Talk:Yale romanization of Mandarin

External Link Issues
It seems like I'm having trouble trying to access the external link. (You know the pinyin.info website? That's what I'm talking about.) Is anyone else having the same problem as I do? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 04:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Now I can access it. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 12:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Poorly Written
The introductory paragraphs of this page read as though they were written by someone with little knowledge of pinyin, phonetics, or Mandarin Chinese (as well as some mild political bias). I know this is just an obscure romanization but that doesn't excuse poorly written pages. 101.189.121.240 (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The article is short on references but its content is an excellent explanation of how Yale fits in the Mandarin romanization landscape. It has been crafted admirably to be easily comprehended by non-experts (a key role of WP) and is flawlessly accurate.  It appears politically neutral.  Yale is far from "obscure", being a leading system, so perhaps the anonymous author of this comment would do well to visit some more Romanization pages to broaden his/her knowledge on the subject.  sirlanz 22:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Mandarin vs. Standard: How many Chineses does it take to confuse an English speaker?
This first wiki-linked use of Mandarin in this article takes the reader to Standard Chinese, an article that seems to be more about the politics of language than about the language itself, a language which apparently has next to no native speakers. I'm about as far from an expert in Chinese language as you can get, but this seems like a pretty confusing situation for people who want to use Wikipedia to quickly learn about this topic. After some searching I was able to find Mandarin Chinese, an article focused on the language from the Pacific side of Asia that's spoken natively by about 1 in 8 humans. Trying to fix the confusing situation presented by this article, I switched the Mandarin reference from Standard Chinese to Mandarin Chinese. Kanguole reverted my edit because I'd misunderstood the reference to Mandarin in this article. After reading a bunch more about all of this, I can see that Kanguole's reversion was correct. But that still leaves this article confusing for an initial reader. It would be nice to have some of the opening paragraph reworded a bit to help the average English speaker (who probably just calls the whole big group of languages 'Chinese' anyway) access the information in this article quickly without having to understand the whole deep background of Chinese language and language policy to make sense of what's going on. Lereman (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The subject is intrinsically complex and any understanding of it can only be acquired through reading more than superficially. I don't see anything confusing in the way the subject is introduced or in the use of the term "Mandarin" here.  Users who do not have an appreciation of the term who click on the link receive a very well-directed and concise explanation in the first sentence they read.  sirlanz 01:48, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * +1. Wikipedia is not for users who seek confirmation of common misapprehensions, but for users looking for scientific facts. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 02:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Since at the time of the invention of the system, the "standard" Chinese was probably based on Nanjing, i would rather like to read citation on the matter. Which the system is develop for Mandarin Chinese, a bigger family of language/dialect that include Nanjing, Beijing and Sichuanese, etc., or just "standard" Chinese for Nanjing / Beijing dialect .Matthew hk (talk) 03:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * George Kennedy's Yale romanization of Mandarin is obviously not a romanization of Nanjing Mandarin. Nankinese has final stops (entering tone), a merger of final and, no  phoneme, to say nothing of erhua. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 03:33, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The current state of the piped link violate WP:easteregg. May be it just need direct quote of the original wording in the citation, which was Mandarin  or Chinese or else, and then add sic. Matthew hk (talk) 03:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, the phrase "the standard romanization of the time for Mandarin" should be replaced with "the standard romanization of the time for Standard Chinese" as the system is by no means a romanization for many (let alone all) varieties of Mandarin Chinese, cf. my remarks on Nanjing Mandarin above. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 03:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem of wikipedia usually came with "no citation", which editor assume their content is enough. For Encyclopædia Britannica, lack of citation is not a bad thing, but in wikipedia, better provide more detailed citation (in theory every fact should have citation, except those common sense, simple knowledge, but simple?). Thus the "easter egg" piping should be removed, as well as citation is required for actual wording that was using in the original wording during the publication of the method. Moreover, WP:article title may need to change. Matthew hk (talk) 04:06, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * As the system only works for Pekingese-based MSMC it would indeed seem "common sense" and "simple knowledge" that it wasn't meant for any other standard. Am I missing something? Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 04:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

For someone such as non-Chinese speaker (native English speaker), mandarin is their slang for Chinese (or non Cantonese), so in this article the pipe should be removed. But at that same time, citation is required for the fact that this method is only work for Standard Chinese, as a requirement of WP:V. Matthew hk (talk) 04:30, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Maybe we can cite from page 102 of Huang Xing & Xu Feng's The Romanization of Chinese Language: "The main features of the Yale system are shown in the followings: (1) to use Beijing dialect as the standard phonology;..." Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 04:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * It seem fine to say "Yale romanization is the romanization for Beijing dialect, the phonological basis of Standard Chinese," according to the citation. But i need time to edit the actual lede of the wiki article. Busy with my own exam revision. Matthew hk (talk) 04:59, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Kanguole's new version (00:01 5 Nov 2018) of the opening sentence of this article seems perfect to me: The Yale romanization of Mandarin is a system for transcribing the sounds of Standard Chinese, based on Mandarin Chinese varieties spoken in and around Beijing. Though I'm still no Sinologist, I think that is an accurate statement — and I know it makes a lot more sense in English and gives all the information needed very quickly and elegantly. In my opinion, this edit solves the whole problem. Three cheers for Kanguole! Lereman (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Unheralded move
Moving the page to a new article title is a major step and ought to have been canvassed before effected. There is an obvious objection to it: when Yale romanisation was devised by Kennedy, et al., there was no recognised "Standard Chinese"; the work done at Yale was on Mandarin. In the 40s, there were merely attempts in train to create a Standard Chinese. The title of the article is now a fabrication, an inversion of the chronology. It ought to be restored as "Yale romanisation of Mandarin". It is notable that the first sentence of the lede, which is a correct statement, exposes the fallacy of the article's new title. sirlanz 04:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:article title for the 5 criteria. mandarin is ambiguous. While there are two articles Standard Chinese and Mandarin Chinese, and the romanization is not for the latter. Matthew hk (talk) 04:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Please respond to the specific issue raised. The term "Mandarin" is no more ambiguous than the term "Standard Chinese".  The underlying compexities of both terms are manifest in their respective WP articles.  If the basis of your move is ambiguity it is a bad one.  Please provide support for your contention that Yale romanisation was, in the 1940s context which is when it was created, "not for" Mandarin.  sirlanz 04:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * If you don't like, you can open a WP:RM discussion, but please provide WP:RS to backup your reasoning. Matthew hk (talk) 04:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * You've got the cart entirely before the horse. The onus is on you to justify your change to the encyclopaedia.  If you do not provide tangible support, the move can be simply reverted by another editor as unsourced, unsupported, bare "take my word for it" edit.  The encyclopaedia is not any editor's personal sandpit.  If you respect the principles of our community, provide your basis for the change.  Up to you.  sirlanz 06:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 1 November 2018

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move, after extended time for discussion. bd2412 T 14:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Yale romanization of Mandarin → ? – An uncontroversial move to Yale romanization of Standard Chinese was contested.


 * Ambiguity of the old name Instead of fixing the wp:easter egg ( Mandarin ) the contester change the link in lede to mandarin (disambiguation), which should also be avoided. The current naming convention was Yale romanization + language, to match the sister articles of Cantonese language and Korean language. The contester also removed the ref for the lede. The Yale romanization for Chinese is for Beijing dialect only. Which Beijing dialect was a de facto phonological basis of Mandarin (late imperial lingua franca) (or may be vice versa) as well as became the de jure standard of Standard Chinese, but as mandarin currently redirect to mandarin (disambiguation), it can also means wiki article Mandarin Chinese (despite Mandarin Chinese may also means Standard Chinese as second meaning), which is a larger language family that included Sichuanese dialects and Nanjing dialect, which basically a political/academic war on language or dialect based on mutually intelligible criterion. Also, mandarin may means Taiwanese Mandarin, which according to the wiki article, "mostly mutually intelligible" with Standard Chinese, so it may still able to use the Yale Romanization, or may be not. To sum up, instead of using ambiguous suffix "mandarin", a more precise suffix should be decided, either Standard Chinese, Chinese or Beijing dialect.


 * Source I don't know how use use Ngram properly, so try to list academic journals one by one from my uni library login search.
 * (with modern Chinese context)
 * which was a review of:
 * (physical item, not accessed, not accessed by myself)
 * (physical item, not accessed, not accessed by myself)
 * with modern/Standard Chinese context (China = People's Republic of China context)
 * which was a review of Speaking Chinese in China, Yale University Press 1983. (physical item, not accessed by myself)
 * which was a review of Speaking Chinese in China, Yale University Press 1983. (physical item, not accessed by myself)
 * which was a review of Speaking Chinese in China, Yale University Press 1983. (physical item, not accessed by myself)


 * with (standard) Chinese context
 * which was a review of  Matériaux pour l'enseignement élémentaire du chinois, écriture, transcription, langue parlée nationale 1953 (physical item, not accessed by myself)
 * which was a review of  Matériaux pour l'enseignement élémentaire du chinois, écriture, transcription, langue parlée nationale 1953 (physical item, not accessed by myself)
 * which was a review of  Matériaux pour l'enseignement élémentaire du chinois, écriture, transcription, langue parlée nationale 1953 (physical item, not accessed by myself)


 * To sum up, those academic source just use Chinese (plus usage of standard Chinese, Modern Chinese), instead of the slang mandarian. May be the rationale in those source was likes, Italian language may just means Standard Italian instead of others. (Chinese verse full term [de facto/de jure] standard Chinese / modern Chinese / any thing oppose to Middle Chinese, other lesser known Chinese dialects). Matthew hk (talk) 01:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * of Mandarin romanization but no context to refer to which Chinese languages /dialect, (little bit slant to Standard Chinese as National Romanization was mentioned)

–– Matthew hk (talk) 02:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Update Yale Just call pinyin and Wade-Giles romanization as Chinese romanization for simplicity, which pinyin certainly based on Mandarin /Beijing dialect/Standard Chinese of the Chinese language family. So, also totally fine as Yale romanization of Chinese. Matthew hk (talk) 10:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yale romanisation was not written in 2018. sirlanz 10:46, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * But the country Swaziland had became Eswatini. For the context of which language the Yale romanization was designed for, had changed from Mandarin to Chinese as modern usage, same as many place name of China had used pinyin romanization, same as China means PRC instead of Republic of China. Even the book from Yale in the past (at the era of the system was invented), use book title Chinese for the language, and explains it also called Mandarin. Matthew hk (talk) 11:15, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There are two Yale romanizations of Chinese, the other one is Gerard P. Kok's Yale romanization of Cantonese. We could set up a disambiguation page Yale romanization of Chinese. — Eswatini was always called eSwatini in the country's official Swazi language, a term which literally means "land of the Swazi," or "Swaziland" for short. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Survey

 * Yale romanization of Chinese as nominator. Matthew hk (talk) 10:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - for reasons set out in Discussion sirlanz 05:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion
Please post additional discussion thread here. Matthew hk (talk) 01:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I confess I have considerable difficulty understanding the barely intelligible case being made for the move. It would be helpful to the debate if the proposer were to address the point made when the unheralded move was reversed, i.e. that when Yale romanisation was formulated, what is now considered to be "Standard Chinese" (and as explained in the WP article of that name) simply did not exist.  Kennedy did not romanise "Standard Chinese", he romanised what he conceived to be Beijing Chinese, i.e. Mandarin, as it is (and was) commonly understood (without splitting hairs about the extent to which Nanking and Hankow forms figured in that).  sirlanz 02:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * , the maker of Yale system (Cantonese), Parker Po-fei Huang wrote the book Twenty Lectures on Chinese Culture: an Intermediary Chinese Textbook.  (stated above) not Twenty Lectures on Mandarin/Cantonese. I tried to get the book to see it there any point to support Mandarin (sarcasm) Matthew hk (talk) 02:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Parker Huang is a diversion. His collaborated with Gerald Kok in the 50s, after Kennedy and Tewksbury's work in the 40s which set up the Yale system (see Speak Chinese M Gardner Tewksbury, Yale University, 1948, which acknolwedges Kennedy and Kok).  Huang is a 50s follower, not involved in the system's creation, and his primary interest was Cantonese.  sirlanz 03:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Note, Matthew hk, that it was Gerard (not Gerald, sirlanz) P. Kok who made Yale for Cantonese, not Parker Po-fei Huang. Scriptions (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Standard Chinese (guóyǔ) did exist at the time. The standards committee had settled on the Beijing pronunciation in 1926, and produced a revised dictionary with those pronunciations in 1932.  Kanguole 16:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The authors of the Yale system of romanisation, by their own account, paid no regard to any system of "Standard Chinese"; they expressly stated that their system was for "Mandarin". Hence, it is a fallacy to suggest, as Kanguole's new edit does, that the Yale system is linked in any way to Standard Chinese.  This is a question of immutable chronology and WP must not distort history.  Secondly, Kanguole cites guóyǔ, which is only one of two branches of Standard Chinese, which conveniently sidesteps the distinctions between it and Putonghua which were very much alive in the 40s when Kennedy et al. were at work.  There is simply no evidence to assist in determining what "Standard Chinese" might have been at play here, if at all.  Kennedy certainly gave no nod to it. sirlanz 01:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The citation given, page xi of Speak Mandarin, says the pronunciation is of guóyǔ, the national language, saying it is "essentially that variety of Mandarin spoken in the capital, Peking". "putongua" was a vague term in the early 20th century, not a standard.  Putonghua as currently understood began as a later rebranding of the guoyu standard.  Kanguole 01:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The view that there is no distinction to be made between Putonghua and guóyǔ is at odds with the explication to be found on the Standard Chinese page which is what readers see if pressing the link you introduced. As regards the source, in substance, it supports the link to Mandarin Chinese], not to [[Standard Chinese, and its use of the term guóyǔ must be understood in the context of the time of publication, i.e. 1967, not contemporaneous with creation. sirlanz 01:46, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It is unwise to rely on Wikipedia articles as an authority (especially when the text in question is unsourced and has "clarification needed" attached). Kanguole 02:50, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Granted. The view you express, though, looks shaky in the face of the article content.  Bringing that view into service of your argument here while at the same time proposing a link to an alternative view does not sit well; perhaps, work to be done by you on Standard Chinese?  sirlanz 03:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The wartime course seems to be difficult to obtain. The oldest presentation of the Yale romanization I could find is the companion Dictionary of Spoken Chinese, which says it describes guóyǔ.  Kanguole 23:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Great find. I can't locate its precise connection to the work at Yale.  You will have noticed the opening sentence on page 8:  "The present dictionary operates in terms of the so-called 'Chinese National Language' (guó-'ywǔ), and in the terms of the speech of Peiping, on which the National Language is primarily based."  So right there we see a departure from Yale ('ywǔ, not yǔ).  We can also detect that this War Department system was, like Yale, built on what is commonly known among English speakers then, and now, as Mandarin. sirlanz 03:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * According to Norman, Chinese p. 175, this dictionary used "a newly devised romanization system, the ancestor of the well-known Yale system". The dictionary was later revised at Yale by some of the original editors.  The main differences in the mature system seem to be simplifying ywu to yu and dropping the hyphen separator between syllables.  Kanguole 11:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Adding a little meat to this, see : "... Mandarin as spoken in and around Beiping ...", "In the Beiping dialect ..." sirlanz 05:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC)


 * It should be made explicit whether the terms Beijing dialect and/or Beiping dialect refer to what zh.WP calls 北京话 (former ISO 639-6 code bjjg), to 北京官话 (bjgh), or to some other variety or group of varieties. Dialect is not an ideal translation of any Chinese term anyway. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 05:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I would say the construction of the naming convention was [Yale] [romanization] of [language]. Using more obscured ambiguous Mandarin while other sister wiki article use just Japanese (instead of Edo Japanese, Standard Japanese or others) and Korean and Cantonese.


 * Standard Chinese / Chinese are more resemble to Beijing dialect, while the Yale University publish books just using Chinese as title for the modern language that based on Beijing dialect , so ? Also, the explantation inside the book explain Chinese they teach had a second name Mandarin that was based on Beijing dialect, does not mean Mandarin is the most common name, if it was , the book should be called Learn Mandarin or Speak Mandarin.


 * while Mandarin in wikipedia is ambiguous, can refer as an umbrella term for the bigger family of dialects (the Mandarin Chinese), instead of dictionary meaning of Mandarin / Mandarin Chinese = Standard Chinese that used in China, Taiwan and Singapore. Also official document in Singapore calls its official language Chinese (it is ambiguous referring to Chinese language and its dialects or Standard Chinese BTW). So just call it Chinese. the Infobox in China use Standard Chinese, call the same language something else than Chinese, is not consistence (WP:common name for the criteria) {{{t|zh icon}} call it in Chinese not in Mandarin. Matthew hk (talk) 08:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)


 * 1. Nowadays the Singaporean Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) promotes Mandarin. The paper you linked to, over 50 years old, is outdated in several respects. For example, what is currently called "common language" in Singapore is English and no longer Malay, though Malay is still the "national language" according to article 153A of the constitution.
 * 2. The "dictionary meaning" of mandarin1 2. in the OED is as follows:
 * (With capital initial.) The language spoken in China by officials and educated people generally. Hence, any of the varieties of Kuan Hua or Mandarin spoken as a common language in China, spec. the Northern variety, which forms the basis of putonghua ... 1910 Encycl. Brit. VI. 216/2 Farther north we come into the range of the great dialect popularly known as Mandarin (Kuan hua or ‘official language’). 1917 Encycl. Sinica 143/1 Mandarin or Kuan hua is the spoken language of about two-thirds of China. ... It would seem absurd to call mandarin a dialect, since it is the tongue of 250,000,000 people. ...
 * Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 09:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.