Talk:Hsu Feng

National Adjective Dispute

To kmhkmh: I have edited the wording of the particular section to avoid any more potentially incorrect use of the word "Chinese". I have also included multiple Chinese sources, some of which originate from People's Republic of China, that describe her as "Taiwanese actress". You are quoting sources that use the word "Chinese" in the context of representing the broader ethnic Han Chinese. This is a point that has already been beaten to death on other articles related to famous Taiwanese people. The consensus is it is misleading (implying a mainland China origin) and in potential violation of the NPOV. I have already informed you the use of the adjective "Taiwanese" is the common practice, as can be seen from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famous_taiwanese_people. Please refrain from using Chinese without the proper context.

BTW, there has never been any indication that she renounced her Taiwanese citizenship. If you want to imply otherwise, provide source or leave that issue in peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M3SS3NG3RZ (talk • contribs) 15:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• a) The point of picking Chinese that is exactly that itis correct either way. Both countries refer to themselves as China/Chinese, the cultural/ethnic background for both is (Han-)Chinese, her work is involved in all 3 chinese cinemas (Taiwan, Hongkong, People's Republic). I fail to see how reader might get misdirected here (confusing ROC with PRC), since her place of birth is clearly given.
• b) I'm not interested that this article becomes involved in the China versus Taiwan POV-wars (note that in particular IP and new users try to force the word into the article), however if there is indeed an established WP wide consensus in using Taiwanese for actors with a citizenship of the Republic of China/Taiwan, then I have no objection against the change. However first I'd like to see a proof for that consensus. The WP list you linked is not exactly that, I'd like to see where that was discussed and a consensus established. In addition we may need some source on her current citizenship status, while I'm not aware that she has dropped her Taiwanese citizenship there might be a good chance that she's picked up PRC citizenship after living and raising her kids there for decades. Without all that however I'd like to ask kindly you to move your POV wars elswhere.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

---

• a) Again, you are using the word "Chinese" to describe the broader Han Chinese ethnicity while you acknowledge yourself that this is being used as a "national adjective". The list has been provided to educate you on the proper adjective to use in this situation. You are more than welcome to go through their respective talk pages on how various editors came to settle on the use of "Taiwanese".

I asked you where that consensus was discussed. So was there a general discussion on the subject or not?--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

One specific page containing collection of all arguments presented from all sides? No. Multiple discussions of the above issue? Plenty. Read through the talk pages as I suggested.

Some/many(?) of them contain nothing I'm not going to traverse every single entry including archives to come with a few individual (hence lastly meaningless) dscussion. If there's a consensus beyond individual treatment of each case, then it is usually noted on some project page including a general discussion of the issue. So far I have to assume nothing like that exists (quick google got me nothing), hence the claimed consensus possibly doesn't exist, although I give you that currently most articles seem to follow that scheme(which doesn't have to mean much though).--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• b) POV-wars or not you are pushing for a designation that's 1. vague and non-descriptive, 2. arguably incorrect and 3. contradicted by multiple sources. As for the status of current citizenship, that is complete speculation and has NO business as a deciding factor in a wikipedia article whatsoever. If you want me to cease my POV wars then halt yourself from the above behaviors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M3SS3NG3RZ (talk • contribs) 16:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

As I told you before the sources used for the article describe her as Chinese not Taiwanese. Hence you can argue your complains for Chinese for Taiwanese as well (sources contradict it, it doesn't accurately cover her background at work (which is by no means mainly Taiwanese). As far as the POV behaviour is concerned, the person that with a new account or as IP (popular for POV wars) has contributed nothing to the article but tinkering around with adjective Chinese/Taiwanese is you not me.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Just which source is that exactly? Closest one I have seen called her "Lady from Shanghai" which is hardly the same as calling her "Chinese". BTW, I agree with you. I'm picking on this point. That doesn't change the fact that I have multiple references plus many precedents backing me up.

The article is not using that many different sources. It mainly uses the 2 given books and the New York Times article, all three calling her or classifying her as Chinese (presumably referring to her cultural background/ethnic rather than her citizenship of course). The latter calling her a "Chinese producer" right in the title.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, bad writing is bad. I'd like to think the multitude of Chinese journalists knew better than Joan Dupont when they called her "Taiwanese". Her background at work shouldn't dictate her identity anyway. Unless you want to ignore Einstein's German background and start calling him an American physicist, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M3SS3NG3RZ (talk • contribs) 15:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with bad writing but a matter as perspective, the description as Chinese perfectly fine (but describing something else than her citizenship). In Einstein's case there's actually a similar scenario, in the sense that German culture/ethnic doesn't equal German citizenship (as it comprises Austria and parts of Switserland as well). Moreover Einstein strictly speaking never held a German citizenship (there was no such thing before WWI), instead he held the citizenships of various German speaking states (Württemberg (state of birth), Switserland, Austria/KuK, Preußen) and the US during his lifetime. So his description as a German physicist refers more to his cultural background rather his actual citizenship at the time of birth ((almost) nobody calls him a Württembergian physicist). For that reason en.wp calls him German-born and rather than German and de.wp even drops any national adjective but simply lists the various citizenships he was holding. So you can actually argue calling Einstein German is somewhat analog to calling Hsu Feng Chinese.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

While calling Einstein "German" is debatable and perhaps anachronistic, my point is calling him solely American is most certainly unacceptable even though he held US citizenship for a large part of his latter life. If Taiwan officially becomes part of China then calling Hsu Feng "Chinese" will be similar to calling Einstein "German". As of now, since "Chinese" can and have been used to refer to people born in the PROC and holding PROC citizenship it is better to avoid this confusion. M3SS3NG3RZ (talk) 13:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The term Chinese can be used for many things (among them citizens of the ROC or PRC), but following your line of argument the only "valid" seems to be that for the PRC. I find that personally rather unconvincing and somewhat presumptuous.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's so unconvincing or presumptuous when people holding PROC citizenship are solely referred to as Chinese while other areas of Chinese descent often have more specific, informative and commonly accepted adjective available for use, as is the case here. Following your way we might as well refer to Mexicans as Americans since it is technically correct (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American). M3SS3NG3RZ (talk) 23:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

If you want more be specific fine, but then don't use "chinese" but "mainland chinese" or better citizen of PRC. Why do expect specificity/no ambiguity in one case but not in the other? That is exactly what is somewhat presumptuous. As far as your Mexico/US example is concerned, they neither haven a common culture nor history (contrary to ROC and PRC). A much better comparison would be with Germany (East/West) or Korea (North/South).--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The point is you have to understand the context of the semantics, not just the 65535th meaning of the word Chinese and it's potential application to everything. Calling her Chinese carries the implication that Taiwan is part of China due to her being listed as born in Taiwan the very next paragraph. On the other hand calling her Taiwanese automatically rules out the possibility of anyone interpreting her origin as mainland China. I don't even see the point of arguing about this anymore. As you said it yourself, MOS:IDENTITY already gave you plenty of reasons to avoid using Chinese. Case closed. M3SS3NG3RZ (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I still like to see a discussion of that consensus, however for now I leave taiwanese in the article following the rationale outlined at MOS:IDENTITY and treating "taiwanese and chinese" analog to the "ethiopian and african" example.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Good enough for me. Additionally, observe how actors from HK (ie: Sammo Hung) often have "Hong Kong" before their names despite the fact that there is no dispute in HK being part of China. I fail to see why Taiwanese actors/actresses shouldn't at the very least receive the same treatment.