Talk:Ethnic Mongols in China

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Do not move. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Mongolian Chinese → Chinese Mongolian … Rationale: some people mix up wether it are Mongolian Chinese or Chinese Mongolian. This article discusses Chinese Mongolian … Please share your opinion at Talk:Mongolian Chinese. — Deadmaster 11:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

[edit] Discussion

An Mongolian Chinese is someone from Mongolian origin or descent that owns the Chinese nationality. A Chinese Mongolian is someone from Chinese origin or descent that owns the Mongolian nationality.

I've added a clarification:

See here what an African American is (from the African American wikipedia article):

An African American (also Afro-American, Black American, or simply black) is a member of an ethnic group in the United States whose ancestors, usually in predominant part, were indigenous to Africa. Many African Americans have a degree of European, Native American, Asian and/or Latin American ancestry as well. The term refers specifically to black African ancestry; not, for example, to white or Arab African ancestry, such as Arab Moroccan or white South African ancestry. Definitively, African American means an American of black African descent.

So: an American African would mean that an American holds an African nationality.

Please move the page.

I'm not clear on what you want done here. At the time when you proposed the move, this article was a redirect. Now, Edipedia has made it an article about ethnic Mongols in China. Are you actually proposing to move under either of those circumstances?—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 16:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Mongolian Chinese is one of the major ethnic minories in China. There should be an article about Mongolian Chinese. Edipedia 16:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine. But "Deadmaster" is proposing to move this article to Chinese Mongolian.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 18:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Chinese Mongolian are Chinese people in Mongolian. Edipedia 19:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

"Mongolian" implies a national of Mongolia. The proper term is 'Mongol', or in our case, "Mongols in China"--Jiang 20:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer Chinese Mongol to solve the problem. Septentrionalis 18:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. "Mongol" is at least unambiguous as it refers to ethnicity, not nationality or citizenship. I oppose moving to "Chinese Mongolian" or "MOngolian Chinese" as the terms are ambiguous and it seems that discussors above are not unified on what each means. --SigPig 21:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Like SigPig, I also oppose moving. The meaning of terms is established by convention among a community of people who use the terms, not by logical reasoning. Common sense rules (which definitely aren't common sense to everyone) such as "Xyzian always means citizens of Xyz, not people of Xyz descent" or "you put whichever one first depending on whether you want to emphasize ethnicity or citizenship" don't hold any weight here because Wikipedia is not supposed to be a prescriptive agency. It is not our role to complain that some widely-prevailing terms are "illogical" and should be replaced by something which some Wikipedians find more "logical". Instead, we should be using:

• Terms which the group in question prefers
• Terms which are more widely recognized in the academic community

Since there is no such consensus on terminology regarding the group in question, the more descriptive title Ethnic Mongolians in China should stand. See also similar discussions at Talk:Chinese Malaysian, Talk:Chinese Indonesian, Talk:Ethnic Koreans in China, etc. cab 03:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relevant Wiki policies for above discussion

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(common_names). I guess we're all in conflict over:

• Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things.
• In cases where the common name of a subject is misleading, then it is sometimes reasonable to fall back on a well-accepted alternative.

cab 03:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.