Talk:Baizuo

Why is the actual definition constantly edited out?

Why is this part

"The word baizuo is, according to political scientist Zhang Chenchen, a Chinese word that ridicules Western "liberal elites". He further defined the word "baizuo" with the definition "People who only care about topics such as immigration, minorities, LGBT and the environment" and “have no sense of real problems in the real world”; they are hypocritical humanitarians who advocate for peace and equality only to “satisfy their own feeling of moral superiority”; they are “obsessed with political correctness” to the extent that they “tolerate backwards Islamic values for the sake of multiculturalism”; they believe in the welfare state that “benefits only the idle and the free riders”; they are the “ignorant and arrogant westerners” who “pity the rest of the world and think they are saviours”. The term has also been used to refer to perceived double standards of the Western media, such as the alleged bias on reporting about Islamist attacks in Xinjiang.[8] The use of the word "Baizuo" could be an insult on the Chinese Internet."

Constantly edited away? I've lived in China, this is the meaning of the word, that is the best explanation anyone who doesn't live there will get of the word. Some words are harder to define than others because you learn their meaning through hearing it used, this is one of those, and those words need more explanation for people who do not speak the language to understand. This is a perfect explanation of how the word is used.

I find it VERY ironic that sensitive people in the west removes the definition of the word that is used to describe sensitive people in the west. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.4.133.131 (talk) 12:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, the description looks accurate. Perhaps that is the reason. ——Nikolas Ojala (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

It's edited out because people use wikipedia as a way to promote their ideas and opinions and to further their own ideas they have to also remove anything that challenges those ideas or ridicule it. By making sure no one is exposed to "wrong-think" the chance people will approach the beliefs of extremists increases. It's a damn shame but wikipedia has for the last decade just become worse and worse as a source as it is heavily hijacked by political groups who use wikipedia as an influencing tool by editing articles and preventing anyone else from doing so.158.174.118.27 (talk) 14:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

First of all, I'd like to welcome you to Wikipedia; it's always frustrating when you're a new user and have concerns that you want addressed, and even though you're using an IP right now, I really hope you decide to stay. I've explained why I, at least so far, have been removing the definition in the Zhihu User Definition section below. To clarify, though it's not always reinserted with its original citation, the removed text above stems from a pretty egregious example of citation misuse. It strongly implies that it is a definition based on Zhang's analysis of the term's use; rather, in the cited piece Zhang is quoting user-generated responses from Zhihu. While the particular wording is also a potential issue - extensive but selective quoting is often a sign of original research - for me the bigger issue here is the user-generated part. Even with the Zhang aspect rewritten, the definition is a user-generated primary source, and because of that, I think it is unfit for inclusion, in accordance with WP:UGC and WP:PSTS. That said, for a neologism like this there might not be a better definition elsewhere, hence the dilemma. There may also have been copyright concerns raised, but for that you'd have to ask Diannaa. Lastly, before editing further I recommend you consult WP:GOODFAITH - your above comment strikes me as more polemical than what is generally accepted on WP. Darthkayak (talk) 07:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

bro, the current text sound even MORE LIKE ORIGINAL RESEARCH, at least this has citation, the current intro doesn't even have any... I argue that it should not be replace by a even more questionable and uncited paragraph that use "probably" to justify it lack of research. this is why wikipedia is no longer see as an unbiased source, it one standard for pro western view and another standard for the rest of the world... 101.127.8.197 (talk) 02:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Introductions generally do not need citations if they restate content presented in the body of the article that is cited. This policy is in our Manual of Style as MOS:LEADCITE. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I am so moved

By the enthusiasm of some random editors on this article. As if they see, finally, their comrades in another land far away. Am hardly serious though. There isn't really anything to modify or hide if you ask me. Those Chinese racists were rather blatant about their opinions since there is absolutely no social taboos about racism in China.(How do I know? I am from there myself.) Of course citations are needed and information needs to be reliable. However Wikipedia only provides you guys a page of information. The reality of this world lies 1 inch right of our Wikipedia.

)----損齋 (talk) 20:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Was wondering what was behind this borderline incoherent flamebait you posted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baizuo&diff=prev&oldid=788073401 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baizuo&diff=prev&oldid=790446467 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A192.157.122.211&type=revision&diff=790450301&oldid=754545672. Classy stuff. And pretty mind-boggling actually, if you think simply using the word a few times makes you a racist, fascist, white-supremacy sympathizer. Well, I guess one can only hope that you no longer believe someone has to be Chinese or a sinophile to make the edits listed...-_- Barely made one (talk) 22:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Dispute whether or not to mention the word being in Urban Dictionary

An user has been attempting to add information mentioning the word being on Urban Dictionary. At first they cited Urban Dictionary directly, which is discouraged by WP:USERGENERATED. After a couple of reverts, they cited a source mentioning the Urban Dictionary definition, but to me it appears to be a mere mention of the definition (from what I understand anyway, the source is German) and not actually covering on the UD definition. Requesting other user input on this. --TL22 (talk) 03:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Pinging @Karl.i.biased: --TL22 (talk) 03:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, let's get things straight here. First, I didn't add the info about urban dictionary. In fact, my only additions to the article were it's Categories and the section "See also". If you open the article's history (strange you didn't do that before accusing me of something) you'll see that the mention of urban dictionary was added by the article's original creator at the article's inception almost half a year ago.

Hence, your entire statement about me first adding one link, then another is erroneous. The link to the german newspaper was always in the article, and it was always used to source the SENTENCE that mentioned the urban dictionary, it's just that the link to the source appeared at the end of the entire sentence. I had to make a copy of that link and paste it immediately after the word urban dictionary. And that was only because someone threatened me with a block.

Third, I actually don't get your main argument. The newspaper mentions the article on this word appearing on urban dictionary, and so does wikipedia. What kind of windmills are you fighting with here? Karl.i.biased (talk) 03:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The newspaper you linked to only seems to briefly mention the word in order to understand what it means, and doesn't spend the entirety of the text covering the UD definition, now that I check. Also, the only reason Wikipedia mentions it being on UD is because you added it yourself. My main point before I saw the German newspaper thing is that user-generated sources should not be used in articles, as they're generally unreliable, however now it's that there's just not much significant coverage to warrant the mention. --TL22 (talk) 03:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

1) I am not linking to this newspaper. The statement about the urban dictionary was always sourced by this newspaper. It was this article's original creator who added the newspaper to the article.

2) I did not add the urban dictionary link to this article!! Did you even read my reply above yours?! Karl.i.biased (talk) 03:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I have struck the statement I did about that you had added the UD link, but keep in mind that you were readding the info by reverting Fred. Also, just because someone else added it a while ago does not exempt it from guidelines and policy. --TL22 (talk) 03:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I am not fairly certain you did not read either of my replies above. Please, read them first, then state your argument against the way the article is written right now; clearly and without trying to accuse me of things I did not do. Karl.i.biased (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the term being on Urban Dictionary is notable (my opinion: it's not) I don't believe we should be using Urban Dictionary as either the sole or a supplementary source for that. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

It's sourced by 3 secondary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karl.i.biased (talk • contribs) 23:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Do these sources get into great detail about the UD definition or otherwise cover it profusely, or only mention it in order to get a basic grasp of the word? Because if I have to be honest, it's like using an actual dictionary as the source, only user-generated, as I have stated previously. Either way, mind linking to the sources in question just to check? --TL22 (talk) 00:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

If it were to be determined that the term being on Urban Dictionary is notable enough to include in the article, we still should not use Urban Dictionary as a source. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

*1) Sites like Urban Dictionary, Youtube, etc can be used on Wikipedia **WHEN there are several other third-party legitimate sources sourcing the same statement**. I can't pinpoint you the exact rule on the Wikipedia rules page cause I am a noob, but I've seen similar sources used in that context by admins and such. More importantly, this makes sense because we alread source the same statement by sources that are okay, when we additionally link to the urban dictionary page itself we are just letting the people who want to double-check a quick link to that article. Nothing more. But even if it turns out I am wrong - by all means, remove the citation, not the whole article.

*2) I don't understand why you remove a significant part of the article, and then ask other people to discuss the removal on the talk page. This article was stable for 6 months. Does this mean this part shouldn't be removed? No. But it does mean that we should FIRST come to the conclusion on the talk page, and then remove these chunks of the article, not vice-versa.

*3) Apart from the citation to Urban dictionary itself, the big stumble blocks, as far as I understand, are:

*1) Using terms regressive left and white guilt in see also. In my opinion, they should remain there. The term itself is pretty similar to the term regressive left. In fact, if you type in Baizuo on chinese wikipedia you'd get redirected to the page for regressive left. As for white guilt - since the term white guilt represents far-left people of white race, I think it's pretty obvious to add this term to see also of a page about chinese term for the far left and that term literally means "white left" in chinese.

*2) Notability of Urban Dictionary. In this case, I'll leave it to the new editors to explain to me why it's mention should be removed. The burden of proof is on you. Karl.i.biased (talk) 08:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Karl.i.biased has been blocked for edit warring again. To be fair, I should've pulled back sooner, myself, so here's a response. Contested content supported only by unreliable sources should be removed when it's identified. WP:UGC sources, such as Urban Dictionary Etc. should only be used as a supplemental source, but we need a specific reason to cite that source. It's not that we never cite such sources, but we need to explain why it's being cited. What does being on Urban Dictionary tell a reader about this word, according to reliable sources? Passing mentions don't cut it.

A source which explains the connection between regressive left and baizuo would be helpful. English Wikipedia, Chinese Wikipedia, and Wikimedia (where language links are stored) all have their own guidelines and practices, and do not, automatically, pass these on to each other.

Far-left? Who is calling this a term for the far-left? That's telling... The sources refer to Obama and Clinton as baizuo, and if Obama and Clinton are being labeled far-left in an ostensibly communist country, we're going to need to back up and find some more sources, because something got lost in translation. We need to be cautious of "white guilt" in the see also, because it's not a neutral connection, nor is it as obvious as it's presented. We're not trying to paint a conceptual picture of what we think the word feels like, we're trying to summarize what reliable sources have to say about it. Grayfell (talk) 09:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@Karl.i.biased: The burden of proof is not on removal of content, it is on inclusion of content. You have simply not shown why this material should be included. Assertion is not proof. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Heat Street

Heat Street is not a reliable source. It may be used to state the opinions of those who write articles which appear on Heat Street where those opinions are notable, but it cannot be used for statements of fact. It's been discussed before on the reliable sources noticeboard here, but if you disagree and believe it's a useful RS then it would be best to start a new discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Heatstreet isn't, or wasn't, a reliable source, per many past discussions. It did not have the reputation for accuracy and fact checking. Further, it repeatedly failed to clearly differentiate between journalism, editorializing, and gossip, making any statements difficult to evaluate. Grayfell (talk) 08:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Opendemocracy.com quote

@Karl.i.biased: The Global Times article cited specifically attributes the line "only care about topics such as immigration, minorities, LGBT and the environment" to Chenchen Zhang. The paragraph containing the quotes, which are in quotation marks, concludes with ...reads Zhang's article published in opendemocracy.com on May 11. These are not Global Time's definitions, they are merely reporting on Zhang's definition. Attributing this line to the Global Times is totally inappropriate, as it misrepresents sources. Additionally, the line after that starting with "in short..." is unsourced, and appears to be editorializing. It is only superficially neutral, as it is not a faithful summary of the previous source. Grayfell (talk) 08:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

'According to [...] Guancha Syndicate'

Hey. I don't speak Chinese; could somebody figure out which journalist actually concluded that "the word is an example of "Chinese values" exported to Western countries" so we can attribute this to them instead of the site itself? PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The article should be deleted and redirected to “Regressive left”

There’s similar term means “Regressive left” on Chinese internet called “Baizuo”, See the related article on Chinese Wikipedia— Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonsun147258 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Disagree. These words and phrases have differing cultural, political, and ethnic origins. Although they may carry similar meaning, they clearly have contextual differences that set them apart and should be treated accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.78.105.25 (talk) 13:29, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Disagree. And I have changed this redirection, now Baizuo is linked to zh:白左.Fire and Ice (talk) 07:42, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Oppose. Regressive left is too academic, but Baizuo is just a slang, simliar to champagne socialist or social justice warrior. --Yejianfei (talk) 02:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Undue coverage of Zhang Chenchen's remarks

Hey, I don't think we need several quotes of Chenchen's remarks- I think this is undue. I've cut it down to a smaller direct quote. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I see you have removed this or similar text a number of times without consensus:

• 23:39, 2 March 2018
• 08:43, 4 March 2018
• 21:03, 12 June 2018
• 22:50, 15 June 2018

If your objection is excessive quotation paraphrasing would be acceptable, but the content itself provides the only meaningful description of the term. If including it would be undue then the article with this content included should be nominated for deletion. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Faulty reasoning. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. There is basically a block quote worth of material from Chenchen Zhang. Only the first quote actually meaningfully describes the word, while the other two are basically just his analysis of that definition (which are also not clearly shown to be his quote, which should be changed). Even the original definition needs to be made clear as a "claim" as opposed to a solid fact, similarly to how the first paragraph of Liberal elite is phrased. I'm a bit new to Wikipedia, so I don't want to edit this without larger or more experienced user agreement, but if a more experienced user could explain what criteria would be necessary here to reach consensus, that would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockyjs (talk • contribs) 08:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Zhang Chenchen's quote

It comes off as petty that Chenchen's quote is repeatedly removed for no real reason, and shows bias as implied by Ojala when he mentioned "Anyway, the description looks accurate. Perhaps that is the reason" [for its removal.]

Whether its removal was due to bias or not the quote should remain as it will better define the word and make the reason for its usage less vague and better explained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jezza2K01 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

It's WP:UNDUE. Welcome to Wikipedia. PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:56, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not undue. Stop deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:584:300:FDF0:16E:7318:FEB:C64 (talk) 21:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring

It appears there is somebody disagreement about some well sourced content. Perhaps an RFC is the next step? 23.114.214.45 (talk) 05:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome to start an RfC if you can figure out how. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Even better, you can give an actual reason to have reams and reams of direct opinion quotes from this one dude. But uhhhhhh that hasn't been forthcoming for months so I guess it won't start now. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:30, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

PeterTheFourth, "WP:DUE" is a two-edged sword and not a free pass to copyedit pages based on your personal political preferences. If you are going to edit culture war topics based on WP:DUE, you should make a very great effort to "write for the enemy" and apply it even-handedly, to the point where a review of your edits will make it impossible for the casual observer to infer your own allegiance. For every edit you make in order to enforce WP:DUE in favour of "your" side, you should feel obliged to make at least one WP:DUE edit in favour of the opposite side, or your edits will end up being part of the problem of systemic political bias on Wikipedia, not of the solution.

"WP:DUE" is also relative to the article topic, and a page on internet slang will obviously be based on online sources like blog articles by political scientists reporting on the content of Zhihu , Urban dictionary and the like. --dab (𒁳) 10:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

--dab (𒁳) 10:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Dang, you've got me. My personal political preferences bias me to edit down the amount we quote a specific chinese guy's opinion on what a phrase means. Clearly, this article is not complete without a complete recount of this dude's dream holiday, favourite sport (motocross), and favourite food (rutabaga). PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Sarcasm doesn't make the accusation any less correct. Stop deleting the quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:584:300:FDF0:16E:7318:FEB:C64 (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

"the culture wars in Western politics"

I've placed a {{Original research inline}} template on the following text:

It [Baizuo] refers to the left faction in the culture wars in Western politics

What is exactly is "the culture wars in Western politics"? (note there is no article on this subject). This phrase gives very little in the way of Google searches, and I strongly suspect it is a statement inserted by someone with an overactive imagination. Surely the gradual general trend towards partisan politics in a small handful of Western countries does not constitute an actual war?

This contentious wording sentence needs sourcing, re-wording, or removing. --Anxietycello (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

That's weird, when I searched for culture wars, every single result on the first page was relevant. Maybe you should stop dishonestly pretending that reality doesn't exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:584:300:FDF0:16E:7318:FEB:C64 (talk) 22:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

The reason why I add NPOV template

"A related term is shèngmǔ (圣母, 聖母, literally "holy mother", title for the mother of an emperor), a sarcastic reference to those whose political opinions are guided by emotions and a hypocritical show of selflessness and empathy, represented by celebrities such as J. K. Rowling and Emma Watson." This phrase has prejudge of certain person.

Zhihu User Definition

For awhile now this passage has been added and deleted from the page: 'In more than 400 answers submitted by Zhihu users during 2015 to May 2017, the term is defined as referring to those who are hypocritically "obsessed with political correctness" in order to "satisfy their own feelings of moral superiority" motivated from a "ignorant and arrogant" Western-centric worldview who "pity the rest of the world and think they are saviors".'

Though the passage isn't generally cited when people add it, it appears to be more or less pasted from the openDemocracy piece. I've been deleting it as in my view it seems to violate WP:UGS. The content isn't necessarily bad though, and I can see it being justifiable as source for how the term is used. What do people think? Darthkayak (talk) 23:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

"Leucoleftism" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Leucoleftism. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 3#Leucoleftism until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

"Western leftism" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Western leftism and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 1#Western leftism until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Mandarin pronunciation

The pinyin is right but the Mandarin pronunciation is wrong, recommend deleting it and leaving the Pinyin 2A02:3032:E:6918:77A6:7C61:C23E:9AA7 (talk) 08:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Baizuo/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 04:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Copy changes

Etymology

• An article from the Southern Metropolis Daily goes further, referring to the term as originating from a 2010 article, "The Fake Morality of the Western 'White Left' and the Chinese 'Patriotic Scientists'", made by Li Shuo, a Renren Network user, in which he satirized and blamed foreign left-wing youth who came to China to help the Chinese revolution before 1949 and held a sympathetic attitude toward the communist revolution. Split this sentence that is 70 words long.
• Zhang summarizes the commonality of more than 400 relevant responses on Zhihu, which accuses Western leftists and liberals of having no concept of the real world, of being hypocritical, of caring only about topics such as immigration, minorities, and LGBT, of lacking of sense of real problems in the real world, of tolerating the "regressive values" of Islam for the sake of multiculturalism, and of supporting the welfare state at the expense of tolerating lazy people.
  • A 76-word whopper of a sentence.
  • The bolded is one list entry containing commas. Thus, semicolons are called for between the other entries.
  • "LGBT" is not a topic; this should be worded. LGBT rights? The LGBT community?
  • Wikilink Zhihu
  • Does the commonality accuse or do the forum posts, plural, accuse?
• By analyzing, three meanings A bit of an awkward phrasing.

• New! The initial popularity of the term has been attributed by several surveys... This passage probably needs to attribute this theory also to Cheng specifically. We can only say things definitely, in wiki-voice, when that is a multiple-scholar consensus, not a statement likely to be challenged or highly dependent on one source. It is also a long sentence that could be split. Consider this for a number of passages in the article like For liberal intellectuals, the criticism of the white left and the praise of Trump also represent their non-nationalist sentiment and pro-market sentiment.

Usage

• a solid piece of evidence that Chinese netizens blamed on the "white left" ideology of Europe and compared it Drop the redundant "it"
• the Amnesty International's survey either the Amnesty International survey or Amnesty International's survey
• medias should be "media" or "media outlets"
• On June 22, the Guangdong Communist Youth League created a similar questionnaire asking netizens if they were willing to support the Chinese government's acceptance of Middle Eastern refugees and this time, only about 0.5 percent said they did. Comma needed after "refugees". See User:Sammi Brie/Commas in sentences (CinS)
• in the web maybe "on the web" or "online"
• Chinese netizens have adopted the narrative that intervention from the United States and the West instigated the Syrian civil war and caused the refugee crisis, and therefore accuse Western countries of hypocrisy on the refugee issue. Remove this comma ("netizens" is the subject both halves of the sentence) (CinS)
• And for Chinese liberals, or at least some of them, Trump's toughness and conservatism toward China have appealed to them, and they want to use similar conservative ideas to promote a liberal democratic system in China, while both liberals who support Trump and those who criticize him invoke cases like the Cultural Revolution or the Great Leap Forward as an overall critique of the left and believe that the American left will similarly lead to these happening in the United States–the former believe that the removal of Confederate memorials is an act similar to the destruction of the Four Olds, Black Lives Matter to the Red Guards, and MeToo to the big character poster or struggle session, which leads them to conclude that the "white left" is destroying the United States, while the latter compares Trump's populism to Maoism. This sentence is 139 words long.
• Chenchen Zhang assumes that this laissez-faire is a result of government tolerating and even encouraging discussions that portray the West as divisive and declining caused by democratic politics, and would like to see the netizens portray Western politicians as hypocritical and selfish when it comes to human rights. The comma needs to go (CinS), or the sentence should be outright split.

Spot checks

• 3: I can't read Chinese, so instead spotchecking
  • 2: In short, baizuo(白左) is idiot (baichi, 白痴), a naïve, simple, and narrow-minded liberalist. Y
• 4: The question has received more than 400 answers from Zhihu users, which include some of the most representative perceptions of the 'white left'. Although the emphasis varies, baizuo is used generally to describe those who “only care about topics such as immigration, minorities, LGBT and the environment” and “have no sense of real problems in the real world”; they are hypocritical humanitarians who advocate for peace and equality only to “satisfy their own feeling of moral superiority”; they are “obsessed with political correctness” to the extent that they “tolerate backwards Islamic values for the sake of multiculturalism”; they believe in the welfare state that “benefits only the idle and the free riders”; they are the “ignorant and arrogant westerners” who “pity the rest of the world and think they are saviours”. Y
• 7: The two terms resemble the American slang ‘libertard’ but are not as closely tied to the liberal-conservative political spectrum. They are more of a generalisation of the ‘classically Western’ image in Chinese public discourse. Y
• 13: On June 22, 2017, the Guangdong Communist Youth League conducted a similar online survey but phrased the question slightly differently: “The Middle East refugees continue to increase. Does the Chinese government have the responsibility to accept refugees?” Out of 10,000 votes cast, only 51 people, i.e., 0.5%, agreed to “accept the Middle East refugees because they are in need.” Y
• 21: This cites three separate items and is the citation for the 139-word sentence. It requires splitting up, probably three ways or more. The existence of three references here may hint at how to split it.
  • I note the Hendriks-Kim item is not in an academic journal and would recommend in-text attribution for its claims. I can't even find what it is used for in that sentence, such is its size. Lin and Gao are a little more identifiable.
  • Lin: While non-liberal intellectuals in China also fall prey to Trump-mania and Trumpism, they do not as much (re)shape public discourses in China as their liberal counterparts, who, upon absorbing raw Trumpian sentiments supplied by ordinary pro-CCP netizens, are able to theorize, systemize and legitimize those sentiments under the guise of liberal democratic values.; In particular, the longstanding appropriation of the left-political vocabulary by the CCP (which, after all, is a self-styled ‘leftist’ party), and the traumatic horrors and catastrophes of Maoist totalitarianism—the Anti-Rightists Campaign, the Great Leap Forward, the Three-Year Famine, and the Cultural Revolution—committed in the name of ‘revolutionary’ ideals, have continued to overwhelm liberal critics and mold their political perceptions, aversions and imaginations; Projecting their fear ofthe Cultural Revolution onto the imagined West, beaconist liberals have repeatedly analogized, say, removal of Confederate memorials to ‘posijiu [destroying the Four Olds]’, Black Lives Matter activists to ‘hongweibing [Red Guards]’, and the MeToo movement to ‘dazibao [Big-Character Posters]’ and ‘gongshen [show trials]’, and are highly receptive to the idea that the feminist, anti-racist, and anti-colonialist ‘baizuo [white lefties]’ are suffocating Western societies with meticulous and inhibitive norms of ‘political correctness’. Y I would adjust the citation to 88, 94–96.
  • Gao: Second, the horrors and disasters that liberal intellectuals suffered under the Maoist ultra-leftist totalitarian regime pushed them on a blind political pilgrimage to the West as an ideal political destination and catapulted them on a slippery slope from anti-ultra-leftist Maoism to opposition against all leftist progressive politics Y

Earwig mostly catches the Carlson quote box, but it does raise a suggestion. One or two of Zheng's comments probably should be quoted as his own words in long stretches, especially "sense of real problems in the real world".

Images

There are no images. I reiterate as an encouragement Z1720's peer review comment that images would make the page more attractive to readers, if reasonable.

@Sammi Brie: Thanks for checking:

Etymology

1. Done

2. It means "commonality of posts" being summarized.

3. Will give rephrase a try.

Usage

Mostly done, but chopping up the sentences needs some work. As you can see I don't really know that long sentences are a minus rather than a plus haha.

Spot checks

I think it's fine, but probably I'd need a bit of time to think about how best to pick the sentence being quoted?

ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 07:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@Tokisaki Kurumi I hadn't gotten to spot checks yet — I ran out of steam last night. I will ping you when those are done. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 15:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@Tokisaki Kurumi: Just completed spot checks on the content. You really really need to clean up that 139-word sentence. Other items come back clean. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie: Hi. I have finished splitting sentences and partially rewriting them. For the analysis issue, I will read the original book, and for the picture issue, I would like to know if you have any good suggestions? ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 09:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

@Tokisaki Kurumi The analysis issue can be simply solved by attributing things to the people that said them: "According to Cheng", "per research by X", etc. It's a matter of presentation more than anything. As for images, the mention of big-character posters was a new one on me. File:1967-04 1967年大字报.jpg could work with a caption such as "Critics of baizuo tend to link trends in Western society to historical events from Maoist China, such as big-character posters." Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

@Tokisaki Kurumi: New image additions are great. I'd suggest removing the Weibo quote box, as now you have more material on the right side; the Zhihu one is a bit more incendiary but also conveys the attitude a little better. (I also reduced the width of the quote boxes to be a bit more in line with the images.) Does that work? If so, I think I am ready to pass this. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I certainly don't have a problem with quote box deletion. Also, you mentioned earlier that I could put Chenchen Zhang's statement in a separate quote box as well as attribute the analysis, so I guess I could refine it a bit in that regard? Because I've been taking a lot of my energy these days on trying to figure out what images would be good to put in and cutting sentences. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 07:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Tokisaki Kurumi It's fine as is. I never said it should be put in a quote box, just that we mention in text who said it. I'm actually passing this page with that change approved. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clunky line.

The line below is confusing and reads like they are opposed to netizens' support of Trump -

The term originated in the 2010s, probably initially to mock American and Western communists who traveled to China to support the communist revolution and has since come into widespread use due to Chinese netizens' criticism of Western liberal to leftist ideologies and of European governments, particularly Angela Merkel and the German government, for their alleged over-tolerance to immigration issues, and to netizens' praise of Donald Trump's populist policies. 103.119.209.197 (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Sigh... When I was writing it, I wondered if it would be a problem to have a long sentence with a statement that is "not in the same direction" as the rest of the sentence, but considering that this isn't the Simple English Wikipedia I ended up thinking it would be OK. I'll just add another "due" for now (and due to netizens' praise of Donald Trump's populist policies). ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 09:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Significance

@JArthur1984: Hi. So in fact a large part of the use associated with the word baizuo is against Muslims and Islam (per sources), and in this case I do think the quote is of some importance. Of course, if you have any other comments, such as better and more important quotes, I am willing to hearing about it. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 16:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your point about the usage, as anyone would. This is largely covered in the subsection on immigration however. I only disagree on the weight of the unattributed quote in a text box. What makes this particular unattributed quotation encyclopedically significant? JArthur1984 (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@JArthur1984: I would assume that "encyclopedically meaningful" means that it would fit in with the content of the encyclopedia, in which case I would argue that the quote box more specifically reflects the general anti-Muslim sentiment mentioned in the text, and allows the reader to get a sense of people's sentiments in the most visceral form possible (which I think is one of the reasons Chenchen Zhang cites this quote in her paper, in addition to the fact that she only cites Trump as someone who is explicitly attribtued in her paper). As for the notablity issue, it's probably true that the phrase wasn't uttered by a celebrity, but the word baizuo inherently carries quite a bit of populist overtones. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 02:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Your assumption is correct. I am more cautious on this issue and view quoting particular posts as suspect even if they nicely illustrate a point. In my view, this is one of the major difference between a scholarly paper and an encyclopedia project.

With this being said, I do not mind if you wish to revert me on this instance. It is not one where I wish to remain in disagreement or seem to deadlock. JArthur1984 (talk) 02:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@JArthur1984: For my part, I'm more concerned about how you think the quote is inappropriate for this place. Therefore, if there is no third party opinion, I would not do that. :) ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 02:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Lede

@Jtchen26: Hello. I decide to bring the issue to the discussion page. In my previous GA review I asked how best to write the lede (see above), and was told that roughly the first sentence from each paragraph would be the most appropriate to synthesize. The Foreign Policy article, in my opinion, though quite good, is not as deep or as broad as Chenchen Zhang's ([1]) or Qinna Shen's ([2]), and in both of their articles, instead of focusing on the topic of naivety, they focus on right-wing populism and conservatism in China. Second, I personally feel that the context of naivety/progressive is well summarized in the etymology section below, and adding it to the first lede seems disproportionate and redundant. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 02:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Given the first important sentence of the first paragraph is "Although the word is most commonly used in its literal sense, it is sometimes used to mean idiotic (白痴) liberals," this seems to contradict with the Foreign Policy article. I propose rewriting the first sentence of the lede: "used to refer to white liberals/leftists and to their values, especially in relation to refugee issues and social problems, as well as to anyone perceived as naively moralistic in general", or something along those lines. I don't mind if you see "naively moralistic" as not the main concern of the sources presented - it's just a placeholder, anything would function in its place.

I feel this would better represent the first sentence of the first paragraph, clear up the seemingly contradictory statements in the lede and first paragraph, and state the same idea more efficiently. I don't see this as redundant if it can be incorporated into a rewrite of the very first line, as well as serving as a summary of the first sentence of the first paragraph. Jtchen26 (talk) 02:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jtchen26: Can you analyze where this contradiction exists? ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 02:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The claim made from the Foreign Policy article is that the word is less used literally and more to in general. The claim made from Wang (2019) is that the word is less used in general and more literally. I think rewriting the first sentence of the lede to include this definition (once decided) would remove this as well as clear up our other problem. Jtchen26 (talk) 04:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jtchen26: Can be good, but would you mind checking other sources cited first? ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 05:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll see if I can rewrite it more, busy right now, will get back to it later. I like the idea of rewriting the first sentence though, let me know if you think of something. Jtchen26 (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jtchen26: Yes. A new issue I've discovered - and probably the source of my confusion - is that the word baizuo is already non-literal when used to refer to liberals and leftists in the West; the word baizuo literally means "white leftist," and it's very clear that the word itself is already somewhat skewed when used to refer to leftists in the West (e.g., as has been mentioned in the latter part of this post, Barack Obama is clearly not white). As for morality or whatever, if it does need to be included, it may need to be further elaborated as opinionated, such as "the term is often used to describe behavior associated with what is considered naive", but in that case it should be included in the etymology section, not at the beginning, which should contain the most important content. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 06:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Just got back, I like the way it's written now. The definition is probably important enough to be put into the lede like this (and it represents the etymology section) and it makes sense the way you've rewritten it. Jtchen26 (talk) 01:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

November 2024

@JArthur1984: I don't see how words like 'relation to their alleged ineffectiveness with refugee crises and social problems' and 'their over-tolerance of open borders and by netizens who agree with Donald Trump's strong border' are guaranteed to be neutral at all, and how that version could still be better, can you explain anything about that? ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 12:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I tried to improve it from these after the edits that took them there. Or I thought I did -- that's not how I would have meant to write it. I have no objection to your language in the most recent edit. JArthur1984 (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@JArthur1984: Thank you for your reply! ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 18:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)