Talk:Cantonese nationalism

This page was proposed for deletion by Yue (talk · contribs) on 1 November 2023.

Flags of the World

Note: This argument has been copy-pasted from the talk page of Bashu nationalism, and has been edited to make it relevant to this page. For that page, go here.

The Flags of the World website is not unreliable. The website got that flag from a twitter page of the Cantonia independence movement. In this case, we are only using FOTW to back up already referenced content, and this does not violate any Wikipedia policy, so the references should be retained. Please do not add ^{[citation needed]} where they are not needed. The article does not need references to prove what nationalism or independent movements are. Crab2814 (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter is not a WP:RS.

When there is no inline citation for a claim, {{citation needed}} should be added. CA148 (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flags of the world says that it cannot guarantee that flags on the website are 100% accurate. When it comes to FOTW, I would recommend that it is retained. Even if says that it does not want to be held accountable for any errors, it is an online encyclopedia of flags. Therefore, I think it should be retained as extra source for already verified claims.

When it comes to citations, I am all for them and I completely agree that when there is no inline citation for a claim, ^{[citation needed]} should be added. However, we do not need citations to prove what is common knowledge or to prove that A=C when there is already a citation saying A=B and B=C. Crab2814 (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, FOTW can be put in external links but not as a source. CA148 (talk) 11:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You and I disagree on the inclusion of Flags of the World as source on this article. Now, you must understand that the Wikipedia policy WP:RS only applies to Wikipedia, not the sources on used on Wikipedia, so don't insist on its removal. Crab2814 (talk) 04:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All reference links on the FOTW page come from Twitter. CA148 (talk) 11:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly: WP:RS is a Wikipedia policy. It does not apply to the sources that are cited on Wikipedia. If a Blogspot user writes a blog, and declares that his work is copyright-free, then if a news website copies the content of that blog and turns it in to a news article, if that news article was cited on Wikipedia, then we must decide whether or not the news website is a reliable source, and ignore the fact that the article was copy-pasted from a blog. That is because the content of the unreliable blog entry has been transformed into a possibly-reliable news article, a bit like how a bill is not a official law but it becomes one when it is passed. Whether FOTW gets its flags from Twitter, Facebook, Instagram or La La Land, that alone cannot make the website an unreliable source.
Secondly: The statement "The quality of images and news varies very much: the website contains not only well-known flags but also sketches and rumours, often seized on the spot from a TV report or a magazine. In any case we disclaim any responsibility about the veracity and accuracy of the contents of the website" means two things. Number one, it means that FOTW contains flags that are rumoured to exist and are only found on TV or magazines, which is what is meant by "but also sketches and rumours, often seized on the spot from a TV report or a magazine". Secondly, the responsibility disclaimer is due to the fact the website does not wish to be held accountable for any errors. In this case, FOTW is never used on its own, and the flags used on this article and others are cited with several other reliable sources which proves the flags are legitimate, so using FOTW's disclaimer against it has no basis.
Thirdly: Even though twitter is not a reliable source, twitter posts from a Cantonese nationalists can be used sources of information about Cantonese nationalism. See WP:TWITTER. Crab2814 (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The page only uses a reliable source for one of the flags that is not in this article. CA148 (talk) 17:47, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, CA148. I do not think that just because FOTW gets its flags from twitter that makes it unreliable. If the flags on that website come from twitter or somewhere else, that is not relevant. Take for example ResearchGate documents. ResearchGate documents are made by independent researchers, and contain original research. Original research is not suitable for Wikipedia, so why are ResearchGate documents cited on Wikipedia? Because no original research is only a Wikipedia policy. Perhaps a diagram will be easier to understand:

Original research ➔ Reliable source ➔ Wikipedia citation

Unreliable source ➔ Reliable source ➔ Wikipedia citation

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

= Not suitable for Wikipedia

= Suitable for Wikipedia

Now, if I were you I would either stop all of this over a single source or seek mediation for this dispute. That is unless you can give me a good, different reason as to why I am wrong or why FOTW is unreliable, as so far I do not agree that the source should not be cited. Crab2814 (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The disclaimer of FOTW says that it does not guarantee accuracy. CA148 (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I already explained to you what the what the meaning of the disclaimer is above. If you disagree with my explanation, and say that FOTW is unreliable, then that is your own opinion. Also, we know for a fact that FOTW is correct about flag of the Cantonia independence movement- it is backed up by several other sources. Everybody has their limits and I am afraid I have reached mine- I withdraw from this. Until a consensus is not reached on this talk page, please do not remove FOTW. Sometime later, somebody else will come here and they will reply, when they come, you are free to make a consensus with them. I advise you to read WP:LETITGO- an argument has a time limit and sometimes, if a consensus is not reached, it is best to leave it altogether. If there is anything else I can do for you, just tell me, but please, do not remove FOTW again- from any page- without reaching a consensus on the talk page. Thank you. Crab2814 (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The explanation is not about its reliability. CA148 (talk) 23:30, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The explanation was explaining what the disclaimer means. If you want more information, read my reply above yours. Crab2814 (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The explained meaning does not make it reliable. CA148 (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion (1 November 2023)

This article does not discuss what it claims to discuss, i.e. Cantonese nationalism, and neither do its sources. Firstly, Cantonese nationalism is not mentioned a single time in an article titled Cantonese nationalism. Guangdong independence is mentioned a few times, but all but one mention is from one author fantasising about what Guangdong independence might look like. The authors do not write about a wider Cantonese nationalist or Guangdong independence movement, just their ideas of what an independent Guangdong might look like.

The one mention of Guangdong independence that is not an author's hypothetical is a mention of the Guangdong Alliance, but the word "independence" is taken out of context. They declared Guangdong independent from the Qing dynasty as a part of the newly formed Republic of China; they did not declare an independent Guangdong state. None of the reliable sources given even use the terms "Cantonese nationalism" (广东民族主义) or "Guangdong independence" (广东独立运动).

This article is just a collection of factoids and hypotheticals, yet it claims that there is a wider movement or idea of Cantonese nationalism / Guangdong independence. Nothing in this article speaks to a wider movement; no organisations, no prominent individuals, no public advocacy, nothing. Just lone authors fantasising about hypothetical independence. This exact problem exists in the other language entries, such as the Chinese Wikipedia's. Yue🌙 03:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it can be kept, as many people who call themselves Cantonese nationalists use these as sources. In addition, there are some more sources in Chinese that discuss it, as seen in the Chinese version of this page. HarbourCard0 (talk) 03:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the problem is a poor translation of an older version of the article. This is absolutely a thing that is happening, and while the article itself is in need of an overhaul we shouldn't just outright delete it. There are moments like the 2010 Cantonese protests in Guangzhou and Hong Kong after cuts to Cantonese-language broadcasts or the Hong Kong independence protests for example that points to the legitimacy of this article.Mnidjm (talk) 02:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion discussions on the Chinese Wikipedia cite the exact same issues. There is a difference between an editor(s) citing secondary sources that discuss Cantonese nationalism and an editor(s) citing secondary sources that discuss Cantonese discontent in history and concluding unilaterally that it is an example of Cantonese nationalism. Yue🌙 02:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly sourced content

@FCAC2024: Please provide your rationale for your edits, including reinserting poorly sourced content, and don't revert without explaining. Nearly all of the sources I removed are websites like YouTube, Twitter, Instagram or other unreliable or primary sources, which cannot used for this article. The Account 2 (talk) 18:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]