Talk:Cohong

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: KONegron.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Merge into Hong?

Merge with Hong (business) was suggested in 2009 by user:CWH and indeed there is no apparent reason why the two should remain separate. — Sebastian 08:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

You'll be meaning Hong, no doubt, not a new page. I've just linked Thirteen Factories to highlight the fact that there are three related pages involved here. The merge required is Cohong with Thirteen Factories because these are fundamentally one and the same, whereas the more generic Hong must be preserved. It should be quite easy to merge Cohong into Thirteen Factories (far and away the superior article). A redirect would be beneficial, too, because people are still going to need an answer to the Cohong question. So, all in all, there is some subtlety here and care needs to be exercised. I should volunteer to help (and would enjoy) but time ... sirlanz 09:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC) This post was moved here from section #Contradictions in lead paragraph by Sebastian.

I am confused by your reply. This appears to be reply to the Merge question, so I took the liberty to move it in this section. Also, there seems to be some confusion in your first sentence, which is aggravated by using a piped link: "[[Hong (business)|Hong]], no doubt, not a new page": Yes, by "Hong (business)" I mean "Hong (business)". Who said anything about a new page?

Also, what you do mean by "the Cohong question"?

But thank you for making me aware of the article Thirteen Factories; I agree that that merge is even more acute. Whether Hong (business) deserves its own article is something better discussed there. — Sebastian 14:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Another cross-over is Canton System, so we have the usual WP situation of parallel developments going on, lots of good work, but the tricky task of rationalisation would be worth doing, particularly as there are contradictions between them. sirlanz 23:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Let me summarise. Canton System and Thirteen Factories (2 excellent pages) have some overlap in that some of what is in the latter would better be left to the former. Canton System is the right place for the global picture of the system, a fundamental component of which is the Cohong. The latter page should remain as a brief answer to readers' question, "What is a/the cohong?" The (Cohong) page could be abridged, feeding readers into Canton System for more. So I do not think a merge is such a good idea in the end. sirlanz 00:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Contradictions in lead paragraph

There are currently the following contradictions in the lede:

1. The first sentence defines Cohong as "a guild of Chinese merchants". But later the 洋行 are introduced as "counterparts", implying that they, too were parts of the Cohong. Maybe what was meant was "trading partners". However, that interpretation disagrees with the source, which refers to "洋行" as another name for the Chinese merchants involved.
2. The first sentence calls the merchants making up the Cohong "hongs", but the last sentence calls them "hangshang". Again, this doesn't seem to be what the source says. As I understand it, it seems to express that the hangshan were individual people, not businesses. ("Merchant" can mean either *.)

Since these were introduced with this edit by user:Philg88, who appears to be a reasonable editor, I'm hesitant to change this without asking first. — Sebastian 08:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• • @Sebastian Thanks for bringing this up. The Cohong were indeed a guild of Chinese merchants who dealt with foreign merchants. The latter and the Chinese merchants are interchangeably described as 洋行 (Yang Hang) i.e. "Foreign Businesses". Note also that "Hong" is the Cantonese equivalent of the Mandarin "Hang", both of which mean firm, business etc. Feel free to make any changes that you think appropriate.  Philg88 ^♦talk 15:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your gracious reply and encouragement. BTW, I was just surprised to find that that the Chinese sister article of Hong (business) is not something like "行 (公司)", but zh:洋行. That article defines its title similar to the way we define Hong (business): "A 洋行 was an international trading company by ethnic Chinese people (華人) with (與) foreigners. ... Equivalent to today's import/export trading company or international trading company." (My translation.) Much hinges on the interpretation of 與 here, which could mean "and" or "dealing with", afaik. This fits well to your explanation of the ambiguity. Still, I don't feel comfortable assuming that Britannica is wrong in ruling out foreigners. Would someone have a reliable source for the reading as "foreign merchants"? — Sebastian 19:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Sebastian You're welcome. The big problem in this area is not just the ambiguity of the Chinese characters but also the fact that "Hongs" morphed over time from the Chinese government endorsed ones of the Cohong to include joint or entirely foreign entities like Jardine Matheson (whose Chinese name comes from one of the original Cohongs). As a result it is very difficult to find a definitive source because the different terms meant different things to different people, never mind the ambiguity and changes in function over time.  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)