Talk:Protection of the varieties of Chinese

Capitalization of "varieties"

The current title of this article is Protection of the Varieties of Chinese. Capitalizing the word varieties is strange because the term does not refer to one particular named thing, but to a multitude of linguistic forms. Cf. expressions like dialects of English or even the English language (a language among many others, whose name is English). Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 13:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the current capitalization is wrong, but the bigger problem is that the article title does not accurately reflect the content of the article, because most of the article discusses promotion of Putonghua over regional Chinese languages, which is the exact opposite of the protection of varieties of Chinese. BabelStone (talk) 22:45, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Right, and the article also fails to explain why on earth the Sinitic languages/​topolects that are mentioned should be protected, and what it means to protect them. In a world where 98.6% of languages have less than 10 million speakers those are all huge languages that are far from endangerment, let alone moribund languages. Not even all languages with less than 1,000 speakers are endangered, though both republics that have China in their name host endangered languages that are really in need of protection. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 23:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I am glad to see discussion on this talk page! I have no major objections to anything that has been said here concerning capitalization of 'varieties'.

The answers to the problem posed in LiliCharlie's post (namely: "why on earth the Sinitic languages/​topolects that are mentioned should be protected") and that found in the post by BabelStone (namely: "the article title does not accurately reflect the content of the article") are similar. The reason we have to mention promotion of Putonghua is that this page is discussing one of the trends that the Varieties of Chinese are to be protected from, namely being overwhelmed by Putonghua/Standard Chinese/Mandarin etc. I would imagine that whether or not the languages are 'far from moribund' is irrelevant if the number of people speaking these languages is on the decline and native speakers are carrying out efforts to protect their languages.

I think the sources speak for themselves, especially if you read the quotations I included in the citations. Whether or not they need to be protected, there are people carrying out measures to protect them. Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC) (modified)

@BabelStone and LiliCharlie: Hello- please let me know what you think about my response and please see my comment below about the OR template if you are interested. Thanks! Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@LiliCharlie: You wrote in an above post, "Not even all languages with less than 1,000 speakers are endangered, though both republics that have China in their name host endangered languages that are really in need of protection." I think the feeling behind the people who are trying to protect the Varieties of Chinese is that they want to be allowed to continue to have a large population of people that speak their language and they want to teach young people about the nuances and history of their native language rather than be pushed into another language. Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@LiliCharlie: The China Daily, "an English-language daily newspaper owned by the Publicity Department of the Communist Party of China" (Wikipedia), is telling us that "active measures" are being taken to protect the "10 major Chinese dialects". Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC) (modified)

@BabelStone: You wrote above that the title of the article is about protection of Chinese varieties, but that the content is, "the exact opposite of the protection of varieties of Chinese." When we are talking about the protection of something, we will have to mention the trends and forces against which something is being protected, no? If you think that most of the content is inappropriate, then I invite you to delete that content and improve the article. Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@BabelStone and LiliCharlie: Comments? Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't want to delete any of the content. I meant that the article title is not optimal, and maybe we can change it to something that reflects both protection of regional languages and official promotion of Putonghua, for example Status of regional varieties of Chinese or (if we want to expand it beyond just Chinese) Status of regional languages in China. BabelStone (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@BabelStone: Thanks for your response. These are hard questions. I obviously agree with adding more material. I will do so after the OR question has been settled (I don't want to keep throwing fuel on the OR fire). Here's why I would tend to oppose that change from "status" to "protection" (quoted from my comments below):

I personally suspect that 'baohu fangyan' (「保护方言」) or the title of the Chinese Wikipedia article '中國方言保護' is best translated as 'Protection of the Varieties of Chinese' or 'Protection of the varieties of Chinese', not 'Status of Chinese dialects in (PR) China'. Some of the sources use the word 'protect' and China Daily uses the word 'protection' (see links on the page):

"According to the Ministry of Education, China－as a country with more than 130 ethnic minority languages and 10 major Chinese dialects, has been taking active measures for the protection of languages resources."

"The research will be conducted on the relationship between people's language attitude (LA) and the protection of dialects in China, where a great variety of dialects and Standard Chinese (SC) used by the speakers from 56 minorities co-exist and implement each other. "

"Wang Wenwen (2011-12-27). "Protection of other dialects".

And as for whether or not to call these languages 'varieties', 'dialects', 'regional languages' or 'regional varieties', I think we should follow the precedent of the Varieties of Chinese page. If that page can be changed to "regional languages of China" or "regional varieties of Chinese", then I would be more likely to accept changing the title for this page in something like the way in which you describe. I do agree that 'varieties of Chinese' is an awkward wording, but I think that this question should be hashed out on the Varieties of Chinese talk page (and probably has been- I'm too faint of heart to go look at the likely horribly vitriolic fighting that has occurred on that talk page!)

You raise a perspective I had not considered concerning combining the article with the promotion of Putonghua page (if I understood your meaning). I would say that at first glance and based on what I know, that is a separate issue. The Chinese language Wikipedia version of this page doesn't talk about efforts for the ‘protection’ of Putonghua as such. The Chinese Wikipedia has two pages: 推广普通话 (English Wikipedia's "Promotion of Putonghua") and 中國方言保護 (this page- "Protection of the Varieties of Chinese"). I did a cursory online search for material on the protection of Putonghua, but I didn't turn up anything at first glance.

In conclusion, I still believe that, at this juncture, the most morally neutral and academically sound name for this page is probably either "Protection of the Varieties of Chinese" or "Protection of the varieties of Chinese". Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC) (modified)

We have no article on language policy in China, but this could form the basis for Language policy in China. Possible academic sources include Zhou & Sun (2004) (a little out of date, though), and de Gruyter's continuing Language Policies and Practices in China series. Jacques Leclerc also has a small China section with a short bibliography of titles in French on his L'aménagement linguistique dans le monde pages hosted by the Université Laval at Quebec City. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 01:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

YES wow, that's a good idea for a page! I would say that the '中國方言保護' phenomena is bigger than these policies though. 'Policy' is one aspect of the overall situation, which will be touched upon in many different articles. Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@LiliCharlie: I am looking for the Chinese language Wikipedia version of the "Language policy in China" page (should be something like '中国语言政策'）. Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Removal of OR template

After adding ten or so new sources, I tried to talk to Matthew hk on the user's talkpage (User talk:Matthew hk) about removing the template. I think it would be justified to remove the OR template now, but if there are objections, I would like to hear what they are specifically. Only through specific criticism can the page improve in quality. I don't think there's any original research on the page, but if there is, let's delete it. Thanks for your time. If no one responds after a few days go by, I will probably just find an administrator to help me delete the template per Wikipedia rules (WP:WTRMT 5. When it can reasonably be concluded that the template is no longer relevant) Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC) (modified)

I would say it have something wrong on the article title "Protection of the Varieties of Chinese" as well as the scope of the wiki article. May be "Status of Chinese dialects in (PR) China" is better. Also, for the sake of the article, instead of collecting news article as citation regarding "推普", may be using and summarized academic journal for the topic is better, skipping the interpretation of the topic by the wiki editors. Matthew hk (talk) 04:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your response. I need your input. If you have any scholarly sources to add from Mainland China or elsewhere, please do. I would appreciate it if you would point out and delete the OR in this article so the article can be constructed without the negative influence of lingering OR.

I believe that there will be a portion of Mandarin Chinese speakers who adamantly believe that this page should not exist, and we need to represent their opinions on this page in some way. I have my own biases (mostly in favor of the promotion of the varieties of Chinese), and I don't want them to hurt the reliability of the article.

I personally suspect that 'baohu fangyan' (「保护方言」) or the title of the Chinese Wikipedia article '中國方言保護' is best translated as 'Protection of the Varieties of Chinese' or 'Protection of the varieties of Chinese', not 'Status of Chinese dialects in (PR) China'. Some of the sources use the word 'protect' and China Daily uses the word 'protection' (see links on the page):

"According to the Ministry of Education, China－as a country with more than 130 ethnic minority languages and 10 major Chinese dialects, has been taking active measures for the protection of languages resources."

"The research will be conducted on the relationship between people's language attitude (LA) and the protection of dialects in China, where a great variety of dialects and Standard Chinese (SC) used by the speakers from 56 minorities co-exist and implement each other. "

"Wang Wenwen (2011-12-27). "Protection of other dialects". "Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

As for whether or not to call the 'varieties' 'dialects', I think we should follow the precedent of the Varieties of Chinese page. Whatever they have is probably the best for now. Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Again, please delete any OR or modify as you see fit. If I feel like the edits are too biased against the fangyans I will let you know. Let's be as civil as possible. I will try as hard as I can. I know this is a sensitive topic on some level. Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

You mentioned the news article that mentions "推普". The news article in question seems to be favor of the Guangdong National Language Regulations and is reporting the opinions of others. The two sentences on this page regarding Guangdong National Language Regulations come directly from the Guangdong National Language Regulations Wikipedia page- if you want to change it here, I recommend changing it there too. Note that there is no OR template on that page at this time. Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC) (modified)

@Matthew hk: Let me know if there is any more OR in the article and I can delete it or find sources. Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Here is a paper talking about “废粤推普” 粤语是绝对不会沦陷的——对出现“废粤推普”风波的一些思考 The paper seems to believe that the phrase is just hype. Whatever the case may be, let's take discussion of that wording to the Guangdong National Language Regulations talk page. Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

For NPOV, i would recommand also using academic source outside Mainland China. Even i am outside The Great Firewall and may be missing details, i knew GZ is pretty against PTH and they feel bad about the erosion of the Yue dialect (such as reduction of broadcasting time in TV program), as well as situation of "re-education" camp in Xinjiang. Please also stop if this was a propaganda campaign from Chinese Government. Matthew hk (talk) 05:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@Matthew hk: I want to make a good article, fact by fact. It's a controversial topic and we know that there are strong feelings. If the article is to be useful and neutral, it MUST include sources from Mainland China and from other areas. I don't want to add any propaganda to the article- only concrete information. If there is any OR, let me know and I will delete it or find a source. Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@Matthew hk: I can't continue to translate the cited content from the Chinese Wikipedia version of this page in good conscience unless the OR issue you raised is settled and the OR banner is removed from the article. Have I resolved the problems you saw or do you see any further OR in the article? When you added the banner, there weren't many sources. Now there are. If there is any remaining OR on the page, it should not be on the page- let's get rid of it or find sources. Thanks for your time. Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Matthew hk: I'm sorry to bother you, but I wanted to let you know that on the basis of WP:WTRMT (which states that editors can remove a template, "When the issue has been adequately addressed;") I plan to remove the template you added here ([1]) unless you have any further objections. I believe that I have added a lot more sources to the article since you added the template and that I have addressed the questions you brought up on the talk page to some degree at least. The main point is is that there isn't really any OR in the article as far as I can see. If you disagree with any of this, let me know and I will try to figure out how to make things right. Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:42, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I feel no haste to remove the OR template. The title itself is not an established term taken from an academic source, but it took as many as seven scattered references to even write the introductory sentence, and as a consequence it is not clear what it means in academia and what should be covered. At this point most of the article describes the exact opposite of protection of Chinese topolects: their use being discouraged and Standard Mandarin being promoted. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 01:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

@LiliCharlie: Thanks for your feedback. I don't feel haste to remove the OR template, but its continued presence demands specific reasons be given. You have stated some specific problems. I will try to give you some answers.

Because the topic is considered controversial or taboo to some degree, there is no one set way to describe this phenomena in English. It may be a good idea to give the article multiple secondary titles. Here are some examples of the phenomena being talked about in the literature:

• " For example, local legislature in some provinces and municipalities began to hear voices on the protection of Chinese dialects," (M Zhou, Language policy and education in Greater China, 2017);
• "A Study of the Protection of Suzhou Dialect——A Survey on the Status Quo of the Dialects in the Region of Suzhou" (JIANG Jin, JI Fang (Suzhou University, Suzhou, 2008);
• "Protection of the right of dialects is part of human rights protection. There are specific stipulations concerning the protection of dialects in China's current constitution and laws. Protection of the citizens' right of dialects by the state not only shows in its respect..." Cong falü diwei kan Hanyu fangyan de baohu...[Protection of Chinese dialects from a legal perspective] C Shi - Fangyan, 2010;
• "The result shows that the daily language in Changzhou is undergoing a shift toward Putonghua. It also sheds light on ecological protection of dialects" (Changzhouhua-Putonghua Codeswitching: A Corpus-based Approach [J] C Li-ping - Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages, 2009);
• "who work at other places are using Putonghua as their preferred language.The atrophy of Chinese dialects is on the way.Therefore,it is necessary that we should work out some protective measures accordingly" (The Atrophy of Chinese Dialects——A Case Study of Fucun Village Dialect [J] FU Yi-rong - Journal of Jimei University);
• The Study on Language Attitudes towards the Protection of Dialects B Yun - DEStech Transactions on Social Science, (already in the article);
• Reflections on the Dialect Protection from the Perspective of Language Planning "The promotion of Putonghua has not been "generally popularized", yet the dialect protection demand becomes more and more obvious. The paper tries to introduce the situation of Putonghua and dialects in China, lists some of the prominent issues, and tries to go deep into matters such as "whether dialects can be protected", "what protections should go to the dialects" and "how we should protect them scientifically"based on the political and service features of language planning. Meanwhile, the paper puts forward some ideas and suggestions." SHI Shaolang - Journal of Language Planning,
• Dialect Protection from the Perspective of Natural Characteristics Loss of Dialects C Wang - 2017 5th International Education, Economics, Social " The urgency and necessity of dialect protection research"

I think it's pretty clear what will be covered in the article: material directly relating to efforts to protect the varieties of Chinese. Broad- maybe, but specific. (The paper you linked is talking about the varieties of Chinese. 'Varieties of Chinese' is a kind of Orwellian terminology, but that's what we have on English Wikipedia so that's the best I can do. Call it a topolect, call it whatever Victor Mair says it is. All that discussion about proper terminology will probably be linked to or mentioned in this article.) 'Protection' is about the people taking countermeasures at the academic, government or everyday level against the trends in modern life to conform to more socially acceptable or economically valuable linguistic forms and abandon/forget heritage Chinese languages. In the Min Nan section, you can see a great example. People are writing about it. There's a Chinese Wikipedia page about it.

The article has to talk in part about the trends that protection of varieties of Chinese is working against. That is to say, what are the varieties of Chinese being protected from? So yeah, you have to identify some of the sources that lead to erosion of the vitality of the varieties of Chinese. I plan to follow the lead of the Chinese Wikipedia in writing this article- using the sourced parts and searching for related corroborating material and other sources.

Let me know what you think should be done. I am ready to translate. Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:44, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

@LiliCharlie: Here's some more commentary:

Guangzhou to establish language museum to protect local dialects “Though China has already done a lot in protecting dialects, minority language or dialect planning remains faintly visible. Most people have given up their non-mandarin indigenous dialects for social or economic benefits, losing their cultural identity. The museum has offered the public a linguistic alternative, allowing them to remember their local dialects while using mandarin as a lingua franca,” said Emily Sun, a linguistic PhD candidate from Beijing Foreign Studies University. “We want to provide a home for the region’s colorful dialects. By promoting the linguistic value of the languages, we hope to raise awareness of protecting and inheriting dialects,” added Chen.

Although you may believe that there is no need to protect the varieties of Chinese, at least part of the government (MoE, etc) and people of mainland China disagree. If there is content irrelevant to the topic, then move it out or delete it, simple as that. I would like to assert that there is no OR remaining on the page as it stands. (I would like to be proven wrong so we can get past this problem.) If you have a moment, please use the rules of Wikipedia to point out the OR in the article. Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

More sources:

Ng, Si Hooi. 2010. “Keeping the Dialects Alive,” The Star (Malaysia), March 21, 2010.

Lai, Chloe. 2010. “TV Switch to Putonghua Rekindles Fight Over a Voice for South,” South China Morning Post (Hong Kong), July 11, 2010.

Beaser, Deborah. 2006. “The Outlook for Taiwanese Language Preservation.” Sino-Platonic Papers 172: 1–18.

Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Chinese sources:

方言保护与传承的意义浅析 《黑龙江教育学院学报》2011年 第5期 | 金皙坤 马永俊 "另一部分专家呼吁保护方言这种历史文化的载体,在传承和保护方言的同时合理推广普通话."

方言保护－文化多样的视角 On the Protection of Dialects-a Cultural Diversity View "加强方言的记录整理和研究工作以及加强基于方言的文艺创作与文化传播是保护方言并促使其健康发展的重要手段。"

语言领域、语言能力与方言保护 "有些方言处于濒危状态,保护方言的呼声日高。"

论非物质文化遗产保护视域下汉语方言的保护与传承——以发展旅游业为例 "提出了在发展旅游业的同时保护与传承汉语方言的对策。"

从文化遗产角度探析方言的保护 "作为非物质文化遗产，方言在语言、语言学和文化方面具有独特价值，针对方言近年来的萎缩趋势，要正确认识方言，保证方言的传承空间，同时适当调整国家语言政策。"

Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:45, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

@Matthew hk: I would still like to know if I have satisfied Matthew hk's OR problems. I think that when the article started, there weren't enough citations. Now there are a lot more, and I plan to add more material to the page. If you see something you don't like, bring it up or edit it out. All I'm trying to say is, I can't find the OR on this page. If there's no OR, I'd like to take down the OR template and keep writing. Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Above, LiliCharlie asked "what it means to protect them." Here's one of the ways- "加强方言的记录整理和研究工作以及加强基于方言的文艺创作与文化传播是保护方言并促使其健康发展的重要手段。" (from 方言保护－文化多样的视角 On the Protection of Dialects-a Cultural Diversity View )

LiliCharlie, (edit: I feel like) you're asking me to write the article before I write the article. All I'm saying is that this (edit: seems like a) a legitimate topic and that I'd like to keep translating. If you see something OR, say it. If not, let me take down the OR template. Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:33, 28 July 2019 (UTC) (modified)

@LiliCharlie and Matthew hk: Summarizing the discussion (from my perspective): an OR template was added when the article had just been created. I added more sources and answered editor questions on the talk page. If you want to change the title of the article to a lowercase 'v', that's okay with me- I don't know what to think about that really, but it may be better that way. "Protection of the Varieties of Chinese" or "Protection of the varieties of Chinese" was the most neutral, "most Wikipedia" title that could be come up with in our discussions (as far as I could tell). The scope of the article may be broad in some sense, but the content that will be discussed seems specific: information about efforts to protect the varieties of Chinese (as with the Chinese language Wikipedia article to which this page is linked). I would like to remove the OR template unless any specific OR complaints can be brought up or if you think my arguments above were not sufficient- not out of haste or speed, but because there is no specific OR complaint left that I have not tried to answer. If my answers weren't good enough, let me know. What are you two thinking now- is there any more OR? If you can't tell me where the OR problem is, then the template should not be there any more. Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Here's a related discussion that I'm having if you are interested- [2] Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@LiliCharlie and Matthew hk: I would like to remove the OR flag unless there are any specific objections to any specific OR in the article. If there is any OR, point it out and I will work with you to get it off the page. Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)