Talk:Sheng nü/Archive 1

Archive 1

Article name: change to 'leftover women'

In the majority of English language reporting on the leftover women, they are referred to as such: 'leftover women'. Why include a foreign term on English wiki rather than the actually accepted English terminology? L ^talk 02:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, most of the sources directly cite 'sheng nu' and then put leftover women in italics or quotes as the translation and meaning, not the term. Not to directly compare the notability between the two because it's not even close, but technically Kamikaze means 'divine god', but that does not mean it's the term in English. 'Leftover women' is merely the translation of the meaning. It's a name as well, so naming rules must be considered too. For example, Victor (name) technically means 'one who conquers' but that is not the name, only the meaning and technically the translation out of latin. Mkdw^talk 06:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

And yet look at the list of sources:

1. Magistad, Mary Kay (20 February 2013). "BBC News - China's 'leftover women', unmarried at 27". BBC News (Beijing). Retrieved 29 March 2013.

2. Simpson, Peter (21 February 2013). "The 'leftover' women: China defines official age for females being left on the shelf as 27". Mail Online. Retrieved 29 March 2013.

5. Pratten, Nyima (19 March 2013). "Don't pity China's 'leftover women', they've got more going for them than you realise". The Independent. Retrieved 29 March 2013.

6. Schott, Ben (15 March 2010). "Leftover Ladies & 3S Women". The New York Times. Retrieved 29 March 2013.

12. Fincher, Leta Hong (12 October 2012). "OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR; China's 'Leftover' Women". The New York Times. Retrieved 29 March 2013.

15. "China stigmatises educated single women as ‘leftovers’". The Independent. 25 February 2013. Retrieved 7 April 2013.

16. Larson, Christina (23 August 2012). "China's 'Leftover Ladies' Are Anything But". Bloomberg Businessweek (China). Retrieved 29 March 2013.

27. HuangJin, Chen Lidan (February 26, 2013). "China's 'leftover women' phenomenon arouses heated debate in West". People's Daily. Retrieved 29 March 2013.

Even where "sheng nü" is used, it is only in the rare article where it is repeated throughout. More often it is raised once, to note the term, then 'leftover wom(a/e)n' and 'leftover lad(y/ies)' used. Keeping the wikipedia article named 'sheng nu' (itself improper pinyin) rather than the actualy English term 'leftover wom(a/e)n' is a gross attempt to perpetuate the use of a foreign term where an English one already exists and is in wide use. L ^talk 03:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I think reading through the articles you will get a better understanding. For starters, none of them seem to suggest that 'leftover women' is actually a recognized English term. They unanimously cite it as a translation and hence why it's even in quotes. And, the only certainty they all agree is, that sheng nu is an officially recognized term, and very notable in China. Once again, notability is notability anywhere, so an English article is appropriate, especially since we have English sources citing sheng nu. If you have something like an English dictionary that recognizes 'leftover women' as an actual English term and not a translation, then we can change it. Until that confirmation, I would not use a translated term of the original or what would be described as a neologism by the media, whereas sheng nu is actually in the Chinese lexcion. See WP:NEO. Mkdw^talk 07:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion yet on whether the Chinese original or English translation should be used for the article title, but if we were to use the Chinese, it should be properly written as shengnü (no space, with umlaut), not sheng nu. nü and nu are completely different in Chinese. -Zanhe (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

When it comes to article titles, a choice is given to include diacritics. I also believe the absolute correct form is actually, shèngnǚ. Because the last diacritic is not found on an English or latin language based keyboard, it's encouraged and acceptable to have a redirect to the plain form. The article clarifies the meaning. Major English sources cite it as 'sheng nu' arguably making it the most common and correct romanization of the word for Anglophones. Since this is the English Wikipedia we should follow suit. As per the rules of translation and adaptation by the OED, the rules of the language it's being translated into are the basis and not the original language. Mkdw^talk 08:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The correct pinyin should be nü, in ASCII, ü is replaced by v. Bleakhand (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I haven't found a single source that supports "sheng nv" as the correct form. Mkdw^talk 19:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it's arguable that if the sources use the term referring to wikipedia. nu is totally another character in Chinese. Well, "what the heck is that" was my first impression when I run to this "Sheng nu", and then after I read the article, I figured it out. I am pretty sure they using nu is because they thought the two dots in ü were like umlaut in German. However that's not true. 'ü is written as u when there is no ambiguity (such as ju, qu, and xu), but written as ü when there are corresponding u syllables (such as lü and nü). In such situations where there are corresponding u syllables, it is often replaced with v on a computer, making it easier to type on a standard keyboard.Pinyin Bleakhand (talk) 18:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

None of the sources refer to Wikipedia. Also, if you're going to try and attempt to discredit the source such as the New York Times, BBC, and the Cambridge study done in China on the term, then you should show some credible sources that support your statement, "I am pretty sure" because it sounds like you've simply made an assumption because you assumed the sources were all written by Angelophones. I suggest you look at the sources carefully as you will see contrary to your statement. Mkdw^talk 00:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Aight, I gave you a source from Wikipedia, and you choose to trust media, ok, fine, so be it. Bleakhand (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia should never be used as a source to cite itself. If you would like to read more about how to properly cite an article I suggest you read WP:RS. Cheers, Mkdw^talk 04:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

In reading back I realize some of the above, especially the last three replies do not seem to make sense in the context of the conversation above. Some of this dialogue is carried over from a deletion discussion at wikidictionary where the credibility of the sources used were questioned. Admittedly the conversation was a little heated and the conversation seemed to gain a lot of attention. Mkdw^talk 17:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Bleakhand is correct. ''ü is written as u when there is no ambiguity (such as ju, qu, and xu), but written as ü when there are corresponding u syllables (such as lü and nü). In such situations where there are corresponding u syllables, it is often replaced with v on a computer, making it easier to type on a standard keyboard. When Chinese words and phrases are romanised in Western media, they are often done incorrectly, even by reputable sources, due to the writers' unfamiliarity with pinyin. In three Chinese-English dictionaries which gives words in English, Chinese characters and pinyin, I typed 'nv' into the search bar and found 女, the second character in shengnü (and the character causing debate). However, when I typed 'nu' into the search bar, I could not find 女. That is because 'nu' and 'nü' are different syllables in pinyin and the correct pinyin for 女 is 'nü'. Therefore, the correct name of this article is sheng nü. I was unable to copy the url listing the search results for 'nv' and 'nu' but feel free to check for yourself. These are the dictionaries I used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chchn (talk • contribs) 18:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify. This is the English Wikipedia. I know that's a very obvious statement but it's an important distinction. Our policy WP:ENG states, "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language". The sources clearly cite the romanization of the word to be sheng nu, despite it not being in line with the rules of pinyin. As you are probably aware, pinyin is not a universal language or standard. It is the official phonetic process the Chinese government uses -- it does not dictate how the rest of the world transcribes Mandarin into their language. Sometimes writers, governments, and other publications do not all follow the same rules of transcribing things. The English language is full of examples of this in everyday words. This is why WP:TRUTH, it says "verifiability, not truth" because 'truth' is subjective. Mkdw^talk 23:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

"Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, such as Greek, Chinese, or Russian names, must be transliterated. Established systematic transliterations, such as Hanyu Pinyin, are preferred." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles#Use_commonly_recognizable_names As for shengnü not being "full pinyin" due to the lack of tones, the title for the wikipedia page for dèng xiǎopíng is Deng Xiaoping. The title for the wikipedia page for Hú Jǐntāo is Hu Jintao. The title for the wikipedia page Xí Jìnpíng is Xi Jinping. shengnü is also verifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chchn (talk • contribs) 06:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

As per the sources provided, the use of "sheng nu" is by far the most commonly citable usage. A few sources you have cited have shown an alternate spelling, but they are in the minority. The policy does not state a hard line requirement for transliteration, and therefore the policy WP:COMMONNAME prevails. The policy aside from using notable sources, to which dozens have been provided that aren't simply blogs are op-eds and includes Chinese sources, recommends a WP:SET. "Sheng nu" returns with approximately 177,000 results where as "Sheng nü" returns only 2,350 results. "Shengnü" has 7,360 results. I've noticed you've engaged in other controversial moves and have been warned previously. I suggest you work to find a consensus on something before engaging in a back and forth edit war. Mkdw^talk 21:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources mentioning leftover women in China by the term "sheng nu" mention "sheng nu" once and use the term "leftover women" (or less frequently, "leftover ladies") for the rest of the article. I did a WP:SET. "Sheng nu" produced approximately 175,000 results. "Leftover women" produced approximately 78,300 results. "Leftover ladies" produced approximately 24,300 results. HOWEVER, a sizable amount of search results for "sheng nu" have nothing to do with 剰女 while almost all search results for "leftover women" are about 剰女. To increase the likelihood of results relating to 剰女, I searched ""sheng nu" China" and the search results fell to approximately 11,900. To increase the likelihood of results relating to 剰女, I searched ""leftover women" China" and the search results fell to approximately 43,200. "Leftover women" is consistent, concise, precise, recognisable (considering the frequency of its use in articles and headlines) and conveys what the subject (剰女) is most commonly referred to in English (considering "This is the English Wikipedia"). "sheng nu" is not part of the Chinese lexicon. 剰女 or shèngnǚ is part of the Chinese lexicon. 剰女 is notable and recognisable in China. "sheng nu" is not at all notable or recognisable in China since it is neither hanyu pinyin nor hanzi. "Leftover Women" may not be found in an English dictionary but neither is "sheng nu". "Sheng nu" will not be found in a Chinese dictionary either since it is not a Chinese word. Chchn (talk) 08:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Chchn, aside from creating the article, I have written 98.2% of its content and brought it to GA status. While this may sound like WP:OWN, I'm using it as my basis to say that I've done a lot of reading on the subject. In fact, I would say I've read most of the articles written directly about it available on the internet as well as a book, a number of research papers, and dozens of transcripts from interviews. I have seen at least six variations that are citable in numerous sources: sheng nu, shèngnǚ, sheng nü, sheng nv, 剰女, and leftover women. As addressed above, "leftover women" is the literal translation and therefore not a term and should not be the article title. 剰女 is the technically the most accurate term, the most recognizable to Chinese, but not suitable for the English Wikipedia. We must look at the romanizations. You've argued well for the form that follows the rules of pinyin that most Chinese readers would recognize. We must go with what is the most commonly found and used name, for the term, in English. Without a shadow of doubt, "sheng nu" is by far the most commonly used form. I'm not sure if you're still arguing for "sheng nü" or for "leftover women" now (even a source you cited says its a "literal translation" for the term sheng nu). A repeatedly found statement in many of the available articles, even ones titled "leftover women", contain the following, "the term shengnu". Finally to your last point, is it recognizable in China? That has no bearing on the conversation because the discussion needs to be, 'is it the most recognizable form to anglophones?' In all the sources listed in the article, "sheng nu" appears about 5 times more often than any of the other romanized names. A WP:SET has also shown you, even in all its variations, that sheng nü remains a very unpopular form of the word among Western print. Even in Chinese sources it's still less common. If you're still arguing for "sheng nü" then I don't see there being much else I can say other than repeating the same argument over and over. You as a newcomer to Wikipedia, will find that repeating the same argument over and over is a common occurrence but persistence doesn't pay when there is a clear policy and results. Thanks, Mkdw^talk 13:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sheng nu/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zanimum (talk · contribs) 21:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Intriguing article. I'll review. -- Zanimum (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review it. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask. I would like to take this opportunity to pre-emptively answer a few questions you may have regarding the title and subject. Editors in the past discussed the following major points when the article was first created:

• Chinese romanization versus English translation
• Use of diacritics
• Pinyin use of "nu" versus "nv"

The fundamental factors were that the article is about the Chinese term and secondarily about the concept. In English, there is no term "leftover women" and thus an encyclopaedic article would not have been appropriate. The diacritics used in the Pinyin form are not found on the latin keyboard thus the romanization of the word excludes them. This also follows the general recommendations on Wikipedia to allow accessibility to the most likely readers. A redirect with the diacritics were created in several variations. Lastly, 'ǚ' is sometimes written as 'v', however it seems the majority of sources including ones that originate in China, and where they have used the romanization of the word, have simplified it and used a 'u'. Thus the article went with the precedent set by editorial publications rather than making our own choice based upon the editor's knowledge of Pinyin. Mkdw^talk 02:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I've had the review on a USB for a while, sitting, unposted. Doh!

Background

• "begun in the mainstream" suggests the first use was in the mainstream, which is possible. That said, you'd be better off with "entered the mainstream", which covers all your bases.

 Done

• The title of the article should be full quotation marks.

 Note: I have changed it to be consistent with other foreign language words such as Kamikaze which uses bold and italics for the term/word, and brackets and quotes for the translations.

• change the hyphen into an em dash, even if the source doesn't have one

 Done I think I got it. Let me know if I did the correct one. Everything else looked like a compound modifier or multi-hyphenated item.

• An estimated amount of articles, available in the past tense as opposed to present. The last sentence of this section just seems very wishy-washy, was the BBC this on the fence? (working offline, can't look at the source)

 Done The Cambridge study found at least 15 but it seems like there could have been more so I reworded it to "at least"

United States

• "Comparisons have been made"... there's only one reference for this sentence. Is there a second comparison, beyond the BBC?

 Done Found a Public Radio International story that mentions the same Newsweek article and makes the same comparison.

• Sheng nus are unmarried (but they can at least be dating?), this article is about single women, there's a slight difference.

 Note: The Chinese lexicon does not specify so I'm not sure if it does or does not. In reading over the Newsweek article and followup apology article, I wouldn't necessarily say it's written solely in terms of relating to "single women". While the cover text which includes the statistics clearly does, the inside articles cover a number of identical topics related to sheng nu. For example there are parts about "unmarried women" in their late 20s and 30s, societal and family pressure, difficulties in find a partner, and career minded women. Now that the followup Newsweek article has been found I think this could actually be an opportunity to expand that section since it mentions other comparisons in how this similar concept was received in the US in the mid 80s.

• Over-reliance on the BBC article.

   Done In adding the additional references in response to the feedback the total number of different references used in the section are currently at 8. May reach 9 if I find another reference for paragraph 3.

  • I'd like to see another reference for Newsweek's apology, surely some news outlet covered their apology back in 2010.

   Done I found the originally apology from Newsweek and cited it. I believe this would be sufficient to verify that Newsweek had made the apologize since it's also backed up by the BBC source.

  • The third sentence, about the "wave of anxiety", can you find an article to that extent in Google News Archives or something?

   Done The Newsweek followup article specifically documents the social effects of the original article.

  • As for Sleepless mentioning the article, likely at least one review of the film mentions this.

   Done ABC News followed the story and tied the article to Sleepless in Seattle.

• Both sentences in paragraph 3 of US are referenced to reference 6. One ref is enough.

   Done-kind of. I found an ABC News article that focuses on the book and it's offer in relationship to sheng nu. I've used it as a source for the first sentence with the hopes that I can actually expand that paragraph. The Chinese Daily article will still need to be there for the quote and I agree that diversification of the references is something this article needs.

Other countries

• There's a major disconnect between "as far back as 16th century" and the paragraph that actually discusses the earliest terms.

 Done Did my best to flow the section from modern to modern/older origin words. Let me know if it makes sense.

Passing See also, Further reading, References, Images.

Still to review "China". -- Zanimum (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I will hopefully have a chance to look over these on the weekend or later in the week. Mkdw^talk 19:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Passing "China", there were only very minimal things that I changed, mostly removing unneeded italics. Let me know if any of the above comments don't make sense, I believe the review was done while partial distracted. -- Zanimum (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@Zanimum: Please have a look when you have a free moment and thank you for waiting. Regards, Mkdw^talk 01:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry I've been sidetracked for so long, I had a cold all last week. Everything looks wonderful now, a fantastic article on this social phenomenon! -- Zanimum (talk) 23:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Communist Party's role

I wonder if this article could help develop the article, which at present does not mention the word "party" at all - an omission, I'd think, given the importance that Chinese government (~party) plays in that country. Thoughts? (If anyone replies here, please echo me) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Catherinette and Sheng nu be merged into Spinster. I think that the content in the Sheng nu & Catherinette articles can easily be explained in the context of Spinster, and the Spinster article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Sheng nu & Catherinette will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. KhabarNegar ^Talk 05:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Please only post this in one place. Reply at Talk:Spinster#Merger_proposal. Mkdw^talk 05:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Movement

The origins and background of the term are already covered at Sheng nu#Background. Leta Hong Fincher's research at Cambridge and op eds in the New York Times are widely cited throughout. Likewise, there is also already a media section and consequences section that references the movement to reclaim the word beginning in 2012 which is well cited. Please make sure you read the entire article so as not to repeat information and depart too far from our policies on neutral point of view and original research. The term is indeed highly controversial and requires citations for most facts. Mkdw ^talk 19:15, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

While the term is apart of the issue with sexism in China, the content being added would be more appropriate in the other articles. Mkdw ^talk 20:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2021 and 16 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Crystaltsai97.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

"A Quality woman"

The following passage makes a subjective and contradictory finding. in short, it makes no sense.

"A study of married couples in China noted that men tended to marry down the socio-economic ladder.[4] "There is an opinion that A-quality guys will find B-quality women, B-quality guys will find C-quality women, and C-quality men will find D-quality women," says Huang Yuanyuan.[1] "The people left are A-quality women and D-quality men. So if you are a leftover woman, you are A-quality."[1] A University of North Carolina demographer who studies China's gender imbalance, Yong Cai, further notes that "men at the bottom of society get left out of the marriage market, and that same pattern is coming to emerge for women at the top of society"."

The definition of "A Quality" is a biased one and it depends on whether you are taking the perspective of a 3rd wave feminist or that of a traditional family. If they are "A Quality" why are they being consistently passed over? If your goal, as a male, is to have multiple children with a woman and raise them a woman who's priority is her career and her education she is effectively "F Quality" to the majority of the population. Further, rating a male or woman based purely on their socioeconomic status or education level is reductive, overly simplistic, and shallow. Further that is not the measure society applies to women. That's the standard 3rd wave feminism applies to women. Men, however, ARE measured by their socioeconomic status by and large by most women and society with regards to the dating pool. Women are generally measured by their youth/beauty/childbearing potential. Their education and earning is irrelevant.

I disagree with the unsubstantiated assertion that education/income makes a woman "A Quality". The cited study itself contradicts this assertion. If they were "A Quality" they would be highly sought after. But they're specifically passed over. I propose the following options: removing all the "A/B/C/D quality" assertions/categories redefining them based on what the study actually found. that women focused on education/career are actually of the lowest "quality" to potential mates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:CE01:B380:AC2E:C920:EA45:30C9 (talk) 20:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

title

"sheng nu" is misleading. it should be called either "sheng nv" or "sheng nü" EnTerbury (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)