This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This Pinyin and word spacing has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
It is not exactly. 妾:I, your concubine 奴家: I, your wife
A woman can refer herself as 妾 or 奴家 while talking with a man who is not her hursband.-- 刻意(Kèyì) 18:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chinese honorifics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
This article is written in a style that suits someone who can already read literary Chinese language, though it purports to be English-language prose. The gloss should follow the English explanation and placed in brackets instead of directly embedded in the sentence. – Kaihsu ( talk) 19:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Ruby characters (e.g. 敬辞) should not be used, for a whole host of display and style issues. See this discussion for some of the specific reasons. Instead, as User:Kaihsu noted above, the text should be Romanization with characters in parentheses. — AjaxSmack 16:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Chinese_pronouns&type=revision&diff=922215848&oldid=905165243 Kaihsu ( talk) 05:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
@ Koenfoo and Wikilucki: An interesting article, but it doesn’t give any sources (see Wikipedia:Verifiability). Looking at the text (and at the editing history), it looks very much like violating Wikipedia:No original research. -- Babel fish ( talk) 19:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Eggscited: No, sorry. You’ve just restored the whole thing as it was. The references you added (Pan/Kádár 2011 and Hui/Meng/Hui 2016) were not the sources used for this article. I’ve removed the whole bulk of original research once again.
I also removed a reference you introduced (Hui/Meng/Hui 2016) after I got a warning message from Wikipedia. I did some research and realised that it actually is from a predatory open-access publisher (see Beall’s List / beallslist.net and/or one of its successors, predatoryjournals.com; for more details on this particular publisher, see Stef Brezgov: A Vanity Scholarly Press from Québec 27 August 2019, and also Tom Spears: 2017 list of 'predatory' science journals published, hundreds claim to be Canadian Ottawa Citizen, 5 January 2017). If you read the paper itself closely, it is very dubious (no actual academic publisher would have accepted it), and the authors are described as a professor and two “BA candidates”.
I noticed that you are a new user. Please read the Wikipedia rules on Verifiability and original research (and—I have a hunch—maybe also those on sockpuppetry—no offense). -- Babel fish ( talk) 13:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
The insistence to adhere to sources is bewildering. The article clearly concerns material sensitive to personal use of a language rather than some absolute standard that can be readily verified in a textual source. Please stop demanding peer-reviewed citations for information that can be verified by means of cultural familiarity. Cease vandalizing this article, as the important contents can be easily confirmed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ØMVR9744 ( talk • contribs) 20:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
This article has been butchered! I am not a native Chinese speaker and the old version was an extremely valuable reference. Like the many others above, insisting on rigid use of sources makes no sense. Maybe this would make sense in some future time when Chinese reference materials are digitized and placed online; but for now, this page should remain as it was. The support of many native Chinese speakers (above) shows this. Destroying thousands of words in the narrow-minded pursuit of rules designed with English language pages in mind is indeed an act of intellectual vandalism.~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:A4A3:6900:C01D:51EE:5921:B074 ( talk) 01:20, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
@ Koenfoo: Sorry, no. You just ignored this discussion and just put all that unsourced material back in, [1] — so I took it out again. If it isn’t original research, it should be no problem to quote the sources you used. -- Babel fish ( talk) 17:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Lovely article, really well written, I read it to the end.
That being said, I think the IPA notations of the ancient pronunciations could be moved to the right hand column since it’s not really relevant for a casual reader and on mobile it blocks the view of later columns.
Hope this article stays mostly intact because it’s a gold mine and exactly whAt I was looking for. Well except for that empty section at the very bottom.
70.53.127.15 ( talk) 06:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Respectfully, Babel Fish deleted >80000 bytes of data. Though this due to there being little to no sourcing or citation in this page, they did not mark all of the information as unreliable either, nor did they actually go look for citations themselves. Deleting suddenly with only as much as a curt comment could possibly confuse those who visit the article and deter others from researching for something that may back those things up. 71.202.190.179 ( talk) 06:28, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This Pinyin and word spacing has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
It is not exactly. 妾:I, your concubine 奴家: I, your wife
A woman can refer herself as 妾 or 奴家 while talking with a man who is not her hursband.-- 刻意(Kèyì) 18:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chinese honorifics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
This article is written in a style that suits someone who can already read literary Chinese language, though it purports to be English-language prose. The gloss should follow the English explanation and placed in brackets instead of directly embedded in the sentence. – Kaihsu ( talk) 19:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Ruby characters (e.g. 敬辞) should not be used, for a whole host of display and style issues. See this discussion for some of the specific reasons. Instead, as User:Kaihsu noted above, the text should be Romanization with characters in parentheses. — AjaxSmack 16:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Chinese_pronouns&type=revision&diff=922215848&oldid=905165243 Kaihsu ( talk) 05:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
@ Koenfoo and Wikilucki: An interesting article, but it doesn’t give any sources (see Wikipedia:Verifiability). Looking at the text (and at the editing history), it looks very much like violating Wikipedia:No original research. -- Babel fish ( talk) 19:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Eggscited: No, sorry. You’ve just restored the whole thing as it was. The references you added (Pan/Kádár 2011 and Hui/Meng/Hui 2016) were not the sources used for this article. I’ve removed the whole bulk of original research once again.
I also removed a reference you introduced (Hui/Meng/Hui 2016) after I got a warning message from Wikipedia. I did some research and realised that it actually is from a predatory open-access publisher (see Beall’s List / beallslist.net and/or one of its successors, predatoryjournals.com; for more details on this particular publisher, see Stef Brezgov: A Vanity Scholarly Press from Québec 27 August 2019, and also Tom Spears: 2017 list of 'predatory' science journals published, hundreds claim to be Canadian Ottawa Citizen, 5 January 2017). If you read the paper itself closely, it is very dubious (no actual academic publisher would have accepted it), and the authors are described as a professor and two “BA candidates”.
I noticed that you are a new user. Please read the Wikipedia rules on Verifiability and original research (and—I have a hunch—maybe also those on sockpuppetry—no offense). -- Babel fish ( talk) 13:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
The insistence to adhere to sources is bewildering. The article clearly concerns material sensitive to personal use of a language rather than some absolute standard that can be readily verified in a textual source. Please stop demanding peer-reviewed citations for information that can be verified by means of cultural familiarity. Cease vandalizing this article, as the important contents can be easily confirmed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ØMVR9744 ( talk • contribs) 20:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
This article has been butchered! I am not a native Chinese speaker and the old version was an extremely valuable reference. Like the many others above, insisting on rigid use of sources makes no sense. Maybe this would make sense in some future time when Chinese reference materials are digitized and placed online; but for now, this page should remain as it was. The support of many native Chinese speakers (above) shows this. Destroying thousands of words in the narrow-minded pursuit of rules designed with English language pages in mind is indeed an act of intellectual vandalism.~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:A4A3:6900:C01D:51EE:5921:B074 ( talk) 01:20, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
@ Koenfoo: Sorry, no. You just ignored this discussion and just put all that unsourced material back in, [1] — so I took it out again. If it isn’t original research, it should be no problem to quote the sources you used. -- Babel fish ( talk) 17:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Lovely article, really well written, I read it to the end.
That being said, I think the IPA notations of the ancient pronunciations could be moved to the right hand column since it’s not really relevant for a casual reader and on mobile it blocks the view of later columns.
Hope this article stays mostly intact because it’s a gold mine and exactly whAt I was looking for. Well except for that empty section at the very bottom.
70.53.127.15 ( talk) 06:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Respectfully, Babel Fish deleted >80000 bytes of data. Though this due to there being little to no sourcing or citation in this page, they did not mark all of the information as unreliable either, nor did they actually go look for citations themselves. Deleting suddenly with only as much as a curt comment could possibly confuse those who visit the article and deter others from researching for something that may back those things up. 71.202.190.179 ( talk) 06:28, 24 December 2022 (UTC)