Talk:Great Translation Movement

Issues in the Current Version

1. The timeline of the movement is not well described, since a lot of information is based on tweets.

2. Reaction of the Public (China/Hongkong/Global/...) needs to be added. JohnGalt1984 (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

3. Add Chinese netizen's reactions to Shinzo Abe's death, including how the businesses in China used it as a marketing tool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikiko609 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Notability

The Great Translation Movement does not meet notability guidelines — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.213.82.20 (talk) 14:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

The only articles on this are puff pieces that do not go into the racism shown by this twitter account, and it is not solely criticised by state media. If those articles are deemed to meet notability guidelines then it should instead be corrected for neutrality. 195.213.82.20 (talk) 12:21, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Need sources AAAAA143222 (talk) 15:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Sections highlighting the anti-Chinese and anti-Russian racism present in the movement

May I ask why my sections which were properly referenced that mention the anti-Chinese and anti-Russian motives of the movement were removed? 129.97.125.1 (talk) 23:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that these two claims are asserted as fact by citing an opinion piece from The Paper. There are two issues with this: firstly, opinion pieces are not reliable sources for statements of fact (see WP:NEWSORG); secondly, even if the article was a news report, it The Paper would likely not be considered a reliable source, due to its ownership by the Shanghai United Media Group, which is a state media company. (See the listing for Sixth Tone at WP:RSP, which is owned by the same company.)

WP:ATT provides guidelines on how to properly attribute opinions. In this case, you could write in the "Chinese government and state media" section something like "An editorial posted on The Paper, a Chinese digital newspaper run by the state-owned Shanghai United Media Group called the movement X and Y". Yeeno (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Removal of details critical of the movement

User:Ufstrikeforce has removed several of my edits, which document the explicit anti-Chinese nature of this movement. Said user has claimed the edits constitute WP:SYNTH or WP:RS violations, but they clearly do not, as each piece of information added was directly sourced from the origin material or already cited content. Now, this user has called on me to demonstrate WP:ONUS (I would also like to call into question what gives my colleague the unilateral right to determine that their revision of the article constitutes the "status quo" of the page according to WP:ONUS when said user has made edits of their own, especially when their revisions were made days after the fact rather than in direct response to mine), and so:

• Selective censorship of the less-than-picturesque elements of the movement is unfit for Wikipedia, see WP:SOAPBOX. Meanwhile, each of the cited examples demonstrating the anti-Chinese nature of the movement, such as the slurs that are used, are directly sourced either from the subreddit it is associated with or one of its derivative subreddits after its ban.
• It is absolutely not WP:SYNTH to reach the conclusion that describing the Chinese people as "cruel, bloodthirsty, and completely lacking in sympathy", which is cited directly from an interviewed representative of the movement in the article, is anti-Chinese racism, no matter whether its origin has a Chinese language background or not.
• Not one of my sources is unreliable according to Wikipedia. Each source used existed in the page already, or was a directly sourced comment from the origin material. That does not constitute WP:OR either, as no leap of logic is needed to demonstrate the phenomena I am describing.

With these being the case, I sincerely ask my colleague to either give a more compelling reason for the removal of these added details, or to cease reverting these edits entirely. 2605:8D80:13E5:94BD:58C0:7C11:BF9B:CE5B (talk) 11:13, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:RSREDDIT makes it clear that Reddit, a source that you used at length, isn't reliable.

Nowhere in the Radio Free Asia source does it describe the movement or the statement that a member of the movement gave for the article as anti-Chinese or anything of that sort. Even if it did, we would need more than one source to state as fact that one of themes in the works of the movement is "anti-Chinese sentiment" or anything like that. Your argument that what the interviewee said was racism despite the source not saying anything remotely close to that is a textbook case of WP:SYNTH. Ufstrikeforce (talk) 00:59, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

First of all, WP:RSREDDIT applies specifically to news or emerging events coverage. At no point is it stated or even suggested that original content from Reddit cannot be used to document itself. The page r/wallstreetbets cites Reddit itself for its user count. If this is not ignorant misinterpretation of the applicability of Wikipedia policies, it is blatant deception and bad-faith acting. I simultaneously believe it is equally relevant to being up the fact that the page r/The_Donald makes the statement "The subreddit had a lengthy documented history of hosting conspiracy theory content that was racist, misogynistic, and Islamophobic.", though without any source given. Regardless, through the content of the page it is established that these sentences accurately describe this community. The very same applies here.

Secondly, are you going to argue that had the interviewee described Black people or Jewish people as "cruel, bloodthirsty, and completely lacking in sympathy", that this would not be textbook anti-Black racism or antisemitism respectively? Are the tropes described in Antisemitic tropes, namely those describing Jews as disloyal, manipulative, or stingy not literally demonstrated as the most textbook examples of antisemitism? There is not a single leap of logic or so-called "WP:SYNTH" used to derive the conclusion that this interviewee made a statement that quite clearly called Chinese people these words in a way that can only really be described as racist. With all due respect, I am having immense difficulty discerning whether you are blind to this by choice. 2605:8D80:13E5:94BD:58C0:7C11:BF9B:CE5B (talk) 02:23, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

r/ChonglangTV isn't a verified acount of GTM, but even if it was WP:ABOUTSELF says we can't use it the way you have used it (e.g. claim that it is racist against Chinese people or that it perpetuates anti-Chinese sentiment) so your comparisons to r/wallstreetbets and r/The_Donald don't hold. As to what I'm arguing, that isn't relevant; I don't have arguments, the sources we are citing do and if the sources (not source) do not describe GTM as anti-Chinese, then that should not be how the article describes the movement either. Ufstrikeforce (talk) 02:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

What are you talking about? What you are arguing is relevant and there clearly is something being argued, and I am arguing (or more precisely articulating) that making a statement of people of a certain racial or ethnic group by describing them as "cruel, bloodthirsty, and completely lacking in sympathy" is racist. The third definition provided on Wiktionary for the word racism is "Prejudice or discrimination based upon race or ethnicity". Merely because "the sources do not describe GTM as anti-Chinese" does not mean a non-WP:SYNTH conclusion of its content cannot be drawn based on first-party statements sourced directly from the subject that match the definition. Also, explain specifically what part of WP:ABOUTSELF my description violates, and the Wikipedia page itself describes this subreddit as "one of the subreddits organizing the movement". 2605:8D80:13E3:F88C:5DFA:55CA:5653:ADBD (talk) 03:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

That's the argument you are making, not the one that the article made or one that you should be making. Your whole argument is that the movement is anti-Chinese because the things that one of its members said was anti-Chinese. Not only is none of that in the sources which you are using to make those assertions, it's bad reasoning as you are reasoning by association and, in the context of this discussion, just one more piece of evidence of why your edits violate WP:SYNTH. Ufstrikeforce (talk) 08:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't think I have encountered a higher concentration of bad faith arguments or deliberate misinterpretation of Wikipedia policies from one person in my entire history of Wikipedia. I have responded to every single accusation you made and you are now looping and using circular reasoning, as well as refusing to elaborate on any accusation (no explanation on WP:ABOUTSELF), and you now move the goalpost after denying the interviewee was anti-Chinese to saying that merely because the interviewee which was literally interviewed as a representative of the movement made an anti-Chinese comment it somehow does not implicate the entire movement. Your argument on "association" and how it violates WP:SYNTH is absurd for the aforementioned reasons. I also find it incredibly curious that each time you respond you find a different Wikipedia policy I have allegedly violated. I will be seeking a third opinion. 2605:8D80:13E1:68BF:24A9:C731:A5BE:79DF (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Ufstrikeforce, if I do not hear a justification for the removal of the sources left unaddressed during my interaction with User:EducatedRedneck, I will proceed with restoring these and making the changes in accordance to what User:EducatedRedneck prescribed. 2605:8D80:13E7:CA75:F005:7A2D:7067:8AA5 (talk) 03:18, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I believe that this edit was justifiably reverted. WP:ONUS is not about status quo, it's about inclusion. The listed edit seeks to add material. The material is disputed. Thus, the WP:BURDEN falls on the one attempting to add the material, in this case the IP editor. <pb>I cannot find a discussion of sources, with translated quotes, and so cannot comment on WP:SYNTH. If multiple WP:RS describe the movement as anti-Chinese, then supplying a quote here would let everyone accept it and see it published. If there aren't RS which describe it thus in their own words, then it would indeed be SYNTH. We cannot conclude something not explicitly stated by the sources. Regardless, it is up to whoever wants to add the material to generate consensus for it. As an analogy, President Trump ostensibly represents the American people, but has made remarks that RS have characterized as racist and sexist. Stating that he made racist and sexist statements passes WP:V. Saying the American people are racist and sexist clearly does not. Heck, unless there are MANY RS that describe Trump as racist and sexist, him making racist and sexist remarks isn't enough to describe him as a person thus, much less the group he represents. This is why WP:SYNTH is a policy; we need a source to say something explicitly, we can't make what we view as logical inferences. Finally, IP, for one very concerned about adhering to Wikipedia policies, I worry that you may be coming off as more abrasive than you intend. Comments that characterize a colleague as presenting bad faith arguments or deliberate misinterpretation of Wikipedia policies or engaging in Selective censorship can easily be read as WP:ASPERSIONS. I don't think this is your intent. I'm telling you this so you can ensure you communicate what you intend to, so you can avoid unpleasant miscommunications. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I do not think it is WP:SYNTH to conclude that calling an entire ethnic group "cruel, bloodthirsty, and completely lacking in sympathy", though it may not have been stated in a source, is racist. For instance, if I had described a group of people with those words on Wikipedia either in a talk page or in an edit, I think it is very likely I would be banned for racism against said ethnic group. Now, the analogy with Donald Trump I do not feel accurately compares to this, as when Donald Trump makes such a statement that is construed as racist or sexist, he does not say so with the intent or claim to represent the opinions of all Americans. This interviewee, however, was interviewed on behalf of this movement and their words were given as a representation of the goals of the movement. After all, those words were said in response to a question about what the goals of the movement were: in their words, that "people in more countries realize that the people of China are not 'warm, hospitable, and gentle' as the CCP's foreign propaganda declares, but instead are a collective that is proud, arrogant, vigorously in love with populism, cruel, bloodthirsty, and completely lacking in sympathy." So unless Donald Trump made a racist or sexist comment in an interview in which he was poised as representing the interests of the United States and all of the American people, and said that such comments were representative of American people, it is not a completely fair analogy. Also, User:Ufstrikeforce removed my edits that demonstrate instances of the subreddit in the page described as "one of the subreddits organizing the movement", even though I included citations sourced from the original source material of instances of racism in said subreddit, and that was never addressed by my colleague. 2605:8D80:13E1:68BF:24A9:C731:A5BE:79DF (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

[Trump] does not say so with the intent or claim to represent the opinions of all Americans. Oof! Unfortunately, I disagree there, especially when he's dealing with foreign powers, but I digress. Yes, a statement such as you described could be described that way, but we can't do so. That's what we need WP:RS for. Even if we could do that and not breach WP:OR, then there's a big difference between "This person, a representative of X, said Y, which is Z" and "Y is Z". Spokespeople say wrong things all the time.

Put another way. If the movement is anti-Chinese as you described, there must be a WP:RS out there which says so. Why not find and cite it? EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I will look for additional sources on the nature of whether the movement can be accurately called anti-Chinese (which unfortunately most sources that do call the movement racist, such as Global Times, are rejected on WP:RS), but it still does not address the fact that I added citations directly sourced from one of its primary subreddits which made very racist statements and these were removed from a paragraph that merely said that such statements were common in that subreddit. I also think it is worth noting that the page itself also mentions that CNN describes that the posts are chosen for shock value. This does not necessarily imply anything directly but I do think it ought to be taken into account. Even if the accusations of racism cannot be added to the page, it still does not explain why my edits showing the nature of posts found on the subreddit, should be removed. 2605:8D80:13E1:68BF:24A9:C731:A5BE:79DF (talk) 18:10, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Agreed with EducatedRedneck. Such a claim requires WP:RS to back it up. - Amigao (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

And every single objection to my edits stems from my labelling of the movement as racist against Chinese people, even though my subsequent edit only mentioned the accusation of racism from Global Times? Still no concrete refutation of my remaining edits it seems? Curious. 2605:8D80:13E1:D00B:503:BB4C:A895:BB4F (talk) 04:57, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

The objections are laid out above. In short, they are that: Using reddit is WP:OR, using a statement by one individual to label the whole movement is WP:SYNTH, and Global Times is not a reliable source per WP:GLOBALTIMES. Note that nobody has to refute your edit; YOU have to convince others to accept the proposed new material, per WP:ONUS. As it stands, every other editor who has weighed in does not seem convinced. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:24, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

The first editor User:Ufstrikeforce is not even responding to the discussion anymore, so unless we hear back then that discussion is forfeited. Also, I have explained how citing a literal example on Reddit is not WP:OR, as previous examples have done exactly that. Also, I did not use Global Times as a definitive source, I only cited it as an example of the response by Chinese media. Furthermore, I changed my edits to not label the entire movement based on that one comment by the interviewee, but restored the verbatim remarks they made in the sources that were removed. Also, the only other editors are you, and another editor who has engaged in several politically motivated edits, who is even alleged to be a member of a political think tank, which as per Wikipedia policy I will not debate here as they are not relevant to the ongoing discussion, but I do find it strange that they are chiming in to voice support for an editor who happens to have an aligning political position. 2605:8D80:13E1:D00B:503:BB4C:A895:BB4F (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Once more, per WP:ONUS, no, that discussion is not forfeit. I have explained how compiling accounts from the internet and drawing a conclusion is WP:OR. You did heavily imply the movement is anti-Chinese, by adding the various see-alsos. Your use of a quote may skirt around GT being unreliable, but it then strayed into WP:UNDUE territory. If it's not reliable, why do we care what it says? Regarding other editor's motivations, if you have reason to suspect something, take your evidence to WP:COIN or WP:ANI. Continuing to harp on it here is casting WP:ASPERSIONS, and is forbidden. Finally, please see WP:1AM. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I did not cite Global Times as a definitive source which is what would violate WP:GLOBALTIMES. I cited it as a direct quote of what the media group has said in response to the movement, and specifically labelled it as a response from Chinese media. Also, the see-alsos are included because the movement contains parallels to other groups (included in see-also) that have connotations with online racism, such as NAFO (group), which has been accused of anti-Russian racism (in its own page, in the reception section). Even all things considered the mentions of the response from Chinese media ought to be included, as well as the quotes from the interviewee which were directly found in the source which were expunged for some reason. 2605:8D80:13E2:7C8B:A0C9:ADA1:298:BCEF (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Silencing and selective depiction

@Amigao is selectively reporting the unsavoury pieces of the movement, while making blatantly untrue claims:

• Nowhere in any citation, does the movement target “the People’s Republic of China” specifically. Meanwhile, it has been on record repeatedly in WP:RS sources (such as interviews) first-handedly talking about “China”, the “Chinese people”, and their “banal evils”. These are reported explicitly in all sources, and this user is trying to make unverified claims that these are “only targeted towards the Communist Party or the PRC government”, which is WP:SYNTH. Furthermore, as per RFA (apparently a reliable source), the movement has also targeted posts from Taiwan, which is outside the jurisdiction of PRC internet control, so as per WP:RS this is simply untrue.
• As per WP:COPYWITHIN, there is a clear description of r/ChonglangTV as an anti-Chinese community on the Controversial Reddit communities page. I suggest to User:Amigao that if they disagree with this, they are free to contest that claim at that page.
• There is a clear WP:RS for its anti-nationalist and anti-Chinese theme, which is the first citation of the article (which I have already explained in a previous edit description).
• The inclusion of Anti-Germans (political current) and anti-Japaneseism and White guilt are justified per WP:SEEALSO, which allows for related phenomenon to be included.

If you want to present positive or virtuous aspects of this movement by using verified sources and not WP:SOAPBOXing, you are free to do that. But every change I have made falls clearly within acceptable Wikipedia editing policy and do not justify removal. Furthermore, the WP:ONUS is on you to demonstrate that my edits contradict Wikipedia policy, as I have demonstrated repeatedly with citations of policy that my edits are legitimate. ~2026-28124-4 (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

You might want to start by reviewing WP:AGF. Also, WP:COPYWITHIN does not override WP:RS. A factual claim in an article still requires WP:RS to back it up. - Amigao (talk) 05:30, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

WP:AGF does not exempt you from your refusal to acknowledge my responses. Per WP:DISRUPTSIGNS:

• Fails to recognize, rejects, or ignores community input: you ignored all of my reasons for including the WP:SEEALSO pages, which very clearly allows for usage to organize internal links to related or comparable articles, which is evident. You are further refusing to acknowledge that the WP:ONUS is on YOU to demonstrate that the movement is "anti-PRC" rather than anti-China as a whole. Sources have repeatedly recorded speech that targets:
  • people in more countries realize that the people of China are not 'warm, hospitable, and gentle' as the CCP's foreign propaganda declares, but instead are a collective that is proud, arrogant, vigorously in love with populism, cruel, bloodthirsty, and completely lacking in sympathy. very explicitly says the people of China, not "members of the Communist Party" or even "[politically involved] citizens of the People's Republic of China".
  • banal evil of the Chinese people does not say "banal evil of the members of the Communist Party", it very clearly says "Chinese people".

I'm very clearly going to say that your continued insistence that this is "anti-PRC" constitutes WP:SYNTH as no article makes any claim that these statements target "the PRC". Furthermore, the movement has not restricted its scope to "only the PRC", as I have added a citation demonstrating its relation to Taiwanese politicians.

Furthermore, there is nothing in either WP:COPYWITHIN or WP:RS that prohibits me from cross-referencing, but here are two sources that are NOT prohibited that clearly examine the anti-Chinese nature:

• https://restofworld.org/2023/reddit-china-online-communities/ (Rest of World)
• https://digmedia.lucdh.nl/2021/12/01/hidden-corners-of-chinese-dissents-r-chonglangtv/ (Leiden University Centre for Digital Humanities)

~2026-28706-2 (talk) 06:05, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for providing citations. Both clearly speak of "anti-China" and anti-CCP sentiment for the banned Reddit community in question. However, you can please point out any text that speaks of "anti-Chinese" sentiment per se? - Amigao (talk) 06:15, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

I will remind you that WP:COMPETENCE is required in reading sources, but for the sake of completeness:

• Also holding the criticism of the ignorant attributes ingrained in Chinese culture(they called ‘支性, ‘Shina-ness, an offensive word for Chinese)
  • Per wiktionary:支那: (originally neutral, now derogatory and offensive) China, with derived terms wiktionary:支那人: (now usually derogatory, offensive, ethnic slur) Chinaman (Chinese person)
• In May 2022, Reddit banned r/cltv, a subreddit known for its strong anti-China sentiments and hateful speech, for doxxing other users. R/cltv (a variation of r/chonglangtv) originated from Chinese discussion forum Kanagawa Chonglang Hub, a controversial community on Baidu Tieba for its rampant use of racial slurs and extreme anti-China views.
  • Racial slurs and hateful speech very clearly refer to a group of people, and not any political group or country as an institution.

You are now clearly removing sources that are adequate, and I have reason to accuse you of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.

~2026-28706-2 (talk) 06:21, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

The Rest of World article speaks of "...Baidu Tieba for its rampant use of racial slurs and extreme anti-China views" in particular. To be precise, it does not describe the Reddit community with those words. The Leiden University Centre for Digital Humanities does not even use the word "racial" or "race" once. - Amigao (talk) 06:29, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are you really claiming that racial slurs and hateful speech do not constitute racism? Are you claiming r/CLTV and r/ChonglangTV have no relation whatsoever? This seems to be a clear case of lack of WP:COMPETENCE, with your apparent lack of ability to read sources coupled with apparent inability to recognise that racial slurs constitute racism. ~2026-28706-2 (talk) 06:35, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Neither source cited above explicitly states that the GTM is "anti-Chinese." Without a WP:RS that explicitly states this, it's just WP:SYNTH and has to be removed. - Amigao (talk) 06:42, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Rich of you to accuse others of WP:SYNTH when it is very precisely what you are doing trying to bend words as much as possible to cast plausible deniability that it is "anti-PRC" rather than anti-China. I am also reminding you that this source is towards demonstrating that r/ChonglangTV is indeed an anti-Chinese community. Once again, WP:COMPETENCE is required, and you are evidently lacking in it or are expecting benefit of doubt that frankly you've exhausted from me. ~2026-28706-2 (talk) 06:46, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

You still have not produced a WP:RS that explicitly states "anti-Chinese" rather than "anti-China." - Amigao (talk) 06:52, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

I have, and you are rejecting sources on the basis that it does not provide an exact series of words, WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.

This article, https://madeinchinajournal.com/2025/03/10/protesting-the-party-state-through-self-racialisation/, which shows no political inclination or any other reason to discredit it as a WP:RS, written by one of the authors of the academic paper Curating activist journalism to defy China’s “mainstream” narrative on X (Twitter), has the line However, while acknowledging the capacity of the initiative to counter China’s nationalist politics, we should not overlook its coordinators’ manifest internalisation of anti-Chinese racism, which exacerbates Sinophobia on international digital platforms., as well as In another instance, in commenting on the recent influx of American influencers on the Chinese social media platform Xiaohongshu (小红书, known as RedNote or, more precisely, Little Red Book), following the US Government’s attempted TikTok ban in January 2025, the GTM account even posted a tweet mockingly reminding its followers of the dog-eating tradition in certain regions (The Great Translation Movement 2025). Resorting to a highly visible racist trope that permeates global digital platforms, the tweet blatantly sought to demonise the Chinese people as a collective incompatible with modern lifestyles and ethics. ~2026-28706-2 (talk) 07:03, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

It is fine to quote a particular academic's nuanced opinions with proper WP:INTEXT attribution. That said, it cannot be stated in WP:WIKIVOICE. - Amigao (talk) 07:12, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

This is not an opinion piece and the author refers to himself only to mention that he had written a journal article, and that this article does not reflect a personal opinion. WP:WIKIVOICE applies as this is not an opinion piece. These are asserted as facts and not personal opinion, by a reliable source (does not indicate political affiliation, and has academic credentials). ~2026-28706-2 (talk) 07:17, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Altman Yuzhu Peng makes a good point in the piece about the potential for conflating a regime and the people. That said, it would still require proper WP:INTEXT attribution. - Amigao (talk) 07:26, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Another convenient omission of the author's sentence its coordinators’ manifest internalisation of anti-Chinese racism, I see. This is not a claim of "potential conflation", it is a factual assertion that such a thing has taken place and is actively being encouraged by the movement organisers, by an academically credited individual who has written a non-opinion piece in a journal that cannot reasonably be discredited as non-WP:RS. I shouldn't need to spell this out for you. ~2026-28706-2 (talk) 07:33, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Furthermore, I am still waiting on you to respond to my remaining arguments, and will remind you that WP:ONUS not being on me here (as I have already cited reasons for WP:SEEALSO, and have shown that no part of the citation claims "anti-China" (with China referring to the country and political institutions). The RFI source uses the word wiktionary:反華, the definition is to be anti-China; anti-Chinese; to be Sinophobic - I remind you that the Wikipedia page for Sinophobia states in lede prejudice, hatred, hostility, and discrimination that is directed towards Chinese people or Chinese culture.

I am prepared to use WP:3O for dispute resolution. ~2026-28706-2 (talk) 06:31, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

WP:ONUS very much applies here. If you want to add content saying that the GTM is "anti-Chinese" (and not simply "anti-China") then you need to produce a WP:RS (preferably, WP:GREL or academic WP:BESTSOURCES) to back it up. - Amigao (talk) 06:36, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

RFI is WP:RS and used the word wiktionary:反華, "通过片面截取翻译中文社交媒体上一些相对激烈的言论，向外国受众传递带有明显反华倾向的诱导性和标签化信息". The definition of that word is very clearly written. You aren't entitled to anyone's benefit of doubt. ~2026-28706-2 (talk) 06:40, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

The Radio France Internationale article in question here quotes the Global Times speaking of "smearing China" and "anti-China bias." - Amigao (talk) 06:49, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, continue to fail to bring new arguments that haven't been addressed already. Relying on Google Translate is not sufficient and wiktionary:反华 does not have the sole definition of "opposing China or its interests as a country". ~2026-28706-2 (talk) 06:53, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

A quote from an editorial in a WP:DEPREC like WP:GLOBALTIMES is not sufficient to categorize an article in particular way in WP:WIKIVOICE. - Amigao (talk) 06:58, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

That's not what I was talking about. I did not use the Global Times to reach any conclusion in the article. I'm specifically referring to your decision to replace "anti-Chinese sentiment" from the words the Global Times themselves used to "anti-China sentiment" to imply that it is only some vague opposition to the PRC government. ~2026-28706-2 (talk) 07:04, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

At any rate, I'm going to use WP:3O now, no progress is being made in spite of the insurmountable amount of evidence I have presented. ~2026-28706-2 (talk) 07:05, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

You probably should also review past discussion on this talk page in which a WP:3O already took place for a substantively similar issue. I would also recommend reviewing WP:DEADHORSE. - Amigao (talk) 07:33, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Past discussion, which took place more than six months ago, involving an entirely different people, using entirely different arguments, is not relevant. The previous WP:3O mediator, @EducatedRedneck, requested additional reliable sources, which I provided in this section of the talk page. Previous discussions are not gospel, and can be challenged upon compelling reason. ~2026-28706-2 (talk) 07:35, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Weighing in because I was pinged. Yes, this discussion is frightfully similar to the above one, complete with dubious behavior by the temp account and reliance on WP:SYNTH interpretations ("X, an representative of Y, said Z which is racist" does not say "X is racist"). Sources must comply with WP:RS, and per WP:BURDEN must be provided for any statement for which they're requested, regardless of copywithin. Finally, yes, consensus can change. However, from that section, On the other hand, proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:00, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Seeing as you've accused me of vandalism to another admin, @Ad Orientem, I don't owe you any assumption of good faith if you aren't willing to reciprocate the equivalent courtesy. ~2026-28706-2 (talk) 07:22, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

@Amigao I frankly do not know why you added the contentious topics banner to the top of the page, when this article is tangentially related to Uyghurs, as there is only a single mention of a Taiwanese politician's support for China's policies in Xinjiang, but if you think that this is a legitimate reason to silence someone from the article, especially someone whose edits have nothing to do with that topic, then you are mistaken. ~2026-28706-2 (talk) 07:54, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

3O Response

Response to third opinion request: There is a lot to digest here. I've reviewed this thread, the prior 3O discussion, and y'all's recent changes to the article. Still, before I provide my opinion pursuant to a request lodged at WP:3O, I'd like to ask a few things to ensure my understanding of the dispute is accurate and my feedback can be productive. User:~2026-28706-2, please confirm that you are dissatisfied with the current state of the article (captured here), paying particular attention to the recent edits by User:The Account 2? If so, please identify the specific edit(s) you'd like to make and the source you'd cite them to. Amigao, if you'd like, feel free to provide a short summary of your position. I look forward to hearing from you both, and hope to be able to provide a helpful opinion. Going forward, let's try to remain respectful and calm. Keep your comments solely focused on the content, not the user. Thanks! Jcgaylor (talk) 09:55, 14 January 2026 (UTC) This looks like yet another case of WP:SYNTH additions from a temp account in which factual claims are being presented in WP:WIKIVOICE while not being explicitly backed up by WP:RS. - Amigao (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2026 (UTC) Hi, thank you for volunteering to be a third opinion. I'm not going to bother responding to the claims of yet another case of WP:SYNTH additions from a temp account in which factual claims are being presented in WP:WIKIVOICE while not being explicitly backed up by WP:RS., because I think these are just rehashed arguments with nothing new to add and that everything I have to say in response are given in my responses above. While I am pleased with some of the edits @The Account 2 made, I still wish for additional edits: The mentioned subreddit r/ChonglangTV, should be mentioned in WP:WIKIVOICE as an anti-Chinese community. I gave these references: , which I believe are WP:RS, and give the following: Also holding the criticism of the ignorant attributes ingrained in Chinese culture(they called ‘支性, ‘Shina-ness, an offensive word for Chinese) Per wiktionary:支那: (originally neutral, now derogatory and offensive) China, with derived terms wiktionary:支那人: (now usually derogatory, offensive, ethnic slur) Chinaman (Chinese person) In May 2022, Reddit banned r/cltv, a subreddit known for its strong anti-China sentiments and hateful speech, for doxxing other users. R/cltv (a variation of r/chonglangtv) originated from Chinese discussion forum Kanagawa Chonglang Hub, a controversial community on Baidu Tieba for its rampant use of racial slurs and extreme anti-China views. Racial slurs and hateful speech very clearly refer to a group of people, and not any political group or country as an institution. It is not WP:SYNTH to claim that this is anti-Chinese, in a racist sense, with "racial slurs" and the mentioned slurs that are used. Furthermore, per WP:COPYWITHIN, I am copying the contents of that page into here. Anyone who objects is free to raise their objections on that page's talk page, but my edits here are contingent on the edits made on that page. I would like the category [[Category:Anti-Chinese sentiment]] to be restored. @Amigao has consistently tried to change the category to [[Category:Anti-People's Republic of China sentiment]], which is frankly the most WP:SYNTH claim made here - there is not a single reference here that makes the claim that the movement only opposes the "PRC government", the "Communist Party", or anything else that would suggest it only opposes the PRC in such a way that it may support, for instance, the Republic of China. In fact, I would like to hear how User:Amigao even reached the conclusion, from any source, that it is explicitly "anti-People's Republic of China", rather than merely "anti-China"/"anti-Chinese". (I further want to point out that concluding "anti-China" to only mean "anti-People's Republic of China" is WP:SYNTH as well.) I would like to have the see-also pages, under WP:SEEALSO, to be restored, specifically links to Anti-Germans (political current), Anti-Japaneseism, and White guilt. WP:SEEALSO permits inclusion of relevant or related topics, and this is another related topic seeing as it is about a group within a country spreading hatred against its own people. I would like to restore to the infobox Anti-nationalism and Anti-Chinese sentiment. These are provided by the sources that I mentioned previously. Furthermore, the essay by Altman Yuzhu Peng is not an opinion piece, it is presented as a factual representation, and given by an academically credited individual. The citations from Radio France International, which writes "通过片面截取翻译中文社交媒体上一些相对激烈的言论，向外国受众传递带有明显反华倾向的诱导性和标签化信息", uses wiktionary:反華, and the definition on Wiktionary clearly states the definition as to be anti-China; anti-Chinese; to be Sinophobic - I again will remind that the Wikipedia page for Sinophobia states in lede: prejudice, hatred, hostility, and discrimination that is directed towards Chinese people or Chinese culture. Once again, thank you for taking the time to review the conflict. ~2026-28706-2 (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2026 (UTC) ~2026-28706-2 (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2026 (UTC) @Jcgaylor I furthermore have noticed that @Amigao has changed the r/ChonglangTV entry on Controversial Reddit communities to say "anti-People's Republic of China sentiment" instead of "anti-China sentiment". As that page is locked to unregistered editors, I cannot revert this edit, but I would like this edit reverted, and that the WP:ONUS is on them to demonstrate why their edit is acceptable. ~2026-28706-2 (talk) 11:56, 15 January 2026 (UTC) The proper way to request a change is via an WP:Edit request on that talk page, not here. Doing so this way comes off as WP:PROXYING. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:03, 15 January 2026 (UTC) @Jcgaylor I furthermore would like to note that @Amigao is continuing to edit the article while there is an ongoing conflict, while knowing fully that I am not able to edit the page because of a claim made at the page protection board. No involved parties should be continuing to edit the page while there is an ongoing conflict, and I would also like to point towards some blatantly untruthful claims made by User:Amigao in the process of their continued editing: The following was removed: Chong Ia Jan of National University of Singapore, in reference to the movement, warned readers not to accept all such movements as necessarily acting in good faith., with the claim failed verification - not at all what Chong Ia Jan actually said in the cited article. In actuality, the cited source says the following: There's also a common assumption online that there are "good" actors whose words and deeds are always in good faith, and irredeemable bad ones, added associate professor Chong Ja Ian at the National University of Singapore. "This binary approach overly simplifies the world and can result in misplaced conclusions," he said. The following was removed: Maria Repnikova of Georgia State University urged readers to take into account the biases of such movements, and that the movement was "picking very provocative posts, which are attention-grabbing.", with the claim this quote is not even in the cited article. In actuality, the cited source says the following: But, she added, the account makes some of its own editorial decisions, "picking very provocative posts, which are attention-grabbing." In the edit with the description more in line with what Peng, Bandurski, and Repnikova have stated, mentions of non-state criticism of the movement are removed, and diminished to the much softer Others have pointed out that translated nationalist content may not be representative of the larger population's views, can paint an overly simplistic picture, and runs the risk of conflating the Chinese public with the CCP. This is also unacceptable. Furthermore, while some of the cited sources in the criticisms section are vaguely tied to state media, the people writing criticisms there are not writing on behalf of state or party organs, and have academic credentials. For example, the mentioend Tang Jingtai of Fudan University. There is furthermore, no evidence to suggest this person is writing on behalf of the Party or as a spokesman for the state or foreign relations. In the edit with the description more nuanced quotes; ce, User:Amigao further tries to soften the critical language by diminishing criticized the movement for its racially-charged portrayal of Chinese people to noted the movement's "potential to incite anti-Chinese racism on X by portraying grassroots pro-regime actors as representative of the entire Chinese population.". This is very blatantly false. The article in question makes very clear several instances of the movement using blatantly racist depictions of Chinese people, including dog meat consumption. ~2026-28706-2 (talk) 12:13, 15 January 2026 (UTC) This is almost a carbon copy of the above discussion, right down to the blatant synth of trying to string together different sources (X says Y, A says Y is Z, so we'll say in Wikivoice that X is Z). The Tu quoque of "but it's synth to NOT say this" is not convincing either. Consider: China links to the page for the People's Republic of China. It's not synth, e.g., if a source says, "America is imperialist" to say "The United States is imperialist." Finally, please stop with the WP:WALLOFTEXT; I skipped your latest post entirely on account of WP:TLDR. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:15, 15 January 2026 (UTC) It IS WP:SYNTH, because "anti-People's Republic of China" is used not to imply anti-Chinese (in a racist sense), but anti-PRC government. The lede of the article anti-People's Republic of China sentiment is antipathy to the People's Republic of China (PRC). "Anti-PRC" is different from "anti-Chinese sentiment" in cultural and ethnic contexts, but they sometimes appear at the same time and are described as "Sinophobia", and its short description (which User:Amigao removed) is Opposition to the Chinese government. If a source says "Americans are stupid", it is WP:SYNTH to present that as criticism of the United States government. Frankly, if you can't be bothered to read each point that I meticulously and structuredly laid out in reference to the edits by User:Amigao and instead defer to accusations of WP:WALLOFTEXT, then I'm relieved you aren't the WP:3O mediator this time. ~2026-28706-2 (talk) 12:32, 15 January 2026 (UTC) You talk about "anti-Chinese", yet the source you supplied only says "Anti-China." But okay. If you can't be bothered to present your arguments in a concise way, that's fine. You're the one who wants a change, so if you fail to convince other editors, the change won't happen. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:40, 15 January 2026 (UTC) If you can't be bothered to engage with the talk meaningfully, that's fine as well. I've explained clearly that anti-Chinese sentiment and anti-People's Republic of China sentiment are two different phenomenon. Claiming "anti-China" translates bijectively to "anti-People's Republic of China", is false, and no source says makes the claim that it opposes only the PRC, rather than China as a country. ~2026-28706-2 (talk) 12:43, 15 January 2026 (UTC) THIRD OPINION – Thank you all for your participation. I agree with EducatedRedneck that this thread is similar to the prior one, and I endorse their prior opinion. The requested edits do amount to WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. I am not swayed by the limited sourcing connecting the various subreddits to the GTM, let alone enough to associate reporting on the subreddits to the GTM itself. Jcgaylor (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2026 (UTC) I feel unsatisfied with the following points which haven't been addressed: No source shows the movement, or r/ChongLangTV, to be "anti-PRC" only, rather than anti-Chinese as a whole. "China" and "People's Republic of China" are not interchangeable in all contexts, and "anti-China" cannot be replaced with "anti-People's Republic of China". WP:RS goes both ways, and I would like to see a WP:RS that explicitly says it "only opposes the PRC". The sources I cited are about demonstrating that r/ChongLangTV was anti-Chinese, not about using them to conclude whether the movement is racist. The article I used from Altman Yuzhu Peng is what I used to conclude the movement was racist. I would like the following to be addressed as well, and I do not think that these are unreasonable claims or requests. ~2026-28706-2 (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2026 (UTC) WP:SATISFY. Also, if you assume bad faith and make snarky comments, don't be surprised if people don't want to discuss with you more than strictly necessary. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2026 (UTC) I have plenty of reason to assume bad faith from @Amigao, most notably their accusations that I am engaging in WP:VANDALism. This user has been on Wikipedia since 2009, and should be perfectly aware of what constitutes WP:VANDALism and what is WP:NOTVANDAL - none of my edits meet WP:VANDAL. Furthermore, the dispute is not about whether this dispute resembles a previous dispute on the talk page, but rather about the content of the page itself. Finally, WP:3O does state In some cases both sides may have presented valid arguments, or you may disagree with both. Provide the reasoning behind your argument., and should address the presented arguments. ~2026-28706-2 (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2026 (UTC) Then take it to their user talk page to hash it out, or the dramaboard if that has failed; article talks are for discussing content, not behavior. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2026 (UTC) You are right to say article talks are for discussing content, not behavior - the entire intention of this was to discuss the content of the article, not question whether the dispute resembled a previous dispute more than six months ago. ~2026-28706-2 (talk) 23:43, 15 January 2026 (UTC) Whether the content was already discussed is a content discussion. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:43, 15 January 2026 (UTC) Reminder: Per WP:REDACT, please don't edit your comment after it's been replied to. As for the 3O providing the reasoning, they did. Once again, WP:SATISFY. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2026 (UTC) Just because you endorse their endorsement of your verdict on a previous dispute, does not mean you can claim that reasoning was provided, when it was not: There was no reasoning for the claim that The requested edits do amount to WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. While they have said I am not swayed by the limited sourcing connecting the various subreddits to the GTM, let alone enough to associate reporting on the subreddits to the GTM itself., I did not "associate" reporting on the subreddits to make the conclusion itself. These were two separate matters: I requested that the subreddit should have been labelled "anti-Chinese", using the Leiden University and Rest of World sources, that talk about the subreddit. I requested that the movement should be labelled "anti-Chinese", using the source from Altman Yuzhu Peng, which does call out its organisers for internalised racism towards Chinese people. Furthermore, per Wikipedia:Third opinion/User FAQ#What happens next?, I may ask why I think they may have missed the point or even move to WP:DRN if needed. ~2026-28706-2 (talk) 23:54, 15 January 2026 (UTC) 2nd response from 3O editor Hi there, I appreciate your patience; it has been a busy day for me. To the extent one finds my position lacking explanation, I'd encourage them to revisit the first 3O opinion issued in this dispute by @EducatedRedneck. I endorsed their position, which I felt provided sufficient explanation in line with WP:3O guidelines. For the sake of clarity, however, I'll elaborate. On the issue of subreddits and "anti-Chinese" labels This is an article about the GTM. The only reason a subreddit would be germane to this article is if there is reliable sourcing to establish that those subreddits are a manifestation or arm of the movement. From what's been provided, and from the research I've conducted, I am not satisfied that the threshold of connection has been met. As it currently stands, the article claims GTM operated through various subreddits, citing The Atlantic. The Atlantic article does not mention any specific subreddit. The only source provided in the article to substantiate a connection between GTM and r/chonglangtv is the RFA piece, which describes the subreddit, according to my translation, as "suspected to be related to the Great Translation Campaign". That is hardly a solid conclusion. Even if it were, the RFA describes r/chonglangtv as "oppos[ed] to Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party . . ." The only time the article mentions anti-China sentiments is when referring to the response of Ukrainian and other peoples that view the pro-war propaganda issued by the Chinese government and when describing other groups that are opposed to the CCP and its oppression of free speech or support for Russia. The RFA never refers to r/chonglantv as opposed to or racist against Chinese citizens or people of Chinese ethnicity. You also link to this forum-like post, written by a user listed only as "Zheyue", to claim that r/chonglangtv holds racist or "anti-Chinese" views. Further down from the portion you quoted, the author states "in this sub, all things could be just for fun, and their post all have a sense of irony and playfulness, based on one standard: try their best to achieve 节目效果 (dramatic effects), which means a kind of black humor to some extent." So, even if this was a WP:RS (which is highly debatable), the author doesn't go as far as to say that its users are racist or bigoted to Chinese people, but rather Chinese people who are using dark humor to cope with dissatisfaction with the CCP and the Chinese state. All of that is made irrelevant, though, by the fact that there is no compelling evidence to tie r/chonglangtv to GTM–the topic of the article. Then, you provide this ROW article that discusses r/cltv. The ROW does not say that the subreddit is a manifestation of the GTM, nor mentions the movement at all. Rather, it calls r/cltv a "variation of r/chonglangtv", which, again, has very little to no sourcing connecting it to GTM in the first place. The piece does say that r/cltv has an "anti-China sentiment". In the context of the full paragraph, however, one can persuasively argue the author is talking about anti-state sentiments. In sum, there is not enough coverage in reliable sources to establish that these subreddits are connected to the GTM. Even if there were, I do not agree that these sources establish that these subreddits hold racist or "anti-Chinese" views. So, including your requested edits would present both WP:WEIGHT and WP:OR problems because 1) it covers a viewpoint not germane to the article's topic and 2) would present viewpoints not supported by coverage in reliable sources. Associating these subreddits to the GTM movement (which their coverage in this Wikipedia article would/does), would present WP:SYNTH issues through the logical process EducatedRedneck laid out earlier ("X, an representative of Y, said Z which is racist" does not say "X is racist"). On the issue of the "anti-Chinese sentiment" category, "see also", and infobox requests My review of the cited sources in the article supports labelling the group as opposed to the CCP and the PRC as a state, rather than as opposed to the Chinese people. To the extent this is disputed by certain sources, those are discussed in the article already and do not represent a majority view sufficient for the category tag to be added. WP:BADCAT states, "even if an article may occupy the grey areas of a category's inclusion criteria, that is not a valid reason to keep the article in a category. If a particular article does not fit the inclusion criteria of a category, then the article simply should not be added to it." There seems to be a consensus that this article does not belong in the category you requested, and I agree. Even if your position had some rationality to it, I'd say it is a grey area that merits withholding it from the anti-Chinese category. Because there is a consensus and the sources support that GTM is a CCP/PRC, rather than a Chinese/ethnicity, opposition group, placing ethnic-based hate articles in the "See also" section is not appropriate as this article is not relevant or related to the proposed "see also" articles. However, I would support the placement of the anti-nationalism language back into the infobox. The cited sources make clear that the GTM is opposed to the Chinese government/CCP and its nationalistic messages. On the issue of the various critiques of edits made by Amigao As @EducatedRedneck pointed out, my role as a 3O contributor is not to make requested edits. I will only provide my opinion on a dispute that has unfurled and engaged with between two editors. To the extent your critiques of the edits made by Amigao relate to the discussion as it stood when I first engaged, I find them to be in line with policy. The original dispute I responded to centered on the subreddits, and the GTM by proxy, and their alleged anti-Chinese or racist sentiments, and if your edits were in line with Wikipedia policy. I've answered that in the negative. Editors involved in a 3O should not edit the article where it relates to the ongoing dispute, but are not wholly prohibited from editing the article. Conclusion I believe the article sufficiently discusses the viewpoints you advocate. There is ample discussion of those that believe the GTM espouses ethnic bias or hatred, or that its actions may arouse such bias or hatred in others (like Peng). This is done in a well-sourced and encyclopedic manner consistent with policy and guidelines. I do not believe this article is biased or fails to give due weight to significant viewpoints. I do, however, disagree with the article's association of r/chonglantv and the GTM, and believe that portion should be re-worded, better sourced, or redacted. Your edits that Amigao reverted were not consistent with policy, and as @EducatedRedneck stated earlier, were rightfully reverted. This concludes my involvement in this dispute. If you have further concerns, consider starting a WP:RFC to gain the attention/input of more users. Last, I will echo EducatedRedneck's suggestion that you be more mindful of the length and tone of your comments. This thread is MUCH longer and heated than it needs to be. This will discourage the involvement of other editors, which leads to less engagement and thoughtfulness. This runs counter to Wikpedia's core values. Try not to post multiple comments before someone has responded. Try to avoid accusing people of bad faith, even if you have feel they are. If you must bring it up, take it to their talk page or to WP:ANI (if the situation is severe enough). I suggest taking a step back from this article for awhile, edit elsewhere, let yourself cool down, then come back. Thank you for your contribution and passion. Happy editing, Jcgaylor (talk) 02:46, 16 January 2026 (UTC) Here is one source that definitively links the r/chonglangtv subreddit to GTM, specifically saying that it "launched" the movement: https://hrichina.substack.com/p/reddit-bans-forum-for-chinese-dissidents After the outbreak of the Russian-Ukrainian war in 2022, the “ChongLangtv” subreddit attracted widespread attention for launching the “Great Translation Movement.” I also would like to add, the following source: https://table.media/en/china/professional-briefing/xinjiang-and-supply-chain-translation-movement, specifically its quote The channel clearly does not claim to represent a balanced view of Chinese public opinion. Rather, The Great Translation Movement caricatures state media, which itself publishes in several languages, in an attempt to spread the official narrative of China as a peace-loving nation., at least in reference to the fact that it does not offer a nuanced, neutral presentation of China. Also, you claimed The piece does say that r/cltv has an "anti-China sentiment". In the context of the full paragraph, however, one can persuasively argue the author is talking about anti-state sentiments. I disagree that this is persuasive, as "anti-state sentiments" do not involve "hateful speech" - and the Wikipedia page for that, citing The Encyclopedia of the American Constitution, says "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, color, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation". Finally, I still seek to include, even without the explicit "subreddit was anti-Chinese" sentence, notwithstanding everything else, that anti-Chinese slurs were commonly used on that subreddit, which sources do support. ~2026-28706-2 (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2026 (UTC) @Amigao anti-nationalism is clearly accepted by consensus: see User:Jcgaylor's response However, I would support the placement of the anti-nationalism language back into the infobox. The cited sources make clear that the GTM is opposed to the Chinese government/CCP and its nationalistic messages.. Quit your edit warring and please WP:GETTHEPOINT. ~2026-28706-2 (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2026 (UTC) Refer to #"Anti-nationalist", below. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2026 (UTC) @Amigao Since you feel yourself entitled to revert edits and refuse to engage in dialogue on the talk page, would you like to use your words and explain clearly what Chong Ia Jan said in that article instead of just censoring things, or do I have to use dispute resolution if you continue doing whatever it is you think you're doing? ~2026-28706-2 (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2026 (UTC) Given the increasing WP:ASPERSIONS, this is looking more like WP:NOTHERE. - Amigao (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2026 (UTC) All I've done is ask you what Chong Ia Jan said, since apparently you object to all the ways I've tried to phrase what was said, but if you're so confident that I'm WP:NOTHERE you're welcome to report me at ANI. Be sure not to WP:BOOMERANG yourself with the number of times you've falsely accused me of vandalism. ~2026-28706-2 (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2026 (UTC) The removed text did not accurately represent what the academic stated. Also, we ought to avoid WP:BUSINESSINSIDER and stick with WP:GREL or academic WP:BESTSOURCES for contentious articles. - Amigao (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

References

Attempted addition of label of "racist"

I note that the temp account has attempted to replace a quote with one that describes the movement as racist. Per the above discussion, there seems to be a consensus against such a thing, and as such I have reverted. I imagine the temp account will argue the consensus was against using wikivoice to describe the movement as racist, so I'd like to invite other editors to weigh in. Is the quote that the temp account tried to shoehorn in here WP:UNDUE? EducatedRedneck (talk) 03:23, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

As you have correctly pointed out, it was not WP:WIKIVOICE, and your attempt to label an edit as "shoehorning" shows your blatant refusal to assume good faith. The edit is limited to using words specifically written in the editorial. The consensus is against using WP:WIKIVOICE to explicitly label it racist, not that no sources or cited works may be mentioned labeling it racist. Recall WP:NOTCENSORED, we do not censor a quote merely because we WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, and trying to suppress any mention, WIKIVOICE or not, of accusations of racism, does not apply. WP:UNDUE or not, a source exists, and the presentation of the source is merely one sentence, not an entire paragraph dedicated to analysing whether or not the movement is racist based on that one quote. ~2026-28706-2 (talk) 03:49, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

You've been told repeatedly that if you think there's a behavioral problem, talk it out on the user talk page first, then go to WP:ANI if that fails. Continuing to make evidence-free accusations on an article talk is disruptive.

As for the rest, I have no personal opinion on the matter. I'd never heard of this topic until my opinion was called for via WP:3O. And WP:UNDUE absolutely applies; we can't put in attributed quotes to flat-earthers in Earth for just that reason. I've said everything that I feel needs to be said; if other users think it belongs, they can readd it, and I'll happily abide by consensus. Until then, WP:ONUS applies, and it should remain out of the article. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:02, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

You're comparing apples and oranges now, by trying to suggest that including commentary on a movement, especially in a section clearly labelled as "reactions" (so it is anything but WP:UNDUE), is the same as contradicting established scientific fact. I can't even comprehend how you could suggest that the two are equivalent. ~2026-28706-2 (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree that it should not be in the article. Jcgaylor (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

"Anti-nationalist"

Adding another subsection here for discussion on the inclusion of "Anti-nationalist" in the article. Temp account has claimed there's consensus, but so far it seems to be two want inclusion, and two oppose. I oppose on the grounds that "Anti-nationalist" is a broad position, and does not follow simply from being anti-CPP which could be termed "anti-China-Nationalist" or somesuch, which is what the 3O provider above seemed to be saying. If the movement is anti-nationalist, find an WP:RS that says so in as many words. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. No WP:RS has been presented that labels GTM as "anti-nationalist" per se. - Amigao (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

The source says This trajectory of intervention not only reflects GTM activists’ strategic decision to organise the initiative from a confrontational stance against the CCP’s authoritarian rule but is also informed by their emotionally charged repudiation of a Chinese national identity, which they associate with China’s nationalist politics. What part of this sentence does not indicate opposition to China's nationalist policies? ~2026-28706-2 (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

None. But click on Anti-nationalist. The term is a broad stance, not specific to the CPP. One can be opposed to the CPP and their policies without objecting to nationalism in general. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

It's clear what anti-nationalism refers to in this context, opposition to Chinese nationalism. The sentence "China's nationalist policies" does not imply "only the CPC is nationalist", it just implies that the policies that China has undertaken under the CPC leadership are construed as nationalist. Either way, the source does say that it opposes Chinese nationalist policies. ~2026-28706-2 (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

See WP:SYNTH. - Amigao (talk) 19:49, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

See WP:NOTSYNTH. ~2026-28706-2 (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikilink didn't address the SYNTH concern. Still no consensus for inclusion, per WP:ONUS. EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

SYNTH is not presumed

If you want to revert something on the grounds that it's SYNTH, you should be able to explain what new thesis is being introduced and why it's not verified by the sources. You don't have to put the whole explanation in the edit summary, but if someone asks on the talk page, you should have something better ready than "Of course it's SYNTH. You prove it isn't." The burden of proof is light: just explaining what new assertion is made will do, and then it's up to the other editor to show that your reading is unreasonable. But in any disagreement, the initial burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and the claim that something is SYNTH is no exception.

~2026-28706-2 (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Synth concerns already explained above. (See my first two posts in this subsection.) Still no consensus for inclusion. EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

I explained below that how it is not, and you still haven't responded to that. ~2026-28706-2 (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Because it didn't address my concern. EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Undue coverage of Altman Yuzhu Peng

It seems WP:UNDUE to have two full paragraphs on Altman Yuzhu Peng's ideas when all others in the 'Reactions' section are afforded one or two sentences. Thoughts? Amigao (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I concur; it seems there are only two citations for Altman Yuzhu Peng, less than exists in some of the other 'Reactions' section. The majority of those two paragraphs are quotes anyway, which we should avoid. I suggest we trim it to only the first sentence, with its two citations, and place it in the 'negative' section. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Agreed as that would be an improvement over what is there now. - Amigao (talk) 23:40, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Noting here that an editor is trying to reinsert detail. I've invited them here to discuss. I do not believe more detail is needed; the reasons for Altman Yuzhu Peng's criticisms are not needed to note that the criticisms exist, and without more than one source, going into those reasons is WP:UNDUE when others don't have a similar level of detail. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:50, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Moved from User Talk:EducatedRedneck § Regard your undo version 1361323278 on Jun 27th over Great Translation Movement

Hi there, I has noticed your revert and your message a few days ago. Sorry I'm not a native speaker so my grammary may seem awkward somehow.

You mentioned "the 'context' does not seem necessary to note their criticism." ragard of my edit under Peng's criticism, but I believe this is defnitely worth noting that Peng's criticism is heavily focusing on the incitment of sinophobia either via protarying pro-government netizens as demonic individuals or classic racist tropes. Which providing examples like Peng's linguistic statistics over GTM's post or post directly linked to peng's "sinophobia incitment" claim. Which such context prevent his statement feels like a bland "attack" on GTM and more like an comment with concrete evidence AkaniRosseta (talk) 10:35, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

@AkaniRosseta I've moved this to the article talk page, as that's where it's most appropriate.

There are two sentences in your addition. The first is a linguistic analysis, where it's unclear why it's important and it's not necessary since the passage already cites anti-Chinese racism. The second is just calling out an example, which is also covered by the passage's anti-Chinese racism clause. Neither adds to the core idea of "Peng believes the GTM has the potential to incite anti-Chinese racism."

We don't need to provide any evidence here; this article is about GTM, not Peng, and anyone who wants to know the reasons for Peng's stance can click the source. We should not add this detail ourselves, because it would be WP:UNDUE; we have only one source discussing Peng, which means Peng isn't that important to the GTM as far as Wikipedia is concerned. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:24, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I understand AkaniRosseta (talk) 07:04, 3 July 2026 (UTC)