Talk:Standard Chinese

No such thing as "Standard Chinese"

The title should be "Standard Mandarin", not "Standard Chinese" There's no such language as "Chinese", just like there's no such language as "Indian". Unlike Japan or Korea, within the border of China exists multiple ethnicities, cultures and languages, not just a single people called "Chinese" or a single language called "Chinese" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.244.23.236 (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the most appropriate title is "Standard Mandarin", as it is a more common term than "Standard Chinese", and Wikiepdia should reflect common usage.

If you search in Google books results from 2014 onwards, you will find 0 mentions in books to "standard Chinese":

https://www.google.es/search?biw=1366&bih=638&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A2014&tbm=bks&sxsrf=ALeKk004__w06AKEuP52QSESnK1-oQx8RA%3A1593784705290&ei=gTn_XtGiEbnkgweC37jAAg&q=standard+Chinese&oq=standard+Chinese&gs_l=psy-ab.3...1423.2820.0.2905.9.8.0.1.1.0.150.587.1j4.5.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..3.4.354...0j0i19k1.0.GRUUFtzf5WE

If you seach in google books results from 2014 onwards of "standard Mandarin" you will find several results:

https://www.google.es/search?biw=1366&bih=638&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A2014&tbm=bks&sxsrf=ALeKk00qqSSKTemeMNyL0gauAyAINlp_pg%3A1593784709130&ei=hTn_XtG2B_zIgweMy7-IAg&q=standard+Mandarin&oq=standard+Mandarin&gs_l=psy-ab.3...33076.34855.0.35063.10.9.0.1.1.0.169.1004.4j5.9.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.3.206...0.0.QfmiwkuA3x4

If you search on Google scholar results form 2016 onwards, there are hundreds of papers mentioning "standard Mandarin": ::https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=es&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=2016&q=standard+Mandarin&btnG=

If you search on Google scholar results from 2016 onwards, there are only two mere papers mentioning "standard Chinese" language:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2016&q=standard+Chinese&hl=es&as_sdt=0,5

Despite the current consensus in changing the title, it is impossible to do so. James343e (talk) 13:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

How do you mean "Since there is consensus"? Read this lengthy discussion: Talk:Standard Chinese/Archive 3#Requested move. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 14:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

That is a very old discussion that occured over a decade ago. That doesn't necessarily reflect the current viewpoint of editors.James343e (talk) 14:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

If you wish to test the current consensus, the appropriate way is to open another move request. In the meantime, you might consider this ngram. Kanguole 14:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

That is an unreliable, outdated and old search engine (pre-2013) that also includes results for "Chinese" (as an adjective for its people and society, rather than its language). A dated (from 2014-onwards) search in Google Scholar or Google books is more reliable, as you can clearly see virtually no reasearch paper (from 2016 onwards) or current book (from 2014 onwards) employs the term "standard Chinese" for the language. James343e (talk) 14:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

research papers since 2016, books since 2014. Also, there's no such thing as "standard Chinese" people or society. Kanguole 14:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Moving the page to Standard Mandarin was discussed and formally rejected, however long ago. You will have to open another move request. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

There is such thing as standard Chinese culture and technology. There are many articles that use the term "standard Chinese" to refer to Chinese cultural and technological products rather than its language. A few examples include but are not limited to:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1008981520920

https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.00920

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8656953/James343e (talk) 14:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The second one is about the language. You've also ignored the recent links I posted. Best of luck with your requested move. Kanguole 14:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I have not ignored them, but rather pointed out that while "standard Mandarin" is exclusively used to denote the language, "standard Chinese" is also commonly used to denote non-linguistic aspects. So a brute comparison between "standard Mandarin" and "standard Chinese" on Google scholar is problematic due to the aforementioned reason. I have not created a requested move, nor am I convinced of the necessity to do so after this discussion. James343e (talk) 14:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Well perhaps that's some progress. I've tried to help you out with some searches, but I will save any further discussion of this issue for a requested move discussion. Kanguole 15:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

First paragraph is wrong. New to Wikipedia.

This is my first time setting up an account and I would like to edit this article however it is locked.

Regarding the first paragraph:

Standard Chinese, also known as Modern Standard Mandarin, Standard Mandarin, Modern Standard Mandarin Chinese (MSMC), or simply Mandarin, is a standard variety of Chinese that is one of the official languages of China. Its pronunciation is based on the Beijing dialect, its vocabulary on the Mandarin dialects, and its grammar is based on written vernacular Chinese. The similar Taiwanese Mandarin is a national language of Taiwan. Standard Singaporean Mandarin is one of the four official languages of Singapore.

Mandarin is the official language of China, just like how Taiwan and Singapore are described as having one "national language" or four "official languages" respectively.

Mandarin is not ONE OF the official languageS of China. There isn't more than one OFFICIAL language (there are many non-official ones, known as dialects). Caps are intentional. Mandarin is THE official language of China. This should be clarified. And Mandarin is ONE dialect, not "the Mandarin dialectS." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsrain (talk • contribs) 22:14, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Welcome @Hsrain: That's correct. Although there are several official languages in the PRC the one and only nationwide official language is MSMC. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

That is true. On the second criticism, it is certainly common to use "Mandarin dialects" for the dialects in the Mandarin (官话) group (which includes the Beijing dialect) and this phrasing is essential to making sense of the second sentence. Kanguole 23:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I included in the lede that it is the main official language, but included a mention that "There exist other regional official languages in China, for instance Portuguese is also an official language in Macau only, and English is an official language in Hong Kong only".James343e (talk) 10:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Chinese language in Malaysia

Why doesn't it say that Standard Chinese is a officially recognised minority language in Malaysia????? 2001:268:9ACE:1181:7090:42FF:FE48:1A31 (talk) 09:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Misleading information, Cantonese not standard language of Hong Kong

The article contains misleading information. Modern Standard Chinese is based on the Mandarin variety of Chinese, yet it is not Mandarin, but a pluricentric language with different standard forms in mainland China, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, Macau, and Hong Kong. Hong Kong and Macau have used Modern Standard Chinese in the formal written register even before 1997 and Cantonese is used as a colloquial form of Chinese only, although Modern Standard Chinese is read aloud in Cantonese phonology in Hong Kong and Macau. The standard language of Hong Kong officially is "Chinese" with not further specification.Einstein92 (talk) 01:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Hong kong

misleading information,cantonese not standard language of hong ko

ng

41.113.177.146 (talk) 12:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Luanping as reference dialect

There is no mention at all that the PRC putonghua is defined on the Luanping dialect? 80.4.75.97 (talk) 10:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I've never read this. Do you have a source? Remsense诉 18:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)