Talk:50 Cent Party/Archive 1

Archive 1

Name

Surely Wu Mao Dang is a better name:

1) '50 cent' is a colloquial and inaccurate translation, cent is 'fen' not 'mao'.

2) The translation is US-centric, as other English-speaking countries do not use cents.

3) Potential confusion with the rapper. FOARP (talk) 10:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Support. Some may confuse this with a political party created by 50 Cent (rapper) (hehe, a party so badass it gon' put a cap in yo' ass :P lol), and such a name is not official in any way. "Wu Mao Dang" is the generally recognised term. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose to renaming. This is good and telling name per sources.Biophys (talk) 01:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. 50 cent party gets more hits.
• Support. It's not a real party, but a concept for a bunch of mercenary trolls, and thus the name loses somewhat its meaning in translation. As with many terms that defy translation, it ought to be renamed "Wumao". The term already has broad usage in the west. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 11:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. 5 mao equals 50 fen, so "50-cent party" is an accurate translation. Maybe "five-dime party" and "five-decacent party" are literally more accurate translations, but they are uncommon in English. "50-cent party" is definitely the most common name in English, such as [1], [2], [3], and [4]. "Dollar" and "cent" are not US centric. On the contrary, most of the countries use the "dollar" and "cent" as there currency units, such as the Canadian dollar, the Australian dollar, the New Zealand dollar, and even the Hong Kong dollar and the New Taiwan dollar. Even the countries that do not use dollar can still use cent, such as euro cent (1 euro = 100 euro cents). --Yejianfei (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. 五毛 is how they are colloquially and most commonly referred to in the PRC, HK, and "wumao" in Western countries. There is no reason to rename to "Wu Mao Dang" which would only make it harder for people using the most popular search term to find the actual article they are looking for. Wufnu (talk) 05:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Is it relevant to Russian "Web brigades"?

I am placing here older version of Web brigades to discuss their relevance to Chinese brigades. I believe they are basically the same. Please use some references about Chinese teams.

Non-WP:TALK content removed by User:Benlisquare.

Biophys (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Try not to copypaste entire articles onto the talk namespace. It is not what they are for. Create a subpage under your own userpage, or use your own sandbox, for example, User:Biophys/50 Cent Party or User:Biophys/Sandbox. I am giving you ten (10) days to copy the above text, before I will delete it, as per Wikipedia policy, refer to WP:TALK and WP:NOT. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Again, as per WP:TALK and WP:NOT, I have the entitlement to delete your addition to the talk page, as talk pages are not used for content repositories, they are for discussing articles. I am providing you with nine (9) days to copypaste your text somewhere else, if you wish to do so, so that you do not lose any data you wish to keep. It also appears that you have a misinterpretation of the WP:CIV policy, which only applies to talk comments which fit into the category of actual legitimate talk, as defined in WP:TALK; creating a repository does not come under WP:CIV in this case, but rather WP:NOT, or even "If a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia, then WP:IAR", which completely negates WP:CIV in this case, as 18,000 bytes on a talk page which is clearly not talk is disruptive to general processes on Wikipedia, and so such action by me is unquestionably non-controversial. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Removing text, do not re-apply as per above. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Surely Wu Mao Dang is a better name:

1) '50 cent' is a colloquial and inaccurate translation, cent is 'fen' not 'mao'.

2) The translation is US-centric, as other English-speaking countries do not use cents.

3) Potential confusion with the rapper. FOARP (talk) 10:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Support. Some may confuse this with a political party created by 50 Cent (rapper) (hehe, a party so badass it gon' put a cap in yo' ass :P lol), and such a name is not official in any way. "Wu Mao Dang" is the generally recognised term. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose to renaming. This is good and telling name per sources.Biophys (talk) 01:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. 50 cent party gets more hits.
• Oppose. 5 mao equals 50 fen, so "50-cent party" is an accurate translation. Maybe "five-dime party" and "five-decacent party" are more accurate translations, but they are uncommon in English. "50 cent party" is definitely the most common name in English, such as [5], [6], [7], and [8]. --Yejianfei (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

OR / lack of references

Shaddack, please check the guidelines on verifiability and on citing sources - there is a system for formatting citations, which is much easier for the reader to follow than just in-line web links. Be sure to back up contentious claims with references, and where the claims themselves are made by somebody without their providing direct, irrefutable evidence, be clear about that.

Also be careful about adding your own speculation (so-called "original research"), and about using emotive language. (e.g. "blatantly" is a word with little semantic content but a lot of emotive value, and one which does not really belong in an encyclopaedia).

That said, welcome and thanks for the contributions. -Kieran (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The sentence in question was paraphrased from the Tibetian Review article listed below. Agree it should've been referenced as such. Sentence redone as a direct quote. Also sourced the other tagged claim, from the same newspaper article. Should look at the citation later, did not read that chapter of the manual yet. Help, perhaps, please? --Shaddack (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I don't have much time to work on this right now, but I've formatted the first reference to give you a template to work from. The <ref></ref> tags generate the footnote/back reference (in conjunction with the <references/> tag which generates the references list). If you want to cite a reference multiple times, give it a name (like I've done), and just call it again using an empty ref tag with the same name attribute (e.g: <ref name="elgan"/>. The {{cite}} template provides standardised formatting for the reference entries, as well as guidelines as to what fields to include. There's a whole family of citation templates for different types of sources, though I suspect you'll primarily be using the news template I put in. Good luck. -Kieran (talk) 10:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Tried to work on it a bit. Did some references. The 10,000s...300,000 figures are difficult to properly reference as they are repeated many many times, estimated wildly, and strewn across the sources. Perhaps do it a little later, me or somebody else...? Does it look acceptable as it is now? --Shaddack (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not "50 cents"?

Is it referenced with this name? I think it is "Chinglish". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.92.197 (talk) 00:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the cent in this case is used as an adjective for party, and the 50 is an adjective for cent. Cent is used as a collective adjective (not sure if that's the correct term), so it doesn't need to be plural. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

yes, you are correct, that is very typical chinglish. it should be "fifty cents party". the more proper way should be "party of fifty cents". --Bgggongfei (talk) 04:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• You're all wrong. It's either "50 Cent Party" or "50 Cents' Party". In English, attributives must be singular, and if you want to use the possessive case you must add an apostrophe. Regardless, the former is the term preferred by the relevant sources. Tooironic (talk) 13:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Bgggongfei: You are wrong. It should be "50-cent party". For example, The boy is five years old, but he is a five-year-old boy, not a five-years-old boy. --Yejianfei (talk) 03:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@Bgggongfei: To further clarfiy, even "50-cent party" is incorrect. It would be most accurately described as "five tenths of an RMB"。 The "Mao" or 角 is equal to 0.10 RMB therefore to translate the measurement word it would be five tenths of an RMB.Wufnu (talk) 05:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Range and Effects

I've separated and added a section in the article. As a Chinese living aboard, I've find the opinions have been heavily slanted against anyone even moderately supportive of anything Chinese government. I've made the section to 1. separate the "History" section and the current happenings; and 2. to add some objective perspective into what is actually "wumao" and who are thought to be but really aren't.

I find it increasingly annoying when anything I say in regards China is almost automatically classified as a almost "bot" action. Rumors of millions strong Chinese Internet army I think, is the culpit, I'd like to rebuttal to that perception.

So please, if you are to make changes to my contribution, please let me know. Thanks.Gw2005 (talk) 03:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• "Pro-party comments claim that the term is sometimes extended to discredit anyone who posts an excessively patriotic comment about China online." 174.113.134.157 (talk) 02:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Gw2005 Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. There is merely obligation to follow consensus, community policy, which includes matters such as proper citation, forbidding advocacy. There is absolutely no obligation to alert another contributior when making any changes. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 11:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for contribution. Adding some relevant contents about 50 cent party in 2017 and 2018 would be better!FangzhuLu (talk) 05:06, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. 五毛 (WuMao) is a fairly well understood term both in the PRC and Western countries. Further, it has been fairly well documented that the PRC practices a disciplined, productive, and thorough pro-PRC digital media based PR campaign involved all sorts of actors (of which the 五毛 are only a small, but extremely numerous, portion). If you wish to avoid this "anything pro-China is relegated as propaganda" bias you seem to notice, I would suggest you back your statements with independently verifiable sources. If your aim is to add something "objective", it had better be sources otherwise it is subjective and likely to be labeled as PR or propaganda. That's just how it is. Wufnu (talk) 05:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Terms

I added the "Terms" section for the article. Like Chinese version of this article, the article is for Internet commentator (网络评论员) / 50 Cent Party (五毛党), the "Internet commentator" called by Chinese govt is exactly equivalent to "50 Cent Party" called by Chinese netizens. These various names and the critique of the pejorative unofficial terms should be in the "Terms" section. But when you write the history of Internet commentator / 50CP, the name is not important.

I also delete the comment based on "Imagined Communities" (乌有之乡). This user-generated and radical leftist site is not reliable.

Also, you may read this Invisible footprints of online commentators published by the English version of China-based semi-official media Global Times(the Chinese version will never publish it). This report may help a lot.--Tomchen1989 (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Internet Water Army

This is likely an alt name for the same phenomenon, right? Ref. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank for pointing this out. I've stubbed a new article because the Wangluo shuijun phenomenon is under private rather than government control. It will need work and perhaps you'd like to help. Keahapana (talk) 02:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Not "50 Cent Army"?

I thought I remembered it that way... -- megA (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

this article should maintain a distinction between "commenters" and "commentators", there is a difference

The paid posters this article describes are being paid for slipping "comments" into discussions, not for writing "commentary". The article should refer to them as "commenters" rather than commentators 66.108.207.141 (talk) 12:51, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Wumao is not, nor has it ever been "50 cents"

Wu mao is five cents, which is the amount that people in China are accused of being paid (sardonically, so it's probably beyond most americans).

This is not a "translation" thing; it's stupidity: Wu mao is wu mao is wu mao, and it is always 5 cents (wu is 5, not 50 -- 50 is wu shi, and there isn't a wushi dang).

• That's 'cause 五毛 ('cause it has his face on it) = 五角快 or 0.50 RMB. Even someone who literally just learned to count to 50 in year one Mandarin would know this. Wufnu (talk) 05:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

If the writer of the page thinks he's being artistic or creative by not understanding simple, single-digit integers, he's wrong. He's being an idiot -- and more than a third of the world's population will recognise him as an idiot.

I can't be arsed to go through the whole page to correct all the instances, but it should be corrected by the person who decided to misinterpret a simple (and sardonic/sarcastic) number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.10.147.70 (talk) 23:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

See 50 Cent Party#cite_note-mao-39. 5 Mao (毛, or formally, jiao (角)) = 0.5 Yuan (元, Chinese basic currency unit, Chinese "dollar") = 50 Fen (分, Chinese "cent"). In Chinese, "US cent" is called US Fen (美分, mei fen) --Tomchen1989 (talk) 08:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Concur with Tomchen1898. This is similarly translated to all other mandarin/chinese speaking countries - wumao -> 五毛 -> 50cents, as easily verified on Google translate as well:. Zhanzhao (talk) 00:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

五元 (wu yuan) means 5 dollars. 五毛 (wu mao) means 5 dimes (=50 cents). 五分 (wu fen) means 5 cents. --Yejianfei (talk) 04:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Wow, it's really hard to describe all of the instances of complete ignorance of Chinese culture here. This entire discussion demonstration of the need for peer review due to it being false at its initial premise. However, to explain as others have, 五毛（WuMao) is not "five cents", it is the equivalent to 五角 or 0.50 RMB. Why is it called Mao? 'Cause it has his freaking face on the bank note. 五毛 (WuMao) is 0.50RMB. That's not really contestable. Why is this discussion even here when it is so obviously refuted? Wufnu (talk) 05:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wufnu (talk • contribs) 05:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Dear anonymous German IP

Kindly stop reverting my additions to the lede. The Epoch Times is not a reliable source on the Chinese government, and the added links you inserted added nothing new. Furthermore, they are outdated sources superseded by a recent peer researched Harvard journal.--LucasGeorge (talk) 10:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• Citations needed. Wufnu (talk) 05:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 50 Cent Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/columns/article.php/3795091/How%2BChinas%2B50%2BCent%2BArmy%2BCould%2BWreck%2BWeb%2B2.0.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111013195601/http://blog.freedomhouse.org/weblog/2011/10/chinas-growing-army-of-paid-internet-commentators.html to http://blog.freedomhouse.org/weblog/2011/10/chinas-growing-army-of-paid-internet-commentators.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722182400/http://www.tibetanreview.net/news.php?cat=2&&id=1846 to http://www.tibetanreview.net/news.php?cat=2&&id=1846

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

50 cent as a tool to dehumanize and bully chinese and/or asian.

this article attempt to present itself as if it is fact, whereas in reality this term is largely use against people without prove. it is casually throw at asian people who may not even be from PRC or are even chinese. the racist aspect of the term and it use for bullying people. this need to be addressed. at anyone time if a westerner disagree with a chinese, they just link this article on wiki to dehumanize their opinion. so the article must cover this negative and racist use. wikipedia should not become a tool for promoting hate, it should be use to educated people why they should not make baseless accusation just because they have the majority advantage. Akinkhoo (talk) 08:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

This article is based on evidence and reliable sources. Your comment is merely POV, and this does not belong into Wikipedia.--Peterpens (talk) 11:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, no, Peterpens. The article is not worth anything, Your are still wrong here spreading anti-Chinese propaganda. --Pentachlorphenol (talk) 11:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

User Pentachlorphenol has reverted my article with the comment "This propaganda paper is not an acceptable source at all."

Epoch Times is a credible source but censored in China because it publishes information about the Chinese government. We have to make sure that Wikipedia stays free and does not follow the censorship like in the PRC (China).

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=50_Cent_Party&diff=804828353&oldid=804663096

This article should be semi-locked to avoid further manipulation.--Peterpens (talk) 07:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Reporter has now been indef-blocked. On independent review, page protection does not appear warranted at this time. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• The Epoch Times is not a reliable source. It has a definite political agenda, which is the overthrow of the CPC, and is therefor seldom cited by WP editors, except to explain or to source the position of the Falun Gong, of which it is a de facto mouthpiece; it's no more reliable than China Daily, or any other [state-controlled] mainland Chinese media FWIW. On the other hand, I'd point out that you don't have to be Chinese to be a "wumao", because it's not only a state of mind, but because CPC has deep pockets for their "soft power" projection. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 11:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
• The Epoch Times is banned because it's directly operated by Falun Gong, a cult that rejects modern medicine and hates homosexuals. They also operate China Uncensored, a white guy spreading manipulated facts about China and Chinese people that have nothing to do with politics. They normally hatred, racism, splittism. Moreover, there is Shenyun, a sect gathering disguised as a cultural festival but with graphic depictions of so-called "oppression" to lure people to their side. Definitely not appropriate for children. Finally, we have New Tang Dynasty, also controled by the same cult, represented by American-born Chinese, who teach you something about "real" Chinese culture like they lived it. Keep in mind that all these people haven't been to China for decades or, if we are talking about those youngsters, have never been to China at all because they have been blacklisted like their parents. Any person that claims they are reliable just doesn't know them. They obviously don't get their facts from within China. It is abhorrent that YouTube gives them a platform to spread fake propaganda and anyone who shows signs of being positive towards Chinese people (not only the government) is met with wumao comments. That's why China banned YouTube. At least Chinese state-controled media is based in mainland China. Think about who is more credible. --94.134.89.128 (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The above comments are clearly from 50-centers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.71.72.203 (talk) 04:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

the ABOVE COMMENT BASICALLLY PROVE THAT IT IS NOT A POV. I am not from China and have no ties to Chinese government or have recieved any payment yet I have been call this as well for no reason, experience is not POV, u can see it for yourself here. there are jerk that will use this term in order to shutdown the opinions of other with no prove or fact to back their argument, thus this is not an academic term, i have never seen any report here that proves anyone has paid 50 cent. in fact implying someone is paid IS A POV. 101.127.42.241 (talk) 10:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not even sure why it's still here. Who the hell cares about Falun Gong except the Falun Gong and CCP lackeys? Even the logical arguments seem to have been made by a 5 year old, with all due respect. Also, I just love the, "At least Chinese state-controled media is based in mainland China. Think about who is more credible." A purple canary trying to sell me the holy grail filled with cotton candy and unicorn dreams would be more credible. Wufnu (talk) 05:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

"At least Chinese state-controled media is based in mainland China. Think about who is more credible." Not only does this user engage in unsubstantiated ad hominem attacks, but they also bring us a parody of '...the party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command', I doubt there are many 'facts' to be gleamed from within Chinese state media. The article isn't an attempt to legitimise the bullying of Asians; it exists to document the increasing number of paid online trolls attempting to establish pro-CCP narratives MrEarlGray (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Pro-PRC POV / censoring of critics in German Wikipedia

In German Wikipedia there have been various reverts done by users which claim to only accept "credible sources" or argue that criticism against the UN, WHO, Interpol which mentions Taiwan does not belong into the articles. Although there is no evidence, it looks like a manipulation in favour of the PRC is going on there. We should discuss here if we add this observation in to the article of 50 Cent Party.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Schiedsgericht/Anfragen/Auffälliges_Lösch-_bzw._Kommentarverhalten_bei_kritischen_Artikeln_über_die_Volksrepublik_China --Peterpens (talk) 07:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

There are other edits on this very page relating to the German Wikipedia and the Falun Gong which seems an obvious CCP push towards control since nobody cares about the Falung Gong except the Falun Gong themselves and the CCP. I would suggest further investigation. Wufnu (talk) 05:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

You have been banned on the German Wikipedia due to vandalism in favor of Falun Gong, a sect with a personality cult. That says it all. Please do everyone a favor and do something constructive with your life. --94.134.89.128 (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 50 Cent Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110919024912/http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/chinas-web-spin-doctors-spread-beijings-message-20110512-1ek4j.html to http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/chinas-web-spin-doctors-spread-beijings-message-20110512-1ek4j.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100208224640/http://special.globaltimes.cn/2010-02/503820.html to http://special.globaltimes.cn/2010-02/503820.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110710160307/http://politics.dwnews.com/news/2008-07-19/4159738.html to http://politics.dwnews.com/news/2008-07-19/4159738.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110226235954/http://opinion.huanqiu.com/roll/2010-01/694194.html to http://opinion.huanqiu.com/roll/2010-01/694194.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Effects on Wikipedia?

Is there any evidence that these 50 cent trolls target Wikipedia? I wouldn't be surprised. Dapperedavid (talk) 23:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Irrelevant - talk pages are to discuss the article, not the subject of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QoopyQoopy (talk • contribs) 00:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The lead has a bunch if misinformed info

The term "wumao" is not a racist epiteth. I removed the misleading information in the lede. Ergzay (talk) 05:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ergzay: This applies to sections of the body as well and the questionable categorization of the article under Anti-Chinese Sentiment, Racism and Xenophobia:

"In Australia, the term has been used derogatively in the ongoing debate over increasing "Chinese influence" in the country"

The term is by definition derogative. The fact that a term for trolls paid by the CCP is derogative and generally directed at those perceived to be Chinese citizens is inherent to the term when CCP members are by law exclusively Chinese nationals.

The idea that the similar term Putinbot or "Russian troll" being both derogative and generally directed at those perceived to be Russian would constitute a "racial epithet" is a reach, and the citations for these claims are equally dubious.

The allegation that Wumao is used as a "racial epithet" cites a BBC article covering a single incident wherein an Australian political activist mentioned a Tweet from an author suggesting she might be paid "50 cents" in response to her campaign to cancel the tour of his book criticizing Chinese government influence in Australia. The article is not clear whether she believes the use of the term was racist. Regardless, a single incident of a political activist possibly alleging the term was used in a racist manner as part of a Twitter feud is inaccurately described as a wider phenomenon in the English speaking world and given outside importance in the lead paragraph and by categorizing an article on a documented phenomenon of internet manipulation by the CCP under Anti-Chinese Sentiment, Racism, Xenophobia.

The article cited from the BBC also refers to the Chinese government's attempts to stifle debate and silence its critics by labelling criticism as racist, which is important context when dealing with that very issue. Given the highly questionable and credibly disputed claims associating the term with racism, this should be covered in the article.

Similarly, neither source mentions the term being used for "people with perceived... pro-Chinese" views, both refer specifically to those perceived to support the CCP. The conflation of pro-CCP with pro-Chinese is uncited and highly questionable given the term is explicitly political and in reference to the CCP's documented use of paid internet propagandists.

174.91.11.225 (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ergzay: Removing sourced content and simply saying it is not true is generally not good practice on Wikipedia. If you have an issue with the sources or how they may have been misused (e.g. original research, synthesis of sources) raise them here first. I've reviewed the four citations in that paragraph myself, and the only issue I have found is that the attribution is unclear for Tibet beyond Black and White: Racial Formations and Transnational Collusions. Without access to the material and a lack of a page number or passage, it's difficult to figure out where in the work wumao is discussed, or if it is even discussed. Another possible issue might be that the BBC article only mentions wumao once and the claim that wumao is used in a racist way is implied but not explicit.

From the BBC article: "She said she and similar activists had received "many racist comments" on social media recently. She was accused, in a tweet from Prof Hamilton himself of being a "wu mao", which translates as "50 cent", and means a Chinese propagandist."

However, the other two sources given discuss in detail the racist usage of wumao by some Westerners. One of these two sources is an academic piece written by researchers at four US/European universities, while the other is a recorded excerpt from The World, which is coproduced by the BBC and two American public radio companies. I don't see any issue with these sources, but if you have objections to aspects of the paragraph other than sourcing, please raise them here as well. All the best, CentreLeftRight ✉ 05:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

It needs to be made clear that there's more uses than as a racist epiteth as used by westerners. Something can be a criticism (there's widespread documentation elsewhere of many CCP citizens spreading propaganda in English-language sites) without being racist.Ergzay (talk) 08:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

The BBC source cited mentions the CCP's attempts to stifle debate by accusing critics of racism in the context of the incident cited. This should be included in the article.

174.91.11.225 (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikpedia needs to be careful to not become a mouth piece for said wumao as a way to whitewash their behavior online. Calling "racism" against westerners is now a very common tactic to deflect criticism. Special attention should be paid toward the sources used to make sure they are legitimate. Ergzay (talk) 08:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

That does not appear to be misinformation. There is an issue here (it does not summarize what we have in the body and contains unique information) but its solved by moving most of the paragraph not deleting it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 9 November 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. No prejudice against revisiting in a few years, as Feminist suggests, of course.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

---

50 Cent Party → Wumao – Per WP:COMMONNAME: With results filtered for English language only, Google returns 580,000 results for "wumao", 88,500 for "50 Cent Party", and 15,800 for "50 Cent Army". CentreLeftRight ✉ 20:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. SkyWarrior 02:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I have not seen the terms "50 Cent Party" or "50 Cent Army" used since the early 2010s. Changing the article title would not only be appropriate due to the common informal use of wumao, but it would also help correct several inconsistencies in this article. "50 Cent Party commentators", "50 Cent Party internet commentators", "commentators", and "internet commentators" can all be changed to wumao. CentreLeftRight ✉ 20:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject China has been notified of this discussion. SkyWarrior 02:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Internet has been notified of this discussion. SkyWarrior 02:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose; ngrams tells us that "50 Cent Party" is still the most common term. BilledMammal (talk) 02:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. 162 etc. (talk) 17:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment seems like the trend is that "wumao" is more commonly used in the Asia-Pacific region and "50 cent party" on both sides of the pond. 5-year trends show a convergence between "wumao" and "50 cent party" with "wumao" catching up. So, this is perhaps not as clear-cut as the ngrams results would suggest. If this is closed as "not move", definitely revisit this in a few years. feminist (t) 10:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• Moral support - I never liked the name "50 Cent Party" as it was clearly American (or any country where "cent" is currency). The literal sum is 5 mao, which is not literally 50 fen (even if it is of course equal to it) or 50 US cents. It is like translating five dollars as "500 cents". However, WP:IDON'TLIKEIT says this is a bad argument and it appears the data backs "50 Cent Party" as being the most common translation, so I guess it stays where it is. FOARP (talk) 14:57, 24 November 2021 (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.

Extremely obvious statement in article

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This sentence is so obvious that reading it makes me groan, as someone who is ethnically Chinese: "An analyst at the Wilson Center has noted that ethnic Chinese are more likely to be called wumao than other groups of people in the English-speaking world; she attributed some of this to racism." Really? Chinese people are more likely to be called a Chinese phrase as opposed to non-Chinese people? What, did we expect that maybe Nigerians or Armenians would be called 'Wumao' with a similar frequency? Does this amazingly uninsightful piece of analysis really contribute anything to the article? 2601:19C:4080:5B70:6897:1040:C75D:97D8 (talk) 12:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC) put it this way, black people are more likely to be call the N word. this doesn't make the N word is not racist nor offensive. the fact that there is a racial association of the word prove it is racist.101.127.15.2 (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2022 (UTC) Not really, especially in this case. Which group of people would most fervently support a given government? Most likely people with close association with the government or the land that government governs, and in this case that's Chinese people which are Asian. So it stands to reason that the ethnic group most likely to support the CCP are Chinese people and "wumao" is a term specifically to refer to fervent supporters of the CCP online. So the "racial association" with the term "wumao" is probably more to do with the "racial association" with support for the CCP than the term itself. And this we see back in the examples in the sources wikipedia lists, which are specifically aimed at fervent supporters of the CCP not simply Asian people for being Asian. Your comparison to the term "nigger" isn't accurate as that term specifically is a name for black people, not a name for people doing a specific action or holding certain believes like "wumao" does which refers to fervently defending the CCP and their actions online. It's also not hard to find examples of non-Asian people being referred to as or called wumao. So even if we give the claim of racism the widest possible birth the question that would determine some form of racism behind it would be "are supporters of the Chinese Communist Party more commonly Chinese?". If the answer is yes, than it's not remotely surprising to see more Asians being called "wumao" as Chinese people are Asian. Considering the question wasn't answered by the analyst of the Wilson Center the claim of racism in it's use is suspect at best and pure bias on the analyst at worst, granted Wikipedia suffers from biased sourcing due to lack of counter reporting quite often (because why report on something that's false, unless it's not commonly believed to be true?). 2001:1C06:1CC1:B900:8DE7:6F6E:B162:D469 (talk) 16:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC) Closing discussion per WP:SOAPBOX. Discussion should revolve around the relevant scholarly literature, not the personal opinions of anonymous editors who jump from multiple IPs and throwaway accounts. Yue🌙 23:04, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Wumao is use as a racist term to dehumanise chinese in order to suppress their opinion.

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
this is noted in several article in wikipedia. and should be addressed in this article as well. 101.127.15.2 (talk) 21:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC) Wumao can not be considered a racist term because it does not apply to all Chinese people, but instead people with a specific political opinion, in this case, people who are ardently pro-Beijing and pro-CCP. Wumao also doesn't specifically apply to Chinese people, as it is possible for non-Asian pro CCP figures to be called wumao, for example, Rick O'Shea, who is not Chinese, yet is paid by a CCP state run media company, Xinhua news, to push pro-Beijing talking points. It may seem racist due to the percieved large overlap between CCP support and Chinese ethnic people, but upon closer examination, this is not the case. CeriseDKG (talk) 03:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC) Closing discussion per WP:SOAPBOX. Discussion should revolve around the relevant scholarly literature, not the personal opinions of anonymous editors who jump from multiple IPs and throwaway accounts. Yue🌙 23:04, 17 February 2023 (UTC)