Talk:Yangtze/Archive 1

Archive 1

Reference problem

Reference 6, used to reference 2005 data on transportation tonnage, is a 1996 book on the Yangtze, and therefore unlikely to contain that information.--Carptracker (talk) 16:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Too Long Downloadin

In dial up this page takes over 7 minutes to download. It is too image heavy and long. The images should be shrunk and linked to bigger images and sections should be moved to their own article 63.26.214.12 (talk) 01:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)mark

Pollution

Shouldn't there be a section on this page about the vast chemical pollution of this river?

In answer to your question, I would say yes. The pollution in the Yangtze has apparently reached quite critical levels in recent years; I've seen numerous reports on it. I might try to cobble together a section on the subject, though I'd encourage others who might have more time, and the inclination, to give it a shot. Edited To Add: Sorry, forgot to log in. Louiebb (talk) 22:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

We need more information than just "The Yangtze is very polluted, especially in Hubei" people, as above, I do not have time to add this information because even though I have witnessed this recently, I do not have the time to source and reinforce my information. NobodyPro (talk) 08:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Naming

Can someone move this article to Chang Jiang?Because in modern chinese Yangtze River is already a obselete name for this riverKsyrie 21:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

No. It may be obsolete in "modern chinese" but it's not obsolete in English. And English is used at English Wikipedia (see: WP:UE). —  AjaxSmack  23:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

While,it seems you are right,but you know,language is not a isolated one,sometimes one english name came to the chinese name,vice versa.As far as i know,in the modern chinese many words come from modern english,because its originality and its novelty like pc,pda,etc,and this river is a chinese one,so it's no wonder that we name it as the chinese method.I fully understand your legitimacy to name it in english,but i just want to make one point clearly,it's no use to have many name for just one place,like New York,in nearly all language we call it New York including chinese.Ksyrie 21:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, New York is still 紐約 in Chinese and the Wikipedia article is still at zh:紐約市, not zh:New York. The Chinese name for the Yangtze is 長江 but 長江 would not make a good article title at English Wikipedia. —  AjaxSmack  07:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

absolutely right,New York in Chinese is writen as 纽约,not because the chinese want to change New York into another name,but there is no latin alphabet in Chinese, if you have know about of modern chinese,the Pinyin of 纽约 is Niu Yue,which give us a more similar sense of New York.On the other hand,The chinese name for this river is 长江,pinying Chang Jiang,while in your POV,which becomes to 扬子江,Yangtze Jiang,a completely different name of the former.By the way, AjaxSmack,I found your way of thinking is too arrogant to bear,The chinese do not use latin alphabet in the ordinary way,like the arab,indian or other non-latin language.You want to force the chinese to use Latin New Yorkzh:New York to justify your POV is completely ridiculous.In chinese language 纽约 is the most close translation of New York.while Yangtze River give another name for 长江(Chang Jiang). Ksyrie

Ksyrie, I can't agree that 'Yangtze River' is obsolete. How can the predominant name for the river be 'obsolete'? What you are saying that the name is 'obsolete' in Chinese (although that is a rather simplistic way of putting it -- obsolete though it may be, it is still found in Chinese), and that because it is 'obsolete' in Chinese you consider that it should be treated as obsolete in English. I can understand where you are coming from, but Wikipedia should reflect normal English usage, not the usage that you 'feel' is correct. If you want to campaign to have English speakers abandon the name Yangtze and adopt Chang Jiang instead, you are perfectly free to do so. You could start by setting up your own website to argue for this change. And if you are successful in your campaign, Wikipedia will gladly change the title from 'Yangtze River' to 'Chiang Jiang'. But I'm not sure if Wikipedia is really the place where native Chinese speakers tell native English users that 'your name is obsolete', therefore they can change it to the form that they consider correct.

As for your feeling that AjaxSmack's way of thinking is "too arrogant to bear", I can appreciate the point that you are making: you are asking for only one name to be changed; AjaxSmack is asking for the Chinese to change their entire culture of writing foreign names. But is it really that arrogant to point out that Chinese could, if they wanted to, use the Latin alphabet to write words like 'New York'? I mean, Chinese speakers all learn pin'yin, so it shouldn't be a big problem. (Arabic is a bit more difficult since most people in China don't learn the Arabic script.) The argument that 'we don't want to use Latin script to write place names in your country because we prefer to use Chinese characters' seems on the face of it to be based on a very strong unconscious feeling that no one (especially not foreigners) has any right to expect the Chinese to change their way of doing things! Which may not be arrogant, but isn't very humble, either. And I suspect is somewhat akin to the feeling AjaxSmack might have about being told that 'you English speakers have to do what we Chinese speakers tell you to'.

With regard to names for foreign places, China doesn't actually have such a very good record. It took Korea a good ten years of very active efforts to get China to change from the long-obsolete 汉城 to 首尔 for the name of their capital city! China still regularly uses 海参崴 (obsolete) for Vladivostok as well as peculiar Chinese names (顺化, 岘港) for some cities in Vietnam. 旧金山 and 檀香山 (both obsolete) are still around, I notice. 缅甸 hasn't been changed to Myanmar. 槟城 hasn't been changed to Penang. Oxford is still the rather peculiar translated form 牛津 rather than a representation of the pronunciation. Most people don't get upset about this kind of thing because they regard it as a product of history and culture -- perhaps even charming in a world where so many people are trying to force conformity to some standard usage!

Bathrobe 01:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I simply love the name 檀香山 for Honolulu! Do you think 火奴鲁鲁 looks quite absurd? And I prefer 牛津 to anything like 奥克斯福耳德... About the name of the river, I think Yangtze is OK. Everyone in the west use it, and this is a Wikipedia of a western language. 尖尖的鹿角 (talk) 13:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see your involvement in the discussion,I want to make me more clear to all the one.

(1) The reason why chinese donn't use latin as their writing method,like Pinyin you have mentiones,it's because,Pinyin isn't enough to make the chinese understand each other,Pinyin is the counterpart of phonetic symbol in english or french.People will find it too dificult to recognise their writing system only using the [[phonetic symbol] or International Phonetic Alphabet,that is to say pinyin for chinese is just like International Phonetic Alphabet for english.When the chinese only use the phonetic symbol to describe the things,they will lost much of

information. Every one want to be precise when they speak,so the reason in chinese New York is 纽约,not Niu Yue(pinyin of New York),is clearly demonstrated.

(2) Generally speaking,the geographic names change regulary,but their names in other languages generaly correspond their names of aboriginals.Before,Iran was called Persia,nowadays,nearly all the languages call it Iran,including english,chinese,etc.And there are a great number of exemples,I want to correct some of your mistakes,Seoul in chinese was already uptodated to their korean name 首尔, not only in chinese wikipedia but also nearly all officially media.And,缅甸 is the translation for Myanmar and 缅玛 just for Burma.(顺化Hue, 岘港Da Nang) cities of Vietnam are all their translations correspondant their vietnamese names[1],

槟城 is the paraphrase free translation for Penang,牛津 is the paraphrase or free translation for Oxford,Ox in chinese is 牛,ford in chinese is 津,so it's not peculiar for it.Ksyrie

Ksyrie, I'm aware of the facts about Chinese and it would be better if you addressed the points rather than making "more clear to all the one". I will try to be brief:

(1) My main point is that AjaxSmack was correct to point out your fallacy in stating that Chinese uses "New York". 纽约 may be similar in pronunciation, but it is not at all the same as writing "New York". This was your mistake; you are not correct to accuse someone who calls you out of being "arrogant".

it's impossible to use New York in Chinese,because in chinese there is no latin alphabet,isn't strange to name Shanghai in english as 上海?,so when I told you that your english speakers should use 上海 instead of ShanghaiDon't you feel something of arogant of my POV?,there are no chinese characters in english,so english speakers cann't use the same word as in the chinese,vice versa for 纽约，there is no latin alphabets in Chinese,so how can you request someone to use the things which didn't exsit in theire language?Ksyrie

You are incorrect. Chinese does use the Latin alphabet; it's called pin'yin. All Chinese learn it. You are right in saying it is not widely used and that Chinese are not necessarily comfortable with it. But to say that Chinese doesn't have the Latin alphabet is simply erroneous. I also find your persistent position that Chinese COULDN'T EVEN CONSIDER using the Roman alphabet to write foreign place names a little less than humble. I floated the idea with you as something that might be contemplated before accusing others of arrogance. Instead, you came back with a complete and absolute dismissal, based on an entrenched, kneejerk position -- and incorrect information about the use of the Latin alphabet in Chinese. I find it interesting that you are aggressively trying to force a change in English but you yourself are completely unwilling to recognise your own hard line when it comes to your own language. Is this not a kind of arrogance?

Bathrobe

No,Pinyin will never replace the chinese characters,the reason I have given before,there are too much homophone,Pinyin for chinese is just as IPA for english.Are you going to force the english speaker to use IPA in theire writing?Ksyrie

(2) I was not proposing that Chinese should switch over to pinyin as a writing system. I was suggesting that in principle it would be more accurate to use romanisation for foreign place names. Your arguments against this are rather puzzling:

(a) You state: "When the chinese only use the phonetic symbol to describe the things,they will lost much of information." Exactly what information are you referring to? Do you mean the information carried by 纽 ('wrench, turn') or the information carried by 约 ('agreement, arrangment, appointment')? In fact, the most important information about the written name New York is the spelling. Also present, but much less important, is the etymological information that New York is composed of 'new' and 'York'. This is all lost when writing 纽约.

most chinese character have at least 10 homophone,so if all chinese were written in Pinyin,just like english written in IPA,the article became impossible to understand.if you have notice that in english,the homophone are not so many.Ksyrie

You keep accusing me of trying to force Chinese to use pinyin. That's your hobby horse, not mine. Your arguments might make sense if we were discussing the abolition of characters and the adoption of pinyin as the standard writing system, but we're not. Just how many homophones of 'New York' are there?

(By the way, concerning Burma and Myanmar, I suggest you check this out: Explanation_of_the_names_of_Burma/Myanmar.) Bathrobe

Cann't you make any reasoning? If you want to chinese writing use New York instead of their chinese characters couterpart 纽约? why not english speaker use 上海 instead of Shanghai? I just donn't understand why you keep up asking chinese to use latin alphabets while you donn't persuade english user to use chinese characters?Ksyrie

(b) In fact, Chinese does often use Roman letters when writing the names of smaller places -- even the names of Vietnamese places which could be written in characters. So your argument that Chinese can't use romanisation is not totally convincing.

It's not the truth,I was grown up in China,all the latin alphabets in the street are written for the foreingers,who find it difficult to read chinese chracters,no Chinese will try to read these latin alphabets,because it's not pratical and often makes mistakes,because of Homophone.Ksyrie

I meant foreign place names. Bathrobe

(3) I am also a little puzzled by your efforts to correct my "mistakes".

(a) Your first 'correction': "Seoul in chinese was already uptodated to their korean name 首尔, not only in chinese wikipedia but also nearly all officially media". What I wrote was: "It took Korea a good ten years ... to get China to change from the long-obsolete 汉城 to 首尔". The meaning is that China has already changed to 首尔. Please tell me what mistake you were correcting.

you are right.Ksyrie

(b) Your other 'corrections' are mostly clarifications rather than corrections. My point in all of those examples is that Chinese tends to stick to historic (often obsolete) naming practices. I am not disputing, for instance, that 顺化 and 岘港 are the historic Chinese character names of these cities. But Vietnam no longer uses Chinese characters, so why is China still sticking to 19th century names? You accuse English of using an obsolete name for the Yangtze River, but Chinese does exactly the same thing for other countries.

(As an aside, several of those Chinese usages could, conceivably, be politically sensitive, if someone decided to make a fuss. Could the Russians be blamed if they saw the continued use of 海参崴 as showing that the Chinese haven't renounced territorial claims to the area? And given Malaysia's bumiputra policy, isn't China tacitly giving preference to Malaysian Chinese rather than Malays in continuing to use the Chinese names for Malaysian cities? No, these are obviously non-issues -- but China's use of these 'historic' names is very similar to the continued use of Yangtze River in English, which you seem to find objectionable as a Chinese speaker.)

Yangtze River has never been a historic name,it is still used in chinese for the downstream part of this river.This name Yangtze always refered to downstream of this river from many centuries ago.It's not the business of historic name.Ksyrie

Now I'm really puzzled. Earlier you said: "in modern chinese Yangtze River is already a obselete name for this river". Now we find it's not obsolete at all; it's still used in modern Chinese, although specifically for the lower reaches! Moreover, it was never used for the whole river. Well, if it was never used that way, how can we talk about it being 'obsolete'? What you seem to mean by 'obsolete' is "I, Ksyrie, as a Chinese native speaker, hereby decree that your usage is obsolete". I just can't find any other sense in what you say. Bathrobe

It's the obselete name for the whole river Ksyrie

To return to the main point, which seems to have been obscured, the overwhelmingly predominant usage in English is still "Yangtze River". That is the reason that the title of the article is "Yangtze River". That is not to deny that there is a case for "Chang Jiang". That is why "Chang Jiang" is given at the top of the article straight after "Yangtze River". However, "Chang Jiang" is not yet widespread enough in English to be called mainstream usage. Unless you can produce a better argument than "Yangzi Jiang is no longer officially or widely used in Chinese", then it is hard to justify a change.

Bathrobe 11:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Moving the names information to the names section is much cleaner. But there is the problem that normally Chinese-related articles start with the characters and pronunciation in brackets after the keywords. This article is a little unfamiliar on the eye with the keywords sitting up there 'naked', as it were.

Bathrobe 09:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point. How's this? —  AjaxSmack  07:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I vote that the name of the article remain Yangtze River:

1. This is the English language Wiki. Yangtze is far more common than Chang Jiang in English.
2. Googling Yangtze gives millions of responses, wherease Chang Jiang gives tens of thousands.
3. Most English speakers will not know to search for Chang Jiang.
4. My map of China from National Geographic (2005) says YANGTZE RIVER with (Chang Jiang) in small text below it.

Izaakb 13:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Support. Yangtze River is the English name, Chang Jiang is the transliteration of the Chinese name. If you are going to change Yantze to Chang Jiang, you may as well change China to Zhongguo, and Russia to Rossiya... --Sumple (Talk) 06:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Sumple, That last sentence is a great point that deserves emphasis Izaakb 14:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

My socalled chauvinistic tradition

to Bathrobe, you keep up asking me why the chinese donn't use New York instead of chinese translation 纽约,so why don't english speakers use 上海 instead of shanghai,東京 instead of Tokyo,서울 instead of Seoul, القاهرة‎ instead of Cairo, Αθήνα instead of Athens,Москва instead of Moscow,กรุงเทพมหานคร instead of Bangkok?----Ksyrie

... Irony--Sumple (Talk) 12:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is a word in putonghua that corresponds to Irony. Easy mistake. Izaakb 02:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

"Name as a colonial symbol"

I consider this a POV problem. Plus the sentence "Similarly-imposed colonial-era transliterations or names for Chinese geographic places such as Peking are being generally replaced by official Chinese names such as Beijing in contemporary discourse" is simply inaccurate as "Peking" is the Romanized name under the Wade-Gilles system. "Beijing" is the same thing, under the PinYin system. It is not "colonial" merely because it was developed by non-Chinese.

Plus, if the Chinese considered the name "Peking" or "Yangtze" to be offensive, wouldn't Peking University change its name as would the myriad of businesses with "Yangtze" in their title.

From Encyclopaedia Britannica

The name Yangtze—derived from the name of the ancient fiefdom of Yang—has been applied to the river mainly by Europeans. Ch'ang Chiang (“Long River”) is the name used in China, although it also is called Ta Chiang (“Great River”) or, simply, Chiang (“The River”). The Yangtze is the most important river of China. It is the country's principal waterway, and its basin is China's great granary and contains nearly one-third of the national population.

Somehow, Yang Tze being derived from Yang doesn't sound too colonial to me. Who can say that this huge river did not have hundreds of regional/local names and Yang was one of the ones that stuck for non-Chinese?

I am removing this section. If the editor who wrote it feels strongly about having a section on the history of the name, that's fine with me provided it remains NPOV Izaakb 16:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not so convinced by your remarks considering nearly all the nowadays Chinese Geographic Names are spelled in the PinYin system.And what's more,I really find somethings which is a Chinese policy about naming all the geographic names in the Pinyin Systems.I know english is mainly spoken out of China,but it's really strange to find something which you have already a romanized name(a standard latin transcription) in home while in other world becoming another less relative names.I have noticed that nearlly all the geograhic names in Germany,french,spain,and russian are named in their proper offcial and homeused transcription.--Ksyrie 21:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, your point is valid, but irrelevant. The deleted section alleges that the name Yang Tze is due to "colonial" reasons and is not an "official" name. The first claim (colonial) is a POV. As I pointed out from Encyclopaedia Britannica, the name comes directly from a Chinese source. As a comparison, the name "Bombay" being used for "Mumbai" is distinctly colonial because the Portuguese renamed it, but the Yang Tze name was derived not from a colonial source, but from a local source. Secondly, all of the official sources I have seen refer to the river by multiple names. Mainly "Chang Jiang" (Ch'iang), but all of them mention "Yangtze" or "Yang Tze". I am sure the Chinese-language sources do not bother with this version unless they are referring to English language usage, but all of the English-language sources from China I have see include this version.

The fact is, the English-speaking world knows this river by the name Yang Tze. It is not derogatory it is simply an old name adopted by English speakers derived from a Chinese source.

Lastly, the article is about the river. It is not about politics or culture. It is about a body of water. If there are legitimate poltical issues (i.e. boundaries, water usage or pollution to name a few) then that is legitimate, but nowhere is there a legitimate political dispute about the name "Yang Tze". Including the deleted section is simply pointless as it pushes a non-neutral, uncited POV. Thanks Izaakb 21:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes,you had made a great point about the colonal.However,I mean,almost all the geographic names in other countries like Japan,When there exsit a standard and official Romanized Transcription,are all spelled in this kind of methods.So I cann't say I am wrong,but you may argue well in your side.--Ksyrie 02:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Being one myself, I understand the extreme sensitivity some Chinese feel towards foreign language names for Chinese things which do not accord with the Chinese name. However, Wikipedia is not the place to vent your nationalistic urges. This is the English wikipedia, and it reflects how English-speaking people name things.

Regardless of the truth of the rather ambiguous and grammatically incorrect statement "I really find somethings which is a Chinese policy about naming all the geographic names in the Pinyin Systems", the truth is in English the river is called Yangtze. In almost any situation, if you start talking about the "Chang Jiang" or "Ch'ang Kiang" no-one will know what you are on about.

It's not a question of what the communists in Peking think things should be called; it's a question of what ordinary English speakers do call it. --Sumple (Talk) 02:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I am so sorry about your impression for me as a communist chump who had been brainwashed ,what's more your idea of linking the communist with nationalist is completely wrong.Just check out the Chinese civil war,it's the chinese communist who had won over the chinese nationalist.And somethings like the One child policy which gives the minorites two times possibilities to reproduce just proves this point chinese communist doesn't equal to chinese nationalist.My brother or sister,just donn't juge someone from the propaganda of one side.--Ksyrie 02:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read nationalism. --Sumple (Talk) 11:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Folks, be nice.

I think it's entirely appropriate to have some history of the various names of the river, provided it adheres to NPOV and cites sources. The Chang Jiang/Yangtze/Yellow River has many names and historically, all of them have some interesting story -- how about a section that explains that? That is very encyclopaedic. Izaakb 15:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• 揚子江 is the name of the lower section of Long River. The historical name of the river is 江. --user talk:hillgentleman 18:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Similarly, the folks in China still use the name 英國 rather than 聯合王國 for the United Kingdom.---user talk:hillgentleman 18:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• It's not true,check this page British Embassy Beijing,which use 英国 rather than 联合王国.--Ksyrie 08:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It is confusing to have the length of the river measured in kilometers, while miles are used under the "Characteristics" section Blackllotus 18:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

come on people

The entire talk page is basically about the naming of the river in English. Can we please just stick to Yangtze for now and lets focus on the physical river itself, instead of what name to use. Oidia 14:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

why cant there be animals that live in the river posted on here? It would be very helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.195.170.22 (talk) 01:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

source on 6211 km

I believe it's a mistake from the British system 3960 miles, mistaken as 3860 miles, then recalculated in to km by 1.609. (which come out to be 6210.74). Nice try for Americans, but that's not the way to get length,(esp with the 1 on the last digit :))

I changed the length to 6300 km (3915 mi) based on the entry for Yangtze River in Encyclopaedia Britannica. Hope this American did ok. IzaakB (my Talk)contribs 19:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Naming

The length, headwater on the map and source elevation are not up to date. The Yangtze river map here shows a headwater similar to the official atlas of China published before 1980s. However, based on a field study in early 1980s by China, the Tuotuo river is found to be longest headwater of Yangtze river. The elevation of the source of Tuotuo river -- Geladangdong is above 6600m. From Geladangdong to Shanghai, Yangtze river has a length of 6300km. Dangqu is now treated as another headwater of Yangtze river. Although shorter, Dangqu has more annual discharge than Tuotuo river has. Dangqu and Tuotuo joint together and form the Tongtian river.

Violation

Someone violated the page. I deleted it.. Seems fine now. Hexugoth 15:33, 2 July 2004 (UTC)

Huai he vs Huang He

Shouldn't 'Huai He' be 'Huang He'? (anon)

No- Huai He is a separate river, further south. Markalexander100 03:04, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Long River vs Yellow River

From the Village Pump

I've just noticed that the Chang Jiang (Yangtze) is literally the "long river" and that the Huang He is literally the "yellow river". Since they seem to share no character in common, are there multiple Chinese characters that are all best translated as river in English or are we just fudging the translations somewhat... in which case the qualification of said translations as "literal" is inappropiate. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:14, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Jiang in general, is bigger than He. (At least, when it enters the ocean.) The problem is that in these two particular instances, historical naming takes precedence. Huang He was settled around Xi'an and Xiangyang (btw, why does Xi'an have that '?) at which point the river is not quite wide enough to be called a Jiang. On the other hand, the Yangtze was settled more in the east (Shanghai area), where it was wider. So it rated a Jiang. At least, that's how it was explained to me. -Vina 06:07, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Frigoris 13:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC) Even many native Chinese,including me, feel puzzled at the difference between "Jiang" and "He". In acient China, neither of the characters appeared in many rivers' names (at that time, a common word for "River" was "Shui", which means "water" in comtemporary Chinese)."Jiang" used to mean only what we call "The Yangtze River" now, and "He" the Huang He. However, in modern Chinese both characters are used as suffixes denoting the name of a river. Personally, I think "Jiang" is more frequently used in Northeast and South China as a name suffix, while "He" in Central and North China. Moreover, when not used as part of a river's name, the word "he" (note I use the lower case) is more frequent than "jiang". Sometimes people consider "jiang" to have more emotional implications relating to the sense of "great", "open" or "source of life".(too hard to say in English :-P). An interesting phenomenon is that almost all the Chinese translations of European or American river names use "He" rather than "Jiang", e.g. the river Rhine is 莱茵河 (He) in Chinese, not "莱茵江".

BTW, Xi'an's ' shows that it's a two syllable name. Xian would be one syllable (approximately "syen"). Markalexander100 01:48, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

'Xian' is how the locals pronounce it :)

Bathrobe 08:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect. Being ethnic Chinese, that is pronouced Xi'an. (Anon) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.52.3.79 (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

You've obviously never been there, 'ethnic Chinese'. 203.169.48.225 (talk) 01:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Um, you guys are wrong (except for Anonymous guy), it is pronounced Xi'an. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naru12333 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Article name: Chang Jiang vs Yangtse/Yangtze

This should be the Yangtse in English, not the Chang Jiang

It is entirely inappropriate to call this the Chang Jiang. To say it is 'also called the Yangtse River' is a little ingenuous. It is almost always called the Yangtse River in English. I do not know who made the judgement that this river should be renamed in English but it is definitely wrong in a reference work for English speakers. It would be more appropriate to put it under the entry for 'Yangtse River' and note that the river is known in Chinese as 'Chang Jiang'.

I realise that the naming of places can be contentious, but can the person who made this decision justify the aggressive 'nativisation' (indeed, proselytisation) of this name in complete disregard of established usage? It is not as though Chang Jiang is common usage even now.

......................

I notice that this comment has attracted no response whatsoever. I have checked out the discussion on Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Chinese), and no principled basis is given for adopting Chang Jiang in preference to Yangtze, other than the editor's own personal bias (i.e., dogmatic assertion). I refer you to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(use_English) for this comment:

'The Wikipedia page on Convention: Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly used in English than the anglicized form.'

Since the name Chang Jiang is not more commonly used in English, it should not be the title of the article. Given the Be bold policy of Wikipedia, I would be within my rights to simply go in and change it. I am awaiting a reasonable response before I do so, though. Bathrobe

I've no objection to your changing it, but you would have to fix all the links to this page as well [2]. Enjoy. Mark¹ 06:44, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I too support this change. In an ideal world we would move away from this more common English form, toward the most common Chinese form, Changjiang or Chang Jiang, but this prescriptive notion is not consistent with the Wikipedia naming convention. Having both together, with the recognizable Yangtze, Yangtse or Yangzi, in that order of preference, serves better to both follow the Wiki convention and educate English speakers at the same time to the currently more common Chinese form. We would not name the page on Confucius "Kongfuzi" as the primary name, now, would we? Native Chinese speakers, please understand that this is the English Wiki, which must be accessible to English speakers. I support your desire to educate English speakers as to the correct modern Chinese forms, but this must remain secondary to the goals of accessibility and intelligibility of the information, which for the time being requires the anglicized form to predominate. Dragonbones 04:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

What would you change it to, though? Yangtse or Yangtze? Google hits suggest the "Z" form is more popular. But I wonder if this is one of those British vs. American things.

Good question. In a search of English-language pages only, 'Yangtze' seems to be the overwhelming favourite (if you trust Google). Many instances of 'Yangtse' could be from European languages. Bathrobe

Ditto, good question. Yangtze and Yangtse are traditional, while Yangzi is the correct modern Hanyu Pinyin for this pronunciation. I recommend providing all three at *one* point in the article, but using Yangtze throughout as the preferred form. Dragonbones 04:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the "S" form, for some reason there are two identical versions (both redirects), which means the move will fail and admin intervention is needed. The "Z" form has only one version in the edit history and could be moved to. -- Curps 07:09, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I notice that Yangtse/Yangtze and everything connected with it is in a mess. For instance, Yangtze River Delta is there and starts out with the words 'Yangzi Delta', but no Chang Jiang Delta :) There is Jiangnan (a redirect) and Jiang Nan which supposedly 'refers to the southern part of the lowest reaches of the Yangtze River, including the southern part of the Yangtze Delta'. Any changes are going to need some thought. I've also noticed that quite a few dictionaries (e.g. Websters) use Chang Jiang. It is quite possible that Chang Jiang is the wave of the future, but for the moment these dictionaries appear to be trying to lead the change, not record actual usage. If 'Yangtze River' is made the main article, all this will have to be noted accordingly, i.e., a note will have to be inserted saying that there is an increasing trend to use Chang Jiang in preference to Yangtze River. I still feel, however, that the predominant usage is 'Yangtze River', and until 'Chang Jiang' becomes the norm Wikipedia should not take it upon itself to dictate usage to the world. Bathrobe

I've now changed Chang Jiang to Yangtze River, and all links to it. In doing so I've retained Chang Jiang in parentheses at many locations, which I feel is only fair. I've also indicated at the main article that Chang Jiang is found on many maps. I feel that I've been relatively fair to the 'Chang Jiang lobby'.

Incidentally, I found in the course of fixing links etc. that Yangtze River is definitely the most popular usage. Some people use Yangzi, possibly out of a feeling that the pinyin spelling should be respected. I found only a small number of contributors habitually using Chang Jiang but they are responsible for quite a few articles.

Bathrobe 08:22, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is confusing to have two names for the same river: Chang Jiang(Long River) and Yangtze/Yangzi/Yangtse River.

If you're in China as a tourist and you say "Yangtze River" to someone, he or she most probably wouldn't understand you. However, if you say Long River or Chang Jiang, you could be understood. If you say Peking, people wouldn't know you're saying Beijing, there is no "k" in that name by Chinese pronounciation. Today's China is not yesterday's China. Millions of young people can never know what you mean by Yangtze and Peking. I guess the choice is between conforming to the old Western way of pronounciation or to today's Chinese usage and standardization. The choice influences the ability to communicate with one another. (unsigned comment from User:Myfriend on 11 July)

'Millions of young people can never know what you mean by Yangtze and Peking.' How sure are you of this? Would you care to prove it? The word 'Yangtze' is still widely current in English language contexts in China (newspapers, books, other materials). There was a book in Chinese during the 1990s deploring the state of the Yangtze River which used the name 'Yangzi'. There is a petrochemical company that calls itself 'Yangzi'. Even in China, it's not as though 'Yangzi/Yangtze' has suddenly and completely been extirpated (although the language police might like it that way).

As for 'Peking', no less a body than Peking University still uses the name Peking in preference to Beijing. So does the Peking Union Hospital.

A similar point applies to the word 'Cantonese'. People in Beijing are often nonplussed by the word 'Cantonese' when you use it because they've never heard it. On your grounds, 'Cantonese' should be banished from English usage. And yet, the word 'Cantonese' is not only universally used in the West, it is also well known amongst Cantonese people themselves, who are quite happy to use it when speaking English! So are we to ban 'Cantonese' because northern Chinese speaking English have not bothered to acquaint themselves with the English name of the popular southern dialect, cuisine, and pop music?

Comment by Bathrobe 2 August 2005

As per above discussion, the Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(use_English) states that the Wikipedia convention is: "Title your pages using the English name, if one exists, and give the native spelling on the first line of the article. If the native spelling is not in the Latin alphabet, also provide a Latin transliteration. Only use the native spelling as an article title if it is more commonly used in English than the anglicized form." What is important in the naming of this English wikipedia article is what English speaking people know the river as most commonly. In the Chinese language version of wikipedia of course it would be different.--AYArktos 00:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I looked at three publications of maps, all of them Chinese publications. Even for the city maps of Shanghai where the Long River/Chang Jiang was called Yangtze River locally in the old days (i.e. pre-PRC, 1948 and earlier), this name is NO LONGER on the maps. Anyone who is looking for Yangtze River or 扬子江 can not find it on the maps any longer. The name 扬子江 is gone for good. If you type in the name Long River or Chang Jiang, Google does give you the info.

"Peking" was obviously a mispronounciation (or a hearing problem) by the early missionaries or whosoever. "j" was mispronounced as "k". "B" was mispronounced as "P". Such early day mistakes were passed down and carried on with ignorant naivety. It's amazing. (I am not the same person who originated this thread.)

Please check your facts before accusing others of 'ignorant naivety'. The Chinese sound 'b' is actually an unaspirated /p/, it is not an English voiced /b/. For speakers of languages (like Japanese) where their own 'p' sound is unaspirated, Chinese 'b' indeed sounds like 'p'. To English speakers it sounds like 'b', even though strictly speaking it isn't. So you are incorrect when you call it a mispronunciation or hearing problem. As for the 'k' in Peking, this dates back to an older pronunciation of Mandarin that appears to have been current when the name Peking was first heard by foreigners. This 'k' sound (actually a 'g' sound if you follow the practice of modern pin'yin) can still be found in some dialects of Chinese (including, it seems, dialects of Mandarin). So it is not a case of 'j' being mispronounced as 'k', as you assert.

Also, googling 'Long River' doesn't come up with much about the Yangtze, at least not in the first page. 'Long River' doesn't appear to have much acceptance as the English name of the river.

Bathrobe 2 August 2005

The name Yangtze Kiang ("Kiang" is the Postal Map equivalent for Jiang) in Jyutping is joeng zi gong and its Chinese name, Changjiang, is rendered in the same Yue Cantonese form as coeng gong. In modern Cantonese (in Hong Kong and Guangzhou at least), the respective worldwide and Chinese forms are rendered as Yeung-tsz Kong and Cheung-kong respectively. Alternatively the Chinese name may be rendered as Changkiang in Postal Map form.

WikiPro1981X (talk) 18:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Naming pt 2

Chang Jiang is a river of China, so it should be named according to the standard name of China.

Reply to the above:

Why this unrelenting drive to force conformity with the standard name in China? Chang Jiang is indeed a river of China, but even in Chinese it is not known as the Chang Jiang along its entire length. Above Yibin it is called the Jinsha River. In Tibet it is called the Tongtian River (in Chinese, of course, not Tibetan -- you will notice that the (Han) Chinese don't accord to the Tibetans the respect that they demand from the rest of the world.)

The Mekong has different names in Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand/Laos, and China. In English we call it the Mekong, which is one name by which it is known in Cambodia. Nobody tries to force their own name on the river when writing in English. Except, of course, the Chinese, who insist on calling it the Lancang River, I guess on the grounds that it's a 'river of China'. As a result, you now sometimes see the river's name hyphenated as Lancang-Mekong. I really don't see how this is an advance on simply calling it the Mekong.

Shouting that 'It's Chinese, you've got to follow Chinese usage!' is an oft-used argument and has its merits, but all too often it seems to be used to drown out everyone else's voices.

Bathrobe 11:09, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• If the name Mekong were Cantonese, in Pinyin that would be rendered as Meijiang for "beautiful river." WikiPro1981X (talk) 18:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

---

I looked at three publications of maps, all of them Chinese publications. Even for the maps of Shanghai where the Long River/Chang Jiang was called Yangtze River locally in the old days (i.e. pre-PRC, 1948 and earlier), this name is NO LONGER on the maps. Anyone who is looking for Yangtze River or ( ) can not find it on the maps any longer.

Reply: The Wikipedia article points out that Chang Jiang is used on many maps. So if people read the article, they can easily find the river on Chinese-published maps :)

Thinking about this relentless push for Chinese names (including 'Chang Jiang'), it seems to be not unrelated to a desire to assert 'Chinese sovereignty', as seen from statements like 'Chang Jiang is a river of China, so it should be named according to the standard name of China'. It also appears to lie behind the practice of Hong Kong English-language school textbooks (post-reversion), which quite curiously use the name 'Gobi Shamo' for the Gobi Desert and 'Qingzang Gaoyuan' for Qingzang plateau, etc.

There are a number of questions about this approach:

(1) The drive to impose Chinese names seems to be a one-way street. For instance, Chinese-language textbooks don't refer to American or Australian deserts as 'xxxxx dei-se-te'. One is thus curious to know the logical grounds on which English-speakers are expected to use the Chinese word for 'desert' or 'plateau'. (In fact, the Gobi does not belong only to China, and the word 'Gobi' itself is a Mongolian word meaning 'desert', so the idea that Gobi Shamo is the 'correct name' is actually rather strange.) In Chinese, the Nile is called 尼罗河, which is rather different from the Arabic name! How many Egyptians would understand a Chinese tourist if he/she insisted on calling it the 'Niluo'?

(2) The drive is more politically inspired than historically based. For instance, there seems to a kind of perception that the name 'Formosa' is a case of subtle Western imperialist aggression against Chinese sovereign territory. In point of fact, the island of Taiwan has been known as 'Formosa' for much longer than it has been known as 'Taiwan'. 'Formosa' was bestowed by the Portuguese before that island was ever settled by Chinese or ever came under Chinese sovereignty; 'Taiwan' is believed to be based on a landform near the Dutch colony in Formosa, which was much later. One does not have to look far for a case where sovereignty over island territories but does not rule out a foreign name -- the Bonin Islands, called the Ogasawaras by their Japanese owners.

In the case of 'Chang Jiang', this appears to be a newish name for the river, which actually used to be called the Da Jiang 大江 or Great River. It is even possible (although I will admit that this is pure speculation) that the use of 'Yangtze' for the whole river predates the usage of the Chinese name 'Chang Jiang' to do so.

(3) The Chinese themselves are inconsistent in their practice. The 'Chang Jiang' is supposedly applied to the whole river, but in practice many Chinese maps mark the section above Yibin as the 'Jinsha River (金沙江)', without any mention of 'Chang Jiang'.

(4) Another problem is that sovereignty in names, like national sovereignty, seems to stop at the border. So 'Gobi Shamo' is valid only inside China; the Mongolian part you can call what you like. 'Lancang Jiang' is similarly valid only inside Chinese territory; the Southeast Asian river you can call what you want. This rather ridiculous situation comes about when nations try to assert 'sovereignty' in names over physical features that stretch over national boundaries.

(5) A final issue is that standardisation of names in China rides over local usage. Given that the Chinese themselves are agreed on the need to unify place names in Mandarin, there can be no fundamental objection to this, but it is useful to realise that names like 'Xiamen' and 'Jinmen' are actually quite far removed from the local inhabitants' pronunciation, which is 'Amoy' and 'Quemoy' respectively. To say that these places were 'formerly' known as 'Amoy' and 'Quemoy', as some observers are wont to do, is a little disingenuous.

Given the above, the drive to impose the name 'Chang Jiang' seems rather doctrinaire, to say the least. Like the Danube, the Volga, or the Nile, is it not possible to recognise that different people have different names for these natural features? Why does it have to be tied up with 'national sovereignty'? Rather than try to make an issue out of every name, or force conformity with somebody's standard, surely it is better to simply note the differences.

The general trend in English for some decades now has been towards greater nativization of foreign names.(usually to foreign national standards and not dialect) This is not just a reaction to foreign pressure and certainly not limited to China. Livorno has ousted Leghorn, Istanbul has ousted Constantinople, Mainz has ousted Mayence, etc. Similarly, Taiwan, Xiamen and Beijing have in fact ousted Formosa, Amoy, and Peking. (The only place I now see using Peking is Peking University itself! OK, now I see you have already mentioned this above. Actually after visiting PUMC and hearing "Xiehe" in Chinese repeatedly, I was starting to say "Xiehe" in English, probably a good example of how nativization of foreign words naturally takes place.)

Incorporation of foreign terms for landforms is also not limited to Chinese. English-language atlases are full of Russian nizhmennost, Arabic wadi, French lac, Spanish rio, etc. It can be helpful in finding the foreign term when there is not a one-to-one mapping between English and foreign terms.

The Japanese name for the Bonin Islands probably hasn't entered English simply because there is so little need to mention the islands at all except in historic context.

Changjiang vs. Yangtze is a marginal case at this point in time. I don't think there is a clear choice between compatibility with current Chinese and historical English, so I don't care that much which is the redirect and which the actual page. I do think you are too quick to paint the issue as a conflict between nations, which is unnecessarily inflammatory.

You can dismiss it as irrelevant to English, but another point is that Yangzi refers to the ancient Yangzhou Province (see Zhou), so that the sections in the upstream provinces would logically be called Jingzi Jiang, Liangzi Jiang, Yizi Jiang, and then you need a term for the whole thing. If it were up to me I would just select Jiang as the English term, as it's short and easy to say, is probably the most common Chinese way of referring to the river anyway, and appears in common compounds like Jiangnan, Jiangxi..--JWB 06:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the intelligent input to this issue. Yes, I agree that what is stated above is my own particular point of view and I believe I presented it as such. I am not opposed to name changes per se, but I do object to (1) 'ideological' attempts to enforce usage and (2) spurious reasons given for such enforcement. (Inflammatory or not, there does seem to be a nationalistic element behind the drive to enforce Chinese names). But as you say, nativisation is the trend and in time Yangtze River will probably come round. Bathrobe 02:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this should be moved to "Chang Jiang" - the "Chang Jiang" is displacing "Yangtze". In fact, I could do that right now!

WhisperToMe 15:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately it hasn't yet. Yangtze is still the normal usage in English.

Bathrobe 04:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It won't be in a minute. WhisperToMe 17:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Bathrobe:

Well, Chinese is obviously used more than English. It even is recorded in Wikipedia! So we should name it by the Chinese standards, not by the relatively biased Anglo-Saxon perspective. I try to be nice, but the truth goes by truth.

dividing point?

I moved the following from the introduction. Please put it back into the article, but only if you can clarify what it was supposed to divide! Thanks.--199.243.252.196 17:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It has traditionally been considered a dividing point although geographers consider the Qinling-Huai River line to be the official line of geographical division.

Between Northern and southern China. --JWB 04:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

A look at the history will clarify what it was supposed to divide. The problem arose when a vandal deleted the words northern and southern China and dded nonsense words. User Kukini reverted part of the vandalism on 7 May but failed to notice the problem with this particular sentence.

It's sad that vandalism is increasingly leading to the loss or distortion of information.

Bathrobe 06:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

maps

the maps are squished and do not help to place the river in the country unless one knows the cities on the map.Kdammers (talk) 09:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The Arrival of Steamships for a variety of purposes

I've suggested that this section be split into its own article. While the info is interesting, its becoming too tangential for this article. --Tesscass (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The info is interesting, but it seems like an out-of-place digression in this article. I would support it being split off into a new article or trimmed in some way. Also, regardless of what we do here, the title of the section really needs to be changed.--Danaman5 (talk) 06:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the material is too detailed to stay in this article. Rmhermen (talk) 21:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The information there here about the steam ships is too detailed, does not site sources, and is biased Rbourne4:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.72.235.133 (talk)

I agree. If you have any knowledge in this area and have time to edit or split the irrelevant stuff away from this article, please help out. --Tesscass (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

File:TroyParfitt2.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:TroyParfitt2.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Would it be possible for someone upload an audio file for the pronunciation in Mandarin? Mattximus (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR

Some issues creeping in, so just noting that this edit established the page's usage as American English and that should kindly be maintained. Cheers. — LlywelynII 13:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Name section

Given this page's importance to answering the internet's question "Why do we call it this when they call it that?" I thought we could use something a little better than 'missionaries dun goofed'. Still needs some tuning up (like fixing Tuotuo if it's just a transcription of a Mongolian name), but lemme know your thoughts or if I overdid it and we need to split off a separate page now. — LlywelynII 03:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Genetic studies

An anon editor added some text about a genetic study to the "Early History" section. I fixed the formatting and added the rest of the date from the survey:

A study of Liangzhu remains around the mouth of the Yangtze found a high prevalence of [[haplogroup O]]1, linking it to modern [[Austronesia]]n and [[Daic]] populations; the same study found the rare [[haplogroup O]]3d at a [[Daxi culture|Daxi]] site on the central Yangtze, connecting it with the modern [[Hmong people|Hmong]].<ref>Li H & al. "[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17657509 Y chromosomes of prehistoric people along the Yangtze River]". ''Human Genetics'', Vol. 122, No. 3–4, pp. 383–388. Nov 2007. Accessed 4 December 2013.</ref>

That said, I would really like some outside help with whether analysis of five remains can really "link" these peoples to the Vietnamese or justify calling the Chinese the "source" of the Hmong. I know China's come a long way recently as far as doing actual science, but it seems too pat and politically expedient based on such scanty evidence.

(That said, if it is solid, we should probably split out the genetic info into its own paragraph or section and add it to numerous other articles, such as the Baiyue and history of Vietnam.) — LlywelynII 15:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

yang tzi = 洋子?

what is the proper chinese name for this river? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.85.210 (talk) 23:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

or is it 揚子? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.85.210 (talk) 23:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

扬子. Despite a conventional belief in the supremacy and inviolability of Chinese characters for writing Chinese, there is in fact some fluidity in how characters are used. I've seen the same phenomenon in other place names in China. For instance, a certain place name might use either the character 羊 or the character 洋, with possibly a change of characters from one era to another. Historians might debate this with some seriousness, solemnly listing the 羊 and 洋 variants as variant place names. In fact, the place name is "yáng" and there is no variation in pronunciation. The character variation is quite arbitrary.

In the case of the Yangtze, it looks like 扬子 is the traditional and probably correct usage. But 洋子 is certainly not out of character with Chinese usage, which fluctuates more than people realise. Bathrobe (talk) 04:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually 揚子 is the traditional, and 扬子 is with the same word (Yang) simplified. But the article mentioned both 揚/扬 and 洋 without any explanation. --Tesscass (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The article actually says:

The name Yangtze River, as well as various similar names such as Yangtse River, Yangzi River, Yangtze Kiang etc., is derived from Yangzi Jiang (simplified Chinese: 扬子江; traditional Chinese: 揚子江; pinyin: Yángzǐ Jiāng) listen (help·info), which, beginning in the Sui Dynasty, was the Chinese name for the river in its lower reaches, specifically, the stretch between Yangzhou (扬州) and Zhenjiang (镇江). The name derives from the ancient ferry crossing Yangzi Jin (扬子津, meaning "Yangzi Crossing"). From the Ming dynasty, the name was sometimes written 洋子 (yángzĭ).

Not sure what's unclear about that. Why, it even includes the Traditional and Simplified forms you pointed out. Bathrobe (talk) 09:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused about the 洋 in that last sentence. It doesnt't explain why 洋 was sometimes used instead of 扬 . Was it because they are more or less homonyms? Or is there a different reason? --Tesscass (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I'm quoting a paragraph that is in plain view right above, but here goes:

Despite a conventional belief in the supremacy and inviolability of Chinese characters for writing Chinese, there is in fact some fluidity in how characters are used. ... For instance, a certain place name might use either the character 羊 or the character 洋, with possibly a change of characters from one era to another. Historians might debate this with some seriousness, solemnly listing the 羊 and 洋 variants as variant place names. In fact, the place name is "yáng" and there is no variation in pronunciation. The character variation is quite arbitrary.

I specifically made this point because people are so mystified by Chinese characters that they think there's something absolute about them. "THIS is the character to use because, you know, unlike a letter of the alphabet, a Chinese character isn't just a sound; it has a MEANING." This is not totally true. The example I was quoting, using 洋 and 羊, was from a place name in Hubei province. I don't have the source with me so I can't give you details, but I can assure you, this place was written with different characters at different times. Someone might try to tell you that the place name is written with 羊 because in ancient times someone saw a sheep there. And someone else might tell you that it's written with 洋 because the place was vast like an ocean (洋). The fact is that assigning characters can be fanciful and doesn't necessarily have a lot to do with etymology or derivation.

The paragraph in the article is perfectly clear. The normal usage is 扬子 (OK, if you want 揚子, I can input both Traditional and Simplified forms, too), and there appear to be good etymological reasons for it. From the Ming dynasty it was sometimes written 洋子. This (presumably) is a statement of fact. From the context it's clear that this is a minor usage. If we don't know the reason for this variation, there is no need to explain.Bathrobe (talk) 04:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I really was just wondering. I accept that there's no absolute rules on languages. --Tesscass (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Eh, don't sweat it. Bathrobe isn't wrong but he's certainly overstating the case. This character is fluid because the name English picked up on wasn't the "proper" one but a dialectical one. This yang is fluid because it's transcribing an effectively foreign name; it's not like Chinese doesn't have meanings or fixed forms but transliteration varies quite a bit over time since the spoken language (much more than the written one, historically) shifts around quite a bit. — LlywelynII 13:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly, Matteo Ricci - likely the first Western European who visited the river (ca. 1600) while being able to speak and read Chinese - claimed (in De Christiana expeditione apud Sinas) that the name Yangtze means "the son of the sea", so presumably the form he saw was 洋子. But in today's Yangzhou, of course, you see 扬子 used in the names of various companies, places, etc. -- Vmenkov (talk) 00:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It was just a misunderstanding by this westerner. I live in Yangzhou and I am sure 扬子 is the name of a ferry in Yangzhou and not the son of the ocean. --Acrux119 (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of where you live, it wasn't "just a misunderstanding". He wouldn't've just made up the characters on his own; he learned them from the people he was talking to. Some of his literary friends probably just preferred the prettier gloss (or possibly had forgotten the actual ferry). — LlywelynII 16:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Tuotuo

Currently, the article reads

The Mongolian name for the river, Tuoketuonaiwulanmulun...

which is patently false and obviously just a transcription of the Chinese. It's not helped by this being the only page on the internets that records this 'name', but (albeit elsewhere) Tuoketuo is used in Chinese to record "Togtoh" (=togtox) and Wulanmulun is obviously just Ulan Moron ("Red River"). Anyone have any ideas on what the -nai- really is? or the meaning of togtoh? It seems to be used as a personal and as a place name, so presumably it does have one. — LlywelynII 00:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

You could have mentioned which river you are talking about. 通天河, right? Yangtse, obviously, would be blue, not red. Togtaqu is more likely a person name than anything else. There is a verb togta- 'become settled, become stable, become determined', but then the future participle -qu wouldn't make sense. I am not comfortable with the name, though, as TuoketuKU or something like that seems more accurate?! -nai could be a genitive (-n-u, -nii, -nää), but I am not sure which form of the genitive is used in Deed Mongol dialect. (There is a book that would tell, but I don't have it at hand.) The literary form after Togtaqu would be -yin (-iin), not -n-u. This uncommon form (generally used in Khorchin, but elsewhere?) makes me a bit skeptical about Toqtaqu, though I know of no noun toqtugan (which would exhibit a good sound correspondence). Sorry I couldn't help. G Purevdorj (talk) 11:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, um, thanks for stopping by. Still kind of a bizarre reply: the entire comment was about the river and its name and why would it "obviously" be blue? Almost the entire length is muddy yellow and parts of the river are called 'Red' (Like this part).

In any case, sounds like you know some Mongolian. If you see a source glossing the actual version of this name, let us know. — LlywelynII 16:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

A local chorography of Haixi Mongol and Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture(《海西州志》, volume 1, 1995, page 109) records the Mogolian name and its meaning of the river（沱沱河）, but the book is written in Chinese. It is mentioned that the river's (full) Mogolian name 托克托乃乌兰木伦（Tuoketuonai Wulan Mulun in pinyin）means 缓慢的红江 (the slow/quiet red river). --Acrux119 (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

And I learned a new word, thank you.

That's still just the Chinese gloss, though, which we already had. What's the original Mongolian form that's being transcribed? (Maybe G Purevdorj can piece it together now that he knows the meaning of the words involved?) — LlywelynII 16:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction

List of rivers by length lists it as the third-longest river.--2.245.142.24 (talk) 00:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 13 April 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Xoloz (talk) 02:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Yangtze River → Yangtze – More concise title, per Nile, Ganges, Mekong, Danube, Euphrates, etc. We normally append "river" when the name by itself is ambiguous, as in Mississippi River and Amazon River, which is not necessary in this case. Zanhe (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support the 'river' is quite often omitted when talking about the Yangtze as can be seen in a google ngram search and also in our own article, at least as many mentions of the Yangtze are sans 'river' as append 'river'. No ambiguity arises form this name thus by WP:CONCISE we should name the article Yangtze. Rincewind42 (talk) 03:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
• Mild support no objection to river but User:Zanhe's rationale and comments are as usual correct. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support. "Yangtze" by itself is recognizable as the name of the river, and the name by itself is already precise, as well as being concise. —seav (talk) 17:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support - I mean, if there were a city or state of great importance to confuse it with, but there really isn't. Red Slash 22:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. ► Philg88 ◄ ^♦talk 06:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

---

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

Originally navigable 1000 miles...

The Yangtze#Characteristics section of the article currently says: "The Yangtze flows into the East China Sea and was navigable by ocean-going vessels up a thousand miles from its mouth even before the Three Gorges Dam was built" Bzzzt. I read Kemp Tolley's Yangtze Patrol: American gunboats on the Yangtze River, which goes into detail about how navigable different sections of the River were. As I recall, all six of the riverboats of the USN Yangtze Patrol could travel up as far as Chungking. The pair of riverboats with the shallowest draft could go past Chungking -- seasonally. But they were very shallow draft vessels. IIRC the USN's cruisers and destroyers, could only travel as far upstream as Wuhan. China River gunboats were not "ocean-going vessels". Several of them withdrew to the Philippines, before the Japanese destroyed them in China. But it was a risky passage, due to their shallow draft. The locks on the Three Gorges Dam are only able to transit vessel of just over three meters draft -- ie. not "ocean-going".

What do we mean by "ocean-going", anyway? The locks on the St Lawrence Seaway are about 28 feet deep. Ocean crossing freighters, can transit to the Great Lakes. The locks on the Panama Canal are almost twice as deep. The barges that transit the upper reaches of the Yangtze may hug China's coast, visit China's coastal ports, but I question whether that makes them meaningfully "ocean-going".

There is no need to exaggerate. Even being able to travel upstream as far as Wuhan in an ocean-going vessel is impressive. Other major rivers have shallows much closer to their mouths. Geo Swan (talk) 20:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

People need to know more information about the River. There is a need to exaggerate. People will not get correct information. SpaceGuy623 (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Yangtze. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425064509/http://crlao.ehess.fr/docannexe.php?id=1207 to http://crlao.ehess.fr/docannexe.php?id=1207
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425064509/http://crlao.ehess.fr/docannexe.php?id=1207 to http://crlao.ehess.fr/docannexe.php?id=1207
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130530024053/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Yangtsze-Kiang to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Yangtsze-Kiang
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070104192730/http://www.baiji.org/expeditions/1.html to http://www.baiji.org/expeditions/1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Yangtze. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.cjw.gov.cn/index/river/liuyugk-3.asp?link=1
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.yznews.com.cn/yzwb/html/2010-001/23/content_92703.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402140618/http://wajueji.cngaosu.com/peijian/yunnan/lijiang/2012-04-17/11612.html to http://wajueji.cngaosu.com/peijian/yunnan/lijiang/2012-04-17/11612.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.wwfchina.org/english/downloads/Yangtze%20Forum.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071221054321/http://sciencemode.com/2007/09/02/river-dolphin-thought-to-be-extinct-spotted-again-in-china/ to http://sciencemode.com/2007/09/02/river-dolphin-thought-to-be-extinct-spotted-again-in-china/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://library.vicu.utoronto.ca/exhibitions/vic_in_china/sections/life_in_west_china/the_yangtse_river.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Yangtze. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120112151935/http://www.wwf.org.uk/what_we_do/safeguarding_the_natural_world/rivers_and_lakes/where_we_work/yangtze_china.cfm to http://wwf.org.uk/what_we_do/safeguarding_the_natural_world/rivers_and_lakes/where_we_work/yangtze_china.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

WHY Yangtze is good

Yangtze is good because this will be classed as a C for wiki. Hope you enjoyed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.85.57.127 (talk) 13:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)