Talk:Addie Viola Smith

Removal of infobox

I removed the infobox as I do not believe it is necessary nor do I believe that it improves the article. The article is short and all of the important information that was in the infobox was included in the first paragraph (see also my FA, Cora Agnes Benneson, which also doesn't have an infobox). i don't see a reason to highlight automobile imports when her job was so much more than that. Pinging @Bruxton and @Nikkimaria. If we can't resolve this with some sort of compromise, we can do an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

@Voorts: I attempted to improve the article by adding an image and and box. I think Cora Agnes Benneson does not have a box because it is your personal preference. If you go through the GAs and FAs the majority have an infobox. A box is not mandatary - especially at DYK but it is my opinion that they assist readers. Bruxton (talk) 21:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

@Bruxton First, thanks for finding that picture. I greatly appreciate it. As for the infobox, I didn't revert because I thought you were trying to make the article worse, nor is this a personal preference. Several articles I've worked on have infoboxes. I just don't think they're necessary or all that helpful to readers for short biography articles. For example, all of the info in the infobox, other than the "known for importing cars" part, was or has now been added to the first paragraph. Had Smith held several prominent positions in government, with more written about those positions, I would agree an infobox showing the time frames for each gig would be helpful. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I get the synopsis from the infobox and without it I see a wall of text. I only noticed this was a GAN after you removed the infobox. Reading the notes in the GA Nom above I see the reviewer also commented about adding an infobox; so you pushed back against me and the GA reviewer. My goal is the same as the reviewer's and that is to assist our readers. Regarding the image caption that you have now, MOS:CAPTION, there is much info in that caption which would be better in an infobox. Good job with the GAN and the FA and keep on editing! Bruxton (talk) 23:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

@Bruxton Fair enough. I will think on it and get back to you during the weekend. Thanks for the kind words! voorts (talk/contributions) 00:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

@Bruxton: restored the infobox. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

(Non-breaking?) spaced en dash

@GoodDay RE This is the dash being used in thousands of bios. You're the first to protest: My use of {{snd}} is intended to follow the MOS. As I noted in my edit summary, MOS:ENDASH states: Ideally, an en dash should be preceded by a non-breaking space; this prevents the dash from appearing at the beginning of a line. The {{snd}} template may be used for this[.] I don't believe that being the first to protest is relevant or that thousands of other articles (which have presumably not gone through FA and been checked for MOS compliance) ought to determine the content of this one. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Date of arrival in China

The article says "She returned to China in 1946...". However, According to government archive, she arrived in China on Oct. 12, 1947, while NYT says she left for China on Feb. 23, 1946. Would the journey have taken one year and 7 months? It seems excessively long. Did something happen in between? Anyway, it would be precise to say that she "She left for China in 1946...", but the year of arrival in China might be 1947. Happyseeu (talk) 01:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Happyseeu, I've reverted the cite you added for a couple of reasons. First, we generally go by what secondary sources say, not primary sources. A government archive is a primary source, not a secondary source. Here, there's already a secondary source cited and no need to add a citation to a primary source. Second, you used the <ref> citation style, rather than {{sfn}}, which is what the rest of the article uses. Wikipedia's guidelines state that editors should not deviate from the existing citation style in an article.

Regarding your question here, it's not for us to speculate why it took her long to go to China, nor should we change article content based on what primary sources say. That would be original research. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Happyseeu: I've reverted your edit on this issue. Per BRD, I would like for us to discuss the issue before you reinstate your edit. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

The citation says "scheduled to leave Seattle today for Shanghai", so the correct way to rephrase it would be "left for China", not "returned to". The latter may imply that she arrived in 1946, which the source doesn't say, and primary source says is not true. Unless you have another source that says she arrived in China in 1946, don't imply that. Happyseeu (talk) 15:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Per Meriam-Webster, "return" means "to go back or come back again". So "returned to" and "left for" are synonymous; it doesn't imply anything. Additionally, the source you found doesn't state that she didn't arrive in China in 1946. All it says is that she arrived in 1947. It's possible she went to China in 1946, left briefly, and came back—something Smith did throughout her career. In any event, this kind of speculation is why we generally go by what secondary sources state, not what we find in primary sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:16, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

You insist that "return to" is better than "leave for", and the source says "leave for", so the burden of proof is on you, not me, that "return to" should be used. You mean "she left for work at 10" means the same as "she returned to work at 10"? Let more English speakers weigh in. Happyseeu (talk) 15:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

According to M-W, "leave for" means "SET OUT, DEPART", left for the office at eight sharp. That's precisely what the source means. Happyseeu (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

This reliable secondary source, cited at the end of the same sentence, also states: "From 1944 to 1945 she represented the China-America Council of Commerce and Industry in Washington. She returned to China in 1946 to establish its headquarters at Shanghai." voorts (talk/contributions) 15:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

So one source says she departed in 1946, one says she arrived in 1946, and another says she arrived in 1947. So what's the neutral POV here? She left for China in 1946, w/o saying when she arrived, because that's in dispute. Happyseeu (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a POV issue; it's a verifiability issue. On the one hand, a primary source from a government archive says that she arrived in 1947. Additionally, if you read the immediately preceding page from that archive, that source is a list of names of people attached to a request for diplomatic identifications from the U.S. embassy submitted to the Chinese government on January 25, 1949. On the other hand, a reliable secondary source (a biographical entry in a national encyclopedia of biography) says that she returned to China in 1946. The fact that a newspaper (NYT) and a news agency (Associated Press) say she left for China in 1946 without noting that she returned in that same year just isn't relevant. It would be original research to conclude that the reliable, secondary source is wrong because of ambiguity between two newspaper stories and a list of names on a government document. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

OK, show me the proof that she arrived in China in 1946. The secondary source needs to cite a primary source to establish a historical fact, and what is that primary source? This is the chain of evidence when the fact is in doubt. When it is not conclusive that when she arrived, the article should not state it as a fact. Period. Happyseeu (talk) 15:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I've requested a third opinion. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Here to provide a third opinion.

1. I think in this situation, Wikipedia's typical preference for secondary sources wouldn't necessarily apply, and I don't think citing the archive would be OR. The usual reason we prefer secondary sources is they're easy to cherry-pick, and primary sources usually don't contain enough analysis for an article, which entices readers into synthesizing them.
2. On the other hand, I don't see any contradiction between archives showing an arrival by Smith in 1947 and sources saying Smith departed in 1946. These could just refer to two separate trips, and asserting they weren't would be OR.
3. On the third, mutant hand suddenly sprouting from my chest, while reading the NYT source, I notice it only says Smith was scheduled to depart that day, not that she actually did, which means it's possible the trip was canceled or delayed. The AP source similarly only says her departure was "announced", not that they verified it actually happened, which makes me vaguely suspect they're just reporting based on what the NYT said.

In conclusion, I think we should split the difference and say it was 1946.5 go with 1946, unless someone finds explicit evidence that she was not in China in 1946. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

All of the speculation is, in my view, why we shouldn't rely on primary sources here at all. We have a reliable secondary source (the Australian Dictionary of Biography) stating that Smith returned in 1946. It's not our job to weigh between competing primary sources (an archival document, an NYT report, and an AP piece) or parse out whether some ambiguities presents a conflict with a secondary source; NOR tells us to go with the secondary source. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

AI image

I saw this article on the front page yesterday and I noticed that the image of Smith has clearly been altered by AI. I left a talk page comment on the image itself but perhaps more people will see it if I comment here. It looks to have been treated with machine-learning upscaling, perhaps using an app like Remini. It doesn’t resemble the source image; you can see that the AI has added colour to the facial features (the eyes and lips most notably) that was not there and has introduced inauthentic detail like the strange cotton-like effect on her cheeks and chin. Isn’t this kind of process - putting a historical image through an app that essentially replaces it with an impression of what that image could have looked like - quite inappropriate for Wikipedia? I’m not completely up to speed on our policy but it seems to me that this image has been degraded both visually and as a historical aid through this treatment and I was quite surprised to see it on the main page. Humbledaisy (talk) 10:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Bruxton, who uploaded the image. @Humbledaisy, people are allowed to enhance public domain images before uploading them to Commons. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Is replacing an image with something fake an enhancement? Our manual of style doesn't favour it:

"AI upscaling software should generally not be used to increase the resolution or quality of an old or low-resolution image. Original historical images should always be used in place of AI upscaled versions. If an AI-upscaled image is used in an article, this fact should be noted in its caption." Humbledaisy (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Good to know. I wasn't aware of that. I'll wait for Bruxton to respond. I'm not familiar with AI image enhancement so I don't know if that's what Bruxton did here. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Voorts and Humbledaisy: Hello, I have now uploaded the image directly from the source without any corrections. Bruxton (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Pinyin citation

@JnpoJuwan, I reverted your addition again, and I would like for us to discuss this here before it's re-added per WP:BRD. I believe a citation is needed to establish that the transliteration is correct. Per WP:WHEN and WP:LIKELY, I think a transliteration of a non-English name is likely to be challenged and thus requires citation. Here, in particular, I can see from your user page that you don't list Mandarin as a language that you know on your user page, so while I believe your intent is good, I'm not inclined to trust that your transliterations into Pinyin or simplified Chinese are correct. I'm happy to reconsider if you point me to some community consensus that transliterations do not require citations to reliable sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:54, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Voorts cheers for starting the discussion! I don't list Chinese as a language I speak primarily because I don't use it a lot especially to edit, that's just my choice, but I've learnt Mandarin for some time and can trust that my edits are faithful and correct in this case.

in this case, the characters are very common and you can fact-check in any dictionary. the primary thing one would challenge is that the name is correct at all, but transliteration is the easy part. unsure how one would even cite that, but feel free to ask what you're looking for specifically and also try to ping native Chinese speaking editors! Juwan (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I think one would have to cite a reliable source that uses that transliteration. I'll post at WikiProject:China and ask someone to weigh in here. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 15:09, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

In other words, unless the transliteration is used in publications, archives, libraries, etc. it would be [[WP::OR]] to add the transliteration since it never appears in other sources except Wikipedia. Happyseeu (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Happyseeu that's a huge leap of logic in my opinion. would adding pronunciation in IPA be the OR? would respelling? the vast majority of articles with these do not have any citations, because they are unnecessary, they are by default already verifiable, by following the standard romanization. for example, take Shohei Ohtani (trending today!), we do not need to explicitly add a citation to confirm that Ōtani Shōhei is a proper Hepburn romanisation of his name.

for people who were born a lot time before modern standards, it is convention to include the relevant form and the modern one, see Chen-ning Yang (Wade-Giles and pinyin) Shiing-Shen Chern (Gwoyeu Romatzyh and pinyin) Sun Yat-sen (Cantonese Yale and pinyin), etc. Juwan (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

The person in question is an American, and has an official name in English. So a transliteration of her Chinese name into English is not the same as a Japanese who doesn't have a name in English by default. Happyseeu (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

In other words, transliteration needs to justified when a person is born with an English name. The justification would be it is used somewhere. A foreigner who doesn't have a birth name in English would be a different case, as an English name is needed and no additional justification is needed. Happyseeu (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Happyseeu, not sure if you didn't click through the bluelinked policy shortcut I provided in a comment below this one a few hours before yours above, but transliteration and even translation are specifically not OR per WP:TRANSCRIPTION, which is a shortcut to a section of the WP:OR policy page. Folly Mox (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think a transliteration is appropriate here unless it has been used in reliable sources. What's the use of it to an English reader? A Chinese reader knows how to pronounce her name (her name consists of common characters, not rarely used characters), and doesn't need transliteration to do that. --Happyseeu (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

No comment yet on the value of including the subject's Chinese name. (It may be relevant if mentioned in English language sources, Chinese language sources cited in the article, or if she published under that name whilst in China; I have checked none of this.)

The general case is that citations are not required for transliteration. This falls under WP:TRANSCRIPTION, an allcaps I can never remember. Exceptions are probably made for uncommon pronunciations of the native characters, especially if subject to revert wars, which I don't remember ever seeing in practice. Folly Mox (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. The Chinese name is mentioned in one English language source, which is cited. I will re-add the transcription to the body, but I don't think the infobox portion is necessary; takes up far too much screen space for a minor aspect of Smith. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good 👍🏽

Folly Mox (talk) 15:54, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Addendum that if it is determined there is value in including the Chinese name, it should be accompanied by pinyin transliteration per MOS:CHINA. Folly Mox (talk) 15:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Pinyin transliteration should not be used here, because it hasn't been invented when she was in China. It would be ahistorical. It should use the transliteration method in use during Republic of China era. Happyseeu (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Per MOS:PINYIN, Wikipedia uses Pinyin transliteration, unless reliable sources commonly use some other form of transliteration. We don't go by what historical period the person was alive. The reason for this is that modern readers are more likely to know Pinyin over an old transliteration system. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

You can try to propose that Ma Ying-jeou should be spelled "Mǎ Yīngjiǔ" instead. The latter is Pinyin. The other editors know better that he goes by the former spelling.

It really depends on what sources spell their names, not a blind adherence to some standard. Happyseeu (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Obviously we should not use pinyin to romanise Chinese words where pinyin is not normally used. Taiwanese people and Hong Kong people are two good examples, more of which are given at MOS:PINYIN. The source cited for the subject's Chinese name does use pinyin, so it seems fine, although duplicating the transliteration both preceding and following the Chinese characters seems unnecessary. Apologies if my addendum earlier made it seem like that was recommended: what I meant was that if 施芳蘭 is introduced into the article, Shi Fanglan should be adjacent to it, not that it had to be duplicated complete with tone marks in {{zh}} after the initial mention.

As to the position that pinyin should not be used to transliterate terms that precede the invention of pinyin, I guess my question is how does anyone extend that to periods prior to European contact? Folly Mox (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

You have not made the case why a transliteration is appropriate here. Franklin Delano Roosevelt is translated as 富蘭克林·德拉諾·羅斯福 in Chinese. So should English Wikipedia put the transliteration in the article because FDR is important to the history of modern China? No, because he goes by FDR in English sources, and 羅斯福 in Chinese sources. No source would use the transliteration. It would be the same here - unless some sources use the transliteration, it's not justified. Happyseeu (talk) 22:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Your comparison to FDR is inapt. This is an article about a United States government official who actually practiced law in Shanghai and who had a Chinese name. Per the guidelines that Folly Mox cited, transliteration does not need to be cited to a reliable source. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

You misunderstand my point. My point is that when a person has a birth name in English, that name will be used by default by English-speaking people, and transliteration from another language needs to be justified. Does the guideline cover that? I don't see that. The guideline is for people whose birth name is not in English. FWIW, when FDR met CKS, CKS did not address FDR with his transliteration from Chinese, either. He addressed him as FDR. Happyseeu (talk) 23:16, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Even if FDR is not a good comparison, sinologist John King Fairbank would be. The Chinese name of him is 費正清, and the transliteration of that is not in the lead section, either. Happyseeu (talk) 23:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Fairbanks's Chinese name is in the infobox. Smith's is not in the infobox of this article and there is no requirement that it be in the infobox vs. the lead. Indeed, MOS:LEADLANG states that "Relevant non-English names, such as those of people who do not write their names in English, are encouraged." This is a "relevant non-English name" because Smith was posted to China for decades of her career. Additionally, it is beneficial to readers (as well as editors) of this article who might want to search for Smith under her Chinese name. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

You are arguing that transliteration of a foreign name of an American is relevant, and I disagree. Actual usage is the proof of relevance.

"search for Smith under her Chinese name" is valid IF it appears in any source. And that is the question that proponents evades to answer, that it is actually used somewhere. I have said it more than once, and I will say it again "under what circumstances would someone refer to an American with the transliteration of his/her Chinese name?" Here is another example: George H. W. Bush has been ambassador to China, and his surname is translated as 布什 in mainland China. Does PRC use the pinyin of 布什 - bu shi? Not in his obituary in officials news of People's Daily. Former U.S. president George H.W. Bush dies at 94. And the pinyin is not included in his article, either. So this is an article about an American diplomat to China which doesn't include the pinyin of his Chinese name. Bush has been ambassador to China, so are you going to say that is not relevant? Happyseeu (talk) 00:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

IF it appears in any source. And that is the question that proponents evades to answer, that it is actually used somewhere Smith's Chinese name is cited to this source. Additionally, I did a search and found one source with useful information after searching with Smith's Chinese name. I don't have access to Chinese-language research databases, but anyone who does might benefit from her Chinese name being in the article.

Regarding your Bush example: I should have noted this before, but "what about this article" is generally considered to be a bad argument in discussions on Wikipedia because editors can choose to include or exclude things from an article for many reasons (or none at all). In any event, Bush was ambassador to China for a little over one year; it's a minor aspect of his political career. Smith, on the other hand, served in China for 7 years before she was appointed trade commissioner, a role she held for over a decade. Then, she was consul to the American consulate for around 3 years, and then continued working in China on and off for businesses and government for over a decade. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I have nothing against including her Chinese name, as I have cited a reference to her Chinese name earlier. I'm questioning whether including the transliteration of her Chinese name is justified. Since the latter appears in the Online Archive of California, that may be justified, but maybe not. Why? Because I want to see the case where only the transliteration appears, not her English name or Chinese name. The latter two should suffice to find any source about her IMO. I want to see where the transliteration will add value. So far I've seen none, and I doubt it would be. Because who would refer to her only by the transliteration, and not by the other two names?

The proponents of adding the transliteration fail to answer the last question. I'd like to be proven wrong.

If she goes by the name of "Shi Fanglan" (in English) sometimes, that is useful information and relevant. But so far there is no proof of that. Happyseeu (talk) 00:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Because I want to see the case where only the transliteration appears, not her English name or Chinese name. The guideline cited above, MOS:LEADLANG, has examples with pronunciations, transliterations (which are designed to document pronunciation), and translations. The point of including a transliteration is to assist readers with knowing how to pronounce the Chinese name. It has nothing to do with being included in reliable sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:05, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

We have a different understanding of the guideline. It makes sense to document pronunciation of a foreign name, which English-speaking readers would have trouble pronouncing. Why does it make sense to document the pronunciation of an American, who will be addressed by the English name, not the transliteration of Chinese name? You seem to think that the guideline applies to all names, and people whose official/birth name is in English is not an exception. I disagree. Happyseeu (talk) 01:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)