This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hong Kong, a project to coordinate efforts in improving all
Hong Kong-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Hong Kong-related articles, you are invited to
join this project.Hong KongWikipedia:WikiProject Hong KongTemplate:WikiProject Hong KongHong Kong articles
This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the
project page.VietnamWikipedia:WikiProject VietnamTemplate:WikiProject VietnamVietnam articles
Although the speaker sounds like he's saying "thuyền dân", he really meant to say "thuyền nhân". Compare that with "những" and "nhập" in the same announcement. They sound like "dững" and "dập", which are meaningless in this context.
DHN07:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)reply
When I first see the phrase "Bắt đầu từ nay", my first impression was that it's a catchy phrase with the meaning "A new future starts right now". Only after I read more I realised it meant something quite different. At first impression, I thought it was positive for the boat people, but infact it was negative. Therefore one should always read more and not to rely on the literal meaning of the words.
dmaivn 2:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Wow i never knew what this phrase mean or came from. Always knew it by the Cantonese transliteration. Never heard of the original RTHK broadcast either. Good job with the article. --
Kvasir07:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Requested move
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was moved back to
Bắt đầu từ nay, without prejudice against an alternative move to a Cantonese transcription as suggested below. Of the two oppositions, Kauffner's argument doesn't necessarily endorse one title over another; Tavatar's idea of a "neutral stalemate" isn't conventional practice for article titles. All plausible redirects will also be created.
Deryck C.13:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose. A title on Wiki should be as it would appear in, "other encyclopedias and reference works, scholarly journals, and major news sources," according to
WP:EN. None of those kind of sources use Vietnamese diacritics, not Britannica, not Columbia, not Encarta, not the dictionaries, and certainly not major English-language media. Where this article should be is at AFD. There are no references for it in any language. Although I searched, I didn't find any English-language RS for it. There is nothing on GNews, GBooks, GScholar, or JSTOR. You can translate the Vietnamese as "from now on" or "starting now." It is a common, every day kind of phrase. The Vietnamese I talked to don't associated it with Hong Kong or boat people. The Vietnamese version of this article is a just a translation of an older version of the en.wiki article -- There are no references there either.
Kauffner (
talk)
13:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)reply
I suppose you can try and AfD the article on the basis that all articles with non-English sources must be AfDed, but if that's your view, (i) why are you moving it, (ii) why are you editing the redirect with the result that your move cannot be reverted?
In ictu oculi (
talk)
14:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)reply
No source gives the name of this subject in the proposed form. It's notability is entirely in Cantonese. If you think the "no establish usage" provision applies to every language, you should amend to "北漏洞拉."
Kauffner (
talk)
02:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Support per nom and
WP:UE: "follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject". The phrase is not English. As the lead sentence states, "Bắt đầu từ nay, ... is a
Vietnamese phrase meaning 'beginning from now'..." —
AjaxSmack16:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Support. If Kauffner is genuinely concerned about notability, I would point out that
WP:N doesn't care at all which language a source was published in, and rightly so; because discounting foreign sources would make our
systemic bias even worse. The second point of the GNG says "Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language".
bobrayner (
talk)
09:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment. Not sure about this one. This isn't necessarily an article about a Vietnamese phrase so much as an article about a Cantonese phrase, possibly butchered from the original Vietnamese. Perhaps Cantonese transliteration rules should apply. —
P.T. Aufrette (
talk)
04:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)reply
I hope I have addressed P.T.'s completely legitimate question by the addition of a Vietnamese source, a Vietnamese nun writing from the standpoint of the Vietnamese refugees in Hong Kong's Chi Ma Wan Detention Centre
here. Of course the focus of the Vietnamese nun is on the impact of the "From now on.." announcement on the inmates and new boat people arrivals, not on the comic aspect to the general Cantonese population, but it hardly seems appropriate to WP:FORK the article over the detentionees and Hong Kongers different reactions to the announcement, particularly when Cantonese-vs-boat people sensitivities are covered in the article. The Vietnamese nun confirms the wording of the statement, and also its
WP:WORLDVIEW notability to Vietnamese emigrants as well as Hong Kongers of that generation.
In ictu oculi (
talk)
07:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)reply
She quotes the whole sentence. I have yet to see any indication that four-word phrase has notability in Vietnamese (let alone English). That it is quoted this way suggests the reverse.
Kauffner (
talk)
14:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose This is a Vietnamese phase that got made popular in Hong Kong, which makes both Hong Kong and Vietnam stalkerholders for this article. It makes sense to keep the current title as it keeps the article in a neutral stalemate status for all parties. T@ναταΓ (
discuss–
?)
20:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)reply
You mean keep the new title, the undiscussed move? The problem is
Bắt đầu từ nay exists in Vietnamese sources.
bāk lauh duhng lāai exists in Cantonese sources. The
Bat dau tu nay doesn't exist in any source other than in a few wikimirrors that have already picked up the undiscussed ASCII-ization of Unicode font. That's all this restore is; reverting a Unicode-to-ASCII font change that has been locked by an edit redirect.
In ictu oculi (
talk)
02:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Alternative move to Cantonese transcription
Following a recent move revert by a relatively new user, I've taken the suggestion to simply move the page to a new title using a Cantonese (Jyutping) transcription. Since this alternative move wasn't the main subject of the previous RM discussion, it is beyond the remit of the RM closure and should be seen as my being
WP:BOLD as an editor.
Deryck C.14:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)reply
Carried over from
User talk:Deryck Chan I see the accent-stripping immediately before my alternative move as an attempt to
WP:move war against an RM closure, and
Liang Pengyuan (
talk·contribs) has been informed
[1] that their move was inappropriate.
The alternative move to a Cantonese transcription was actually suggested by P.T. Aufrette and doesn't "devalue the input" of the RM. As I said in the closure, I think the result of the RM should be interpreted as "prefer Bắt đầu từ nay to Bat dau tu nay, no obvious preference on Vietnamese vs. Cantonese". I wrote in addition during the move that we are free to start another RM to discuss whether we want a Cantonese transcription or the Vietnamese original.
Deryck, except that I think we've all had rather enough of locking with {{R from}} after undiscussed moves. This whole RM was the result of a User making mass moves and then locking them with a {{R from}}. And redirects have been misused for conducting wars against native language spellings in the past
leading in at least one case to editors who do that being blocked. You should at least I think have motioned the upcoming boldness on Talk here before being bold, given this background.
In ictu oculi (
talk)
10:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)reply
If you really really insist, I'm happy to give the token gesture of moving back to
Bắt đầu từ nayand then starting an RM on the alternative move. Although this would be equivalent to giving you your move in
WP:BRD and is procedurally correct because it's also equivalent to my using admin powers to revert Liang Pengyuan and myself, I'd rather not do it because it does now require admin power and generates ugly log entries. Unless you really insist.
Deryck C.10:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)reply
Deryck, I'm not insisting, far from it. Personally I would think that if you want to use some admin magic for something more useful, there are other more egregious examples of where Vietnam articles have been messed around. The particular problem the RM was addressing here was an undiscussed move and lock of an article in
Category:Vietnamese words and phrases to some new non-language, "stripped Vietnamese" perhaps, which looked like mangled Tagalog and had no support in any sources - which are in Cantonese and full-Vietnamese only. Moving to Cantonese at least addresses that problem. Moving it back to Vietnamese doesn't achieve anything for other articles in
Category:Vietnamese words and phrases more in need of repair.
In ictu oculi (
talk)
11:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)reply
Like this one for example if you reverted User Liang_Pengyuan's move, then a revert of this would be a good candidate. We shouldn't all really have to go through this rigmarole every time someone undiscussed-moves and locks a redirect should we?
I'm not too worried about the category listing. Your suggestion sounds good, but I'd wait till a few others to weigh in before taking action.
Deryck C.13:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)reply
Actually it isn't because I've snipped it as being a duplicate of what's now in page history here anyway, but that's fine. Thanks for your time Deryck.
In ictu oculi (
talk)
16:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hong Kong, a project to coordinate efforts in improving all
Hong Kong-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Hong Kong-related articles, you are invited to
join this project.Hong KongWikipedia:WikiProject Hong KongTemplate:WikiProject Hong KongHong Kong articles
This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the
project page.VietnamWikipedia:WikiProject VietnamTemplate:WikiProject VietnamVietnam articles
Although the speaker sounds like he's saying "thuyền dân", he really meant to say "thuyền nhân". Compare that with "những" and "nhập" in the same announcement. They sound like "dững" and "dập", which are meaningless in this context.
DHN07:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)reply
When I first see the phrase "Bắt đầu từ nay", my first impression was that it's a catchy phrase with the meaning "A new future starts right now". Only after I read more I realised it meant something quite different. At first impression, I thought it was positive for the boat people, but infact it was negative. Therefore one should always read more and not to rely on the literal meaning of the words.
dmaivn 2:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Wow i never knew what this phrase mean or came from. Always knew it by the Cantonese transliteration. Never heard of the original RTHK broadcast either. Good job with the article. --
Kvasir07:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Requested move
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was moved back to
Bắt đầu từ nay, without prejudice against an alternative move to a Cantonese transcription as suggested below. Of the two oppositions, Kauffner's argument doesn't necessarily endorse one title over another; Tavatar's idea of a "neutral stalemate" isn't conventional practice for article titles. All plausible redirects will also be created.
Deryck C.13:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose. A title on Wiki should be as it would appear in, "other encyclopedias and reference works, scholarly journals, and major news sources," according to
WP:EN. None of those kind of sources use Vietnamese diacritics, not Britannica, not Columbia, not Encarta, not the dictionaries, and certainly not major English-language media. Where this article should be is at AFD. There are no references for it in any language. Although I searched, I didn't find any English-language RS for it. There is nothing on GNews, GBooks, GScholar, or JSTOR. You can translate the Vietnamese as "from now on" or "starting now." It is a common, every day kind of phrase. The Vietnamese I talked to don't associated it with Hong Kong or boat people. The Vietnamese version of this article is a just a translation of an older version of the en.wiki article -- There are no references there either.
Kauffner (
talk)
13:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)reply
I suppose you can try and AfD the article on the basis that all articles with non-English sources must be AfDed, but if that's your view, (i) why are you moving it, (ii) why are you editing the redirect with the result that your move cannot be reverted?
In ictu oculi (
talk)
14:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)reply
No source gives the name of this subject in the proposed form. It's notability is entirely in Cantonese. If you think the "no establish usage" provision applies to every language, you should amend to "北漏洞拉."
Kauffner (
talk)
02:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Support per nom and
WP:UE: "follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject". The phrase is not English. As the lead sentence states, "Bắt đầu từ nay, ... is a
Vietnamese phrase meaning 'beginning from now'..." —
AjaxSmack16:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Support. If Kauffner is genuinely concerned about notability, I would point out that
WP:N doesn't care at all which language a source was published in, and rightly so; because discounting foreign sources would make our
systemic bias even worse. The second point of the GNG says "Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language".
bobrayner (
talk)
09:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment. Not sure about this one. This isn't necessarily an article about a Vietnamese phrase so much as an article about a Cantonese phrase, possibly butchered from the original Vietnamese. Perhaps Cantonese transliteration rules should apply. —
P.T. Aufrette (
talk)
04:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)reply
I hope I have addressed P.T.'s completely legitimate question by the addition of a Vietnamese source, a Vietnamese nun writing from the standpoint of the Vietnamese refugees in Hong Kong's Chi Ma Wan Detention Centre
here. Of course the focus of the Vietnamese nun is on the impact of the "From now on.." announcement on the inmates and new boat people arrivals, not on the comic aspect to the general Cantonese population, but it hardly seems appropriate to WP:FORK the article over the detentionees and Hong Kongers different reactions to the announcement, particularly when Cantonese-vs-boat people sensitivities are covered in the article. The Vietnamese nun confirms the wording of the statement, and also its
WP:WORLDVIEW notability to Vietnamese emigrants as well as Hong Kongers of that generation.
In ictu oculi (
talk)
07:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)reply
She quotes the whole sentence. I have yet to see any indication that four-word phrase has notability in Vietnamese (let alone English). That it is quoted this way suggests the reverse.
Kauffner (
talk)
14:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose This is a Vietnamese phase that got made popular in Hong Kong, which makes both Hong Kong and Vietnam stalkerholders for this article. It makes sense to keep the current title as it keeps the article in a neutral stalemate status for all parties. T@ναταΓ (
discuss–
?)
20:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)reply
You mean keep the new title, the undiscussed move? The problem is
Bắt đầu từ nay exists in Vietnamese sources.
bāk lauh duhng lāai exists in Cantonese sources. The
Bat dau tu nay doesn't exist in any source other than in a few wikimirrors that have already picked up the undiscussed ASCII-ization of Unicode font. That's all this restore is; reverting a Unicode-to-ASCII font change that has been locked by an edit redirect.
In ictu oculi (
talk)
02:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Alternative move to Cantonese transcription
Following a recent move revert by a relatively new user, I've taken the suggestion to simply move the page to a new title using a Cantonese (Jyutping) transcription. Since this alternative move wasn't the main subject of the previous RM discussion, it is beyond the remit of the RM closure and should be seen as my being
WP:BOLD as an editor.
Deryck C.14:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)reply
Carried over from
User talk:Deryck Chan I see the accent-stripping immediately before my alternative move as an attempt to
WP:move war against an RM closure, and
Liang Pengyuan (
talk·contribs) has been informed
[1] that their move was inappropriate.
The alternative move to a Cantonese transcription was actually suggested by P.T. Aufrette and doesn't "devalue the input" of the RM. As I said in the closure, I think the result of the RM should be interpreted as "prefer Bắt đầu từ nay to Bat dau tu nay, no obvious preference on Vietnamese vs. Cantonese". I wrote in addition during the move that we are free to start another RM to discuss whether we want a Cantonese transcription or the Vietnamese original.
Deryck, except that I think we've all had rather enough of locking with {{R from}} after undiscussed moves. This whole RM was the result of a User making mass moves and then locking them with a {{R from}}. And redirects have been misused for conducting wars against native language spellings in the past
leading in at least one case to editors who do that being blocked. You should at least I think have motioned the upcoming boldness on Talk here before being bold, given this background.
In ictu oculi (
talk)
10:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)reply
If you really really insist, I'm happy to give the token gesture of moving back to
Bắt đầu từ nayand then starting an RM on the alternative move. Although this would be equivalent to giving you your move in
WP:BRD and is procedurally correct because it's also equivalent to my using admin powers to revert Liang Pengyuan and myself, I'd rather not do it because it does now require admin power and generates ugly log entries. Unless you really insist.
Deryck C.10:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)reply
Deryck, I'm not insisting, far from it. Personally I would think that if you want to use some admin magic for something more useful, there are other more egregious examples of where Vietnam articles have been messed around. The particular problem the RM was addressing here was an undiscussed move and lock of an article in
Category:Vietnamese words and phrases to some new non-language, "stripped Vietnamese" perhaps, which looked like mangled Tagalog and had no support in any sources - which are in Cantonese and full-Vietnamese only. Moving to Cantonese at least addresses that problem. Moving it back to Vietnamese doesn't achieve anything for other articles in
Category:Vietnamese words and phrases more in need of repair.
In ictu oculi (
talk)
11:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)reply
Like this one for example if you reverted User Liang_Pengyuan's move, then a revert of this would be a good candidate. We shouldn't all really have to go through this rigmarole every time someone undiscussed-moves and locks a redirect should we?
I'm not too worried about the category listing. Your suggestion sounds good, but I'd wait till a few others to weigh in before taking action.
Deryck C.13:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)reply
Actually it isn't because I've snipped it as being a duplicate of what's now in page history here anyway, but that's fine. Thanks for your time Deryck.
In ictu oculi (
talk)
16:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)reply