Talk:Rùn (meme)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Rjjiii talk 01:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that many Chinese youths study how to run away? Source: https://www.cfr.org/blog/runology-how-run-away-china
  • ALT1: ... that "runology" is the study of how to run away from China?
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Black-billed magpie

Created by PetraMagna (talk). Nominated by BuySomeApples (talk) at 05:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Run (meme); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Article is new enough and long enough. What makes this a reliable source? Where does #9 say that the meme had an enthusiastic reception? Gonna wonder if the Chinese government had anything to say (or do) about this thing. Didn't notice any copyvio or plagiarism. I'd go for ALT1. QPQ seems OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

The site claims that they are established by Hong Kong University's Journalism and Media Studies Centre. I found confirmation of that claim on JMSC's site. There are older archives such as [1] and [2] whose domain name indicate that the project was a part of Hong Kong University. My speculation is that China Media Project became independent from Hong Kong University at some point, changed their domain, and moved to the US and Taiwan, which is not surprising considering the fate of other news services in Hong Kong (those are my guesses, though). An article from the Guardian quoted the director (Bandurski) in 2019 and stated that CMP is affiliated with HKU. I can keep digging for other sources, but I think this is good enough for establishing credibility. Bandurski is still the director and wrote the source quoted in the article, at least according to the China Media Project site, and I don't see indications of the site becoming an inferior source after becoming independent from HKU.

The "enthusiastic reception" sentence might be an extrapolation on my part. I will look around the source to see what made me think that and rewrite it if I can't find anything. As for governmental responses, I remember seeing some sources speculate that the term was invented to circumvent censorship, and search engines were preventing users from accessing internet search trends because of spikes in emigration-related queries. I can expand it in this respect in the next few days when I'm available. PetraMagna (talk) 17:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Most of the content concerns have been addressed. As for censorship, I added that the term was created to circumvent censorship. I don't believe the term is censored in China as of now, though I can still add censorship of immigration-related search result later. One remaining issue with the article is that the sections seem to blend together to me. Perhaps there's a way to better organize the article. PetraMagna (talk) 08:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Is this approved? If not, what else needs to be done? Z1720 (talk) 02:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@Z1720: I wanted to know if there is some follow up to PetraMagna's One remaining issue with the article is that the sections seem to blend together to me. Perhaps there's a way to better organize the article Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't sure how to improve the article in this respect, so I swept it under the rug. I'll see if I can do something about it this weekend. PetraMagna (talk) 06:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• I did some more cleanup and added some bits of content, especially on censorship. I believe the article is in a good enough state now. As for the section separation problem, "Background" is still a bit bloated, but everything in there should qualify as background information or be closely related to them. "Meaning" focuses exclusively on how this term is different from emigration and its implications. "Reception" documents how the Chinese government responds to it and increases in immigration numbers, as opposed to increases in internet searches. PetraMagna (talk) 08:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  given the reliance on Chinese sources now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

This random joke redefinition of a real word getting promoted to the Wikipedia front page is quite embarrassing for all involved. There is a real area of study called Runology . 2A01:4F0:4018:F0:1DC3:B330:52E0:BECE (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Source dump

Need to pause on the article now. Here's another source that can be incorporated into the article. Perhaps there are enough sources to establish the claim that "run" is not just a meme but rather the go-to term to describe this recent wave of emigration (e.g. "The trend has been coined the 'run philosophy'"). https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/24/us/politics/china-migrants-us-border.html PetraMagna (talk) 08:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)