This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Taiwan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TaiwanWikipedia:WikiProject TaiwanTemplate:WikiProject TaiwanTaiwan articles
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Knowing Taiwan is incorrect because knowing emphasis the status, that is you already know, while understanding emphasis the process, that is you are learning. You can easily find multiple textbooks titled Understanding something, but probably never Knowing something, because that's just not how the word is used.
Lolitart (
talk)
15:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Since we have one RS that calls it Knowing Taiwan we need some other articles calling it Understanding Taiwan to try to find what the
WP:COMMONNAME is. What you're proposing is
WP:OR. To be clear I am not advocating one over another.
DrIdiot (
talk)
15:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Your assessment of "correctness" has nothing to do with naming of articles on Wikipedia. We go by the sources. Please read
WP:DIVIDEDUSE. I don't see a strong argument for one or the other so I'm going to default to opposing the move unless one can give a strong argument on those grounds.
DrIdiot (
talk)
10:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)reply
It's not a grammar issue for two reasons. First, Wikipedia goes by how most sources translate it, whether grammatically correct or not. Second, "knowing" can certainly be followed by a noun.
DrIdiot (
talk)
10:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)reply
knowing can be followed by a noun but the meaning of that phrase is totally different from the intended meaning of the this textbook as I've explained above.
Lolitart (
talk)
12:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose. None of the sources we have in the article use the word "understanding". One of them uses Knowing Taiwan and the other uses Getting to Know Taiwan. The proposer does not appear interested in supplying alternative sources.
DrIdiot (
talk)
04:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)reply
That said might be worth discussing the title. Ref tally: Knowing Taiwan[1] (Schneider 05)
[2] (Corcuff 02)
[3] (Stolojan 17), Know Taiwan[4] (Hughes Stone 09), Getting to Know Taiwan[5] (Chen WC 04)
[6] (Chen JJ 06)
[7] (Amae Damm 11)
[8] (Wang FC 05), Understanding Taiwan[9] (Liou 19)
Comment: After looking through the literature, it seems divided between "Knowing Taiwan" and "Getting to Know Taiwan" ("Know Taiwan" is less common but is used by China Quarterly which I think is reputable). "Understanding Taiwan" is noticeably less common. Guidelines in
WP:DIVIDEDUSE suggest to keep it stable until one usage becomes dominant, so I still oppose moving the article to any of the above.
DrIdiot (
talk)
10:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Understanding Taiwan isn't noticeably less common, a search on Google scholar will return plenty results from plenty scholars in reference of the textbook, it would only appear less common as that's the common phrase to use whether in combination or alone, and Knowing Taiwan is a phrase almost no one else use outside of the context of this textbook. Knowing Taiwan only have 180ish results from Google Scholar while Understanding Taiwan has 830ish, that's an order of magnitude more, other than the fact that knowing Taiwan would be simply incorrect.
Lolitart (
talk)
13:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)reply
The Google scholar results are not accurate because they end up picking up unrelated instances of "understanding Taiwan" and "knowing Taiwan".
DrIdiot (
talk)
13:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Taiwan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TaiwanWikipedia:WikiProject TaiwanTemplate:WikiProject TaiwanTaiwan articles
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Knowing Taiwan is incorrect because knowing emphasis the status, that is you already know, while understanding emphasis the process, that is you are learning. You can easily find multiple textbooks titled Understanding something, but probably never Knowing something, because that's just not how the word is used.
Lolitart (
talk)
15:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Since we have one RS that calls it Knowing Taiwan we need some other articles calling it Understanding Taiwan to try to find what the
WP:COMMONNAME is. What you're proposing is
WP:OR. To be clear I am not advocating one over another.
DrIdiot (
talk)
15:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Your assessment of "correctness" has nothing to do with naming of articles on Wikipedia. We go by the sources. Please read
WP:DIVIDEDUSE. I don't see a strong argument for one or the other so I'm going to default to opposing the move unless one can give a strong argument on those grounds.
DrIdiot (
talk)
10:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)reply
It's not a grammar issue for two reasons. First, Wikipedia goes by how most sources translate it, whether grammatically correct or not. Second, "knowing" can certainly be followed by a noun.
DrIdiot (
talk)
10:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)reply
knowing can be followed by a noun but the meaning of that phrase is totally different from the intended meaning of the this textbook as I've explained above.
Lolitart (
talk)
12:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose. None of the sources we have in the article use the word "understanding". One of them uses Knowing Taiwan and the other uses Getting to Know Taiwan. The proposer does not appear interested in supplying alternative sources.
DrIdiot (
talk)
04:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)reply
That said might be worth discussing the title. Ref tally: Knowing Taiwan[1] (Schneider 05)
[2] (Corcuff 02)
[3] (Stolojan 17), Know Taiwan[4] (Hughes Stone 09), Getting to Know Taiwan[5] (Chen WC 04)
[6] (Chen JJ 06)
[7] (Amae Damm 11)
[8] (Wang FC 05), Understanding Taiwan[9] (Liou 19)
Comment: After looking through the literature, it seems divided between "Knowing Taiwan" and "Getting to Know Taiwan" ("Know Taiwan" is less common but is used by China Quarterly which I think is reputable). "Understanding Taiwan" is noticeably less common. Guidelines in
WP:DIVIDEDUSE suggest to keep it stable until one usage becomes dominant, so I still oppose moving the article to any of the above.
DrIdiot (
talk)
10:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Understanding Taiwan isn't noticeably less common, a search on Google scholar will return plenty results from plenty scholars in reference of the textbook, it would only appear less common as that's the common phrase to use whether in combination or alone, and Knowing Taiwan is a phrase almost no one else use outside of the context of this textbook. Knowing Taiwan only have 180ish results from Google Scholar while Understanding Taiwan has 830ish, that's an order of magnitude more, other than the fact that knowing Taiwan would be simply incorrect.
Lolitart (
talk)
13:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)reply
The Google scholar results are not accurate because they end up picking up unrelated instances of "understanding Taiwan" and "knowing Taiwan".
DrIdiot (
talk)
13:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.