Talk:Song Cheng-tsi

Romanization

The pinyin form "Song Chengzhi" does not seem to be the most recognized romanization of his name. In addition to old sources, even books published in 2015 and 2021 refer to him solely or primarily as Song Cheng-Tsi or Song Ch'eng-Tsi, see Children of the Massacre: The Extra-ordinary Story of the Stewart Family in Hong Kong and West China (2021) and Christian Encounters with Chinese Culture: Essays on Anglican and Episcopal History in China (2015)

Uriel1022 (talk) 09:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@Uriel1022: First off, apologies for not leaving a talk page note explaining my reasoning, that was bad practice on my part. But in addition to the two you mentioned, I could only find three other sources published this century that even mention Song, two of which use pinyin and one of which uses the old spelling: Sino-Christian Studies in China, Costly Communion, and The Indigenization of Christianity in China III. When a figure is not widely known under either romanization of their name, the policy at WP:NCZh is to use pinyin. I also think its relevant that two of the sources that use the old spelling simply use Wade-Giles throughout. Obviously the lede should mention the old romanization as well, but there's a big advantage to maintaining a consistent romanization system if there isn't a clear reason to do otherwise. SilverStar54 (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

If we do end up going with the old spelling, it should be "Song Ch'eng-tsi", since all of the Wade-Giles sources use the Chinese ordering of his name. SilverStar54 (talk) 20:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks again for your concern and the sources you found. Quote: "I also think its relevant that two of the sources that use the old spelling simply use Wade-Giles throughout." The first source apparently yes, the second one, however, you can find names like Shen Yifan, Song Jiaoren, or Lin Buji, etc., which are unmistakably pinyin romanization. Some Wade-Giles and older romanization (may not be W-G) are given a parenthetical treat following their primary pinyin romanization, e.g. "Dong Jianwu (H. C. Tung), Lin Buji (Lin Pu-chi)"; or vice vsersa, e.g. "Liu Yü-ts'ang (Liu Yucang), T. V. Soong (Song Ziwen)". I think this indicates which one being the more recognized romanization, as we can also find in this source the names of "Chiang Kai-shek" and "Mao Zedong" being just Chiang Kai-shek and Mao Zedong, without any other option. Besides, take into account that Song Cheng-tsi is not really Wade-Giles romanization (the correct W-G form should be "Sung Ch'êng-chih"). Song Cheng-tsi actually better reflects the name's Sichuanese pronunciation. The same applies to Ku Ho Lin: Gu Heling (pinyin), Ku Hê-ling (Wade-Giles), Ku Ho-lin (Sichuanese pronunciation). In my opinion, we should keep Song Cheng-tsi, and yes, in the Chinese naming order: Song Cheng-tsi. Uriel1022 (talk) 01:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Good catch about the specific romanization system in use here. I think that settles things—Hanyu Pinyin is a romanization system designed for standard Mandarin, after all, and it would be inappropriate to use it to romanize a name in a different dialect if that version has been widely adopted. SilverStar54 (talk) 21:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)