Language desk
< October 8	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 9

Language issues for "Red-cooked pork rice"

I'm currently writing an article about "red-cooked pork rice" (炕肉飯), a traditional Taiwanese dish. The article is currently in my sandbox. Since I don't speak Hokkien, I have a few questions:

Is there a better translation of the dish's name than "red-cooked pork rice"? I came up with my tentative name from a similar dish, Minced pork rice. Translations found online vary wildly.
There's three different Chinese characters that are used in the name: 炕, 焢, and 爌. The first is a proper character, while the second and third are variant characters and aren't used outside of this context. However, the second and third are more commonly used. How should I cover this in the lead/infobox?
Even though the three characters above have different pronunciations in Mandarin (kàng, hōng, and kuǎng/kuàng), people usually use the Hokkien khòng in its place instead. Did I address this properly in my article?

Any help would be appreciated, as I'm trying to get this right before I publish. Thanks! ◢   Ganbaruby!   (talk to me) 02:23, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help with the translation, but I suggest you should clarify whether you're looking for a literal translation of the actual Hokkien words, or a descriptive translation that tells the reader what it actually is and/or how it's cooked. After all, some of my favourite British dishes are Cock-a-leekie soup, Bubble and squeak, Toad in the hole, Spotted dick and Eton mess, but literal translations of these names into other languages would be a) difficult and b) uninformative. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.121.161.82 (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I think I'm going to go with "Braised pork rice" for this one, and I hope I got everything else right. ◢   Ganbaruby!   (talk to me) 01:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is ‘red-cooked’ an established term, your own hyperliteral translation, or what? —Tamfang (talk) 07:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The word or phrase to describe the behaviour

In a movie, if the villain is shown from a minority community, but to avoid controversy the director also shows that the hero's friend also belongs to the same community as the villain, so that people from that community can't accuse him of showing their community in negative way.

Two groups are protesting against each other. The government takes strict action against one group due to political bias. To avoid accusation of bias they take mild action against other group also.

Is this known as 'balancing act'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.110.219.228 (talk) 03:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that phrase has a much broader usage. Taxing people enough to maintain vital infrastructure without taxing them so much they revolt would also be called a balancing act. Perhaps tokenism is closer to what you want. In the second example, you would say "the government only took token (or symbolic) actions" against the 2nd group. SinisterLefty (talk) 05:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

42.110.219.228 -- The second half of your question, under a slightly less cynical interpretation, could fall under "being seen to be firm yet fair". The whole Jena, Louisiana fiasco over 10 years ago gained broad publicity in part because the local white authorities seemed to have a mindset where they were almost completely incapable of understanding that they had any obligation whatsoever to appear to be firm yet fair with respect to local black people. AnonMoos (talk) 16:54, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jena Six. SinisterLefty (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who disappeared mysteriously

There are currently three list articles titled "List of people who disappeared mysteriously [variant]". They can be seen at Lists of people who disappeared. I personally feel that these titles are of low quality. The use of the word "mysteriously" in particular. I'm just having trouble with coming up with a more eloquent title myself, and the more I dabble the less decisive I get. I've tried incorporating something to the tune of "unexplained disappearances", e.g. "List of unexplained missing people" or "List of inexplicably disappeared people", but feel that none of my conjectures amount to anything that can be considered to be a significant improvement over the original. Anyone have any suggestions? Thank you. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 23:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Unsolved disapearances"? 2606:A000:1126:28D:100E:FCC1:7762:6B6 (talk) 03:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that works, as does "unexplained". I don't like "inexplicable", as that implies that it couldn't ever be explained, not just that we currently lack the explanation. SinisterLefty (talk) 03:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately "disappearance" without context doesn't necessarily refer to a person, so "List of unexplained disappearances" isn't sufficient, and neither "unsolved" nor "unexplained" forms an adverb that could just replace "mysteriously". We end up with something like "List of people whose whose disappearances are unexplained" or "List of unexplained disappearance of people", either of which is awfully long. Any further thoughts? --76.69.116.4 (talk) 07:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it's the most accurate description of the contents, then the length doesn't matter. - X201 (talk) 07:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The more obvious terms would need to redirect to it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

People who are missing without explanation are missing persons. So Persons missing at sea etc. People if you think that's too old-fashioned. Henry ^Flower 11:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed [1]. So "List of people who are missing" covers the original question; or, to be more economical, "List of missing people" (although I prefer "persons" as it prevents potential misinterpretation of "people"). Bazza (talk) 12:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How would "people" be misinterpreted? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:32, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"24 ethnic groups in Australia were wiped out by 1900. These peoples and their cultures are now missing from the face of the Earth. For example, the Guringay are a missing people, among others.". Not a great linguistic example, but I hope it helps understand how "missing people" can be something else than the plural of "missing person". --Lgriot (talk) 13:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(1) That would be missing peoples. (2) Would those 24 ethnic groups be added to the list? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:36, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Read what was written: "The Guringay are a missing people, among others." One people, [2] many persons. (2) If it's a list of missing persons, no; otherwise they could be, or not, as preferred or argued. Which is why I made my comment about preferring "persons" for clarity. Bazza (talk) 15:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Persons might be better. As to "a missing people", if they were truly "wiped out", then they're not "missing", they're extinct. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no ambiguity. If it were ethnic groups, the proper title would be "List of missing peoples", not "people". Clarityfiend (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble with "List of missing people" (and similar short forms) is that normally people are considered "missing" only if there's a chance that they're still alive. If someone went missing in a notable situation in, say, 1875 or earlier, they would not belong on that list, but if the title was "List of unexplained disappearances of people" (or similar) then they could be put on it. --76.69.116.4 (talk) 23:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't like the word "mysteriously", because many disappearances have a presumed cause (bad weather at sea, killed during war, etc.), just no proof. Those cases aren't exactly mysteries. For example, Amelia Earhardt was low on fuel, didn't know how to do radio-navigation, had the wrong equipment, and her navigator was a heavy drinker. Under those circumstances, it's not exactly a mystery that she missed the tiny island she was looking for, on a cloudy day. SinisterLefty (talk) 20:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Unexplained" sounds more encyclopedic. I'm reminded of this old epitaph: "Beneath this stone lies John Mound / Lost at sea and never found." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]