Talk:50 Cent Party

Existence

The existence of the 50 cent party is well documented: , I could go on. Allan Nonymous (talk) 01:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The quotations I provided were obtained from the very same articles cited by the editors of this wikipedia article, without further interpretation. These two articles are indeed the main primary sources of the claims in this wikipedia article. News articles are often secondary sources which rely on these same two primary sources. I do not see why information from primary sources should be removed, since they introduce very important qualifications to the claims being made about the existence of wumao. MingScribe1368 (talk) 03:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I would advise you to read the articles in question, which provide ample evidence of the existence of the 50 Cent Party, evidence includes leaked documents from the Chinese government, witness testimony. In fact, the paper by King et. al. has this to say: "We estimate that the government fabricates and posts about 448 million social media comments a year." and "we adopt this widely used term to denote social media comments posted at the direction or behest of the regime, as if they were the opinions of ordinary people." This suggests ample evidence of the existence of the 50 cent party and its aims, the primary contention of the article is merely that their strategy has changed. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The articles in question explicitly state that there is no direct or systematic evidence for the phenomenon, and that there is no ground information about the wumao. How much more explicit does it get than that? These qualification was made clearly and explicitly in the articles. No reason why these should be suppressed in the wikipedia article. MingScribe1368 (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The purportedly leaked documents are neither accessible nor verifiable through any of the sources cited. Please post them here if they are. MingScribe1368 (talk) 16:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The suggestion that the BBC is not a reliable source is not backed by WP:RSN and, frankly, absurd. An example of a leaked document is from here but is only one of many (TBH it's not very important to the argument but there you have it). The quote you picked is, in context, about the difficulty of gathering direct evidence but that does not mean there isn't any, your interpretation of the quote directly contradicts the abstract of the article you drew it from. Finally, I would strongly suggest you check out WP:BLUDGEON and WP:IDHT. They may prove informative as per your discussion conduct. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The material at [7] is truncated and of doubtful appearance, especially when read in Chinese characters. There is also no evidence for the authorship of that document. The whole document should be produced, not just what purports to be a fragment.

The source China Digital Times also appears to be highly politically motivated and activist. MingScribe1368 (talk) 17:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

There hasn't been an RSN on China Digital times, but the seem to be generally considered reliable. If you have any concerns about the site, I would advise posting about it there. Granted, it is only part of 1 of 5 articles so it doesn't really undermine the narrative here even if it were to be correct. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Allan, could you please request protection for this page? I will also do it. But this guys is nothing going to stop with his horrible edits. He doesn't even do propaganda well, just places "alleged" in front of everything he doesn't like, and than mass copy pastes the same line (like the quote of David Wertime) , in every sentence. The 50 cent army existing is not disputed Ming, it is a fact. With many sources from China itself. The fact that you try to muddy all chinese pages like this, is very worrisome. Let's also address Ming himself, let's report this user. Johannesvdp (talk) 12:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Report me for what? I have only made 2 edits that you did not like. MingScribe1368 (talk) 12:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I did not mass copy the same line - the quote was simply relevant under the topic "existence". MingScribe1368 (talk) 12:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

That appears to be an opinion piece by Tessa Wong rather than factual reporting. MingScribe1368 (talk) 03:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The sources are all media articles written at the height of an ongoing geopolitical rivalry, so excluding bias is impossible. These articles do not have the same authority a peer-reviewed academic paper or book written by an expert would have. BBC has been proven to engage in paid fishing expeditions to dig up dirt on China (see Adrian Zenz). Some of the media sources quoted are not reliable by any stretch of the imagination - e.g. NPR? Only one article seems to approach the standard of direct evidence - that is the one by Ai Wei Wei, and that is only a single article. The admission of the absence of "ground information" by Yang and of the lack of "systematic empirical evidence" by King are completely damning. The evidence you cite consists of a chorus of journalists making claims without direct evidence, with the exception perhaps of Ai Wei Wei - and that testimony alone is not sufficient. MingScribe1368 (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Ming what are you doing? I aksed you on the doping in china page not to come and vandalise this page as well, and what do you do? You start to vandalise this page, they should ban you. I will also ask protection for this page. Johannesvdp (talk) 12:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I have not edited this page significantly, and the rationale for the edits has been given. I will allow others to come and discuss this page first, which obviously does not abide by WP:NPOV. The quotations I introduced are inline citations from sources already present in the article. Please do not describe as vandalism what is a mere attempt to restore WP:NPOV. I think this whole page should be moderated, but I will let others who know more about the subject matter comment. Quite clearly, it is not objective. MingScribe1368 (talk) 12:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Issue #1 Existence of Wumao - "No Systematic Empirical Evidence" (King) and "No ground truth information" (Yang)

I reference the article cited at [13]

"Yet almost no systematic empirical evidence exists for this claim"

This is the Gary King (Harvard University) article which is relied upon in proving the existence of wumao. Do note that Gary King does not provide any systematic empirical evidence for their existence, but while acknowledging there is no systematic empirical evidence for their existence, presupposes the existence of something he proceeds to measure. He states as much, unequivocally and unambiguously.

Furthermore at [4]:

'Detecting the wumao is difficult because there is no ground truth information about them."

These qualifications - the absence of ground truth information and the absence of systematic empirical evidence, are stated on page 1 of both articles, and therefore merit mention.

Otherwise, readers of the articles will assume that the existence of wumao is something that has ground truth information (is something directly observed) and something for which systematic empirical evidence exists (it does not).

Please address these concerns. MingScribe1368 (talk) 03:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Ming, you should do comedy! Your false victimhood and whataboutism routine are hilarious. Just to clarify to people reading this, Ming was vandalising the 'doping in china' page and this one, and I just asked him to stop.. You also accuse people, in the same sentence, of exactly the things that you yourself are doing. You were the one writing that doping in china was all a conspiracy by the US and Australia.. You are just doing whataboutism in a crazy way, and then the people that try to correct the article back to an objective form, you accuse them of being racist, and anti-chinese. It's insane. Thanks again to all wikipedia contributors. I'm seldom on here, but to have to deal with these people. Nothing but awe and respect, once more. Johannesvdp (talk) 12:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous response. Address the direct claims being made or don’t respond next time… the references directly contradict the wiki article. This needs to be fixed. ~2025-41873-80 (talk) 01:45, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Issue #2 - Objectivity and NPOV, Over-reliance and use of Media Sources with Political Motivations

The article relies preponderantly on the word of journalists at a time when media coverage on China is rather problematic. I have been informed that the media sources quoted are not deprecated. However, some of the journalistic sources are quite clearly informed by political motivations and use dubious evidence. Anyone with a modicum of common sense knows this.

There are no peer-reviewed articles and independent studies on the topic either, and those which pretend to be studies quickly acknowledge the limitations of their approach (i.e. lack of ground information and lack of systematic empirical evidence) upfront. These are facts, and I hope other editors will agree that this

I will not edit this page further pending input from other editors. But I hope to draw attention to the violations of WP:NPOV and the representation of opinion as fact in this artlce, which has rightly been flagged as controversial and with disputed content.

Note: The existence of articles like these has led to verbal abuse being hurled at editors of Chinese ancestry and false accusations that they are wumao, not just here, but on all Western social media platforms. The majority of Chinese people who have a good thing or two to say about China, or who want more nuanced dialogue, or who attempt to enter the debate are automatically silenced by claims of "wumao". Even those who are critical of China but otherwise prefer nuance are slandered. Such accusations number in the thousands, if not millions, daily, on the internet, and rumour-mongering articles like this are to blame. One example of the casual use or abuse of the term "wumao" is Johannesvdp. I don't think an encyclopedic article ought to give credence to rumors, and which make life difficult for millions of Chinese using the internet every day. As a result of the term bandied about so casually, many Chinese people end up self-censoring in order to avoid being harassed by other internet users.

MingScribe1368 (talk) 12:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

MingScribe1368, if there are cited sources that you believe are somehow dubious, you are free to head over to WP:RSN and propose a WP:RFC. Also, I would recommend you check out WP:WALLOFTEXT. - Amigao (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Ming, you should do comedy! Your false victimhood and whataboutism routine are hilarious. Just to clarify to people reading this, Ming was vandalising the 'doping in china' page and this one, and I just asked him to stop.. You also accuse people, in the same sentence, of exactly the things that you yourself are doing. You were the one writing that doping in china was all a conspiracy by the US and Australia.. You are just doing whataboutism in a crazy way, and then the people that try to correct the article back to an objective form, you accuse them of being racist, and anti-chinese. It's insane. Thanks again to all wikipedia contributors. I'm seldom on here, but to have to deal with these people. Nothing but awe and respect, once more. Johannesvdp (talk) 12:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

You wrote a response that doesn’t address what was written at all. ~2025-41873-80 (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Issue with some sources

I haven't gone through all of the sources yet, but going through some of them like the current source #6 (link) shows that its content is justsome random Shanghai blog with a super biased paraphrasing (it ends the article with the words "Mind Blown"... cmon) of a Harvard study that is already sourced on this article.

Another source on this article currently is this Business Insider article which:

• Has a NPOV issue in its Title
• Has a random thumbnail from a China Uncensored Video (Epoch Times affiliate)
• Again, is just paraphrasing another source that is already on this article
• Has additional commentary which is paraphrasing a Radio Free Asia article (conflict of interest, since RFA was funded by USAID at the time)

Personally, I do not have the time to crawl through every source on this article but I think someone else should re-verify all of the sources on this article, especially since it feels like this article speaks with such objectivity on this controversial topic in part due to the amount of sources it flaunts. swagmaster of one thousand evils 06:33, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Won’t happen sadly this website is crawling with people who prefer slander than actual facts 72.134.185.186 (talk) 03:27, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

If there's Epoch Times source, we should probably look into removal.

However, RFA is considered a reliable source based on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. It had been thoroughly discussed and a consensus is reached. If you think there's any new development that require RFA's status to be changed, feel free to do a rfc. I don't think the article involving RFA disqualify it as source. Anothercat613 (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

RFA is, or was, funded by the US Government- a nation with a direct interest in discrediting China. It's an inherently biased source. 134.69.229.187 (talk) 19:47, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

The current consensus is there's little reason to think RFA demonstrates some systematic inaccuracy, unreliability, or level of government co-option that precludes its use. This is not the place to spread misinformation.

As I said, if you think it's not a reliable source and wish to reopen the discussion, you should bring the matter to the appropriate place. I beseech you to read the prior discussions at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources before reopening discussion. Anothercat613 (talk) 07:40, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

How is not biased? It’s literally funded by the nation it “reports” on’s main adversary. You can’t say I’m spreading misinformation when RFA and RFE were established to push the American line in socialist nations. ~2025-37536-47 (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

You're not going to accomplish anything here by repeating the same arguments from noticeboard discussions. Please come up with something new and go to the right discussion page. Anothercat613 (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2025 (UTC)