Talk:50 Cent Party

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject China (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Internet (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

OR / lack of references[edit]

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)

Is it relevant to Russian "Web brigades"?[edit]

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)

Name[edit]

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.

Examples[edit]

1. To check some of these people at work, try Asiafinest and Asianfanatics English forums.--Korsentry 04:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talkcontribs)

These people appear fairly randomly on different forums, and when they do appear, they are not very good. They also make genuine grassroots support for the Chinese gov't look as though they are posting on behalf of 50-cent party. Chinese people are well aware of the internet restrictions, especially younger people. They are very tech-savvy and respond to any new censorship routines within days. The real effect of 50CP on the internet is severely overestimated. Colipon+(Talk) 03:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
These commentators need copy, so it's understandable. Perhaps from now on, comments and personal opinions, previously referred to as '2¢' and 'tuppence', can be "index linked" to 50fen? ;-) Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Why not "50 cents"?[edit]

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)

Range and Effects[edit]

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)

Terms[edit]

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[edit]

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"?[edit]

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[edit]

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)