; pinyin: zhèngtǐ zì; literally: "proper characters", while most Chinese speakers outside Taiwan, whether using simplified or traditional characters, refer to traditional characters as simplified Chinese: 繁体字; traditional Chinese: 繁體字; pinyin: fántǐ zì; literally: "complex characters"." can be confusing to readers.

I suggest changing (page is semi-protected so I can't edit it myself for now) it to "In Taiwan, traditional characters are officially known as "proper characters" (traditional Chinese: 正體字; simplified Chinese: 正体字; pinyin: zhèngtǐ zì), while most Chinese speakers outside Taiwan, whether using simplified or traditional characters, refer to traditional characters as "complex characters" (traditional Chinese: 繁體字; simplified Chinese: 繁体字; pinyin: fántǐ zì)."

If not at least change the last part of the sentence into ...refer to traditional characters as traditional Chinese: 繁體字; simplified Chinese: 繁体字; pinyin: fántǐ zì; literally: "complex characters". -- Jinbobo (talk) 15:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Done. I hope that this article will be deleted soon. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * As a foreigner learning to read simplified Chinese and often trying to watch Youtube videos with traditional Chinese subtitles, I actually found this article interesting. If PRC and ROC ever get around to reconciling, I suspect this debate will resurface. As a learner without any political bias one way or the other, my perspective is only from recognition of computer fonts (without knowing how to handwrite). At small font sizes, I find that common traditional characters generally look more similar than common simplified characters. And some characters are way too similar in both scripts: e.g. 士/土 and 已/己. I wanted to add a source for one "citation needed" that looked trivial to source: that 尤 is pronounced yóu (the xin radical for 忧 really is obvious I hope). I like mdbg: but maybe wikidictionary is preferred? Matt.chambers (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

A possible addition
Perhaps under the "Aesthetics" section, the mention of the Korean usage of traditional Chinese characters would be helpful.

To be precise, something along the lines of the next phrase,

"Traditional Chinese characters are used fully in recognition of their aesthetic value by Koreans, where a majority of its citizens know and frequently use traditional Chinese characters in their everyday lives, especially in newspapers, scholarly reports, and books."

should be written under the support for traditional Chinese characters.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.100.134.40 (talk) 12:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Debate on traditional and simplified Chinese characters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120330103818/http://www.shanghaidaily.com/editor/article.asp?id=200 to http://www.shanghaidaily.com/editor/article.asp?id=200
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120421050332/http://news.5s5w.com/4/2008/20080314_content_45347.shtml to http://news.5s5w.com/4/2008/20080314_content_45347.shtml

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Debate on traditional and simplified Chinese characters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090620012048/http://www.hdpark.net:80/html/xinwen/shiping/2009/0418/927.html to http://www.hdpark.net/html/xinwen/shiping/2009/0418/927.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

debate?
1.3 billion people use simplified characters every day and i am not sure they are aware that there is a "debate" going on. this article makes it sound like it is a real issue. if this is an issue on taiwan or in certain linguistic circles that should be clarified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.14.173.51 (talk) 00:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I first started working on this page because I thought needed to help clean up the NPOV issues. Now, I realize that the basic premise which belies this article's very existences is just POV vapor. This article certainly suggests that there is some kind of hot debate in existence. There is not. It is important however to have some information about the differences between the systems and some details about the history. All of that information is available at Simplified Chinese Characters. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I think traditional characters are admired or at least used for certain purposes eg calligraphy in areas using simplified but simplified characters are hated or at least looked down on in areas using traditional. As such, it is not really a controversial issue in PRC, although there has been a proposal from a top rated PRC communist party member to return to traditional and this received a fair amount of coverage, but in HK and TW, not to mention overseas chinese communities, i would say the issue/"debate" is very controversial, with people complaining at the very sight of simplified. Saruman-the-white (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * there is no debate regarding simplified or traditional characters. I don't see academic debates with one side supporting simplified and one side supporting traditional. Also, there is no proposal brought forth by the Government of China to bring back traditional. And there is no "hatred" of simplified text, that would be a political statement, and narrows you down to a political opponent of NPOV. Dark Liberty (talk) 06:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Clearly, there's no contemporary debate except for some fringe proposals; the "national" standards have already been codified, and have been stable for a long time. This article could probably be transformed into one about the debate in 20th century PRC that led to the adoption of the simplified characters, and the promotional campaign for them thereafter, without too many changes. Shrigley (talk) 01:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Completely agree with the OP. This isn't a debate. This is preying on the fact that the Mainland Chinese have blocked internet and can't participate in. They don't get their voice on this issue to be heard. And this whole thing keeps going on for two main reasons: - People that are not Chinese or educated in Chinese couldn't even find China on the map most of the time. So they're easily convinced of lies about Mainland China. Because Mainland Chinese never get a chance to debunk them. - Taiwanese and Chinese diaspora has some political agenda in making this fake image of Mainland China for reasons all too obvious.

And don't get me wrong. There's plenty of wrong happening in China. And I love Hokkien and Hakka people... and Cantonese sounds so sexy. But this is just unfair that Wikipedia is leaning so much toward Traditional Chinese that is misleading. Especially to people who couldn't know better. And when they read something, they see "Oh, this one has traditional Chinese first... so that must be how they use it in China". It's simply misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.70.86.139 (talk) 21:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Debate on traditional and simplified Chinese characters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/mangalica/simplified.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Debate on traditional and simplified Chinese characters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://theme.taipei.gov.tw/cgi-bin/SM_theme?page=424aab17
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/mangalica/simplified.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140221224843/http://www.roc-taiwan.org/ct.asp?xItem=205227&ctNode=2825&mp=52 to http://www.roc-taiwan.org/ct.asp?xItem=205227&ctNode=2825&mp=52
 * Added tag to http://big5.chinanews.com.cn:89/cul/news/2009/04-09/1637435.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Debate on traditional and simplified Chinese characters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081218203648/http://www.sungwh.freeserve.co.uk:80/hanzi/j-s.htm to http://www.sungwh.freeserve.co.uk/hanzi/j-s.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Descriptive vs prescriptive language as a political simplication
It seems to me that the discussion has an element of the descriptive vs prescriptive debate. This could be used to simplify the situation.

For reference, descriptive language chooses to describe the language as it is used. Language is democratic by nature and it is always changing. The Prescriptive language ideology gives authority to describing the language.

The result of these 2 ideologies is like democracy vs authentarianism.

I would like to include this in the political section but I'm putting it here for discussion first. Jago25 98 (talk) 20:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Debate on traditional and simplified Chinese characters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120328003810/http://chicagomaroon.com/2009/8/9/reflections-on-china-the-folly-of-simplified-characters/ to http://www.chicagomaroon.com/2009/8/9/reflections-on-china-the-folly-of-simplified-characters
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090220191126/http://www.gwytb.gov.cn:8088/detail.asp?table=Trade&title=Cross-strait+Trade&m_id=67 to http://www.gwytb.gov.cn:8088/detail.asp?table=Trade&title=Cross-strait+Trade&m_id=67

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

List format vs Prose format (response to )
I contest that the current state of the article in list format is easier to parse and read about the differences between traditional and simplified characters. I ask that the template message " " be removed. Though some content can be written in prose format here and there, the bulk of the article is far better to understand in list format. Therefore I ask that the template message be taken down. WinterSpw (talk) 20:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

typo
The interpretation of ancient texts  in often   complicated by the presence of these phonetic loans, for which several very different meanings could be read.

should be:

The interpretation of ancient texts  is often   complicated by the presence of these phonetic loans, for which several very different meanings could be read.

92.40.176.2 (talk) 06:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

"Article is stupid" tag needed
This has to be one of the most stupid and pointless article on Wiki. The whole thing is filled with stuff like "he said", "she said", manufactured facts, brain-dead logic, politically motivated statements, while putting little effort into establishing facts. Does "...claim that the PRC government was politically motivated to simplify this character, to devalue..." sound NPOV to anyone, at all?

Then there's the whole section about literacy, while showing zero proof that writing system is even related to literacy rate at all (Niger and France have the same official language, so they should have the same literacy rate, right?) This whole section doesn't deserve to exist, whichever side you might "pro".

Next comes the "dry goods" vs "fuck goods" debacle, cited as evidence that merging multiple characters into one confuses people--so, it would have been OK if someone had translated the traditional "幹" (do, perform) into "fuck" on product packaging? It only shows how bad the translator is at English, but not how simplified characters are misleading. Being one of the working languages of UN, and used by more than a billion people daily, I'd wager simplified Chinese can make a distinction between "dry" and "fuck", thank you.

And there's the gem in section "Symbolism conflict". Under "Pro-simplified", bullet 1: "...traditional characters can often be identified as not belonging to China..."; bullet 2: "...simplified characters is far from belonging to mainland China only";  bullet 3: "It's no longer the case that everything in simplified Chinese is made in mainland China...". I can't tell which side of the debate these bullets are "pro-"ing, hell, they don't even agree with each other.

Similar problem in section "Ratio of current usage or pragmatism of the choice between the two systems" (way to make a section title, BTW), under "Pro-simplified", bullet 1: "traditional Chinese ... used by only some 50 million people"; bullet 2: "...used by just over 30 million people". What's more, the "50" and "30" are nicely italicized in case readers might miss the glaring inconsistency. Right after that, under "Pro-traditional", there's the story of Red Guards beating up or murdering people, burning books, etc. Ok, Red Guards bad, I get it. But does it prove the point "The high ratio achieved by Simplified characters are by force"? I don't see it. Relying on ambiguous terms like "Traditional literature" or "traditional books" doesn't do the trick, sorry.

There's a NPOV notice at the top of the page, but it'd be more fitting if it were a "The non-stupidity of this article is disputed" tag, because throughout the whole article, regardless of which side is being "pro-"ed, arguments are either bogus, or badly presented. It's not a neutrality issue, it's a competency issue. We'd be doing readers a service by deleting this article altogether, because it'd be one fewer way to waste readers' time.

--Ledrug (talk) 15:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If you really want to save time, just read the mainland versions from xinhuanet, baidu, hudong. According to those sources, simplified chars is perfect and happily accepted by all. You can read those articles in half the time or less. Benjwong (talk) 06:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What? Look, I don't really care whose side is "correct" in the simplified vs traditional debate, as a Chinese myself, I know all too well our tendency of fighting over frivolous issues. It's not the biased opinions such as yours that bothers me, but rather the ineptitude in the ways those opinions are presented.  Wikipedia has its standards, and this article certainly doesn't meet them.  I said before, it's more of a stupidity issue than an NPOV issue.  Then again, judging by your previous comments on this talk page, you are here to fight a holy war, and very capable of not understanding critical opinions, so never you mind. -- Ledrug (talk) 07:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not about correction, stupidity or holy war (eyes roll). This is about presenting materials.  The majority of the contents here are old.  You can ask anyone on the street and they can get you way better contents except there is no references. If you can find a less-stupid article out there, let us know. Benjwong (talk) 04:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * whatever, i must say the Fuck Goods example is just fucking stupid, and misleading. as a chinese knowing well both tra. and simplified ch, i can tell you that in my whole life till now, during all the experiences communicating with no matter taiwanese or mainlanders,etc ,i had never been troubled by misunderstanding or that sort of things concerning this character 干乾幹, it is just too easy to distinguish them(how can "fuck goods" even came into your mind when it itself is not a word with some definite meaning.)actually misunderstanding was never a issue in this "tra vs sim" shit, problems may be numerous with his simplification but misunderstanding was never one of them, KonW (talk) 16:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If everyone could learn both scripts like you, there would be no problem at all. Benjwong (talk) 00:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree that this is certainly one worst articles on wikipedia, POV problems all over the place, horrible references, it should probably just be deleted Afuhz (talk) 11:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

This article is obviously sour grapes of Taiwanese who still can't accept that they lost a war few generations ago. Compounded with diaspora who obviously is not part of China anymore since they left and live elsewhere for generations and usually don't even have citizenship. It unfairly gives a huge weight to people outside of China - Country where Chinese language matters the most. Versus Billions of Chinese in China who live under blocked censored internet and can't usually even respond to this (yes I know wiki isn't blocked by most ISPs there, but they don't use it because they believe it's blocked and it is throttled anyway so not convenient to use). It's simply making a case against those billions of Chinese behind their backs because of Taiwanese + diaspora. Shameful. I don't think this would be allowed say for Americans weighing in on Language of European countries most came from? But Chinese? Since they can't "hit back" behind the firewall - Fair game! Shameful. And so Wiki keeps adding traditional Chinese to everything related to China... but somehow they leave out the politicians? They don't add Hanja over Hangul (although these are actually both used in South Korea so have more reason to be used!) in South Korean entries... Hangul takes priority there. But Mainland Chinese movies, Mainland Chinese actors, Mainland Chinese this or that, for hipster and political reasons - gets the Traditional Chinese treatment. So ridiculous. Might as well start using Greek alphabet and British spellings in Hollywood entries, Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.70.86.139 (talk) 21:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd have to agree that this is one of the silliest articles I've come across on Wikipedia. Few NPOV items whatsoever, lots of rubbish arguments that have little to do with Chinese writing systems and everything to do with political tantrum-throwing (by both sides, though I have to say the Taiwanese/Diaspora crowd have been far busier on here and their arguments are even sillier.) The Literacy section is laughably irrelevant. Needs a POV tag for starters, but I'd have to agree with the others on here that say this page should just be deleted. It has zero value, and I say this as someone very interested in Chinese writing systems. Khardankov (talk) 02:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)