Talk:Jo-ch'iang

Is this specific apostrophe character important? Otherwise I would like to move this page to Jo-ch'iang. DTLHS (talk) 23:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello- Because we are not being taught Wade-Giles romanization and are even being taught to despise and actively denounce everything but the glorious revolutionary Hanyu Pinyin system, I have never gotten a formal or systematic education in the proper use of the apostrophes in Wade-Giles and can't give a good answer for you. My feeling is that yes, this current form is the correct form and that the other form is incorrect: the Wade-Giles system was intentionally using the left-curving apostrophe. Wiktionary's Wade-Giles in Template:zh-pron uses an unusual apostrophe (like this one). But because of the terrifying anti-history push in the Mandarin classroom (so-called "Chinese") even I don't have the knowledge to prove that this is the correct view or incorrect view of the apostrophe: our teachers are working day and night to revise the English-language world's perception of history. If they liked Wade-Giles, they would never be selected as our teachers. There are people who seem to know about this, like the people who made Template:zh-pron, but I don't know yet because I haven't cared enough to look into it. I would advise no change and that if you want to look into it, find out who made the Wade-Giles for Template:zh-pron. If you have to change it, I can't stop you but I don't think I agree with it. Thanks. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * For Wade-Giles, this is the correct apostrophe, but is this restriction necessary for English? Remember this is an English entry, not a Mandarin romanization entry. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 00:43, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The citation uses a curly apostrophe. Of course it's impossible to tell exactly what character was used in a printed work, but if it's correct for Wade-Giles it should be left at this title. DTLHS (talk) 00:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I strive to be a purist and perfectionist and I have the insane goal to do all forms of every romanization ever used in the context of the English language related to China. I currently am just in a kind of "wind-up" stage where I have to prove the existence of the most simple and obvious Wade-Giles-derived romanized forms of Mandarin in English language material. It's tough because we are propagandized to hate the pre-Hanyu Pinyin romanizations. But I don't really care about all that nonsense- we have been told to believe in a million nonsense things. All that matters is giving evidence and citations for claims made. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:43, 17 December 2019 (UTC)