Talk:Guoyu

I intenionally used Zhuyin instead of Pinyin as a page talking about Guoyu should deserve a exception from the mandatory wikipedian Pinyin convention rule. -- Ktsquare June 21 2002

Wareware, go to [1], search 國語 on 二十五史, and examine what it means other than a classical writing. --Nanshu 03:41, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Strange edit

The following is both factually and gramatically puzzling:

Guoyu in the sense of national language was coined in Japan (kokugo in Japanese) and then was loaned into Chinese.

Care to explain? Fuzheado | Talk 04:20, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Personal insults

Nanshu, also your edit comment ("never heard? That's because you are ignorant.") is in violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks, so whether it's unfamiliarity with the policy or the English language, please stop. [2] Fuzheado | Talk 04:27, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That Wareware did't know doesn't suffice for deletion. That's all what I wanted to say. Is your standard also applied to your fellow Chinese? --Nanshu 06:50, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Non-Chinese

Ran, don't edit on a whim. Take a look at classical literature [3]. Guoyu usually refers to non-Chinese languages as is typically seen in 遼史, 金史, 元史. Otherwise it means a classical book. When Chinese emperors ruled China, there was no need to use such a word.

And why did you delete the sentense: This meaning was added in Japan (kokugo in Japanese) and then loaned into Chinese. You have to explain the reason. --Nanshu 14:25, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What exactly is the purpose of saying that guoyu is a loan from Japanese? Wikipedia is not a dictionary and we don't need to provide etymologies, least of all in disambiguation pages. -- ran (talk) 16:45, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Very nice. Do you really think it is enough reason for deletion? Anyway it is the first step to amend your bad habit.

Of course it is enough reason for deletion. The lack of relevance to the article at hand is always enough reason for deletion.

The lack of relevance? Why is the origin of an entity irrelevant to the entity? It looks like you have a strange idea.--Nanshu

In case you haven't noticed, this is a disambiguation page. You add all information except for the bare basics to the actual pages that the dab points to. -- ran (talk) 02:03, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a policy of making disambiguation pages less informative as possible? I checked a couple of disambig. pages (like Do). Apparently they do not follow such a policy. --Nanshu 14:16, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Do provides as much information as is necessary. -- ran (talk) 20:44, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

So does my version of Guoyu. What's different? --Nanshu 13:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This sentence is important because it explains why the modern meaning of guoyu replaced the old one (emperor's language). I heard an interesting episode: a Japanese scholar and a Qing official in exile in Japan talked about 國語, but that conversation went wrong since the former dealt with standardized Chinese and the latter thought of the Manchu language. I can't remember who they were. --Nanshu 14:33, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

...which is a very interesting story to add to the Standard Mandarin article. But I fail to see why it is necessary to explain, in a disambiguation page, why a modern meaning replaced an ancient meaning that is now completely obsolete and is unknown to most people today. [In fact, I fail to see why we even need to include the ancient sense, since it is clearly not current anymore, and we're not trying to write a dictionary.]

So do you have a policy of deleting stuffs unless they have vital absolutely vital to the articles? The article of Do provides examples of each meaning and some notes. Will you delete them unless someone proves they are essential to the disambig. page? --Nanshu 13:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you should stop trying to provide as many examples as possible of Japanese loanwords into Chinese in irrelevant and unnecessary contexts, regardless of what nationalistic urges are driving you. -- ran (talk) 20:44, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

It looks like your speculation on me is the reflection of yourself. --Nanshu 13:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And I have questions to ask YOU about unjustified deletions too. Why did you delete content about the status of the Khitan and Jurchen languages during the Liao and Jin Dynasties? And why do you INSIST on putting obsolete senses of the word before modern, common ones? -- ran (talk) 02:05, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

For Khitan and Jurchen, sorry. It's a careless mistake. I did not intend to delete them.

And I arranged them in chronological order. Did you ordered them by publicity (for whom?)? Then do you think that classical book is more popular than Mandarin? --Nanshu 14:16, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The classical book sense and the Mandarin sense are both senses that are still current. But the Manchu/Jurchen sense only applied historically. No one would take guoyu to mean those things today. -- ran (talk) 15:58, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

So did you use two criteria just to arrange three items. First you divided the first two items (book, Mandarin) and the rest (emperor's language) by whether they are up-to-date or not, and secondly arranged the first two items (book, Mandarin) in order of time. That doesn't look smart. Sorting them in chronological order is simple and suitable to the word with long history. --Nanshu 13:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And I still don't understand why you insist on adding etymologies to a disambiguation page. Do China (disambiguation) or Japan (disambiguation) cover the etymological origins of the various senses of "China" or "Japan"? Of course not — that's the job of individual pages. -- ran (talk) 20:38, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

..because this page contains both old and new meanings together. The origin of the new meaning explains why the meaning shift happened. --Nanshu 13:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And I still don't understand why you try hard to delete just a single sentence. It is relevant to the topic, and no one has a problem if it remains here. --Nanshu 13:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

.... I'm not going to dispute you over a single sentence if including it makes you so happy. But the meanings should be arranged according to how commonly they occur. When people say "guoyu" today, the first thing they think of is the standard language. Only if put in context would people think of the classical book. And the last one is included purely for historical interest. -- ran (talk) 16:57, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

I don't stick to my arrangement so much. --Nanshu 14:37, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Kokugo is a concept different from hyojyungo, and both of them are used. --Nanshu 14:37, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Unexplained deletions/reverts

Thoese Chinese guys here have a bad habit of deleting content and reverting without explanation. I don't intend to attack you, but I'd like to stamp out that bad practice to avoid further silly troubles. --Nanshu 14:25, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you can begin by not emanating an anti-Chinese and anti-Korean aura around you. You confirm many of the worst stereotypical features of the "Jap" for Chinese and Korean contributors and it is not surprising that people would end up reverting a lot of what you try to add, and that you have to work triply as hard to find references that can convince people.

For starters, you can stop making vague general complaints about "Those Chinese guys". This kind of borderline racism does not improve things. -- ran (talk) 17:10, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Your answer is pointless but symbolizes the very problem here. Just labelling others "racists" does not suffice for unexplained reverts/deletions of unfavorable information at all. Actually I'm tired of your nonproductive approaches. Can't you bring new information with which we can improve Wikipedia articles? --Nanshu 14:33, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nonproductive approaches? Excuse me? You are the one who launches, again and again, into personal attacks and insults, bordering on racism, with no provocation whatsoever. This one is a great example. Rather than talk about the article, you go straight to conclusions about "those Chinese guys". I'm surprised you can actually accuse me of "nonproductive approaches".

You need to learn to be less confrontational. You need to learn to keep your prejudices about other people, especially entirety ethnicities of other people, to yourself. This will help you greatly if you want to work with other people on Wikipedia. -- ran (talk) 02:03, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Not again. Read this page again. I brought pointers to historical sources and discussed guoyu. But what about you?

Once again, do not deleting content and reverting without explanation. That's what I ask you and I'm sorry if you felt offese with my outlying words. --Nanshu 14:16, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not the only one who feels "offese". -- ran (talk) 20:47, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Do you still dodge my request? --Nanshu 13:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Official transliteration

As far as I remember the official transliteration by the ROC government is not "Guoyu". Is it something like Kuo-yü? — Instantnood 21:45 Mar 1 2005 (UTC)

That would be Wade-Giles. I'm not sure whether it's still official in the ROC. -- ran (talk) 22:11, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

I see. Transription of ROC-related stuffs are not that standardised anyways. — Instantnood 11:09 Mar 1 2005 (UTC)

Stub ? Wiktionary ?

At its present state, this article doesn't looks like an encyclopedia article ? What's happening ?