Talk:Great Translation Movement: Difference between revisions

By /

 

Line 122: Line 122:

::::At any rate, I’m going to use [[WP:3O]] now, no progress is being made in spite of the insurmountable amount of evidence I have presented. [[Special:Contributions/~2026-28706-2|~2026-28706-2]] ([[User talk:~2026-28706-2|talk]]) 07:05, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

::::At any rate, I’m going to use [[WP:3O]] now, no progress is being made in spite of the insurmountable amount of evidence I have presented. [[Special:Contributions/~2026-28706-2|~2026-28706-2]] ([[User talk:~2026-28706-2|talk]]) 07:05, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

:::::You probably should also review past discussion on this talk page in which a [[WP:3O]] already took place for a substantively similar issue. I would also recommend reviewing [[WP:DEADHORSE]]. – [[User:Amigao|Amigao]] ([[User talk:Amigao|talk]]) 07:33, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

:::::You probably should also review past discussion on this talk page in which a [[WP:3O]] already took place for a substantively similar issue. I would also recommend reviewing [[WP:DEADHORSE]]. – [[User:Amigao|Amigao]] ([[User talk:Amigao|talk]]) 07:33, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

::::::Past discussion, which took place more than six months ago, involving an entirely different people, is not relevant. The previous [[WP:3O]] mediator, @[[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]], requested additional reliable sources, which I provided in this section of the talk page. Previous discussions are not gospel, and can be challenged upon compelling reason. [[Special:Contributions/~2026-28706-2|~2026-28706-2]] ([[User talk:~2026-28706-2|talk]]) 07:35, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

::::::Past discussion, which took place more than six months ago, involving an entirely different people, is not relevant. The previous [[WP:3O]] mediator, @[[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]], requested additional reliable sources, which I provided in this section of the talk page. Previous discussions are not gospel, and can be challenged upon compelling reason. [[Special:Contributions/~2026-28706-2|~2026-28706-2]] ([[User talk:~2026-28706-2|talk]]) 07:35, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

::Seeing as [[Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase#Great Translation Movement|you’ve accused me of vandalism]] to another admin, @[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]], I don’t owe you any assumption of good faith if you aren’t willing to reciprocate the equivalent courtesy. [[Special:Contributions/~2026-28706-2|~2026-28706-2]] ([[User talk:~2026-28706-2|talk]]) 07:22, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

::Seeing as [[Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase#Great Translation Movement|you’ve accused me of vandalism]] to another admin, @[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]], I don’t owe you any assumption of good faith if you aren’t willing to reciprocate the equivalent courtesy. [[Special:Contributions/~2026-28706-2|~2026-28706-2]] ([[User talk:~2026-28706-2|talk]]) 07:22, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

1. The timeline of the movement is not well described, since a lot of information is based on tweets.

2. Reaction of the Public (China/Hongkong/Global/…) needs to be added.
JohnGalt1984 (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

3. Add Chinese netizen’s reactions to Shinzo Abe’s death, including how the businesses in China used it as a marketing tool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikiko609 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Translation Movement does not meet notability guidelines — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.213.82.20 (talk) 14:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only articles on this are puff pieces that do not go into the racism shown by this twitter account, and it is not solely criticised by state media. If those articles are deemed to meet notability guidelines then it should instead be corrected for neutrality. 195.213.82.20 (talk) 12:21, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Need sources AAAAA143222 (talk) 15:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why my sections which were properly referenced that mention the anti-Chinese and anti-Russian motives of the movement were removed?
129.97.125.1 (talk) 23:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that these two claims are asserted as fact by citing an opinion piece from The Paper. There are two issues with this: firstly, opinion pieces are not reliable sources for statements of fact (see WP:NEWSORG); secondly, even if the article was a news report, it The Paper would likely not be considered a reliable source, due to its ownership by the Shanghai United Media Group, which is a state media company. (See the listing for Sixth Tone at WP:RSP, which is owned by the same company.)
WP:ATT provides guidelines on how to properly attribute opinions. In this case, you could write in the “Chinese government and state media” section something like “An editorial posted on The Paper, a Chinese digital newspaper run by the state-owned Shanghai United Media Group called the movement X and Y”. Yeeno (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ufstrikeforce has removed several of my edits, which document the explicit anti-Chinese nature of this movement. Said user has claimed the edits constitute WP:SYNTH or WP:RS violations, but they clearly do not, as each piece of information added was directly sourced from the origin material or already cited content. Now, this user has called on me to demonstrate WP:ONUS (I would also like to call into question what gives my colleague the unilateral right to determine that their revision of the article constitutes the “status quo” of the page according to WP:ONUS when said user has made edits of their own, especially when their revisions were made days after the fact rather than in direct response to mine), and so:

  • Selective censorship of the less-than-picturesque elements of the movement is unfit for Wikipedia, see WP:SOAPBOX. Meanwhile, each of the cited examples demonstrating the anti-Chinese nature of the movement, such as the slurs that are used, are directly sourced either from the subreddit it is associated with or one of its derivative subreddits after its ban.
  • It is absolutely not WP:SYNTH to reach the conclusion that describing the Chinese people as “cruel, bloodthirsty, and completely lacking in sympathy”, which is cited directly from an interviewed representative of the movement in the article, is anti-Chinese racism, no matter whether its origin has a Chinese language background or not.
  • Not one of my sources is unreliable according to Wikipedia. Each source used existed in the page already, or was a directly sourced comment from the origin material. That does not constitute WP:OR either, as no leap of logic is needed to demonstrate the phenomena I am describing.

With these being the case, I sincerely ask my colleague to either give a more compelling reason for the removal of these added details, or to cease reverting these edits entirely.
2605:8D80:13E5:94BD:58C0:7C11:BF9B:CE5B (talk) 11:13, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSREDDIT makes it clear that Reddit, a source that you used at length, isn’t reliable.
Nowhere in the Radio Free Asia source does it describe the movement or the statement that a member of the movement gave for the article as anti-Chinese or anything of that sort. Even if it did, we would need more than one source to state as fact that one of themes in the works of the movement is “anti-Chinese sentiment” or anything like that. Your argument that what the interviewee said was racism despite the source not saying anything remotely close to that is a textbook case of WP:SYNTH. Ufstrikeforce (talk) 00:59, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, WP:RSREDDIT applies specifically to news or emerging events coverage. At no point is it stated or even suggested that original content from Reddit cannot be used to document itself. The page r/wallstreetbets cites Reddit itself for its user count. If this is not ignorant misinterpretation of the applicability of Wikipedia policies, it is blatant deception and bad-faith acting. I simultaneously believe it is equally relevant to being up the fact that the page r/The_Donald makes the statement “The subreddit had a lengthy documented history of hosting conspiracy theory content that was racist, misogynistic, and Islamophobic.”, though without any source given. Regardless, through the content of the page it is established that these sentences accurately describe this community. The very same applies here.
Secondly, are you going to argue that had the interviewee described Black people or Jewish people as “cruel, bloodthirsty, and completely lacking in sympathy”, that this would not be textbook anti-Black racism or antisemitism respectively? Are the tropes described in Antisemitic tropes, namely those describing Jews as disloyal, manipulative, or stingy not literally demonstrated as the most textbook examples of antisemitism? There is not a single leap of logic or so-called “WP:SYNTH” used to derive the conclusion that this interviewee made a statement that quite clearly called Chinese people these words in a way that can only really be described as racist. With all due respect, I am having immense difficulty discerning whether you are blind to this by choice. 2605:8D80:13E5:94BD:58C0:7C11:BF9B:CE5B (talk) 02:23, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
r/ChonglangTV isn’t a verified acount of GTM, but even if it was WP:ABOUTSELF says we can’t use it the way you have used it (e.g. claim that it is racist against Chinese people or that it perpetuates anti-Chinese sentiment) so your comparisons to r/wallstreetbets and r/The_Donald don’t hold. As to what I’m arguing, that isn’t relevant; I don’t have arguments, the sources we are citing do and if the sources (not source) do not describe GTM as anti-Chinese, then that should not be how the article describes the movement either. Ufstrikeforce (talk) 02:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? What you are arguing is relevant and there clearly is something being argued, and I am arguing (or more precisely articulating) that making a statement of people of a certain racial or ethnic group by describing them as “cruel, bloodthirsty, and completely lacking in sympathy” is racist. The third definition provided on Wiktionary for the word racism is “Prejudice or discrimination based upon race or ethnicity”. Merely because “the sources do not describe GTM as anti-Chinese” does not mean a non-WP:SYNTH conclusion of its content cannot be drawn based on first-party statements sourced directly from the subject that match the definition. Also, explain specifically what part of WP:ABOUTSELF my description violates, and the Wikipedia page itself describes this subreddit as “one of the subreddits organizing the movement”. 2605:8D80:13E3:F88C:5DFA:55CA:5653:ADBD (talk) 03:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That’s the argument you are making, not the one that the article made or one that you should be making. Your whole argument is that the movement is anti-Chinese because the things that one of its members said was anti-Chinese. Not only is none of that in the sources which you are using to make those assertions, it’s bad reasoning as you are reasoning by association and, in the context of this discussion, just one more piece of evidence of why your edits violate WP:SYNTH. Ufstrikeforce (talk) 08:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think I have encountered a higher concentration of bad faith arguments or deliberate misinterpretation of Wikipedia policies from one person in my entire history of Wikipedia. I have responded to every single accusation you made and you are now looping and using circular reasoning, as well as refusing to elaborate on any accusation (no explanation on WP:ABOUTSELF), and you now move the goalpost after denying the interviewee was anti-Chinese to saying that merely because the interviewee which was literally interviewed as a representative of the movement made an anti-Chinese comment it somehow does not implicate the entire movement. Your argument on “association” and how it violates WP:SYNTH is absurd for the aforementioned reasons. I also find it incredibly curious that each time you respond you find a different Wikipedia policy I have allegedly violated. I will be seeking a third opinion. 2605:8D80:13E1:68BF:24A9:C731:A5BE:79DF (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ufstrikeforce, if I do not hear a justification for the removal of the sources left unaddressed during my interaction with User:EducatedRedneck, I will proceed with restoring these and making the changes in accordance to what User:EducatedRedneck prescribed. 2605:8D80:13E7:CA75:F005:7A2D:7067:8AA5 (talk) 03:18, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Response to third opinion request:
I believe that this edit was justifiably reverted. WP:ONUS is not about status quo, it’s about inclusion. The listed edit seeks to add material. The material is disputed. Thus, the WP:BURDEN falls on the one attempting to add the material, in this case the IP editor. <pb>I cannot find a discussion of sources, with translated quotes, and so cannot comment on WP:SYNTH. If multiple WP:RS describe the movement as anti-Chinese, then supplying a quote here would let everyone accept it and see it published. If there aren’t RS which describe it thus in their own words, then it would indeed be SYNTH. We cannot conclude something not explicitly stated by the sources. Regardless, it is up to whoever wants to add the material to generate consensus for it.

As an analogy, President Trump ostensibly represents the American people, but has made remarks that RS have characterized as racist and sexist. Stating that he made racist and sexist statements passes WP:V. Saying the American people are racist and sexist clearly does not. Heck, unless there are MANY RS that describe Trump as racist and sexist, him making racist and sexist remarks isn’t enough to describe him as a person thus, much less the group he represents. This is why WP:SYNTH is a policy; we need a source to say something explicitly, we can’t make what we view as logical inferences.

Finally, IP, for one very concerned about adhering to Wikipedia policies, I worry that you may be coming off as more abrasive than you intend. Comments that characterize a colleague as presenting bad faith arguments or deliberate misinterpretation of Wikipedia policies or engaging in Selective censorship can easily be read as WP:ASPERSIONS. I don’t think this is your intent. I’m telling you this so you can ensure you communicate what you intend to, so you can avoid unpleasant miscommunications. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it is WP:SYNTH to conclude that calling an entire ethnic group “cruel, bloodthirsty, and completely lacking in sympathy”, though it may not have been stated in a source, is racist. For instance, if I had described a group of people with those words on Wikipedia either in a talk page or in an edit, I think it is very likely I would be banned for racism against said ethnic group. Now, the analogy with Donald Trump I do not feel accurately compares to this, as when Donald Trump makes such a statement that is construed as racist or sexist, he does not say so with the intent or claim to represent the opinions of all Americans. This interviewee, however, was interviewed on behalf of this movement and their words were given as a representation of the goals of the movement. After all, those words were said in response to a question about what the goals of the movement were: in their words, that “people in more countries realize that the people of China are not ‘warm, hospitable, and gentle’ as the CCP’s foreign propaganda declares, but instead are a collective that is proud, arrogant, vigorously in love with populism, cruel, bloodthirsty, and completely lacking in sympathy.” So unless Donald Trump made a racist or sexist comment in an interview in which he was poised as representing the interests of the United States and all of the American people, and said that such comments were representative of American people, it is not a completely fair analogy. Also, User:Ufstrikeforce removed my edits that demonstrate instances of the subreddit in the page described as “one of the subreddits organizing the movement”, even though I included citations sourced from the original source material of instances of racism in said subreddit, and that was never addressed by my colleague. 2605:8D80:13E1:68BF:24A9:C731:A5BE:79DF (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[Trump] does not say so with the intent or claim to represent the opinions of all Americans. Oof! Unfortunately, I disagree there, especially when he’s dealing with foreign powers, but I digress. Yes, a statement such as you described could be described that way, but we can’t do so. That’s what we need WP:RS for. Even if we could do that and not breach WP:OR, then there’s a big difference between “This person, a representative of X, said Y, which is Z” and “Y is Z”. Spokespeople say wrong things all the time.
Put another way. If the movement is anti-Chinese as you described, there must be a WP:RS out there which says so. Why not find and cite it? EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will look for additional sources on the nature of whether the movement can be accurately called anti-Chinese (which unfortunately most sources that do call the movement racist, such as Global Times, are rejected on WP:RS), but it still does not address the fact that I added citations directly sourced from one of its primary subreddits which made very racist statements and these were removed from a paragraph that merely said that such statements were common in that subreddit. I also think it is worth noting that the page itself also mentions that CNN describes that the posts are chosen for shock value. This does not necessarily imply anything directly but I do think it ought to be taken into account. Even if the accusations of racism cannot be added to the page, it still does not explain why my edits showing the nature of posts found on the subreddit, should be removed. 2605:8D80:13E1:68BF:24A9:C731:A5BE:79DF (talk) 18:10, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with EducatedRedneck. Such a claim requires WP:RS to back it up. – Amigao (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And every single objection to my edits stems from my labelling of the movement as racist against Chinese people, even though my subsequent edit only mentioned the accusation of racism from Global Times? Still no concrete refutation of my remaining edits it seems? Curious. 2605:8D80:13E1:D00B:503:BB4C:A895:BB4F (talk) 04:57, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The objections are laid out above. In short, they are that: Using reddit is WP:OR, using a statement by one individual to label the whole movement is WP:SYNTH, and Global Times is not a reliable source per WP:GLOBALTIMES. Note that nobody has to refute your edit; YOU have to convince others to accept the proposed new material, per WP:ONUS. As it stands, every other editor who has weighed in does not seem convinced. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:24, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first editor User:Ufstrikeforce is not even responding to the discussion anymore, so unless we hear back then that discussion is forfeited. Also, I have explained how citing a literal example on Reddit is not WP:OR, as previous examples have done exactly that. Also, I did not use Global Times as a definitive source, I only cited it as an example of the response by Chinese media. Furthermore, I changed my edits to not label the entire movement based on that one comment by the interviewee, but restored the verbatim remarks they made in the sources that were removed. Also, the only other editors are you, and another editor who has engaged in several politically motivated edits, who is even alleged to be a member of a political think tank, which as per Wikipedia policy I will not debate here as they are not relevant to the ongoing discussion, but I do find it strange that they are chiming in to voice support for an editor who happens to have an aligning political position. 2605:8D80:13E1:D00B:503:BB4C:A895:BB4F (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Once more, per WP:ONUS, no, that discussion is not forfeit. I have explained how compiling accounts from the internet and drawing a conclusion is WP:OR. You did heavily imply the movement is anti-Chinese, by adding the various see-alsos. Your use of a quote may skirt around GT being unreliable, but it then strayed into WP:UNDUE territory. If it’s not reliable, why do we care what it says? Regarding other editor’s motivations, if you have reason to suspect something, take your evidence to WP:COIN or WP:ANI. Continuing to harp on it here is casting WP:ASPERSIONS, and is forbidden. Finally, please see WP:1AM. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not cite Global Times as a definitive source which is what would violate WP:GLOBALTIMES. I cited it as a direct quote of what the media group has said in response to the movement, and specifically labelled it as a response from Chinese media. Also, the see-alsos are included because the movement contains parallels to other groups (included in see-also) that have connotations with online racism, such as NAFO (group), which has been accused of anti-Russian racism (in its own page, in the reception section). Even all things considered the mentions of the response from Chinese media ought to be included, as well as the quotes from the interviewee which were directly found in the source which were expunged for some reason. 2605:8D80:13E2:7C8B:A0C9:ADA1:298:BCEF (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Amigao is selectively reporting the unsavoury pieces of the movement, while making blatantly untrue claims:

  • Nowhere in any citation, does the movement target “the People’s Republic of China” specifically. Meanwhile, it has been on record repeatedly in WP:RS sources (such as interviews) first-handedly talking about “China”, the “Chinese people”, and their “banal evils”. These are reported explicitly in all sources, and this user is trying to make unverified claims that these are “only targeted towards the Communist Party or the PRC government”, which is WP:SYNTH. Furthermore, as per RFA (apparently a reliable source), the movement has also targeted posts from Taiwan, which is outside the jurisdiction of PRC internet control, so as per WP:RS this is simply untrue.
  • As per WP:COPYWITHIN, there is a clear description of r/ChonglangTV as an anti-Chinese community on the Controversial Reddit communities page. I suggest to User:Amigao that if they disagree with this, they are free to contest that claim at that page.
  • There is a clear WP:RS for its anti-nationalist and anti-Chinese theme, which is the first citation of the article (which I have already explained in a previous edit description).
  • The inclusion of Anti-Germans (political current) and anti-Japaneseism and White guilt are justified per WP:SEEALSO, which allows for related phenomenon to be included.

If you want to present positive or virtuous aspects of this movement by using verified sources and not WP:SOAPBOXing, you are free to do that. But every change I have made falls clearly within acceptable Wikipedia editing policy and do not justify removal. Furthermore, the WP:ONUS is on you to demonstrate that my edits contradict Wikipedia policy, as I have demonstrated repeatedly with citations of policy that my edits are legitimate.
~2026-28124-4 (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to start by reviewing WP:AGF. Also, WP:COPYWITHIN does not override WP:RS. A factual claim in an article still requires WP:RS to back it up. – Amigao (talk) 05:30, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF does not exempt you from your refusal to acknowledge my responses. Per WP:DISRUPTSIGNS:
  • Fails to recognize, rejects, or ignores community input: you ignored all of my reasons for including the WP:SEEALSO pages, which very clearly allows for usage to organize internal links to related or comparable articles, which is evident. You are further refusing to acknowledge that the WP:ONUS is on YOU to demonstrate that the movement is “anti-PRC” rather than anti-China as a whole. Sources have repeatedly recorded speech that targets:
    • people in more countries realize that the people of China are not ‘warm, hospitable, and gentle’ as the CCP’s foreign propaganda declares, but instead are a collective that is proud, arrogant, vigorously in love with populism, cruel, bloodthirsty, and completely lacking in sympathy. very explicitly says the people of China, not “members of the Communist Party” or even “[politically involved] citizens of the People’s Republic of China”.
    • banal evil of the Chinese people does not say “banal evil of the members of the Communist Party”, it very clearly says “Chinese people”.
I’m very clearly going to say that your continued insistence that this is “anti-PRC” constitutes WP:SYNTH as no article makes any claim that these statements target “the PRC”. Furthermore, the movement has not restricted its scope to “only the PRC”, as I have added a citation demonstrating its relation to Taiwanese politicians.
Furthermore, there is nothing in either WP:COPYWITHIN or WP:RS that prohibits me from cross-referencing, but here are two sources that are NOT prohibited that clearly examine the anti-Chinese nature:
~2026-28706-2 (talk) 06:05, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing citations. Both clearly speak of “anti-China” and anti-CCP sentiment for the banned Reddit community in question. However, you can please point out any text that speaks of “anti-Chinese” sentiment per se? – Amigao (talk) 06:15, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I will remind you that WP:COMPETENCE is required in reading sources, but for the sake of completeness:
  • Also holding the criticism of the ignorant attributes ingrained in Chinese culture(they called ‘支性, ‘Shina-ness, an offensive word for Chinese)
    • Per wiktionary:支那: (originally neutral, now derogatory and offensive) China, with derived terms wiktionary:支那人: (now usually derogatory, offensive, ethnic slur) Chinaman (Chinese person)
  • In May 2022, Reddit banned r/cltv, a subreddit known for its strong anti-China sentiments and hateful speech, for doxxing other users. R/cltv (a variation of r/chonglangtv) originated from Chinese discussion forum Kanagawa Chonglang Hub, a controversial community on Baidu Tieba for its rampant use of racial slurs and extreme anti-China views.
    • Racial slurs and hateful speech very clearly refer to a group of people, and not any political group or country as an institution.
You are now clearly removing sources that are adequate, and I have reason to accuse you of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.
~2026-28706-2 (talk) 06:21, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The Rest of World article speaks of “…Baidu Tieba for its rampant use of racial slurs and extreme anti-China views” in particular. To be precise, it does not describe the Reddit community with those words. The Leiden University Centre for Digital Humanities does not even use the word “racial” or “race” once. – Amigao (talk) 06:29, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I’m sorry, are you really claiming that racial slurs and hateful speech do not constitute racism? Are you claiming r/CLTV and r/ChonglangTV have no relation whatsoever? This seems to be a clear case of lack of WP:COMPETENCE, with your apparent lack of ability to read sources coupled with apparent inability to recognise that racial slurs constitute racism. ~2026-28706-2 (talk) 06:35, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Neither source cited above explicitly states that the GTM is “anti-Chinese.” Without a WP:RS that explicitly states this, it’s just WP:SYNTH and has to be removed. – Amigao (talk) 06:42, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Rich of you to accuse others of WP:SYNTH when it is very precisely what you are doing trying to bend words as much as possible to cast plausible deniability that it is “anti-PRC” rather than anti-China. I am also reminding you that this source is towards demonstrating that r/ChonglangTV is indeed an anti-Chinese community. Once again, WP:COMPETENCE is required, and you are evidently lacking in it or are expecting benefit of doubt that frankly you’ve exhausted from me. ~2026-28706-2 (talk) 06:46, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You still have not produced a WP:RS that explicitly states “anti-Chinese” rather than “anti-China.” – Amigao (talk) 06:52, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have, and you are rejecting sources on the basis that it does not provide an exact series of words, WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.
This article, https://madeinchinajournal.com/2025/03/10/protesting-the-party-state-through-self-racialisation/, which shows no political inclination or any other reason to discredit it as a WP:RS, written by one of the authors of the academic paper Curating activist journalism to defy China’s “mainstream” narrative on X (Twitter), has the line However, while acknowledging the capacity of the initiative to counter China’s nationalist politics, we should not overlook its coordinators’ manifest internalisation of anti-Chinese racism, which exacerbates Sinophobia on international digital platforms., as well as In another instance, in commenting on the recent influx of American influencers on the Chinese social media platform Xiaohongshu (小红书, known as RedNote or, more precisely, Little Red Book), following the US Government’s attempted TikTok ban in January 2025, the GTM account even posted a tweet mockingly reminding its followers of the dog-eating tradition in certain regions (The Great Translation Movement 2025). Resorting to a highly visible racist trope that permeates global digital platforms, the tweet blatantly sought to demonise the Chinese people as a collective incompatible with modern lifestyles and ethics. ~2026-28706-2 (talk) 07:03, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is fine to quote a particular academic’s nuanced opinions with proper WP:INTEXT attribution. That said, it cannot be stated in WP:WIKIVOICE. – Amigao (talk) 07:12, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an opinion piece and the author refers to himself only to mention that he had written a journal article, and that this article does not reflect a personal opinion. WP:WIKIVOICE applies as this is not an opinion piece. These are asserted as facts and not personal opinion, by a reliable source (does not indicate political affiliation, and has academic credentials). ~2026-28706-2 (talk) 07:17, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Altman Yuzhu Peng makes a good point in the piece about the potential for conflating a regime and the people. That said, it would still require proper WP:INTEXT attribution. – Amigao (talk) 07:26, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Another convenient omission of the author’s sentence its coordinators’ manifest internalisation of anti-Chinese racism, I see. This is not a claim of “potential conflation”, it is a factual assertion that such a thing has taken place and is actively being encouraged by the movement organisers, by an academically credited individual who has written a non-opinion piece in a journal that cannot reasonably be discredited as non-WP:RS. I shouldn’t need to spell this out for you. ~2026-28706-2 (talk) 07:33, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I am still waiting on you to respond to my remaining arguments, and will remind you that WP:ONUS not being on me here (as I have already cited reasons for WP:SEEALSO, and have shown that no part of the citation claims “anti-China” (with China referring to the country and political institutions). The RFI source uses the word wiktionary:反華, the definition is to be anti-China; anti-Chinese; to be Sinophobic – I remind you that the Wikipedia page for Sinophobia states in lede prejudice, hatred, hostility, and discrimination that is directed towards Chinese people or Chinese culture.
I am prepared to use WP:3O for dispute resolution. ~2026-28706-2 (talk) 06:31, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ONUS very much applies here. If you want to add content saying that the GTM is “anti-Chinese” (and not simply “anti-China”) then you need to produce a WP:RS (preferably, WP:GREL or academic WP:BESTSOURCES) to back it up. – Amigao (talk) 06:36, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
RFI is WP:RS and used the word wiktionary:反華, “通过片面截取翻译中文社交媒体上一些相对激烈的言论，向外国受众传递带有明显反华倾向的诱导性和标签化信息”. The definition of that word is very clearly written. You aren’t entitled to anyone’s benefit of doubt. ~2026-28706-2 (talk) 06:40, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The Radio France Internationale article in question here quotes the Global Times speaking of “smearing China” and “anti-China bias.” – Amigao (talk) 06:49, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, continue to fail to bring new arguments that haven’t been addressed already. Relying on Google Translate is not sufficient and wiktionary:反华 does not have the sole definition of “opposing China or its interests as a country”. ~2026-28706-2 (talk) 06:53, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A quote from an editorial in a WP:DEPREC like WP:GLOBALTIMES is not sufficient to categorize an article in particular way in WP:WIKIVOICE. – Amigao (talk) 06:58, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That’s not what I was talking about. I did not use the Global Times to reach any conclusion in the article. I’m specifically referring to your decision to replace “anti-Chinese sentiment” from the words the Global Times themselves used to “anti-China sentiment” to imply that it is only some vague opposition to the PRC government. ~2026-28706-2 (talk) 07:04, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
At any rate, I’m going to use WP:3O now, no progress is being made in spite of the insurmountable amount of evidence I have presented. ~2026-28706-2 (talk) 07:05, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You probably should also review past discussion on this talk page in which a WP:3O already took place for a substantively similar issue. I would also recommend reviewing WP:DEADHORSE. – Amigao (talk) 07:33, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Past discussion, which took place more than six months ago, involving an entirely different people, using entirely different arguments, is not relevant. The previous WP:3O mediator, @EducatedRedneck, requested additional reliable sources, which I provided in this section of the talk page. Previous discussions are not gospel, and can be challenged upon compelling reason. ~2026-28706-2 (talk) 07:35, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as you’ve accused me of vandalism to another admin, @Ad Orientem, I don’t owe you any assumption of good faith if you aren’t willing to reciprocate the equivalent courtesy. ~2026-28706-2 (talk) 07:22, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Exit mobile version