17,394
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 19:
Line 19: +
Talk:Chiang Kai-shek (view source)
Revision as of 15:37, September 25, 2008
, 15:37, September 25, 2008assume
:::look at the books listed at the top of this page. They are major recent publications about Chiang and use that name. It's what scholars, writers and publishers do. So let's use the common English name (like Florence), not the rare names that only experts are likely to recognize like "Firenze" or "van Diemen's Land". [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 11:16, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
:::look at the books listed at the top of this page. They are major recent publications about Chiang and use that name. It's what scholars, writers and publishers do. So let's use the common English name (like Florence), not the rare names that only experts are likely to recognize like "Firenze" or "van Diemen's Land". [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 11:16, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
::::Yes, yes, yes. I have done. I am not arguing about Chiang, or Florence, or Dougal for that matter. I am taking issue with your assertion that historians always use the name contemporary with the period being treated, which is manifestly incorrect. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:30, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
::::Yes, yes, yes. I have done. I am not arguing about Chiang, or Florence, or Dougal for that matter. I am taking issue with your assertion that historians always use the name contemporary with the period being treated, which is manifestly incorrect. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:30, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::We are agreed. I do not argue that historians always use one form or the other. It depends on the audience. A historian writing in a scholarly journal can assume the readers are experts. Here we should assume our users are home school/high school or college students who do not know the Chinese language.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 11:37, 25 September 2008 (EDT)