Talk:Yue Chinese/Archive 2

Population of Cantonese speakers severely underestimated

The source citing the number of Cantonese speakers at 71 million was using data from 1984. Back then China had just broken the 1 billion person mark and now its at around 1.3 billion. Furthermore, GuangDong became the most populous province two years ago. Thus the inaccuracy is even greater proportionally.

The estimated population for GuangDong, is 110 million. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-01/29/content_413299.htm In addition there is a significant population of Cantonese speakers in Guangxi.

To this we must add overseas Chinese in both the Western world and SE Asia. Furthermore HK and Macau are not insignificant populations. The previous estimation of Cantonese speakers made in 1984 and listed on this website estimate the number of overseas speakers to have been 20 million. I could not find data on how much it has grown in the last 20 odd years.

And to everyone who is writing one of the many topic headlines on how Mandarin is overtaking... Yes, they teach Mandarin in the schools. But if you look more deeply into the reality of the situation, you see that Cantonese is far and away the primary language for life. Mandarin is still definitively a second language for a vast majority of these people. But regardless, how much or what percentage of life is conducting in Mandarin or Cantonese is irrelevant. The number of Cantonese speakers is simply the number that know how to use it and do use it sometimes.

The previous source merely added the 20 million overseas figure to the 51 million population of Guangdong in 1984. Thus is seems clear to me that the population estimate should be revised considering the outdatedness of the data. Around 140 million seems more reasonable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.77.167 (talk) 20:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The number of Cantonese (including all varieties) speakers does not not equal the population of Guangdong + number of Cantonese speakers elsewhere. A large proportion of the current population of Guangdong are not Guangdong natives, also not even all Guangdong natives are Cantonese speakers. As you know Wikipedia is based on information already published elsewhere, not on original research. LDHan 23:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. I am just saying that the number listed is wrong and we should look for a more accurate approximation or delete it. I found a much more recent statistic from a reputable source. http://www.oclc.org/languagesets/educational/languages/asia.htm. The speaking population in East and Southeast Asia is 100 million according to the site.

That web page is hardly a well researched and referenced piece of writing, what are the sources of the figures? The "Chinese" section is actually about Cantonese, a language/dialect spoken by c. 6% of Chinese speakers, it is also full of factual errors. This earlier version of this article [1] contains a paragraph that is almost word for word exactly the same as a paragraph on that web page. I don't know which article copied from which article, but it has been removed from this article because it is simply full of errors. A "reputable source" ideally should be a peer-reviewed academic journal or equivalent. Www.oclc.org seems to be merely an organisation that catalogues and indexes library material. LDHan 23:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted to the earlier figures which are more authoritative and reliable. Both [2] and [3] do not state their sources. Www.oclc.org seems to be merely an organisation that catalogues and indexes library material, and [4] seems to be a page of information about Cantonese classes with what I guess are a few ad hoc sentences written by the class teacher. Both pages are not well researched and referenced piece of writing. I have also removed other assertions supported by those two sources. LDHan 19:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

In reply to your claim that "One of the two references is not sourced, but the other one has a clear source" http://www.oclc.org/languagesets/educational/languages/asia.htm in fact does not state its source. It merely has a link to another website with the following words: "Other source and map: The World Bank Group, data and statistics", meaning that the website is another source and has a map, not that it is the source of the figures and facts presented on http://www.oclc.org/languagesets/educational/languages/asia.htm LDHan 12:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If you looked at the old reference's source does not even say 71 million. It just pulls that number out of thin air. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.77.167 (talk) 01:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The old reference website is just a program to link up translators with customers

How about we put 71 million and date that to 1984 and put estimated 100 million today? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snarfendu (talk • contribs) 01:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia rules, unless a piece of information is properly sourced, it can't be used in an article. It seems an anon user:128.12.17.101 tried to make a similar assertion using the same web page as a reference before in this article's talk page: [5]. Wikipedia articles are not a reliable source. So please do not make edits based on unsourced information, making the same unconstructive edits repeatedly will be regarded as vandalism. [6] states that their figures are based on figures from Ethnologue, although Ethnologue [7] itself quotes the figure of 55 million. I recognise that Ethnologue has been critcised for errors, inaccuracies, out of date data and their language and dialect classifications, but in the absence of official figures e.g. based on censuses or surveys, it is all we have for the meantime. LDHan 13:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You act as if the reference [8] that you've been repeatedly changing is sourced. If the reference cites a source and that source does not say the same thing as the reference then it is a not a legitimate reference. The source never mentions the 71m figure so the reference is a misstatement. Moreover you never mention the fact anywhere that this information is supposedly from 1984. So the fact you cite has no real source, and even if it did it would be out of date and inapplicable without saying so. When saying that Cantonese is spoken by X amount of people, you are using the present tense. Trying to say that 71m people speak it is simply false due to the fact that that figure was only possibly true 20 odd years ago. If you want to leave the figure, then you must have a reference with a legitimate source and you must use the past tense and state the period in which is was applicable. Snarfendu —Preceding comment was added at 21:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want want to use Ethnologue's figure then you need to say it's 55 million, it states "Population total all countries: 54,810,598" and does not give a date. It does give a figure for 1984 but it is "52,000,000 in mainland China (1984)". Yes I'm aware that the figures don't add up, but Wikipedia is not about truth but verifiability [9]. nvtc gov in fact does not state what year its figure is for, merely that it is based on Ethnologue's, but does not say how it arrived at its figure of 71 million, therefore it might be seen as less reliable, but this is not much different from Ethnologue, ultimately both sites do not state exactly where their figures come from. Ethnologue at least has some degree of reliability and reputation, but http://www.oclc.org/languagesets/educational/languages/asia.htm is completely unreliable and it cannot be used as a reference in Wikipedia articles because it is copied from previous versions of Wikipedia articles. LDHan 22:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Number of speakers means current speakers not past number. Not 10 years ago, not 20 years ago. If you want to put those statistics you must label what those statistics are for. Otherwise they are meaningless. Your statistics come from a jumble of unreliable sources. One of them is some random guy's personal webpage.

Here is a section from that webpage: "status: single and looking - 'I got a lot of love to give, I just don't know where to put it all' character: happy go lucky, hard working, driven philosopher personality profile: (IPIP NEO) temperament: mix of ENTJ (fieldmarshall) & INTP(systems builder)fantasy/scifi character: Yoda." [[10]].

Are you honestly trying to say thats a verifiable source? Just because he supposedly copied and pasted that data from the 1996 Ethnologue (which oddly isn't even on the Ethnologue website)? Snarfendu 00:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Also I looked into the OCLC information and at anon user:128.12.17.101's edits. It is obvious that the OCLC website did not copy wikipedia. That user copied that information from wikipedia. If you checked the history of this article you could clearly see that. Snarfendu 00:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Out of [11], [12] and [13], the last one is the least reliable because, as you have said and I agree with you, it is "some random guy's personal webpage", but at least it states where its figures supposedly come from, what is the source of the figure on [14]?

To answer your edit summary: "Listing a statistic from 1984 as a statistic for today is not a matter of inaccuracy; it is misleading and false." and to repeat what I have already written, both Ethnologue and nvtc.gov do not give a date for their figures quoted in this article.

If you disagree with what is and what is not a reliable source, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources or perhaps you might like to make a post on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. LDHan 10:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The Ethnologue clearly says 1984. The NVTC.gov website clearly lists its source as the Ethnologue and the Ethnologue does not say what NVTC cites it as saying. Furthermore, since both of those references ultimately cite the Ethnologue, there is no reason to put both figures down. Especially without the dates. Lastly, the OCLC clearly cites its source at the top of the page, but exactly like the Ethnologue, the original source material is not published for free. You have been warned for vandalism and you continue to unilaterally revert and change this article. You have been reported for Administrator Intervention. I ask that you please stop repeatedly reverting other people's changes until those admins come to handle the situation.Snarfendu 05:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This is what is currently stated on Ethnologue: "Population: 52,000,000 in mainland China (1984). Population includes 498,000 in Macau. Population total all countries: 54,810,598." It does not state 55 million (54,810,598 rounded up) is clearly a 1984 figure.

Where does OCLC "clearly cites its source at the top of the page"? I can't see it. http://www.oclc.org/languagesets/educational/languages/asia.htm in fact does not state its source. It merely uses the following words to link to another website: "Other source and map: The World Bank Group, data and statistics", meaning that the linked website is another source and has a map, not that it is the source of the figures and text presented on http://www.oclc.org/languagesets/educational/languages/asia.htm

Thank you for your warning, I welcome an admin intervention. However I suggest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard would be a better place to request the attention of an admin. LDHan 16:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Even if part of the 55 million figure is from 1984, then it is still from 1984. 128.12.77.167 21:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This is what is currently stated on Ethnologue: "Population: 52,000,000 in mainland China (1984). Population includes 498,000 in Macau. Population total all countries: 54,810,598." It does not state 55 million (54,810,598 rounded up) is clearly a 1984 figure. LDHan 21:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the stated source objectively, and it is plain clear the 1984 date only applies to the figure for Mainland China+Macau. Other dates include 2000 for Brunei and the Philippines, 1982 for Indonesia, 1980 for Malaysia, 1985/1993 for Singapore, 1984 for Thailand, and 1999 for Vietnam. Planting a 1984 date to the total population figure is clearly inaccurate and not supported by the said source. I have therefore removed it from the article.--Huaiwei 02:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I agree your assessment is fair and objective. And since OCLC's figure is unsourced, I'm going to remove that as well. Maybe NVTC's figure should also be removed because it does not match what is shown on Ethnologue, although it states it is based on Ethnologue figures. LDHan 17:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I have removed OCLC's unsourced figure, as there doesn't seem to be any further comments regarding the origin of this figure. LDHan 16:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Desist from editing this article. You have already been warned multiple times for vandalism. User Huaiwei is not a wikipedia administrator and he clearly is not knowledgeable of the topic given that he believes Cantonese was derived from Mandarin. Lastly your argument still fails to grasp the fact that the total population statistic incorporates the 1984 mainland population figure. Thus even if the stats of Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam are more recent, the total figure still has many component (the largest components) based from the 1984 mainland figure. Snarfendu 09:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

A reader does not need to be "knowledgeable of the topic" to recognise that if something is currently stated as "Population: 52,000,000 in mainland China (1984). Population includes 498,000 in Macau. Population total all countries: 54,810,598.", it does not mean that 55 million (54,810,598 rounded up) is a 1984 figure. If a figure is stated as "55 million (1984)" it means 55 million is from 1984, not that 55 million is in fact partly from 1984 and partly from years after 1984. I will remove OCLC's unsourced figure, as there doesn't seem to be any further comments regarding the origin of this figure.

In fact all users can make relevant and on-topic comments here, admin or not, are you an admin? If not, are your comments any less valid because you are not an admin? In any case user:Huaiwei did not say that "Cantonese is derived from Mandarin" but this is beside the point. LDHan 13:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

There are third party sources [15] citing from Ethnologue that Cantonese numbers 66 million in 1997. So either that Cantonese speakers dropped at least more than 10 million in ten years according to Ethnologue, or the numbers in there are outdated, coming from the fact that "1984" makes an appearance. The statement "Population: 52,000,000 in mainland China (1984). Population includes 498,000 in Macau. Population total all countries: 54,810,598." remains confusing and unclear nonetheless in my opinion. We cannot judge rather the Ethnologue numbers are since, up to, or partly from years after 1984. Pojanji 20:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree with you, Ethnologue’s figures are unclear, that is why the article should state exactly what Ethnologue says, and not add a date which adds even more to the confusion. [16]'s figure matches [17]'s, but unfortunately these are not currently shown on Ethnologue's website. LDHan 20:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Stating the 55 million population in the beginning without a date is misleading. It is highly unlikely that whenever a person reads a Wikipedia article, they will verify and check every single source. In addition, the Ethnologue source does not even mention anything with regards to including the population of Cantonese speakers in Hong Kong. It states "mainland China" and "Macau", where's Hong Kong? If a concensus cannot be agreed on this statistic, I highly recommend we should either remove this statistic, or wipe off all the population figures totally and instead put a note stating that there are no reliable figures that give an accurate represenation of the present or recent past available.--Miracleman123 16:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I accept ethnologue's figures are not clear and that Hong Kong's Cantonese speakers don't seem to be included, unless HK is included as mainland China given that Macau is included as mainland China (perhaps in a geographical sense), but then there is the question as to why HK's number is not stated. However, "55 million (1984)" cannot be in the article because it is not what is on Ethnologue. I would suggest using the figure of 52 million and adding a sentence to the figure in the info box: "52,000,000 in mainland China and Macau (1984)" and keeping "Population: 52,000,000 in mainland China (1984). Population includes 498,000 in Macau. Population total all countries: 54,810,598." in the reference section at the bottom of the article. LDHan 17:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to user:Benwong, I think we can all agree this reference should put a stop to the current disruptions to the article. LDHan 16:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Problems of population understatement affects practically all the Chinese language/dialect articles. Instead of debating over understated figures for one, we should be striving to find a good definitive source for all relevant articles and update all of them collectively. Otherwise, I am inclined to wonder if a POV issue is lurking here.--Huaiwei 13:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The user who added/re-inserted these so-called references is clearly not interested in following Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Although "Encyclopedia of Language And Linguistics" is an actual book, I am going to check whether or not the book states what is claimed in this article. LDHan 20:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

See section below for details. LDHan (talk) 14:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I have removed [18] used as a reference because it violates both Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable_sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 as it is a self published anonymous web page and about as reliable as a blog. If 2007 figures are available from Ethnologue, then Ethnologue itself should be cited not a random third party web page that anybody could have created. That page on www.freewebs.com claims to quote Ethnologue figures for 2007, however [19] states This web edition of the Ethnologue contains all the content of the print edition, Gordon, Raymond G., Jr. (ed.), 2005. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Fifteenth edition. Dallas, Tex.: SIL International. Online version: http://www.ethnologue.com/. So it appears that Ethnologue themselves do not even have 2007 figures, the print edition is 2005 and the web version does not show 2007 figures. LDHan 21:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

LDHan

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Article, you will be blocked from editing.

To user:128.12.77.167/Snarfendu/Miracleman123 et al, thank you for your several (and final!!!) warnings, I welcome an admin intervention. However I suggest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard would be more appropriate to request the attention of an admin.
Just for the record, I made a formatting mistake in my last edit [20]which resulted in the info box not displaying properly, and it is my fault for not checking. I would have corrected it had not another user had already done so first.
My edits are in fact not vandalism, removing a unsourced figure, and presenting an Ethnologue figure as actually stated by Ethnologue are constructive edits, please see wikipedia: policies and guidelines and also Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry. LDHan 13:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

LDHan, I don't understand why you accuse me of giving you any warnings. I never did so, I never thought any of your edits were considered to be vandalism, in fact, I've never even bothered to learn how to give warnings. So either you show proof that it was I that did that, or you should retract my user name in your "thank you" statement.--Miracleman123 (talk) 07:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

If you are not a sockpuppet of user:128.12.77.167/snarfendu, then I apologise and have modified my previous comment. LDHan (talk) 14:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

education section

"Most only offer Chinese classes in Standard Mandarin because it is the official language of both the People's Republic of China and Taiwan. In addition, Mandarin serves as the lingua franca used between people who do not speak the same dialect, and is spoken and understood by virtually everyone in mainland China and Taiwan. In addition, Mandarin was the court dialect formerly used in Qing Dynasty Imperial China."

This belongs in the Mandarin article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.77.167 (talk) 09:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

unnecessary references to mandarin

This article is about Cantonese, not Mandarin. While the languages are related in many ways, it is not necessary to always say: Cantonese does this while Mandarin does that. If the comparison has a point then obviously its helpful, but often in this article there are facts about Mandarin that are not needed and irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.77.167 (talk) 10:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The word Mandarin appears so frequently in this article that it will surely distract the reader. Pojanji 18:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The most obvious reason this is so, is that all Chinese dialects (including Cantonese) are considered branches of Mandarin, at least as far as both of the world's Chinese-dominated govenments of UN-recognised independent states are concerned. It is not uncommon for people to use Mandarin as the "standard" to make comparisons with, and this happens not just to Cantonese. There is no need to get hyper-sensitive over this.--Huaiwei 19:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Not true at all. You are presenting a view that is part of the 1970s Speak Mandarin Campaign. It was a view pushed out by Communist officials into the many Chinese regions around it. It tried to phase out Hakka and the many smaller minority languages. Benjwong 20:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The irony is that Cantonese seems to be preserve many linguistic features of the older Chinese "standard speech"--thus some words (like the ancient flute called yue (籥) are pronounced in Cantonese in a very similar way to the way they were pronounced in Classical Chinese, while in Standard Mandarin they have been "corrupted" by Manchurian and other linguistic influences. Our own articles on the subjects bear this out. Badagnani 20:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Not too much of an irony, considering its vast distance from the Mandarin core. The Chinese language varieties in Southern China has always "lagged" behind the "corruption" of the North. ;)--Huaiwei 08:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

That is a horrifically politically-charged comment to make, such that facts are being obscured. The Speak Mandarin Campaign that Singaporeans know of is a strictly Singaporean nation-building exercise, and has nothing to do with communism. The former Mandarin Promotion Council in Taiwan has approximately the same aims, and I would be amused if they are driven by communist ideals. If the idea of the Chinese language as a single language is basically 1970s communist propaganda, then are you insinuating that any hints of Chinese language being one language today has to be due to the communists? Are you claiming that prior to the 1970s, everyone considers all Chinese dialects as distinct languages? I am utterly amazed that centuries of Chinese Language evolution to what we have today is being blamed squarely on the Chinese Communist Party. Is this the kind of propaganda taught in schools of your locality?--Huaiwei 08:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you are missing some critical info. The Speak Mandarin Campaign article does not even mention the word "money". PRC in the 90s had an unusally-good business relationship with singapore. That is no coincidence. As singapore (along with a couple other places) were promised early entry/investment into the mainland market, if their language & writing system can be made mainland-compatible. The equivalent would be like US dropping English entirely in favor of Mandarin, so they can maximize business opportunities with PRC. The communist party dangled the carrot/money as the motivating factor, and singapore went the distance. Possibly overdoing it, but that's debatable. You are comparing the Mandarin promotion council, which was relatively self-contained within ROC boundaries. Versus the communist party which reach beyond its own territory. That's the difference. Of course if you feel singapore is part of PRC, then let me know. Benjwong 18:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

If you are attempting to suggest that the PRC "bribed" Singapore into adopting a language policy in promoting Mandarin in Singapore, kindly pull up concrete evidence to support this before I dump your entire thesis into the garbage can right away. This is a hilariously ridiculous assertion obviously conjoured based on nothing but self-imagination. Oh, and you can't even get your dates correct. The Speak Mandarin Campaign began officially in 1979, and by the 1990s, was already tampering off. So just what "preferential treatment" did Singapore optain in the interveening years? On what basis are you arguing that the Mandarin promotion council is "contained in ROC boundaries", while the Speak Mandarin Campaign is not "contained in Singapore boundaries"? Gosh, I didnt know a Singapore govenment policy like the SMC was actually transcending boundaries. So just which territory did the SMC spill into? Er....Hong Kong, I suppose, since it is apparantly getting loads of preferential treatment from the PRC? :) But of course if you feel Hong Kong isnt a part of the PRC, then let me know.--Huaiwei 15:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Please look at it from multiple perspective. As the campaign is more economics than nationalism. Somehow that article points only toward nationalism at the moment and is misleading. I feel like I am stating the obvious, but you seem to have an entirely different perspective. Just look at the date. 1979 is 1 year after the Chinese economic reform. Here is a quick reference. I have read better sources in the past, but this one is easily accessible and is not some random source. [21] Don't know if you can read from the line "Since 1985". But you can get an idea. Benjwong 15:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If you can comprehend basic English, that line underscores a publicised fact that the need to comprehend Mandarin is becoming a critical neccesity as the PRC opens up and becomes an economic power. This, the government has frequently acknowledged and underscored when they explain Singapore's language policy (See "Mandarin – An Asset" section). The selection of English as the lingua franca was by no means the result of the United States dangling economic carrots at Singapore either. It was a recognition at that time that all Singaporeans must at least have a solid grounding in the language of commerce and world trade, and the language of the world's largest economy, for individual Singaporeans and the country as a whole to forge successfully in the global marketplace. The selection of English and Chinese as compulsory languages for ethnic-Chinese Singaporeans are almost exactly the same by the 1990s - for the primary benefit of connecting with the World. You call for a holistic approach in looking at this issue, but isnt it strange that you appear to be dismissing the campaign's stated objectives to achieve that? Nation building and social cohesion continues to be relevant today, as is clearly demonstrated in the on-going need to close the gap between the English and Chinese-educated Singaporeans[22] born out of a less-regulated educational landscape prior to Singapore's independence. For you to discount these reasonings as "less important" dispite the existance of overwelming evidence is clearly foolhardy.

I do not dispute the role of economics in Singapore's language policy. However, I dispute your claims that Singapore's Speak Mandarin Campaign is rooted in communist ideals. I dispute your claims that the PRC has dangled economic carrots at Singapore to entice it to adopt a pro-Mandarin policy. I dispute your claims that Singapore's Speak Mandarin Campaign is enforced outside Singapore. And I dispute your suggestion that Singapore is a part of the PRC. Unless you can show verifiable information to support any of your above claims, I do not think anyone needs to entertain them much further.--Huaiwei 16:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

That extract does not back up the claims that "... singapore (along with a couple other places) were promised early entry/investment into the mainland market, if their language & writing system can be made mainland-compatible." It merely states that "the promotion of Mandarin has also been associated with economic values, responding to the opening-up and rapid growth of the Chinese economy", meaning the the spread of Mandarin in Singapore also had economic benefits. LDHan 17:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok I respect your opinions. You are welcome to dispute all of it. But I will say that if you are overreacting to 1 sentence to 1 quick source, I can't imagine what you will find if you are willing to look the other way. Hint, there are many books out there on this topic. If anything I was trying to help shed some light. Personally I am certain if I hit deep into research, it will be overwhelming proven that economics has an "uncomfortably" strong-tie to the language reform. Don't worry though, I am booked on too many articles to even attempt this one. Benjwong 17:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

What I wrote was not merely an opinion, but rather a simple matter of fact assessment of your claims and the evidence you presented, one that would be made by any reader without any preconceived ideas on this matter. Maybe what you claim is true, maybe it's not, but it's not supported by that page from that book. LDHan 20:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

What is meant by Cantonese

Cantonese is a misnomer. The language people in Hong Kong, Malaysia, and overseas Chinese refer to as Cantonese is in fact Guangzhouese, ie the speech of Guangzhou City.

Canton is the English transliteration for Guangdong Province; it was also the British transliteration for Guangzhou City. Thus Cantonese meaning the speech of Guangzhou became wrongly confused with the speech of Guangdong, as the 'Canton' in 'Cantonese' was taken to mean Guangdong and not Guangzhou.

There is one language Guangzhouese, but there are many other Chinese languages spoken in Guangdong Province, which could also be validly referred to as Guangdongese, these include Toishanese (Taishanese), Zhongshanese and Guangdong-Hakka languages such as Xinglingese and Meiyuanese. Although Toishanese is said to be a native Cantonese language as is Guangzhouese, it is in fact as different to Guangzhouese as Guangzhouese is to Guangdong-Hakka. The fact that Guangzhou is the provincial capital of Guangdong does not make Guangzhouese the only language in Guangdong. In China, the Cantonese referred to by many people, is correctly called Guangzhouese, and not Guangdongese as referred to by people in Hong Kong.

The situation is similar for people in South-East Asia descended from the (South) Fujian region of China. They refer to their language as Hokkien(ese) (Fujianese). Other non-Fujian Chinese then interpreted this to mean the (only) speech from Fujian, and expect all people from Fujian to speak Hokkien. This is in fact incorrect because it is only one of the languages in Fujian and it could not be understood by most people from Fujian.

Perhaps the eds here should write Guangzhouese for Cantonese, if Guangzhouese was the language meant. 81.159.80.210 23:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Your view makes alot of sense. In fact you are probably right. Except it will be one of the hardest item to reference. If a reference said (Canton)ese is the main branch, you don't know if they really mean Guangdong or Guangzhou. And if they mean Guangzhou, and they didn't say Guangzhouese, it just make the misnomer even more mainstream. Benjwong 02:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying your point is valid or not, but Cantonese has been a term in English used to refer to the specific language discussed in this article for a long long time. Guangzhouese is not a common term for this language and would add confusion. The foreign names for things often do not make sense with a better understanding of the indigenous people. Mistransliterations, misunderstandings, misinterpretations are common for all words moving across borders. But just because these names are "wrong" doesn't mean that they are any less valid to the foreign peoples. So in other words, Yes maybe the English speakers messed up; but we've been living with this error so long and now its a genuine and legitimate part of English. Snarfendu 10:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course my point is right. The language Cantonese foreign people refer to is nothing but Guangzhouese. Why can't the language be refered to as Guangzhouese when people here use the term Taishanese? In China, the language, is refered to Guangzhouhua, ie Guangzhouese; and there are even dictionaries devoted to this. Only in Hong Kong or overseas do the Punti people refer to it as Guangdonghua, or Guangdongese. There is no one language Guangdongese. The mistranslation occurred because the one word 'Canton' was used to refer to Guangdong and Guangzhou. This being an encyclopaedia so why shouldn't mistakes be aired, discussed and corrected? 81.159.86.60 21:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Am I talking to multiple people here? Or 1 person under a name and an IP? I agree with you that Guangzhouese seems more correct, but there little to no reference on it compared to the most popular word Cantonese. Also you should not say it is the English speakers making a mistake. I believe Qing court presented Guangdong/Guangzhou to the British/Europeans under 1 name. Benjwong 23:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

And I bet the Qing court didn't call Chinese Mandarin either. Is it not more correct to use Beijing rather than Peking nowadays? Since Cantonese is Guangzhouhua (Guangzhouese) and not Guangdongese, should Cantonese people not educate the rest of the world to that effect, like Peking is really Beijing? 81.159.86.60 21:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think people think that Cantonese is the only language or dialect spoken in the regions you mention. Rather I think they simply suppose (if they suppose anything) that the Cantonese language is originally found in Canton which is now Guangdong. It isn't as if any term is more correct than another. The more important issue is what term do most people use and associate with this language. I mean Spanish isnt called "Spanish" in Spanish. Obviously its "espanol." This does not mean that the English usage is incorrect. Snarfendu 04:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Snarfendu, I don't know what your language abilities are, but I don't think it is too presumptious to assume that Espanol in Spanish means the language of Spain or the language of the Spanish people. Spanish in English also means the language of Spain or the language of the Spanish people. Just because Spain is in Europe does not make Spanish and the 'European language' one and the same thing. There is no such a language called European, and there is no such one language called Guangdongese.

Guangzhouese means the language of Guangzhou, and Guangdongese means the language of Guangdong. Guangzhou is in Guangdong, all languages in Guangdong could be referred to as Guangdongese, not just Guangzhouese. In China, the language foreign and Hong Kong people call Guangdongese is in fact Guangzhouese. Don't you think it is more appropriate to use the Chinese (of China) term Guangzhouese and not Guangdongese or Cantonese, rather like using Beijing instead of Peking? 81.159.86.60 21:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

"...Cantonese has been a term in English used to refer to the specific language discussed in this article for a long long time. Guangzhouese is not a common term for this language..."

Actually this article is about all the dialects in the Yue group. "Cantonese" in common usage does mean the Guangzhou dialect, if "Cantonese" is a misnomer it is only because "Canton" has been used to mean both the city and the province. I propose moving this article to Yue (linguistics), see below. LDHan 13:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

LDHan, If Guangzhouese is the standard Yue speech, then there is no need to refer to it as a dialect; the speeches of other areas such as Hong Kong and the Guangdong countryside are then dialects of Guangzhouese, as they are mutually intelligible; rather like the various English dialects in England, Australia and New Zealand and the USA and Canada. Taishanese cannot then be a dialect of Guangzhouese as they are not mutually intelligible. 81.159.86.60 22:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That is an interesting point. Are you saying Taishanese technically belong in a different branch? Benjwong 05:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I gather there is some degree of mutual unintelligibility between Guangzhouhua and Taishanhua, but both Guangzhouhua and Taishanhua are classed as Yue by linguists. Re the word "dialect", I'm using "dialect" just to mean a variety of language that is a sub-divison of the the larger group, ie the Guangzhou dialect and the Taishan dialect are both classed as Yue. I didn't use "dialect" in the sense of a variety that is distinct from the "standard" version of a language. I'm going to used "Guangzhouhua" etc from now on to avoid this confusion. LDHan 13:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Some linguists may well classify Guangzhouese and Taishanese as Yue, but is this an accurate reflection of the reality? Do linguists mean both these languages split from a more archaic form of Yue, which is no longer spoken, or do they mean Guangzhouese is the standard Yue and Taishanese broke away? There appears to be no absolute measure. Guangzhouese and Taishanese are two distinct languages which are mutually unintellible without familiarisation, and should not be described as dialects of each other. There are people who speak both languages fluently as joint-first languages. This would not be the case if the two speeches were dialects; an American would not speak the American dialect of English to Americans and then switch to speaking the British dialect to the British.

Guangzhouese is even more different to Taishanese than standard Spanish is to standard Italian. If Spanish and Italian are separate languages and not described as dialects of the Latin language, then neither should Guangzhouese and Taishanese be described as dialects of each other. It is better to treat Guangzhouese and Taishanese as separate languages. 81.159.86.60 19:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you know that what gets defined as a language and what gets defined as a dialect is not purely based on linguistic characteristics. Guangzhouhua and Taishanhua are not described as dialects of each other, but as dialects of Yue, ie they are sub-divisons within the larger Yue group.. LDHan 13:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Then what is the Yue group? I think it is agreed by postings above that Guangzhouese is the Standard Yue. Assuming Guangzhouese is the standard, then if Taishanese were a dialect it would be a dialect of Guangzhouese. However it would be better to treat Guangzhouese and Taishanese as separate languages of the same family as Italian and Spanish are separate languages. There are dialects of Guangzhouese; Hongkongese is an example. 86.161.56.69 23:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

To 81.159.86.60 21:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC). You still don't get the point. The language discussed in this article is known in the English language as Cantonese. It doesn't matter in the slightest that this (might be) a misnomer. Your analogy about Spanish and European are irrelevant to the extreme. Snarfendu 23:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Snarfendu, I get the point absolutely. You don't seem to appreciate that historical mistakes should be corrected as knowledge and communication improves. And to correct mistakes, someone need to make a start somewhere at some point. Why should Wiki not be this starting point? Wiki is an encyclopedia, hopefully free to almost everyone on earth. The English word 'Cantonese' should gradually be replaced by 'Guangzhouese' or 'Guangzhouhua', as Beijing should be Beijing and not Peking. 81.157.100.12 22:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Snarfendu, you are absolutely right. Wiki goes with standard English language nomenclature. The term 'Cantonese' is not at all a misnomer. InfernoXV 01:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The term Hokkien will not be a misnomer to most Singaporeans either, yet sees no place in wikipedia due to issues over technical accuracy. I won't go so far as to declare wikipedia as a vehicle to incite change (this is never its purpose), but some level of consistency may be called for.--Huaiwei 01:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who knows anything about the English language and have an appreciation of English literature will know that there is no such a thing as an absolute standard English language nomenclature. As a language, English is forever evolving, which means 'standards' move. 81.157.100.12 (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously Huaiwei doesnt mean "standard" as in a set of rules guarded in a deep dark basement-dungeon fortress by immortal guardians. He just means that "Cantonese" is virtually a universally accepted name for this language amongst english speakers. Moreover is by and large the only language most english speakers know it by. On a side note, the quality of gradual evolution is found in practically every language so dont think that english is special in this regard, Mr 81.157.100.12 Snarfendu (talk) 07:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, 81.157.100.12 said this misnaming is a "historical mistake." Maybe I am reading into your words too exactingly, but this was a mistake made by someone in the past, its not a historical mistake. History doesnt make mistakes. History just happens. The first guy who translated the thing made the mistake. Every other person since him has simply used the established nomenclature. They made no mistake and theres nothing wrong with what theyve been/are doing.Snarfendu (talk) 07:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Snarfendu, you're argument is getting stale. You need to move with new ideas. 81.159.80.99 21:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Geographical and historical information for Cantonese

Just for your information.

Firstly, the name of Canton is not coined by British. There are many maps with the name Canton prior to the coming of British to the city of Canton. Portuguese and Dutch had been completing for the trade in China since Ming dynasty.

Secondly, the concept of Kwangtung (廣東), Kwangchow (廣州) and the city of Canton (省城) is much different from those nowadays. During Ming and Ch'ing dynasty, the (fortified) city of Canton, situated in the core of present Guangzhou (pinyin of 廣州), served for various administrative functions.

On the highest level, it is the administrative centre of Kwangtung (Province / Shan, 廣東省). That's why Cantonese refers it as Shan-shing (省城), namely the fortified city of the province. Thus, Portuguese and other Westerners refer the city as Canton, namely the capital city of Kwangtung. (One study stated Canton is meaning-wise based on canton, western administrative divison and another for the similarity with the pronunciation of Kwangtung. By the way, Shan (省) is still occasionally referring to the city nowaday. (Like 省港杯, 省港澳)

The city is also served as the administrative centre of Kwangchow (Prefecture/Fu, 廣州府). The Prefecture administered 14 counties, much larger than what the present Guangzhou administered. When the Prefecture was abolished in the early days of Republic of China, the city was officially named as 廣州 (Kwangchow in Chinese) and the romanised name remains Canton. That's why the city named 廣州.

At lowest level, it was the administrative centres of both Pun-yu (番禺) County and Nam-hoi (南海) County. The residences inside the city was administrated by Pun-yu in county level.

廣州 (Canton, Kwangchow, Guangzhou whatsoever) is not a sole designated name in Chinese until the modern era.

--— HenryLi (Talk) 06:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you HenryLi. Your explanation is geographical not linguistical. The language called 'Cantonese' in English and other European languages, is simply Guangzhouhua in China, ie the language of Guangzhou City. The Europeans dealt their businesses in Guangzhou through one language, not the multitude of languages found in Guangdong Province. Panyu and Nanhai speeches are different from Guangzhouhua, and there is no evidence that the Cantonese the Westerners refered to included Panyuhua or Nanhaihua.

Language-wise, the dominant language now in use in Guangzhou is Putonghua, as is in all Chinese Cities. The development or evolution of Chinese usage in Singapore also follows what is happening in China. 81.155.96.175 (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually in China, it's equally known as Guangdonghua, and more formally; Yue Yu, both meaning the language of Guangdong.

I'm afraid there might have been some over-generalizations. Do you actually have a source saying that the dominant language in Guangzhou is Putonghua or is that just out of pure speculation? There has been a large influx of migrants to Guangzhou from other provinces, but there is no evidence that the locals have been dominated, unless you can provide some. Also, you are wrong that *all* Chinese cities are dominated by Putonghua. Are Hong Kong and Macau not Chinese cities as well? Those aren't dominated by Putonghua. Many cities in Guangdong aren't dominated by Putonghua either (with a notable exception being Shenzen). It's questionable whether Shanghai and area is dominated by Mandarin either. If you head out west, like to Tibet, then you'll hardly hear any Putonghua as well. Putonghua is by far the most spoken language in China, but that doesn't mean this applies to *all* Chinese cities.--Miracleman123 (talk) 06:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply to To 81.155.96.175. I answer briefly because I am lack of time to elaborate. Language cannot be separated from geography and history. It is better understand what the name means and are from. It is just what you guys have been arguing for. If we cannot understand what are the meanings and differences among Canton, Yuet, Kwang-tung, Kwang-fu and Kwang-chow, how can we understand that of among Cantonese, Yuet yue, Kwang-tung wa, Kwang-fu wa and Kwang-chow wa. If you had been to Macau, there are lots of historical Portuguese-Cantonese materials. What kind of Cantonese you think there? Is it Heung-shan speech or else? I really wonder whether you can actually speak Cantonese and use it in China. Various speeches of Cantonese along Pearl River, and upstream along Sai Kong (西江，West River) are mutually intelligible. Their differences are minor. Its pronunciation is just a bit uncomfortable for me to listen. I cannot tell what it actually differs. For the city of Guangzhou, I found no difficulty using Cantonese there. There are some posters in mass transit stations asking residences not to use Cantonese because it is not civilised. (You see the political bias.) If Mandarin is dominant in daily life, what are the posters for? I also found no difficulty using Cantonese in Panyu(Pun-yu), Foshan(Fat-shan), Shunde(Shun-tak), Zhuhai(Chu-hoi). I'm afraid your judgement is not quite accurate in general. (BTW, if you speak Putonghua in Guangzhou, people would suppose you cannot speak Cantonese and they answer to you in Putonghua.) --— HenryLi (Talk) 02:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

HenryLi: What are you talking about? Do you dispute that the language referred to as 'Cantonese' is 'Guangzhouhua' ie the speech of Guangzhou? Have you actually listened to native Panyuhua, Shundehua, etc? I have come across young Taishan people who do not understand Guangzhouhua (Cantonese). Of course you have no difficulty in using Guangzhouhua (Cantonese) in Panyu, etc, because most but not all, people of these places are multi-lingual. ::86.163.61.178 (talk) 03:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

For simplification, can you specify the differences between Pun-yu speech and those in the city? How significant are they? It is well known that Toishanese is far relative from standard Cantonese. --— HenryLi (Talk) 13:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No, as I am not giving a lecture on linguistics here. Of course the differences are significant. They are more different than King's English to Scots. This situation is similar to the German-speaking people of Switzerland. When at home they speak Swiss-deutsch (which is an unwritten language), but in education and the public they speak and write in Deutch (German German). German Germans don't understand Swiss-deutsch, but Swiss Germans can understand German Germans, even though they are both German languages. Taishanhua and Guangzhouhua (as in most other Sinitic languages) are similarly unintelligible unless someone happens to know both languages. 86.161.63.5 (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I have not included HK and MC as Cities of China. When I refer to Guangzhou, I was referring to the city of Guangzhou and not the surrounding countryside. The locals in Guangzhou use Putonghua all the time, all the schools in Guangzhou now use Putonghua as the teaching medium, so young 'locals' and 'non-locals' all speak Putonghua to each other. All government business and bank business are transacted in Putonghua. The use of Putonghua has increased significantly in both HK and MC, to the point that the CEO of both places now speak Putonghua confidently; and even local TV entertainers have learned to speak Putonghua. And the 4 'Heavenly Kings' of HK sing in Putonghua. I have not heard that Shanghai is not dominated by Putonghua now, or that if you head West Putonghua is hardly heard- this may have been the case 20 years ago, but certainly not now. It is also very important to bear in mind that although China is at a stage of transforming itself into a single spoken language for official purposes, China still considers that it is of utmost importance that the various Sinitic languages are preserved. 86.163.61.178 (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The dominant language discussion is very tricky. Currently people who "need" mandarin are either politicians, investors or entertainers going into the mainland. So far the average person in HK thinks putonghua is useless compared to English as a 2nd language. That is being honest. People are learning mandarin to be safe, since PRC does nothing to preserve Sinitic languages/dialects etc. In fact the Chinese government is famous for doing the opposite of what they say. Just watch them acquire cantonese TV stations. They want to run them into the ground with bad shows or make them inferior to putonghua stations. Their dream goal is no more cantonese on TV, radio, schools. Benjwong (talk) 00:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Benjwong- That is your opinion. The average person in HK has next to no knowledge of English. It is a well known fact that the average person in HK has very poor language skills, a fact which has been used for much comedy. The PRC is in fact working very hard at recording, preserving and researching Sinitic languages. Pinyin systems of the various Chiniese speeches have been developed. 86.163.61.178 (talk) 03:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

How can you say HK has poor language skills? They may not speak 15 chinese dialects, but there are people speaking English, Japanese, French all across HK. I will say since the 1997 transfer, English skills have dropped tremendously at the expense of learning mandarin. Last I checked most HK entertainers on TV can still answer English media in English, mainland media in mandarin, HK media in Cantonese. Who in the mainland entertainment industry can do this? In fact, just look at all the wikipedia language talk pages. Every PRC person thinks cantonese is impossible even though it is in the same sino-tibetan family. Benjwong (talk) 04:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, obviously not every PRC person thinks Cantonese is "impossible", unless you think people in Guangdong province are not PRC people. I suspect you mean every mainland not including Cantonese speaking areas person do not understand and speak Cantonese, but why should that not be so? Replace "Cantonese" with Shanghaihua, Chengduhua, Guangzhouhua, Xiamenhua, Guiyanghua, or Taishanhua etc and it would still be true.

Although Cantonese (Guangzhouhua) is the language of HK and HK people generally only speak Cantonese, in the wider Chinese speaking world Cantonese is a local language, spoken and understood only by locals, and in the case of the overseas Chinese, only by those with origins from Cantonese speaking regions. Nobody would expect people who are not from Cantonese speaking regions to speak or understand it. This applies to all local varieties of Chinese. Your example of entertainers using English/Putonghua/Guangzhouhua in HK simply does not apply in mainland China because Guangzhouhua is a local language. Local languages such as Shanghaihua, Chengduhua, Guangzhouhua, Xiamenhua, Guiyanghua, Taishanhua etc would only be used by local people in local media aimed at the local audience. LDHan (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

"Actually in China, it's equally known as Guangdonghua, and more formally; Yue Yu, both meaning the language of Guangdong." People do call Guangzhouhua, Guangdonghua, after all Guangzhouhua is a Guangdonghua. Officially in China the language is Guangzhouhua not Guangdonghua, and dictionaries of Guangzhouhua are widely available. 86.163.61.178 (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You are right. In Kwang-tung every one call the speech Kwang-tung-wa or formally Yuet-yue. It is only some academics in 20th Century and try to coin terms and make things complicated. Kwang-tung-wa means the language in the administrative centre of Kwang-tung, the representative of Kwang-tung language. It also refers similar speeches. It happens everywhere in the world. Just like English, there ought be some variances even within England, not to mention those outside England. But some refers standard English and BBC English or King's English. --— HenryLi (Talk) 14:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The English you learn in school in the Far East will not be Scouse or Geordie. Just by learning (standard) English at school (even in the UK) will not prepare you for the languages in the Scouse or Geordie areas. 86.161.63.5 (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

benjwong: " Last I checked most HK entertainers on TV can still answer English media in English, mainland media in mandarin, HK media in Cantonese. Who in the mainland entertainment industry can do this?" How about that lady presenter on The Chinese Channel on cable in Europe? Out of the 7m+ HK residents how many can truly claim that they can communicate comfortably in English? 86.161.63.5 (talk) 02:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Propose move of this article to Yue (linguistics)

My reasons are:

• "Cantonese" in common usage refer only to the Guangzhou dialect, not to the whole Yue group nor to other Yue dialects such as the Taishan dialect.
• To use "Cantonese" to mean both the Guangzhou dialect and the Yue group is confusing.
• "Yue" is the term used in linguistics.
• Consistent with other Wikipedia articles about the major Chinese language/dialect groups, eg Wu (linguistics), Xiang (linguistics) etc.
  

LDHan 13:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't help but agree with you. But most sources (if not all) point to Cantonese as the main branch. Just as Mandarin is the main branch instead of Guan. Benjwong 05:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm using "dialect" just to mean a variety of language that is a sub-divison of the the larger group, ie the Guangzhou dialect and the Taishan dialect are both classed as Yue. I didn't use "dialect" in the sense of a variety that is distinct from the "standard" version of a language. I'm going to used "Guangzhouhua" etc from now on to avoid this confusion. LDHan 13:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Before	After
Mandarin (linguistics)    Putonghua    Standard Mandarin	Guan (linguistics)    Putonghua    Standard Mandarin
Wu (linguistics)	Wu (linguistics)
Min (linguistics)	Min (linguistics)
Cantonese (linguistics)    Toishanese    Standard Cantonese	Yue (linguistics)    Toishanese    Standard Cantonese
Xiang (linguistics)	Xiang (linguistics)
Gan (linguistics)	Gan (linguistics)

After looking at this some more. If you want to be consistent across. You need to make 2 moves to match the List of Chinese dialects. Because if you propose we follow the more traditional classifications for Yue, we need to also do it all the way across. Benjwong 04:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Move

There was an incomplete proposal at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move this page to Cantonese language. If that move is desired, please use the instructions on that page to create a full move request, or use a separate discussion here to reach consensus and then contact an administrator to perform any nove that is necessary. Dekimasuよ! 12:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I propose the title be called Cantonese languages (plural). 81.159.86.60 22:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be confusing. Do you mean "Cantonese" as in Guangzhouhua, or as the Yue group? Or do you mean all the languages in Guangdong? Then it would be better to use "Languages of Guangdong" or "Guangdong Languages" but such an article would be very different to this one because it would include non-Yue Chaozhouhua and Hakka. LDHan 13:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. So what do you want to do? 81.159.86.60 19:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

See Propose move of this article to Yue (linguistics) LDHan 13:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yue is not a well-known or widely used name in English for Guangdong languages of the Yue family. We do already have an article for Yue (peoples). Badagnani 04:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"Yue" is the term used by linguists (in English) for the group. Terms for Chinese language groups such as Wu, Xiang, Min, Yue etc are not going to be well-known or widely used in English anyway, it's not a reason not to use them. LDHan 20:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I dont see any need to move this page to the Yue section if it doesn't discuss other Yue dialects. That would just be more misleading. Cantonese is in the Yue family, so why not simply mention that in the Yue article and put a link to this one.Snarfendu 23:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

In fact this article includes all the Yue dialects/variants/sub-divisons. Your comment illustrates perfectly why using "Cantonese (lingustics)" is confusing, as you, and most people in common usage, are using "Cantonese" to mean Guangzhouhua. At the moment Yue (linguistics) re-directs to this article. LDHan 01:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

According to the Yue peoples article, Fujian people were/are also Yue. Does this mean the Min languages are also Yue? 77.44.49.36 09:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting angles. Hmm. Benjwong 04:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

From what I understand, "Yue" was the name used by the ancient Chinese for the various pre-sinicised peoples who lived in what is now southern China. However in modern usage, "Yue 粵" relates to Guangdong province. LDHan 20:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thus 'Yue people' do not correspond to 'Yue languages' precisely. In other words, Yue people do not necessarily speak Yue. Substitute 'Cantonese' for Yue, and you have 'Cantonese' people do not necessarily speak Cantonese (Guangzhouhua). The point is the Hakka and Teowchiu languages in Guangdong are just as much a Guangdonghua as Guangzhouhua is. What is meant by 'Cantonese' in English must be made clear in an encyclopedia. 81.159.80.99 (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

In Chinese--not generally in English. Badagnani 20:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"Yue" is not commonly used in English, however it is used by academics and specialists. LDHan 20:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

So shall we use what is obviously common usage but a technically inaccurate term, or term with the opposite properties?--Huaiwei 00:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Since "Cantonese" commonly means Guangzhouhua and not the whole group, it's not even common usage. Whether it's technically correct or not depends on whether you're using "Canton" to mean Canton (province) or Canton (city), but even then "Canton- (province)-ese" could also be technically inaccurate because languages spoken in Canton (province) includes Hakka and Chaozhou which are non-Yue. LDHan 01:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be true were it not be for the fact that Chaozhou is a city, and the Chaozhou speech is a single language (rather like Guangzhouese), whereas Hakka is more of a family group size and has many branches. Indeed the Guangdong-Hakka speeches have evolved in such a way that those near Guangzhouhua regions have become very similar to Guangzhouhua, and those near the Chaozhou (Minnan) areas have evolved to be very similar to Chaozhouhua. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.100.12 (talk) 23:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, obviously by "Chaozhou" I meant Chaozhouhua not Chaozhou the place. Chaozhouhua is one particular variety of Min, Min or Southern Min is the major group. Hakka is a major group with various sub-divisons such as the Hakka spoken in Meixian etc. LDHan (talk) 02:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The more research I do, the more it seems that "Yue" was a name proposed by Mandarin speakers in an effort to claim all languages under it by using pinyin. As "Yue" is truly a pinyin name. The southern dialects have never been called Jyut or by any southern origin names. So that leaves "Cantonese" as the only real non-POV English name. Benjwong 02:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

What kind of research did you do to support your "findings"? Pinyin is only a romanisation method, not a language, so how is it possible for "Yue" to be a pinyin name? By the same token, shall we declare "Cantonese" as an English word, and dismiss it also for being introduced by Europeans who refuse to pronounce local languages properly? Kindly seperate politics from facts.--Huaiwei 04:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. You said it. Yue is just a romanization name of the Chinese word 粵. Not an actual English name of the language. Benjwong 04:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what, may I ask, because you appear to be contradicting yourself? So just what is an actual English name in this regard?--Huaiwei 05:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Which part is contradicting? I'll continue this tomorrow. Benjwong 06:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

If Yue is "English romanisation", what sets it apart from the word "Cantonese" for them not to display the same deficiencies you suggest?--Huaiwei 17:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I'm going to have to reply in a new paragraph.
Reply to comments by User:Benjwong:
"The more research I do, the more it seems that "Yue" was a name proposed by Mandarin speakers in an effort to claim all languages under it by using pinyin." Who are these so-called "Mandarin speakers"? I'm going to assume you mean the vast majority of Chinese speakers in the world, excluding those overseas and Hong Kong Chinese who only speak a local variety of Chinese. Or is it a code word for "mainland Chinese"? In fact the vast majority of Yue speakers are also Mandarin speakers. In what way is the pinyin romanisation of 粵 an "effort to claim all languages under it (putonghua) by using pinyin"? Are these so-called "Mandarin speakers" in the habit of using pinyin or English instead of characters? "Yue" is not a name proposed by so-called "Mandarin speakers", "Yue" is just the pinyin romanisation of 粵, 粵 is used by all Chinese speakers, pinyin is the most widely used system of romanisation used by Chinese speakers from all regions of China as well as non-Chinese in other countries.

"So that leaves "Cantonese" as the only real non-POV English name." This is merely your opinion, based on your view that using pinyin itself is POV.

"Yue is just a romanization name of the Chinese word 粵. Not an actual English name of the language." There isn't going to be an English name for it because it's not something the average person is going to know about, are "Wu", "Gan", "Xiang" etc actual English names or are they romanisations? The point is it doesn't make any difference, what matters is that "Wu", "Gan", "Xiang", "Yue" etc are used in English. In fact, "Yue" is used by linguists and academics in works in English, and probably in other languages that are written in Roman letters eg French. LDHan 20:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"So that leaves "Cantonese" as the only real non-POV English name." Unfotunately 'Cantonese' is rather POV because the word 'Canton' sounds much closer to 'Guangdong' than 'Guangzhou'. Indeed using the Romanisation standards 'Canton' meaning Guangzhou should be 'Canchow' (as in Hangchow for Hangzhou). So implicit in the English word 'Cantonese' is the misguided meaning of Guangdongese rather than Guangzhouese. 81.157.100.12 (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Your comment is it a code word for "mainland Chinese" just sums up this whole situation best. Cantonese, meanwhile, derived from Canton, itself a romanisation of the words 广州, so since when did it become more "English" than a pinyin romanisation?--Huaiwei 01:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

My perspective should not be counted out because I don't represent the majority mandarin speaker. At first I believe it was the right thing to do to move Cantonese to Yue. But there is little to no sources to support it. Even Badagnani said it is not the most common English term. Number of sources pointing to Cantonese far overwhelms Yue. Whoever 77.44.49.36 is also made a good point about Fujian not being Cantonese. I personsally struggle with any toishanese, and that is supposed to be under Yue. What is worse is the serious history of territorial claims by populating areas with mandarin speakers. It makes this move even more controversial. The only possible way we can agree on any move is if we do a 3-way using both names. So that leaves you with Yue (Cantonese), Guan (Mandarin) and Kejia (Hakka). Wouldn't have it any other way. Benjwong 02:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do not use your socio-linguistic background as a bargaining chip, else everyone can jolly well do the same (especially considering we already have a proportionally low PRC-representation in wikipedia). I am not a native Mandarin speaker either, so what's the big deal? Arguments to move or not to move should be supported by good arguments, not because "someone else said something" alone. See my own enquiry above: should we give greater adherence to common usage, or technical accuracy. That you prefer the former is just your opinion. I am still open to either option currently, but if we are to be consistent, I would argue that Min is going to become Hokkien, Wu is going to be Shanghainese etc, despite being technically inaccurate as well in both cases. I have problems understanding what "territorial claims" has anything to do with this discussion. Are you here to debate on language naming accuracies or political policies? Your name suggestions may be worth considering, but I must warn that they will be at odds with the majority of language article names currently in use.--Huaiwei 04:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Is very odd that you want to avoid the political aspect which is possibly the center of all language debates. So please don't think I am saying things for the fun of it. It has every bit to do with the discussion. I think what the other people have brought up are very realistic in everyday life. As I can hardly find enough paper sources to justify a move. And that's even after saying I agree with LDHan there should have been a Guangdongese. That being said, I am not entirely against a move, if it makes sense all the way across. Now I hope you mean Min (Hokkien) and Wu (Shanghainese) to go along with the other 3. Not actually replacing all of Min/Wu with Hokkien/Shanghainese as that seem even more extreme of a move. Benjwong 07:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Why should replacing Min/Wu with Hokkien/Shanghainese be considered extreme, if common usage is the only reasoning you can give against the move? Are Min and Wu common usage terms compared to Hokkien and Shanghainese? Please be consistent with your arguments here. And it appears that you have no better reasoning to give now other than some self-purported "political reasoning" which you cannot even explain in full. This is about the second time I see you making such politically-laden comments in otherwise completely unrelated discussions.--Huaiwei 07:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This topic seems to be heating up quite a bit. I would like to remind everyone to be respectful of each other as per the "Civility" page of Wikipedia. Out of the list of "Petty examples" that Wikipedia uses, I see some rudeness, and some ill- considered accusations of impropriety. So please be civil people, because if we don't, then: "This style of interaction between Wikipedians drives away contributors, distracts others from more important matters, and weakens the entire community"

Thanks. --Miracleman123 08:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Before	After
Mandarin (linguistics)	please fill in
Wu (linguistics)	please fill in
Min (linguistics)	please fill in
Cantonese (linguistics)	please fill in
Xiang (linguistics)	please fill in
Gan (linguistics)	please fill in

Why don't you guys fill in the chart in terms of what you propose the move to be before any further discussion. Benjwong 18:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest that to be consistent with the discussion, that Mandarin should be replaced or be used alongside Hanyu or Han, as Mandarin is not a Chinese word but Portuguese, and Hanyu is the name used in China, for example as in 'Hanyu Pinyin'. 81.157.100.12 22:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Restored archive

What happen to the Archive 1 (January 2003 - Oct 2007)? Where is the Archive 1 (January 2003 - Oct 2007)? Sonic99 (talk) 03:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

There was no agreement with any page move. The archive also got lost in the move process. Someone find an administrator. I tried looking up Cantonese (linguistics)/Archive and can't find it. Benjwong (talk) 19:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I am asking for admin help at Wikipedia:Help desk#Lost Archive. Hopefully some administrator will come by. Benjwong (talk) 20:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. The archive is restored. Benjwong (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Article name of "Cantonese (linguistics)" moved to "Cantonese (language)"

User: Snarfendu has made this move with this edit summary (move marked as minor): "moved Cantonese (linguistics) to Cantonese (language) over redirect: Linguistics implies for of a phonetic focus while this article also discusses other areas such as history, cultural usage, etc. The Standard Cantonese article discusses linguist(ics)."

First, this move to Cantonese (language) was made without discussion and consensus, the discussion was about moving to "Yue (linguistics)". Second, the reasons given do not justify this move. Linguistics does not imply a phonetic focus, any first year linguistics undergraduate will know that phonology is but one part of linguistics, a languages doesn’t even have to have sounds eg sign language. Linguistics includes many topics; grammar, history, morphology, semantics, social-linguistics, phonology etc. An article on all the Yue dialects, as this article is, will not discuss phonology, instead phonology is going to be found in articles on each particular Yue dialect such as Guangzhouhua, Taishanhua etc. This is exactly the same for example in English, the phonology of English is divided into American English, British English etc. LDHan (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

We would need to move all the Chinese language articles for consistency. I will move this back for lack of consensus--Jiang (talk) 00:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. LDHan (talk) 01:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

How about to standardise what is meant by Language, linguistics is the technical study of any languages. Some of these fields do not consist of a single language but is diversified, as in syntax. While it can be implied here I doubt it really can. The use of the word language would differentiae it from the academic and cultural side of the word Cantonese. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Checking a reference: Brown, Keith (2005). Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics

This publication is claimed as the source of the number of Cantonese speakers as 110 million. It is a massive work of 11,000 pages, so it would help me to find the right page to check if the user who added this reference could provide the page number. LDHan (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I have check through the various articles under "China" and "Chinese" in Volume 2 (there is no "Cantonese" article), so far I have not found anything which states the number of Cantonese speakers as 110 million. I have also looked through Volume 14 "Appendices and Index". This has a section titled "List of languages" and does give the number of speakers for various types of Chinese (page 202, 203), but it clearly states they are Ethnologue figures from 2004, and are exactly the same as what is currently on the Ethnologue website.

In the article titled "Chinese" by Y. Gu, in volume 2, page 345, there is a table of the number of speakers in 1982 of the various types of Chinese (based on the 1982 census), Yue is given as 40.21 million. Looking through the index, apart from the articles in Volume 2 which I have already checked, the Encyclopedia also have the following articles: "People's Republic of China", volume 6, page 444 and "Applied Linguistics, China" volume 1, page 350. I have not yet check these articles because I am using the national public library, these books are stored off-site and have to be requested in advance. I had hoped all the relevant articles would be under "China" or "Chinese". However I think it is unlikely that these two entries (under "A" and "P") will have the number of Cantonese speakers worldwide because first, they appear to be about the PRC, and second, in the index both the following entries: "Chinese, spoken; distribution", and "Yue, speaker numbers", only refer to the table based on the 1982 census in volume 2, page 345. I will check volume 1 and 6 to make sure. LDHan (talk) 03:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I am confident that this publication does not state that the number of Cantonese speakers is 110 million, so I have removed it from the article for the time being. In any case this reference could be removed on the basis that it is not properly cited because the author and page number are not stated, I will report back after checking volumes 1 and 6. LDHan (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

There may well be 110 million Guangzhouhua (Cantonese) speakers ,ie a number larger than the entire population of Guangdong), as many of them will speak Guangzhouhua as a joint first language or as a second or third language. This is tantamount to saying that there are more English speakers than the population of England. 81.159.81.146 (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The discussion here is about whether or not this book states that the number of Cantonese speakers is 110 million. When a number is given for the number of speakers of any particular language, it means the number of first language and native langage speakers. LDHan (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Future addition of references regarding number of Cantonese speakers

These 7 edits [[23]] were made within the time of 35 minutes by user:128.12.77.167 and two one-edit account user names, all to support the assertion of the number of Cantonese speakers being 110 million. These edits consist of: adding back a web page with unsourced information (the web page was first added to the article by user:128.12.77.167/snarfendu), adding a self-created web page which supposedly had figures from Ethnologue but in fact did not, and lastly, adding the title of a real book without stating the author and page number, when this book does not actually contain this supposed information.

I think it is reasonable to say the user used deception and lies in these edits and has shown him or herself to be dishonest, untrustworthy and unreliable, and has abused the faith of all Wikipedia users. Therefore I suggest any future addition of references regarding the number of Cantonese speakers as being 110 million, or more than approx 70 million, by one-edit/one-subject-edit account user names, anon users, or user:128.12.77.167 (including sockpuppets: Benjwong, snarfendu, miracleman123 etc), should be regarded as completely suspect and removed on sight. LDHan (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

This fake reference, in exactly the same wording and ignoring everything I have written about it, has been added back by anon user: 76.102.128.174 [[24]], with the edit summary "Undid revision 179000078 by LDHan (talk) vandalism", and of course I have removed it. I challenge anyone to show any of my edits are vandalism.

I have put the old source back in. Benjwong (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I, of course, assume you have actually consulted "Li, Ping, (2006). The Handbook of East Asian Psycholinguistics", the page number(s), author if not Li Ping, and original source if applicable, all need to be stated in the article. LDHan (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify something since LDHan mentioned my username. I have never once tried to insert a 70 million figure or the 100 or 110 million in there, and I challenge anyone to show me that I did. The things I *did* do was voice a concern regarding the mispresentation for showing a figure that in my opinion was profoundly oudated from the 1980s, and that it did not include HKs numbers in it's total count. The one edit I made was not deleting the 1980's figure, or inserting the 70-110 million figure, all I did was indicate a date for the 1980's figure of 55 million in the figure box, which was disupted and undone and was fine with me since I didn't edit any more after that. --Miracleman123 (talk) 00:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

If you are not a sockpuppet of user:128.12.77.167/snarfendu, then I apologise and have modified my previous comment. I do hope you accept that adding "a date for the 1980's figure of 55 million in the figure box" was not appropriate because the source does not give a date for that figure of 55 million. In any case a what appears to be better reference is now used instead by the article. LDHan (talk) 14:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

muhahaha youre getting close there. but this is no job for one man —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.128.174 (talk) 06:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

all your cantonese is belong to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.221.7.77 (talk) 01:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

i like this guy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ownedplant (talk • contribs) 01:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding LDHan`s suggestion, I will say this, that kind of suggestion may impede the chance for some legitimate first time users to make some valid edits. Now if the first time user has verifiable edits by reputable sources, there is no reason to remove their posts just because they are new and it is a one-time thing. So basically, I suggest check for verafiablity, and then decide if to remove or not, as should be for all edits.--Miracleman123 (talk) 00:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You have made a good point and on the whole I agree with you. However there is at least one user who has persistently disrupted this article with deception and lies, I think it is reasonable some measure must be taken against this. If a reference is reputable and reliable, ie has source of figures, not a self-created web page etc, and is immediately checkable online, then that would be a legitimate edit regardless of who has made it. But if not, then I think it should be regarded as suspect given the recent edits of this article. In the case of references that are not immediately checkable online, there is the difficulty of checking. If this user inserts the titles of any number of random language and linguistics books, nobody even with the time and resources to check them all could keep up with new additions of book titles. LDHan (talk) 14:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

What is going on? Can we stick to the two sources that are obviously legit. Benjwong (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to propose that http://www.nvtc.gov/lotw/months/may/SinoTibetanLanguageFamily.htm is a less reliable reference because although it states Ethnologue as the source of its numbers, they do not match the numbers on Ethnologue's website. LDHan (talk) 15:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

First off the difference between the two sources is less than 1%. Secondly where are you seeing the mismatch? Benjwong (talk) 16:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The mismatch is between nvtc and Ethnologue, Ethnologue is stated by [25] as its source. Please see [26] which states "Population total all countries: 54,810,598" note no year is given for 54,810,598. [27], at the bottom of the page, has the following: This web edition of the Ethnologue contains all the content of the print edition and may be cited as: Gordon, Raymond G., Jr. (ed.), 2005. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Fifteenth edition. Dallas, Tex.: SIL International. Online version: http://www.ethnologue.com/. I am not questioning the number of 70 or 71 million, or any other number, but rather whether or not [28] is as reliable a reference as a scholarly book published by an university press. LDHan (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I am only suggesting this as a precaution against potential accusations that this article might be using references that are less than reliable. LDHan (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok I see what you mean. I'd like to think National Virtual Translation Center (NTVC) is a more frequently updated version on top of Ethnologue. Anyways, finding more sources to support 70 million can be done. However, I can tell you in all honesty that other language pages are using this same nvtc sources fine such as Telugu language and German language. And they have no problem with it. Benjwong (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

A bit off topic, but I was looking around the ethnologue site and was surprised to find that in the 2000 version (Ethnologue 14), the total number was 71 million. Anyone know why there's such a big discrepancy between this and the 15th edition?--Miracleman123 (talk) 08:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ask the National Bureau of Statistics of China

Actually, there are no exact estimates of how many Cantonese speakers and other Chinese language speakers. There are no statistics about Chinese languages on the National Bureau of Statistics of China website. If you want to find the real estimates, ask the National Bureau of Statistics of China to provide some Chinese languages statistics on their website. I have already contacted the National Bureau of Statistics of China. If more people ask for the language statistics in China, the Chinese government will provide this information and then we can update the numbers of Chinese language speakers of Yue, Wu, Min Nan, Min Bei, Xiang, Hakka and Mandarin on Wikipedia.

http://www.stats.gov.cn/english/

Email: info@stats.gov.cn

Sonic99 (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Insufficient detail in parts of article

The history section needs a major rewrite. It lacks detail as to the actual origins of the Cantonese language. In particular, it does not say anything about the indigenous languages that the ancestors of modern Cantonese peoples spoke.

Also, the article fails to properly address the idea (with arguments for/against) that the Cantonese language can be regarded as a separate language (in the same way that English and German are separate languages). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.145.206 (talk) 03:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)