Editorial Council Resolution 0010: Romanization

[Martin Baldwin-Edwards]

I see nothing but problems in trying to tweak this. Furthermore, I think it is unconstitutional to ask the Editorial Council to defer to a changing policy that has never been scrutinised by them -- the CZ Naming Conventions. Therefore, we do need to sort out the Naming Conventions as a formal Resolution. Of course, like this one, we don't need to cross the "t"s and dot the "i"s, but we do need to set out general principles in a formal policy.

[J. Noel Chiappa]

Furthermore, I think it is unconstitutional to ask the Editorial Council to defer to a changing policy that has never been scrutinised by them -- the CZ Naming Conventions.

OK, so let's change the current Romanization proposal to say that it doesn't apply to article titles. Problem solved.

Then, later, when we get to doing a formal policy on Naming Conventions, it can adopt 'the existing Romanization policy for all non-Roman-script-language words used in article titles which are determined by the method described herein to not be Anglicized'.

we do need to sort out the Naming Conventions as a formal Resolution. Of course, like this one, we don't need to cross the "t"s and dot the "i"s, but we do need to set out general principles in a formal policy.

Agree, but is the time ripe to do so? I just don't want to expend another major ration of time/energy and still not be much (any?) closer to resolution than we were before. Not that I am asserting the time is not ripe, just asking the question.

Noel

[J. Noel Chiappa]

If it were simple to distinguish 'when is a name/word Anglicized' from 'what Romanization system should we use', I would be all for restricting this Proposal to the latter question. I don't think that's the case, though. There are a few, clearly Anglicized examples, but there are many more which have been Romanized or Anglicized at some point in their history

Well, you have a bit of a point there. Almost any word one would want to use, one can surely find at least one instance of it having been previously Romanized in something.

(Particularly problematic, of course, are the ones which were Anglicized under a prior Romanization system which has now been deprecated. A good example was Peking, although everyone seems to be getting with the Beijing program. Bombay/Mumbai is in the process of making the transition, etc.)

Still, though, can't one simply say something to the effect of 'this is the default; if anyone thinks the word has been Anglicized differently, the whole matter for this particular word is put on hold until the Anglicization policy is settled'? I mean, i) picking a Romanization standard for each language, and ii) deciding if a particular word has been Romanized, and if so, how, are rather different questions, no?


I'm just concerned that several of these things that are being raised in this thread (Article Naming, Anglicization) are very difficult questions with no clear 'right' answer, and so are inevitably going to be very problematic. That being the case, the more we can pull this whole rat's nest of string apart into separate questions, the better off we will be, I think.

Noel

[Hayford Peirce]

I was mulling over some of the same stuff a few days ago and it's my impression that whereas just about everyone now says Beijing for the city, they still say Peking for the duck, as in, "I sure ate some great Peking duck when I went to Beijing." Or am I wrong here?

[Martin Baldwin-Edwards]

You are right, Hayford. I dread to think how many people imagine them to be two unrelated places!

[Brian P Long]

If it were simple to distinguish 'when is a name/word Anglicized' from 'what Romanization system should we use', I would be all for restricting this Proposal to the latter question. I don't think that's the case, though. There are a few, clearly Anglicized examples, but there are many more which have been Romanized or Anglicized at some point in their history

Well, you have a bit of a point there. Almost any word one would want to use, one can surely find at least one instance of it having been previously Romanized in something.

Still, though, can't one simply say something to the effect of 'this is the default; if anyone thinks the word has been Anglicized differently, the whole matter for this particular word is put on hold until the Anglicization policy is settled'? I mean, i) picking a Romanization standard for each language, and ii) deciding if a particular word has been Romanized, and if so, how, are rather different questions, no?

I'm just concerned that several of these things that are being raised in this thread (Article Naming, Anglicization) are very difficult questions with no clear 'right' answer, and so are inevitably going to be very problematic. That being the case, the more we can pull this whole rat's nest of string apart into separate questions, the better off we will be, I think.

My sense of it is that deciding whether a word/name has been Anglicized fits fairly neatly with the Romanization issue, and, unlike Article Naming, is not so very difficult to sort out. The issue is whether there is more than one Anglicization (by which I mean both Anglicizations and Romanizations) in current use. Sorting this out really shouldn't be that difficult-- we just look and see if there is more than one usage in current (say the last decade or so) scholarship.

Having a Romanization policy in place, though-- even if it only provides a central location for discussing Romanization-- will help us down the road if we don't want to decide the Anglicization and Romanization issues together in one fell swoop.

-Brian

[Brian P Long]

More critically, does someone want to motion to table the resolution until we get a few of these issues sorted out? (so that the resolution doesn't go to a vote) I can if no one else will...

-Brian

[Martin Baldwin-Edwards]

There are two possible motions, both requiring a majority vote to carry. It needs to be done before the voting is scheduled to start. I would pefer that the Secretary did not submit the motion, although I am allowed to.

Option 1 is to "lay the resolution on the table" -- i.e. put it back into the queue: obviously, the proposer should provide a succinct explanation of the reason for this. The formal text requires you to state "I move that Resolution 0010 be laid on the table". (I think this is the better choice out of the two options)

Option 2 is to "extend discussion" for some fixed period of time, thus delaying the voting phase. The formal text requires you to state that "I move that we extend the amount of time for discussion of Res. 0010 by [**] days".

Both options require a second member to support, except for a 24-hour extension which carries authomatically. All of these actions are carried out on the EC mailing list.

[Derek Harkness]

A good example was Peking, although everyone seems to be getting with the Beijing

Peking and Beijing are the same word and should be pronounced the same way. It's a spelling change not a pronunciation change. Peking is Romanized using the Chinese Postal Map Romanization which is loosely bassed on the Wade-giles system and dates to the 19th century but allows for some historical spellings. This was the official system of place names form 1906 onwards. Whereas Beijing uses the more modern Hanyu Pinyin system. The Pinyin system became the official system of China after the war, hence the spelling change. The difference in spelling also shows a difference in accent. Just as someone form North London sounds different form someone form the East End, so Beijing people have accents and shows up in the spellings.

[Martin Baldwin-Edwards]

This link http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/roman.html was placed on the Resolution page by Anthony Sebastian, so I have moved it to here for the benefit of the discussion.

[Russell D. Jones]

My biggest concern with this proposal is that there is no "there" there.  If I understand this proposal correctly, it is a proposal to authorize a committee to come up with a policy.  I don't see where on the Romanization page that the committee is actually proposing a set policy.  Am I missing something? 

[Derek Harkness]

It's not a policy. It's a set of policies. Each language has to have it's own policy set out. So the main Romanization page doesn't contain the policy, it is merely the portal to a set of sub pages that each contain their own policy for an individual language or script. For example:  http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Romanization/Japanese

[Tom Morris]

Oh, this is getting silly. If we are to have expert editors, surely they can point to the common academic usage? Good judgment trumps policy in this area, I think. One of the benefits of expert editors is that it should reduce the amount of bureaucracy and policy that's required reading for authors. Think how many pages of policy one has to read on Wikipedia in order to get to the point where one can be an effective author. This is no doubt due to the fact that the bar for contributors is lower - anonymous and pseudonymous authorship and no expert guidance. As we are friendlier, and with respect for experts, more subjective policy like "Follow common usage" becomes a lot easier to maintain.

If we need a Romanization policy, it's not yet. We should put it on pause for a long time, until it's absolutely necessary.

[Russell D. Jones]

If that is a motion to table, I'll second.

Here's my rationale: If there's a policy to approve then let's approve it.  But the Japanese Romanization Policy page is a "forum" for discussion about Japanese Romanization policies, it is not a policy that requires our approval.  Let the discussion on the romanization policy continue and when there is a policy, we can do this again.

[Martin Baldwin-Edwards]

Motions can be submitted only by Editorial Council members, and should be sent to the EC mailing list. As the discussion has been extended to Friday, it might be better to wait some days before submitting another motion concerning Resolution 0010. It would also be diplomatically better to engage the Resolution's sponsors, although that is not required.