Jump to content

Talk:Kweilin incident

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Kweilin Incident)

Footnotes in Crouch book

[edit]

Page 433 and Page 492 have footnotes related to this incident. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW the Google Books edition seems to use different page numbers, BUT just by searching "shootdown" in the Google Books version I see:

  • p. 219: "There would be no third shoot-down for the ill-starred airplane. The Kweilin/Chungking burned to unsalvageable slag, roasting Kent's body"

This confirms what has been written in the article WhisperToMe (talk) 13:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The page numbers were from a Kindle Epub edition. The Google book page numbers are not the same text, and would be misleading for some searching for the relevant text. Footnote #1 is the first page of Chapter 13 (pg. 155) up to where it says "In reality, William Bond never could achieve that grace note of Buddhist detachment, and the incessant stress nagged at his health." (pg. 170) Footnote #2 starts at "Hugh Woods and Royal Leonard were the most cautious of the Caucasian airmen." (pg. 217) and ends at "chatting with other well-dressed American wives while she filled out the paperwork necessary to arrange evacuation to Manila." (pg. 220) -- GreenC 13:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see. If the citation specifies the exact edition, we could then as a support link to the equivalent pages in the other edition, just to give extra support to readers who aren't able to get a copy of the exact edition cited WhisperToMe (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing the numbers! I added the old page numbers with the note they are the EPUB pages WhisperToMe (talk) 15:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Translations

[edit]

Would there be any objection to moving the Chinese translations into footnotes? They are lengthy and for non-Chinese readers make it more difficult to read, less approachable. This is the English Wikipedia and the assumption is for English readers. -- GreenC 15:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with footnotes! As long as the Chinese translations are present in the article in some way, it's fine! I am aware that the Taipei Times and many academic books on China have Chinese characters present in their texts to assist English-speakers with the Chinese names. For the name of the incident itself, you can use Template:Chinese as an infobox at the top of the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. If we use an info box with a Chinese name, does that reflect the actual Chinese name for the incident? Or a translation of the English name into Chinese. Is there a Chinese name for the incident? -- GreenC 15:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It should reflect what the Chinese call the incident. I'm sure such a name would exist, and that would be used by the editors at the Chinese Wikipedia. Let me find someone and see if they are willing to start a stub in Chinese on it WhisperToMe (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. -- GreenC 16:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also in Template:zh you can turn off labels (use parameter "labels=no" ). So you can display labels once but not show the labels the other times. It makes the Chinese text more readable. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Request for translation query posted: zh:Wikipedia:互助客栈/求助#Where_do_I_post_requests_for_articles.3F WhisperToMe (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nice article. Not trying to discourage you but the article request page in Chinese wikipedia is basically inactive, so it is better to just ask for translation directly in 互助客栈. I can translate the article if you don't mind. Since I am still in the process of usurping the username in English wikipedia, You are welcome to contact me here on the Chinese site. I have also searched an online database of Republican journals and magazines. The Chinese did called it Kweilin Incident (桂林號事件) at that time. The other two survivors' account on the incident is generally in line with Crouch's and Woods' narration, but both the radio operator Joe Loh (羅昭明) and the wounded passenger Lou Zhaonian (Pinyin, 樓兆念) claimed that Hugh Woods did not inform the passenger to evacuate after the plane was landed on the water. There are also some pictures of people salvaging the Kweilin's engine, but I'm not sure about their copyright status. Cheers. 65.78.12.78 (talk) 02:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good information, thank you. Interesting about Woods. He was the captain, abandoned "ship" and it went down with passenger and crew he being one of few survivors. Soon afterwards he quit CNAC saying he was unable to handle the stress and danger. He wasn't able to get a flying job in the US and worked ground duties for an airline in Florida. Then the war started in 41', he ended up back at CNAC flying the hump and became somewhat famous. --GreenC 13:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Translated. Draft version here. Will add my references later. They also prefer to have the exact page number for the footnotes on the Chinese site, and I do not have full access to Crouch's chapters, so WhisperToMe you may need to do it for me :P.65.78.12.78 (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the translation! I'll see if I have access to the pages, and if so I can break it down page by page. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see all of the pages (as the preview is limited) but of the ones I did see, I indicated the specific page WhisperToMe (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I filled in the rest and added some quotes. -- GreenC 16:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! @65.78.12.78: now it's ready for you to add the footnotes to the Chinese version. As for the Japanese Wikipedia I am looking forward to seeing a Japanese edition of this article. I have notified the aviation project there, and I may also make a translation request on that page. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have done it last night. Thank you WhisperToMe!Oneam (talk) 13:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! WhisperToMe (talk) 11:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if there are any sources about this in French or German. If so we can make requests for this subject on those Wikipedias. I have made the request on the Japanese Wikipedia for this article and I look forward to seeing the translation in Japanese. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese translation is now available at ja:桂林号事件. Thanks to ja:利用者:ぽん吉! @Oneam: @Green Cardamom: @Zanhe: WhisperToMe (talk) 06:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great! I will add the new information to the Chinese version later!Oneam 01:00 AM (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Shot down" versus "attacked and forced down"

[edit]

I would say that appealing to sources to support the "shoot down" characterization of the incident doesn't carry much weight, since we all know as well as the sources what "shoot down" generally means: to be brought down by mechanical damage (or injury to the pilot) due to hostile fire that causes the pilot to lose control, usually leading to a crash. That's not what happened here (the message sent out after the landing stated they were "forced down"). However, it is easier to say "shot down" than to say "shot at and forced down", so laziness and carelessness leads various sources to use the shorter but inappropriate terminology. (Crouch even describes the second attack, on Chungking in 1940, as a second "shoot-down", which is absurd given that this attack did not commence until the plane was on the ground; see bottom of p. 219 of China's Wings.) Just because some sources are careless doesn't mean we have to be. What we have now is a silly-looking article that appears to have internal contradictions. If no one else cares about this, however, I won't concern myself with it any further. WolfmanSF (talk) 04:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have not read the background information but from what the article says it makes no mention of damage to the aircraft just that it was attacked and the pilot decided to land and it was then damaged on the ground. Sounds like it was forced down rather than shotdown. Doesnt look like it should be in List of airliner shootdown incidents either. MilborneOne (talk) 09:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to p. 156-157 of Crouch, during the Kweilin incident there was damage to the aircraft while it was airborne. Some bullets hit the wings and some bullets "shattered the instrument panel" (p. 157) - Anyway I found the ASN descriptions of the Kweilin incident and the Chungking incident. WhisperToMe (talk) 10:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Understood so if it was the damage that forced the pilot to land the aircraft it in my opinion still being "forced down" rather than shotdown which would be uncontrolled. Interesting the Chungking incident was on the ground so it wasnt shotdown or forced down. Interesting to hear other opinions on this. MilborneOne (talk) 10:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Got to be careful of reader expectations and the baggage that phrases carry. If you'll excuse the flowery language, I suspect average reader equates the term "shootdown" with an image of pieces of flaming wreckage falling from the sky GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources all use the term and I also agree it's an appropriate usage. The definition of "shoot down" is 'to shoot an enemy aircraft out of the sky' which can cover many scenarios including this one. The Kweilin wouldn't have crash landed ("out of the sky") into the river if wasn't being shot - that it was an intentional crash landing and not a mechanical failure is besides the point as to why the crash landing occurred - gun fire (ie. "shooting"). "Flaming wreckage falling from the sky" is a cliche, and given the rest of the article which explains what happened there is no worry about mistaking what shoot down means in this context. -- GreenC 01:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I realized that if en:Korean Air Lines Flight 902 is considered to be a shootdown then so should the Kweilin incident - KAL902 was attacked in mid-air and forced to land, but it never became uncontrollable. This book by Steven Church described KAL902 as a shootdown and so does this law book although this one states: "Although fired on by Soviet interceptors, KAL 902 was not shot down but forced to land on a frozen lake" WhisperToMe (talk) 03:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's really a matter of choice of language by the sources. According to the definition, a shot down is not about the plane's destruction, only about bringing the plane out of the sky through violence. True that a shootodown often includes the destruction (flaming wreckage falling, pilot killed) - but it doesn't have to. A "force down" is another way to phrase it, but forced by what? Shooting. Shooting that did what? Brought it out of the sky. That's the definition of a shoot down. When considering to include it in List of airliner shootdown incidents, or saying it's the first shootdown incident, it's a valid use of the language by the sources. -- GreenC 14:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In that case it's good to get the raw dictionary definitions so people understand how the words are and should be used. I know in Lincoln-Douglas debates having the exact definitions is a part of the debate. I wonder what would happen if there is a significant difference in how the dictionaries define it, though. As for Merriam-Webster, I looked up shootdown and: "1 : to cause to fall by shooting <shot down the helicopter>; especially : to kill in this way <was shot down in cold blood>" WhisperToMe (talk) 14:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting pedantic but:
Webster: "to cause to fall by shooting"
definition MacMillan: "to shoot an enemy aircraft out of the sky"
Free Dictionary: "To bring down (an aircraft, for example) by hitting and damaging with gunfire or a missile."
Dictionary.com: "the attack and destruction of an aircraft in flight."
Some of these work better than others. Oxford Dictionaries calls it a "Phrasal verb" (idiom) and says "Bring down an aircraft or missile by shooting at it". None of these are about destruction of the plane by shooting (except Dictionary.com), but emphasize the bringing out of the sky. And Dictionary.com is accurate of you don't take it too literal, the Kweilin was in flight and was then attacked and destroyed. Idioms by their nature are not easily defined and better understood in context of use. -- GreenC 15:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch says avoid idioms. "Shootdown" or "Shoot-down" as nouns/nounlike forms don't exist in the full OED. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The word "shootdown" is used so commonly to refer to these kinds of things, so what words are you supposed to use instead? Also, if a specialist dictionary or an organization defines a "shootdown" then maybe that is the best vocabulary to use? I also notice the air force law journal uses the word "shootdown" in its publications. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah shootdown is used throughout Wikipedia; the sources use shootdown to characterize the incident; and the MoS is a guideline not a hard rule, we should give weight to the policy of WP:V which calls it the first shootdown incident (not the first "forced down" incident, which is also an idiom). The event is described in the article, there's no ambiguity as to what happened. -- GreenC 19:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Site of attack

[edit]

I read the ASN and it stated the plane was forced to land in the Pearl River north of Macau. The infobox states that the incident took place in Sichuan. Shouldn't it be Guangdong? WhisperToMe (talk) 21:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. The plane was en route to Sichuan. Thanks. I don't think it landed in the Pearl River proper but a small river tributary in the delta region. An exact name or location would be a good find. -- GreenC 21:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Chinese source [1], the plane was attacked when flying over Zhongshan. I've updated the infobox. -Zanhe (talk) 01:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Zanhe: - Thanks a lot! I added this info to the Chinese article WhisperToMe (talk) 04:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinates

[edit]

Is there an exact set of coordinates for the attack? There was a map made of MH17's route and I would like to make a similar map for this incident. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph of the actual aircraft

[edit]

An aircraft with the Chinese characters for "Chongqinq" appears at A new link in China National Airways-NARA-196904, with explanation here.

It would seem appropriate to replace the "generic" photo of a KLM DC-2 near the top of the page with this photo.

PhuDoi1 (talk) 05:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's the source of the 'explanation'? GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The plane was rechristened the "Chungking" (Wade-Giles spelling) and was CNAC plane number 39. Is there a "39" marking visible on the plane? It was intended to fly a route from Chungking to Rangoon, Burma. The Kweilin was rebuilt in Hong Kong and was on its first flight out of HK on October 29 1940 when it was destroyed. It never made it to Burma so it impossible that it is the same plane in that picture (Loiwing is on the Burma border). More likely it is another plane with the same name flying that route, or the markings are not a name but destination. My source for this is the same used in the article China's Wings, page 239-241 (English Epub). It's also possible the source is mistaken or I am misreading it. Since the author of that source has been on Wikipedia we could ask his opinion. @Gregory Crouch:. -- GreenC 22:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


First action would appear to be to get a second translation of the name of the aircraft. An enlargement of the nose of the aircraft is available here (and now looking at the Chinese for Chongqing in Wikipedia, I concede I don't see any resemblance). My source was a "native" Chinese resident in Yunnan. I can find another source, but I think that it might be better that someone on this board with an independent (and trusted) source should do this. For that matter, the aircraft model should be verified: I'm no expert on the subject.

If those items are not verified, my sincere apologies.

If those items are verified, then it would be good to query the author of China Wings, as suggested, on this whole topic.

Other comments.

Unfortunately, I can see no number on the plane.

I don't know the source for the photo, other than "NARA-196904", and it is undated. The facility at the Loiwing Factory airstrip was badly damaged in an IJAAF attack on 26 Oct 1940 so the photo must have been taken before that date --- or late in 1941 after the Loiwing facility had been rebuilt (which would imply that another aircraft had subsequently been assigned the name).

(the date of the IJAAF attack on Loiwing, 26 Oct 1940, is curiously close to the 29 Oct 1940 date of destruction for the Chongqing.)

The features which appear in the background of the photo are consistent with another photo of Loiwing. See: Oblique photo.

Loiwing (runway: N23°53.93 E97°37.40) is in China, but only just, and around 700 km WSW of Changyi --- certainly impossible to have been part of a "junket" before connecting to Changyi on a flight plan with either Chongqing or Hong Kong.

Regarding another Chongqing in the CNAC fleet, it would seem unlikely that there had been two aircraft concurrently with the same name. It would also seem unlikely that, if an aircraft with that name had been involved in the event at Changyi, the name would have been later assigned to another aircraft (by the same logic that changed the name of the rebuilt Kweilin to Chongqing).

My interest in this is only tangential: my primary interest is in certain aspects of the airfields in the Loiwing area. Answers to questions about sources of the information for the photo "Explanation" lie in my webpages Locating Loiwing. PhuDoi1 (talk) 05:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For GreenC: I'm not familiar with communicating within Wikipedia, hence I queried Gregory Crouch by email and got his confirmation that the aircraft pictured is probably that of the CNAC's DC-2 No. 39, named Chungking / Chongqing. How do I get this correspondence to you? PhuDoi1 (talk) 08:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also emailed Greg (via Wikipedia) but never heard back. Anyway, you can contact me through Wikipedia's email system. On my home page User:Green Cardamom on the left side of the page there is a link to "Email this user". If that doesn't work (ie. you need to send an attachment) email me your email address and I will email back my address. -- GreenC 13:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PhuDoi1, I think the emails from Greg Couch are sufficiently reliable source to claim it is CNAC #39. However the emails are private and can't be published, so Wikipedia's verification requirement is a problem (per WP:V). However we might be able to use the WP:OTRS system to document. Email #4 (that you sent me) would be the one. I'll opened a question at WP:OTRSN. -- GreenC 15:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Crouch here: I'm new to this and unclear how I can contribute. Do I just add my comment? If so, I'm also a little unclear on what you'd like me to help clearing up? Forced down v. shot down? Does it really matter? The description in China's Wings is exact as to what happened on 8/24/1938. I was working from Pilot Hugh Woods's written incident report he wrote 2 or 3 days after the incident. Every one of the included details is taken from his report. (If you want, you could request a copy of the report from the William Langhorne Bond collection at Hoover Institution Archive.) Nothing is embellished. To the best of my knowledge, it happened exactly as I reported. The airplane Woods was flying, The Kweilin, was salvaged and rehabilitated and put back into service as CNAC No. 39, Chungking, and it was the airplane Foxie Kent was flying (okay, technically, in the process of landing), when he was set upon by Japanese pursuit planes at Changyi on 10/29/1940. I think that makes it both the first and the third civilian airliner destroyed while in service by hostile air action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory Crouch (talk • contribs) 00:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Offhand, I don't see anything in the photo above that proves it's DC-2 No. 39, the Chungking.... that isn't to say that it's not. It might be.[reply]

Pinyin

[edit]

@SilverStar54: Hi! I read your edit summary here. However the section does not clarify specific usage for articles during the late Qing/Republic of China period on the Mainland. Those old Postal System Pinyin names are relevant for those time periods. Also, personal names of several people in the Republic of China period (especially those loyal to the KMT) do not usually follow Pinyin. The people who died in the Kweilin incident should use the non-standard romanizations common in the era.

I also started Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/China-_and_Chinese-related_articles#Pinyin_usage_in_topics_related_to_the_late_Qing_Dynasty_and_Republican_Eras_on_the_Mainland WhisperToMe (talk) 03:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my and Mx. Granger's responses there.
While I think that articles about late Qing/Republic of China period on the Mainland should use pinyin, I do agree that the guidance needs to be more explicit. You're not the first editor to think that MOS:CHINA doesn't address this. SilverStar54 (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read the full discussion. Based on those responses, I kept pinyin for the city names, but indicated older spellings in parenthenses because Gregory Crouch's book (the main English language work consulted) uses the old names for the cities. For the people, I am not sure that Mandarin Pinyin is the best choice for them as they were known in English under the old names (with little coverage of them after the incident) but I'm checking Google Books just to verify if there are modern English sources using Pinyin for them. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of Singloh Hsu, he had a particular English name spelling he preferred as we see from Who's Who of China. Some modern books use Pinyin to render his name though in his lifetime he didn't do that. I am in certainly favor of using Pinyin to clarify his name instead of Wade-Giles (the Who's Who in China used Wade-Giles to clarify his name). Crouch also uses the non-standard "Lieu Chung-chuan" though in his case, I don't know if he chose that romanization or if it was how someone else chose to spell his name. ""Liu Chongquan" Guilin incident" doesn't seem to return any Google Books results. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In Chang-kan Chien's case, he was familiarized with the English language (went to school at Renssaeler Polytechnic Institute and married an American), and so used a particular naming style as seen in:
  • "American Wife of Chinese Engineer to Return to China". Dunkirk Evening Observer. Dunkirk, New York. United Press International. 1939-05-10. p. 3. - Clipping at Newspapers.com.
Also, "Qian Changgan" has no Google Books results.
WhisperToMe (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for revising the place names and for adding footnotes with characters and transcriptions of people's names.
However, I think you're still approaching personal names from the wrong angle. My understanding is that you don't need to find examples showing that a pinyin version of a name is used. Rather, you need to find evidence that modern historians do use the WG name. Ideally, you'd be able to find examples of historians that otherwise use pinyin (such as for place names, other personal names, etc.) but make an exception for these particular names. If there aren't enough modern historical works to draw a clear conclusion, we should default to pinyin. What individuals used during their lifetimes isn't relevant: 1) pinyin wasn't even an option at the time, so of course they used a different system and 2) these are long-dead historical figures. Obviously we can still mention the WG names or an English name someone preferred, but the pinyin name should be the main one used. SilverStar54 (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gregory Crouch's book (which has the name of the pilots) was published in 2012, although it's a mass media book and Crouch uses postal system names for places. I can check on JSTOR and other academic databases to see which forms modern historical sources prefer for each person. I suspect "Xu Xinliu" may be common in academic sources for the banking official, but I'll have to see.
I got the idea there should be a distinction between ancient historical figures who had no contact with English (these should default to pinyin!), versus people in particular eras who were familiar with it and operated in an English speaking environment, from the Japanese topic Manual of Style: that MOS states that if reliable sources don't have a preferred form, makes personal preference the second option (you can see below). Of course pinyin was not an option for the people in this topic (as they died before 1949), but an example on post-1945: part of why I chose Wade-Giles for Chang Hsueh-liang was that he remained loyal to the KMT and used that form of his name after 1945, up to having it on his gravestone in Hawaii (and using "Peter Chang" as his American name).
The Japanese topic manual of style Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Japan-related_articles#Name_order has a more in-depth manner of how name order and spelling can be resolved in that cultural sphere. I wonder if something like this could help with determining how to render names of ethnic Chinese people in these time periods.
WhisperToMe (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting that pages on Japan handle this differently. I think it could be productive for editors from both projects to hold some sort of dialogue, but some of these differences might be the result of different approaches in the Sinophile and Japanophile academic communities. My impression has been that academics studying China often ignore their subjects' personal preferences in favor of consistency. I don't know whether historians of Japan do the reverse, but we should try to reflect the academic consensus in either field even if it means different philosophies in our Manual of Styles. SilverStar54 (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The consideration for Japanese romanizations is the sum of reliable sources on a subject, which includes popular media (newspapers, published non-academic books, magazines, etc). Academic sources in the Asian studies field more commonly use Japanese naming order, while popular media (for modern Japanese names) more commonly uses western naming order. As for the Chinese people discussed in the article, I think the coverage of them in popular media has fallen off because their event has become a historical event, and I've noticed several academic sources that used pinyin had used things like "Guomingdang" and "Jiang Jieshi" (when Kuomintang and Chiang Kai-shek are more common with the general public). "Xu Xinliu" became overwhelming because now all of the modern coverage is pretty much only from academics who almost always use the Pinyin form (the only exception of note is the webpage of the archival collection of Ta-Chun Hsu - Xu Xinliu's son - who immigrated to the US and had his papers and his father's papers given to the university) WhisperToMe (talk) 00:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checking on Singloh Hsu/Xu Xunliu results in academic sources:
  • JSTOR seems to have very little:
  • Google Books (for books published since the 1980s, including mass media books)
WhisperToMe (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what I found, I switched to "Xu Xinliu" because it was so overwhelming on Google Books (and unlike Chang Hsueh-liang, he did not encounter Pinyin). On the other hand, "Qian Changgan" gets zero results (at all!) from Google Books. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There does not have to be a parenthetical for an alternate romanization, and a footnote. I think a parenthetical just for an alternate romanization is almost always too clunky. All such parentheticals in this article should be removed imo, with footnotes only when deemed necessary.
  • Chang-Kan Chien is clearly the common name.
— Remsense诉 23:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with the article as it is now. Thank you WhisperToMe for your willingness to work with me to find a consensus and doing the work of improving the article! SilverStar54 (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kweilin_incident&oldid=1212600743"