Jump to content

Talk:Kung hei fat choi/Move Discussion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested moves

[edit]

Closed
This requested move discussion is closed. Please do not add any comments to it. If you want to continue the discussion, take it to the talk page.

This is not a Cantonese only term, and should be moved to Gong Xi Fa Cai. &mdash Yaohua2000 06:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]
  • Support. There is as much Gong Xi Fa Cais are there are kung hei fat chois in the English language. It is all the more misleading when a local Chinese dialect is used in place of Mandarin Chinese, which is used by people in two independent countries and one de-facto independent state.--Huaiwei 15:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- HenryLi 16:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. More people use Gong Xi Fa Cai than Kung Hei Fat Choi. That is Putonghua, but Kung Hei Fat Choi is Cantonese. Some may not understand Cantonese. Why should we use defacto language of a country as the article name? --Terence Ong |Talk 16:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Seems this phase is widely used in Hong Kong as cantonese romanisation, and also in many foreign countries. And the alternate name of this is Kung hei fat choy. And also why don't use the Chinese characters 恭喜發財 for but use the phase in Putonghua pinyin? Likely the former Hong Kong Governor (known as gweilos mentioned by Instantnood.) speaks Kung Hei Fat Choi instead of Gong Xi Fa Cai. --Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 17:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So is this page only relevant to Hong Kong or the world's English-speaking Chinese community? Your claims that this phrase is "widely used around the world" remains to be verified, and does it negate the fact that Gong xi fa cai is just as well known around the world? Does the former Hong Kong Governer have any say in this matter? How about the millions of non-Chinese in Malaysia and Singapore who greet Malaysian and Singaporean Chinese with a Gong xi fa cai?--Huaiwei 17:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Malaysan and Singaporians may not only to know the Mandarin Pinyin, but some of them may be know the Cantonese as well (de facto understanding Cantonese speakings). This is not only applies in Hong Kong, it's in other countries as well. --Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 18:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Will, if you may assume less and verify more, than perhaps we can take your words such as the above more seriously. Meanwhile, it leaves me wondering: so Cantonese folks in HK and Guangdong do not know what Gong xi fa cai means? And Gong xi fa cai isnt used in other countries as well?--Huaiwei 18:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Reasons: (1) "gong xi fa cai" is more common in English, based on Google or whatever (2) Use of Mandarin is more global and less dialect-centric. --Vsion 20:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as per Vsion. Also is there any verifiable proof that the term originated from Cantonese? Mandel 21:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. In Toronto, Kung Hey Fat Choi (or some variation of it) has been the norm for many years; but a few years ago Gong Xi Fa Cai started appearing. There are Cantonese people here who think that “Cantonese is dead”, but also Mandarin speakers here who think “learning Cantonese is the future”. I am neutral regarding the move, provided that there are redirects in place, and the actual article text does not favour one or the other transliteration. (Note: I have been here for only about 20 years.)—Gniw (Wing) 22:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Certainly not just a few years only. I have been using Gongxi Facai (or really, another non-Cantonese non-Mandarin variant) for as old as I am, and I'm not just "a few years" old. Mandel 22:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Certainly not my observation, but I accept your observation as a valid counter-example. I stay neutral on this vote. (PS: Can you clarify whether you mean “speak” or “write”? When I wrote my comment I mean no one writes Gong Xi Fa Cai until a few years ago. Thanks.)—Gniw (Wing) 22:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I mean speaking :), in Chinese all writing would be the same. Mandel 23:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, it's not the same when we are talking about transliterations. If it is speaking then it's not a valid counter-example, but I still stay neutral.—Gniw (Wing) 03:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I understand Mandel's viewpoint. I would think the same if I spoke in Mandarin since my birth. But the fact is KHFC would be more common in the English-speaking communites as shown below. In fact, many English terms do originate from Cantonese like kung fu, kumquat, bakchoi, etc., though I'm not sure with the reasons behind. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 07:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • There are several reasons behide this. First, the city of Canton was chosen to be the only port trading with foreigner in for a long period in Qing dynasty. Second, Hong Kong had been the most important British colony in China and for more than 150 years. Third, in the Chinese Diaspora, waves of migration to Western countries especially, USA, Canada, Australia, England and Holland are mostly Cantonese. That's why these Chinese terms were introducing to English speakers in Cantonese. -- HenryLi 06:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose cantonese romanization more prevalent for this particular phrase. and "Gong Xi Fa Cai" uses too many spaces--Jiang 00:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose While I have my doubts that the phrase was coined in Hong Kong, Cantonese romanization is the most prevalent in usage, especially in North America, Canada, and Australia, but in other English speaking areas as well, like Hong Kong and the UK. For example, the US Department of State uses "Gung Hay Fat Choy" in its list of US holidays.[2] Nancy Pelosi, the highest-ranking Democrat in the US House, represents the San Francisco district, and uses "Gong Hay Fat Choy".[3] BART, the metro that services the Bay Area, uses "Gung Hay Fat Choy". [4] The governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle uses "Kung Hee Fat Choy".[5] The state government of Oregon uses "Kung Hay Fat Choy". [6] When the United States Postal Service prints Chinese New Year postage stamps every year, they use "Gung Hay Fat Choy" as well. In any case, in English usage, the Cantonese version is the most prevalent and actually does exist in English. Even Google tests confirm this.--Yuje 02:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is what I'd like to accentuate: the prevalence of the phrase in the English-speaking communities would be my reason I prefer the current title. I'm not a dialect-centric person, but I think it would be nice to use a more common verbal form. Like dim sum, except in Singapore's newspaper, it would not appears as dian xin -- even in the English papers published in the PRC and the ROC. You know kung fu? -- Jerry Crimson Mann 07:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Although the phrase 恭喜發財 are known to most Chinese, this term is primitively used in Southern China. In other parts of China, the most heard greeting phrase is 新年好 (Xin Nian Hao, Good New Year); Using 恭喜發財 is not a custom. Nevertheless, I have noticed that the people from Taiwan, Singapore, etc, start to use this phrase, but it is of no doubt that this phrase is originated in Southern China, and Cantonese language is the first (and still dominant) language which English-speaking communities heard of. --Hello World! 03:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral-- Niether KHFC nor GXFC is a good name for an encyclopedia article. The formal name of this article should be Chinese New Year congratulations(中國新年賀詞/吉祥話) with KHFC page and GXFC page redirected to it. --Theodoranian 07:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Although this may be changing, the language of the Chinese diaspora is largely Cantonese, and consequently the pronunciation that English speakers in many parts of the world are more likely to be familiar with, is this one. The argument is not that one is 'better' than the other (they're semantically/orthographically identical!), or that one is more 'correct' than the other (if that were the point of argument, 'kung hei fat choi' would lose out since it is really based on an impromptu romanisation) but rather which is the more recognisable. The (English-speaking) media here in Australia almost exclusively use 'kung hei fat choi' or a variation. It should stay. Jogloran 07:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Gong Xi Fa Cai may be the official Mandarin pinyin (and thus top Google hits) but why suppress other, often more common transliterations? After all, we use so many non-standard phrases - hoi sin sauces, kung po chickens, dim sums and yes, Kung Hei Fat Choi. Of note, in the UK, Kung Hei Fat Choi is probably more well known: See BBC for example: [7] Granted, this may be biased as the poster is sponsored by Hong Kong's Cathay Pacific but still!! --Mintchocicecream 10:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • OPPOSE the Cantonese version is most prevalent in English. Just as dim sum is also cantonese and also most prevalent in English, despite the fact that Singapore uses pinyin for it. It is mostly introduced into English environments by the Cantonese diaspora and HK films. This rampant pinyin-ization is discriminatory. 132.205.45.148 21:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - well, not really. If the term is a transliteration, use Mandarin. If it is a foreign borrowing into English, leave it in Cantonese. BTW, it's almost 2006 so drop the lame "local Chinese dialect" excuse. Mandarin is a local dialect too -- it's just spoken in a larger locality. (Actually, I wish Cantonese really was a dialect and then I might have some hope of learning it). LuiKhuntek 23:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The prevalence of the current transliteration clearly outweights the proposed one. The phenomenon is supported and evidenced by findings of Yuje, Mcy_jerry et al. Needless to be reiterated. Carlsmith 14:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The term "Kung Hei Fat Choi" was from the Cantonese-speaking region. On the other hand, "Gong Xi Fa Cai" appeared later. Therefore, Gong Xi Fa Cai redirecting to Kung Hei Fat Choi is the correct way. -- Kevinhksouth 09:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral The way it was, was suggesting that the Cantonese way to pronounce it was the only correct way. It kind of neglected the Mandarin way to pronounce it. To be totally culturally correct it should state that there's a Mandarin pronounciation as well. For the fact that Kung Hei Fat Choi might have it's origin from the capatalistic HK, info of this "can" be provided in the describtion. It sounds reasonable that people in communistic countries don't wish other people great wealth, but so far we haven't seen any tracable sources to make that point truely valid. Which is why, I'll stay neutral about this point. In short: a to solve this problem is to provide both pronounciations, stating one is cantonese while the other is mandarin. One fact that should be taken notice of, is that "Kong Hei Fat Choi" was well spread amoung the English people in HK. And for the Brittish in HK it was the thing they would say to the local Chinese during CNY. And therefore it might be "possible" that it was "spread" from HK. Of course, there's simply no way to prove this point, but it's greatly "assumable". Anyway, the existence of this discussion is actually a good proof that is a questionable point for some. And I'm sure all wikipedia users will notice.--Tringade 16:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

I clearly remember reacting in peels of laughter when reading the line "It [Kung hei fat choi] probably originated in Hong Kong." in this article.--Huaiwei 13:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's possible: mainlanders would say Gong Xi Fa Cai instead. And the Canton province hardly exports any Cantonese loanword. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 14:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You make it sound as thou no Cantonese is spoken in the rest of the PRC?--Huaiwei 15:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Did i say that? Don't make further assumption. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it was an erroneous assumption, yes, if "mainlanders would say Gong Xi Fa Cai instead" means something else altogether?--Huaiwei 15:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What I said was that "kung hei fat choi" as an English phrase was borrowed through Hong Kong and based on its Cantonese pronunciations. — Instantnood 14:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As above, show us that "kung hei fat choi" is an English phrase and that "Gong xi fa cai" is not. Even if you could, the article is obviously extremely misleading, claiming that the phrase's very existance was from HK. Bad English, or provincial-pride running sky-high?--Huaiwei 15:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd doubt if the phrase is originated from the native Cantonese speakers in Hong Kong. It sounds more like it's from the gweilos who try to do the same thing as the locals during the lunar new year. — Instantnood 16:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. This time we have gweilos inventing the phrase for all Chinese the world over. How come no one, not even the HKers, seem to give them credit for that?--Huaiwei 16:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at a previous discussion over the same subject, which include the result of a Google test. — Instantnood 17:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you are interested in the latest "google test", "Kung hei fat choi" gives you 12,900 hits [8], while "Gong xi fa cai" gives 42,200 [9]. This alone is enough reason to effect the move in any other normal circumstance.--Huaiwei 17:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget "kung hei fat choy" and "kung hey fat choi". Try also searching for sites within, say, the BBC website. [10] [11] Try the search in this way is interesting too: [12] [13] [14]. — Instantnood 18:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So? This is not a game of summation, for only one version can be displayed. Even if you want to do the summation game, the Cantonese version still could not match up to the number of Mandarin hits. And since Kung hey fat choi apparantly gives more hits than Kung hei fat choi, are we looking at a rename right now? Last but not least, dont insult our intelligence by quoting the BBC. Is the BBC the only legitimate user or accurate barometer on the usage of the term in English? Try searching in sg sites for one, the only country in the world with a Chinese majority and with English as its official language?--Huaiwei 18:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please no “Google tests” for this one. I can’t believe any Chinese person believes in Google tests.—Gniw (Wing) 22:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Google tests were used before to support the existance of this page. Why is it rejected now when the figures show a completely different picture then what some of you are claiming to be true?--Huaiwei 12:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. I have never written on this page before, nor supported the use of “Google tests”. You cannot claim that someone else’s viewpoint must be my viewpoint; Please check your facts before accusing others.
If you mean “you are wrong no matter what you say”, I should have been clearer: Google tests are invalid except to prove existence; they are invalid for proving notability, especially Chinese-related things. No Google tests for this one please, or anything else, for that matter. I can't believe any Chinese person believes in such trash as the so-called “Google test”; you should well be aware that it's difficult to find correct info on many Chinese-related things through Google.—Gniw (Wing)
Well, I am beginning to wonder from where your frustrations seem to stem from, for at no point in my above comment do I seem to be pointing all fingers at you alone. I dont think I need to further comment on this? As for google tests, can you then explain the use of google on many Chinese-related disputes we have had before?--Huaiwei 11:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly the article used to have a mention of Gong Xi Fa Cai (I know, because I put it there) until, interestingly, Huiawei took it out. novacatz 00:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hilarious :) Enochlau 00:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. :-) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 07:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
lol! I am glad the joke spreads from where it began. Since someone had the cheek to claim that khfc was "invented in Southern China", then surely it must mean it is not 恭喜發財, else that suggestion will no longer be tenable? So whos the joke on now, eh? :D--Huaiwei 12:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious answer

[edit]

Use the english meaning as the title, and put all the transliterations in the article. Done. Feel free to make redirects. SchmuckyTheCat 18:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

lol! Now THAT was bold! :D--Huaiwei 18:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? This at least has the advantage of favouring no one. Or something like “Gong Xi Fa Cai/Kung Hey Fat Choi”. Lots of redirects and good, neutral explanatory text could do.—Gniw (Wing) 22:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That is bold. I like it! Neutral. Clear. Looks like a good solution to me. novacatz 00:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think a good solution would to change this article into a general one on Chinese New Year's greetings, examining the whys and the wherefores of such a custom, Then we won't have to choose. Mandel 11:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed instantnood reverted STC's page move. Seems like we are generally agreeing that both versions should be renounced in favour of a more nuetral page title? Any objections?--Huaiwei 12:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A "more neutral" page title? Like what? An English translation that no-one actually uses? Ridiculous. It would be like moving Dim sum to Chinese dumpling. Enochlau 12:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No one is talking about Dim Sum, so you might wish to avoid bringing in poor comparisons in a fit of provincial rage. As for wat is considered "more nuetral", you are more than welcome to give suggestions, else we might very well go back to "Congratulations and be prosperous"! :D--Huaiwei 13:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Any why exactly is Dim Sum a bad comparison? "Congratulations and be prosperous" is probably going to be mutually unacceptable. Let me reiterate: who uses this English expression? No one. Enochlau 13:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Simple. Are you going to nominate it for renaming? If not, it is clearly not contested, and not comparable to this case. "Congratulations and be prosperous" is mutually unacceptable? I dont think so. Apparantly those who propose movement to Gong Xi Fa Cai to Congratulations and be prosperous tend to warm up to this idea, while folks who get defensive everytime another Cantonese word/phrase comes under scrutinity would resist any attempt in renaming to any non-Cantonese page title. The torrent of opinions above clearly call for a resolution. Would you object to both Kung hei fat choi and Gong Xi Fa Cai appearing as two seperate articles?--Huaiwei 14:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You see, you're the one who wants to move this page, not me. Dim Sum is quite comparable to this one; it is a Chinese term transliterated from Cantonese. My claim that it is a good comparison to this article is that it is a Chinese term transliterated from Cantonese, not that it is a disputed page on Wikipedia. So my question to you is, why haven't you nominated that page? Why this page only?
On the second part, you do realise that your claims of "provincial-pride" are a little far-fetched. Most of us here who have opposed have provided good solid reasons for doing so. None of us have opposed simply because "Oh, it's a Cantonese phrase. Of course, you can't move it!" And yes, of course, I would object to having two separate articles. That's just plain silly; it's the same thing. Enochlau 14:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How is this relevant to "who wants to move this page"? It is ridiculous, that you expect me to demand that every page with a "Chinese term transliterated from Cantonese" to be moved, because you apparantly continue to believe that it is the Cantonese factor driving my main motive for the move. You just validated the "provincial-pride" you claimed to be non-existant yourself, so need I say further? I dismissed your weak comparison with Dim Sum, because quite unlike this phrase, Dim Sum is clearly a phrase well accepted in English. Do you see me demanding that Kung fu be renamed, even thou I did it for Sifu? The overiding concern in every single one of these examples, is that I only protest in cases where the so-called "inclusion" of a specific dialect's usage in the English language is overhyped and questionable. If you cannot even notice this pattern, then I am quite scepticle of your ability to look at issues and to partake in their discussions in an NPOV manner.
And how should two pages be silly, when one of you can actually claim that Kung hei fat choi was invented in HK and entered English usage independently from other Chinese dialects, thus suggesting we can then also write Gong Xi Fa Cai and say it is well used amongst the huge Chinese population in Taiwan, Malaysia and Singapore, easily outstriping all the Cantonese-speaking overseas Chinese population? And how about the millions of Mainlanders all over the world today? Ridiculous? Why, then, do you have a "Gong Xi Fa Cai" subsection in this article?--Huaiwei 15:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think that two pages is silly for what is essentially one idea -- I remember seeing the argument over Aluminium and Aluminum (which this is starting to resemble) and at some stage they wanted to have two mirror pages, one with each spelling -- now that was insane. novacatz 16:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and incidentally, from my look at all the evidence around presented here, it does look like KHFC has a much better mindshare for Western people than GXFC. novacatz 16:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is wikipedia writtern for and by the West?--Huaiwei 16:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
While I think STC big move was bold, it looks like a bit too bold for people to swallow (I agree with Enoch here - "Congrats and be propsperous" is a bit silly - we replace something commonly heard with something never uttered). But is there any big problem with, as a poster above mentioned, having one page with a list of chinese phrases for new year and their various etmologies and pronouciations and stuff. I think that a Western person would be interested to know what else is out there (and I think it would be nice-in-a-wikipedia-way if they go looking for KHFC and end up at a page with much more info!). I for one was interest to hear what the PTH/mainland people say in new year (sun nin ho) and besides, we can populate the page with the other phrases you hear around CNY (sun tai geen hong, man si jau sau) and we can have info on what is heard where (Cantonese in Sydney Huiawei!). One article, lots of redirects - anyone who is interested gets a wealth of relavnt info. Comments ??? novacatz 15:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would think STC's move was quite funny. It just shows how silly this whole argument was in a spectacularly simple fashion, and at least for me, I had a good laugh over it. Anyhow, I like your idea for a centralised, general article on various CNY greetings (which btw actually has scope for a fantastic article. The so-called "Jixianghua" is certainly something worth investigating and writing about!), which is in-line with that suggested by others before. Anyone else still objecting to this proposal?--Huaiwei 15:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone has a problem with expanding Wikipedia content. That still doesn't help us resolve the issue with the page title does it? Enochlau 22:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result

[edit]

There is clearly not a consensus to move the article here, and the five days have elapsed, so I've unlisted this from WP:RM. I will note that Wikipedia:Manual of Style (China-related articles) has some guidance, and I will also note that there is absolutely nothing wrong with listing variants on the phrase in brackets at the start of the article. --bainer (talk) 08:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kung_hei_fat_choi/Move_Discussion&oldid=1189689407"