Hanyu Pinyin: US and ISO standard [?]

[Hartzell]

I have been somewhat vocal in advocating (in accordance with the announced preferences of the Administrator(s) on forumosa.com, and the Moderator of the Culture and History Forum) that Hanyu Pinyin should be promoted as the spelling standard for Mandarin Chinese in Taiwan.

Recently in an online discussion group, my stance was criticized. The author of that criticism, whom I will call “Walter” said that –

[color=olive]The problem I have with Hartzell’s [arguments] … (romanization is just one example) is that he freely misrepresents some facts, such as by claiming Hanyu pinyin is the US and ISO standard (there is no such a standard), and then uses the misrepresentation to argue that Taiwan has to go by PRC’s system …[/color]

Have I been promoting an incorrect agenda?

Comments and clarifications from the forumosa.com community would be appreciated.

[maoman]

[quote=“Hartzell”]I have been somewhat vocal in advocating (in accordance with the announced preferences of the Administrator(s) on forumosa.com, and the Moderator of the Culture and History Forum) that Hanyu Pinyin should be promoted as the spelling standard for Mandarin Chinese in Taiwan.

Recently in an online discussion group, my stance was criticized. The author of that criticism, whom I will call “Walter” said that –

[color=olive]The problem I have with Hartzell’s [arguments] … (romanization is just one example) is that he freely misrepresents some facts, such as by claiming Hanyu Pinyin is the US and ISO standard (there is no such a standard), and then uses the misrepresentation to argue that Taiwan has to go by PRC’s system …[/color]

Have I been promoting an incorrect agenda?

Comments and clarifications from the forumosa.com community would be appreciated.[/quote]
From Wikipedia:[quote]Hanyu Pinyin was adopted in 1979 by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) as the standard romanization for modern Chinese (ISO-7098:1991). It has also been accepted by the Government of Singapore, the Library of Congress, the American Library Association, and many other international institutions. It has also become a useful tool for entering Chinese language text into computers.[/quote]
From the International Organization for Standardization website:[quote]Explains the principles of romanization of Modern Chinese, the official language of the People’s Republic of China. Annex A (Table of syllabic forms) forms an integral part of this standard.[/quote]
From the Library of Congress website:

Beginning October 1 (2000), American libraries will join the international community in using Pinyin as the standard romanization scheme for Chinese characters. The Wade-Giles romanization system, followed in American libraries for the last century, will no longer be used. In Pinyin, for example, the former Chinese leader is called “Mao Zedong,” as opposed to “Mao Tse-tung” under Wade-Giles; “Qing dynasty” (Pinyin) will be used, rather than “Ch’ing.” Now, the Library of Congress and other U.S. libraries are synchronized with the romanization used by other U.S. government agencies, including the Board of Geographic Names – the body that governs the form of geographic names used in Library of Congress cataloging.

And saying that Taiwan “has to go by the PRC’s system” is a little like saying that using metric is forcing the world to use France’s system.

[Taffy]

In case your interlocutor has problems with the credibility of Wikipedia:

Hanyu Pinyin is the standard adopted by the ISO - catalogue number ISO 7098:1991. This standard was first adopted in 1982, then revised in 1991. It’s also the standard used by the US Library of Congress. The US government uses it for names of places and people within China. I would further assume that the US uses it as a broader standard, consistent with the LoC usage, but can find no evidence to confirm or refute this.

EDIT: I see Maoman was editing his post while I was writing mine. Sorry for the repetition!

[Chris]

Hanyu Pinyin was also adopted as the UN standard in 1977.

[Ga-ma]

[quote=“Hartzell”]Recently in an online discussion group, my stance was criticized. The author of that criticism, whom I will call “Walter” said that –

[color=olive]The problem I have with Hartzell’s [arguments] … (romanization is just one example) is that he freely misrepresents some facts, such as by claiming Hanyu Pinyin is the US and ISO standard (there is no such a standard), and then uses the misrepresentation to argue that Taiwan has to go by PRC’s system …[/color][/quote]

You should probably refer to the author of the criticism of you on this issue as “Jonathan” as “Walter” did not post that comment, rather Jonathan Lin did. However, “Walter” has a lot of other criticisms of you that he has also posted in that newsgroup, the TaiwanFocus Yahoo! newsgroup. Here is what Jonathan posted in TaiwanFocus message #11731:

“What romanization system to use is not the point! The problem I have with Hartzell’s “Preliminary Explanations and Guidelines on future development in Taiwan” (romanization is just one example) is that he freely misrepresents some facts, such as by claiming Hanyu pinyin is the US and ISO standard (there is no such a standard), and then use the misrepresentation to argue that Taiwan has to go by PRC’s system. This is exactly the same technique that pan-blue media has used lobbying for PRC.”

The document Jonathan is referring to can be found here: http://www.taiwanbasic.com/notes/rwh.htm

[quote=“Hartzell”]Have I been promoting an incorrect agenda?

Comments and clarifications from the forumosa.com community would be appreciated.[/quote]
People should first read the above document authored by Richard Hartzell in full before answering this question.

[maoman]

I find no fault with Richard’s analysis of the romanization situation. He’s not misrepresenting any facts there.