Talk:Chinese New Left

Untitled

I've just copy edited. Can someone cite some sources here? This is news to me, and I'd like to know what the person who felt confident enough to write this considers a good source. -- Jmabel 16:07, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

The 'Socialist Countryside'

The latest news [1] is that China is opting for subsidies and public services to overcome the current problems in the countryside, including tragedies like the Wang Binyu case.

The idea of privatising farmland is officially 'being considered' - very opaque, like most Chinese politics. But indicating some success for 'neo-leftism.

There have also been neo-liberal complaints that China is 'stagnating' [2] - which in neo-liberal terms it certainly is. But since the economy remains enormously successful, why change?

It may be years before we know what's been going on behind the scenes. But what we can see indiciates a slight leftward drift. No one is denouncing Deng's heritage - but then, he never denounced Mao.

The Tiananmen Papers include a section where Deng says he was always considered a Maoist, and indeed considered himself such. What he did could be considered a return to what Mao was doing in the 1950s.

--GwydionM 19:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Postmodernism

I think a bit much is made of postmodernism in this text. Whatever it is, it is not a concrete political philosophy or discernable popular movement, which is definitely what is implied with this paragraph:

Liberals also criticise postmodernism, which they argue is inappropriate for China because it is still not developed enough, and at the moment does not yet face some of the particular problems that have occurred in some developed countries that in turn gave rise to postmodernist thought.

--Saforrest 14:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Whether it is or isn't a political philosophy, I don't understand the connection between it and the neo-leftism described in the article. Some clarification is needed. 217.132.11.23 21:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Move to 'Chinese New Left'?

This term got 137 Google hits, as against 183 for 'Neo-Leftism', with many of those looking like they are derived from the Wikipedia entry. Saying Chinese New Left would be more comprehensible and more accurate, since this is the term the people themselves use for translating their ideas into English.

--GwydionM 18:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Would like to see more New Left ideas and their sources

I see a lot of liberal and neo-liberal criticism of the New Left, but I still don't see or read about enough New Left ideals to have a good enough grasp on what their core values are. Personally I don't think it's just a simple case of nostalgia, because there seems to be a lot of modern-day nonintellectuals who are buying into New Leftism. Anyways just would like to read more about these guys and their ideas. Children of the dragon (talk) 11:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Quick Info Box

Nice job - I think one thing that would add to the page is a quick-info box on the top left that includes major players. An example is on Marie's page. You can just copy and paste the formatting from her page. DyzySyzygy (talk) 01:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

NPOV

This article has several inaccuracies starting with the introduction section. Try reading some of the prominent New Left scholars like Wang Hui for a better idea of what the New Left represents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.19.102.40 (talk) 08:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed! This reads like a rightwing-neoliberal hitpiece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.8.61.45 (talk) 06:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Revision

This article might need some revision: especially updating information on the New Left in Xi's era. For example, in the "Chongqing Model" section, the fate of Bo Xilai should be mentioned. Also, the party's current attitude towards the New Left should be provided. I don't think the Beijing Consensus should be categorized in its current position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ComradeBobLiu (talk • contribs) 02:24, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

A number of so-called Chinese New Left scholars, including Cui Zhiyuan, are strong supporters of the Beijing consensus. Zhejiu Pjet (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Which Hu Ping?

Hu Ping is a common name in China, there are probably more than 10,000 Hu Pings in China. One Hu Ping I know, 胡平, is a liberal intellectual who has nothing to do with the Chinese New Left. ISO lOI9 (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Clearly one OR case, it could also be argued that thousands of people share a same lastname yet there is no need to add a {{who}} when citing them as long as it is verified within the source. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 18:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

The documentation for this template explains how it should be used in general, whereas from the examples I've seen in the past, it's not appropriate to use this template simply because a reader can't specifically identify a person but has an internal source. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 19:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, I have told you that citation is not compulsory in the lede if it could be supported in the following sections per Wikipedia:LEADCITE. I have reverted your edit. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 19:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Loose knit group

I don't really have a problem with referring to the "new left" as loose-knit although I also don't think that's internally contradictory with the new left being engaged with a variety of social movements. Loose-knit doesn't mean small. I do, also, think the stuff from 2016 about neo-Maoism is kind of cogent for understanding Xi's internal popularity although that is a matter unrelated to this article. With that said I've got concerns about sole-sourcing definitive statements regarding the composition of the Chinese new left to an American author writing on behalf of the Hoover Institution and would kindly suggest that such statements should be tied either to multiple, agreeing, sources or, even better, Chinese academics on Chinese politics. Simonm223 (talk) 17:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

For context consider what Wang Hui had to say about the label: "Actually, people like myself have always been reluctant to accept this label, pinned on us by our adversaries. Partly, this is because we have no wish to be associated with the Cultural Revolution or, for that matter, with what might be called the 'Old Left' of the reform-era CCP. But it is also because the term New Left is a Western one, with a very distinct set of connotations – generational and political – in Europe and America. Our historical context is Chinese, not Western, and it is doubtful whether a category imported so explicitly from the West could be helpful in today's China." By using only an American source to define the characteristics of this loose movement we're doing exactly what he said should not be done. Simonm223 (talk) 17:31, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

1. The point is now "loose-knit", big or small, but "INTELLECTUAL".
2. Neo-Maoism as you stated is irrelevant to the article, I have no comment.
3. Regarding the fact that the so-called Chinese New Left emerged as an INTELLECTUAL movement during the 1990s, just read the first few sections of the articles carefully: there are all about intellectuals, intellectual views, etc. Of course I could find plenty of Chinese-language sources supporting the fact.

Juyiscally (talk) 17:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Wang Hui's comment actually delegitimazes the whole article, i.e., there is no so-called Chinese version of New Left existing. But anyway since the label has been created (by a journalist, not scholar) and become popularized, I do not intend to initiate a discussion on whether the article shoud be deteled due to its fictional nature. Juyiscally (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Please feel free to initiate an WP:AFD discussion regarding this article if you wish. I would suggest it would not be successful. But disrupting the article because you dislike its premise isn't likely to get you far. Simonm223 (talk) 17:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

But the condition for the article's existence should be that the article discribes a clear object, that is, an INTELLECTUAL movement during the 1990s. The content other than this object is subject to original research. Juyiscally (talk) 17:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, you don't need to shout. The edits I was reverting had nothing to do with calling anyone an intellectual. Nor does being an intellectual preclude one from participating in social movements. For a cogent example please consider Michel Foucault who was certainly an intellectual and who was also deeply involved in the prison abolition movement. I am a bit concerned t hat you labeled all but one of the people "intellectual" while one was labeled "liberal intellectual" as this suggests a POV that may not be supported by reliable sources I would recommend removing the word "liberal" from that one example if you insist on calling all those people intellectuals. I would also suggest you might be wise to look at WP:POINT because your most recent page edit seem at least a little pointed. Simonm223 (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Replying down here because we're getting into a bit of an indent kerfuffle - but I want to address your point regarding WP:OR - could you please demonstrate an example of original research in the article? Simonm223 (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Tell me what social movements Cui Zhiyuan, Wang Hui, Gan Yang, or Wang Shaoguang participated. You clearly do not even read Chinese. As for "whether they are intellectuals", while you can just go to their articles and read ENGLISH. Juyiscally (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. Chinese is my third language and while my literacy in it is worse than in English and French you are operating under a mistaken assumption here to suggest I cannot read it at all. I asked for examples of WP:OR you have not provided any. Simonm223 (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

One exaple of OR: The Social Movement section (edited by ONE person) says:

According to the Financial Times in 2016, several experts estimate that if there were free elections in China, a neo-Maoist candidate would win. This Maoist revival movement precedes the tenure of Xi Jinping, whose own revival of Mao-era elements seem to be intended as a conciliatory move towards the neo-Maoists. It is believed that the rising popularity of neo-Maoism is due to the growing economic dislocation and inequality under market reforms and globalisation.

Ok that is fine, good to know this information, but what is the information's relationship with the 1990s intellectual movement of the so-called Chinese New Left? It is unclear. This is OR. Juyiscally (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

reference to what constitutes OR:

Synthesis of published material

Shortcut

• WP:SYNTH

See also: Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not and Wikipedia:Citing sources § Text–source integrity

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research. "A and B, therefore, C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument concerning the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article.

Here are two sentences showing simple examples of improper editorial synthesis. Both halves of the first sentence may be reliably sourced but are combined to imply that the UN has failed to maintain world peace. If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research.

The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world.

In this second sentence, the opposite is implied using the same material, illustrating how easily such material can be manipulated when the sources are not adhered to:

The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, and since its creation there have been only 160 wars throughout the world.

Here are two paragraphs showing more complex examples of editorial synthesis. They are based on an actual Wikipedia article about a dispute between two authors, here called Smith and Jones. This first paragraph is fine because each of the sentences is carefully sourced, using a source that refers to the same dispute:

Smith stated that Jones committed plagiarism by copying references from another author's book. Jones responded that it is acceptable scholarly practice to use other people's books to find new references.

This second paragraph demonstrates improper editorial synthesis:

If Jones did not consult the original sources, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Harvard Writing with Sources manual, which requires citation of the source actually consulted. The Harvard manual does not call violating this rule "plagiarism". Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.

The second paragraph is original research because it expresses a Wikipedia editor's opinion that, given the Harvard manual's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. Making the second paragraph policy-compliant would require a reliable source specifically commenting on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Harvard manual and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source concerning the topic before it can be published on Wikipedia. Juyiscally (talk) 17:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

OK but it's not precisely WP:SYNTH since the Xu Youyou source actually does a lot of what you're describing as WP:SYNTH - now as you tagged Xu as a "liberal" intellectual I'm going to go ahead and guess that you don't think Xu constitutes a good source for this - as that's something of a lynchpin to the article's thesis. Now this, then, would be the questions I'd ask:

1. Can you demonstrate, beyond an ideological disagreement with Xu that they are not a reliable source.
2. Can you provide any responses to Xu from reliable sources?

If so we should describe the controversy, so to speak, and explain that the suggestion that there is a cohesive "neo-Maoist" movement within Chinese intellectual life and that it is the thing described by the term "Chinese New Left" is disputed. Simonm223 (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with Xu whether he is liberal or whatever. And I am not interested in ideological debate. My proposition is that the so-called Chinese New Left is (1) an intellectual movement, not social movement or student activism, (2) it emgered in the 1990s and ended in the early 2000s. If some people want to extent the article by writing about the intellectuals after the early 2000s, that is acceptable.

From this perspective, the whole section of "social movement" (Edited by ONE person) is OR and should be moved out from the article because it is OR, unless the editor responsible for this section shows that these various social movements are part of the so-called Chinese New Left emerged in the 1990s. Unfortuantely, this editor has not been able to do so. Juyiscally (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

And you, without any knowledge of this situation, just came in and intervene. Juyiscally (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

This page has been on my watchlist for years. According to your edit history today is your first day on Wikipedia. I didn't just come along without any knowledge. Now I have asked you before to assume good faith. I will not ask a third time.Simonm223 (talk) 18:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

But, again, I will reiterate you need a source for these revisions you wish to make. I get you're dissatisfied with the quality of the extant sources. You aren't alone in that dissatisfaction. How about you try to be cooperative with other people who might also be dissatisfied with the sources rather than going down the WP:POINT road. Simonm223 (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

1. You are absolutely free do initiate proceedures against me, e.g., ask an admin to judge if I have violated any rules and should be blocked. Good luck
2. I am not obliged the entail my past expericens of editing Wikipedia.
3. Since you have not proposed an argument for reverting my initial edits, I will revert them back.

Juyiscally (talk) 18:16, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Simonm223: So... Let me explain the things one by one: The editor, whom I have met in the past on both the Chinese Wikipedia and the English Wikipedia, is very obstinate and is in determination that the definition of the Chinese New Left is still in the 1990s and that nothing has changed, contrary to what many books have said in recent years (e.g. China's New Red Guards : The Return of Radicalism and the Rebirth of Mao Zedong, pp. 96, 125 & Proletarian China: A Century of Chinese Labour, p. 698). While this definition may be somewhat correct and/or even "classical", it does not account for the radicalism of recent years, and I have previously tried to dicuss with this editor on this issue to try to reach an agreement on what should and should not be written. However, the editor refused to make any constructive comments on the matter and simply accused that anything other than the 1990s definition should not be included. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 22:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

As for the article itself, despite the appeal of Wang Hui's argument at the time, his explanation has gradually became a secondary explanation (at least no longer the dominant explanation). Xu Youyu's explanation illustrates this point, and is further discussed in many other papers, for example, in this French paper on the issue of the demarcation between "New Left", "Old Left" and "grassroot neo-Maoism" (which is blended in current version of the article, but after all, there are controversies among scholars, too), and in Historical Dictionary of the Chinese Communist Party, pg 417, also on the issue of the intellectuals, the Utopia and more broad leftist movements, and also in this Chinese paper published in CNKI. Considering the editor's past edits, I have good reason to think that the editor fully understands the existence of the relevant sources, but refuses to acknowledge them, and likewise refuses to adopt them. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 22:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll be honest - I don't think it's the role of Wikipedia to adjudicate whether Wang Hui or Xu Youyu has a better definition of the Chinese New Left but rather to report on what reliable sources believe and, when reliable sources disagree, to demonstrate that disagreement in neutral language. My main concern is to remove propagandistic sources such as RFA and American conservative think-tanks from this article as I consider them non-reliable. I think when it comes to the opinions of notable Chinese academics we should not be taking sides. Simonm223 (talk) 12:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@Simonm223: I certainly agree with your argument and approach, but the problem now is that either way, the entry is potentially at risk of UNDUE: if it follows Wang Hui's argument, it will hardly reflect the left-wing radicalism that has also been labelled as "New Left" in recent years (supported by sources), and if it follows Xu's argument, then the entry would again deviate slightly from the original scholarly definition (also supported by sources). Moreover, this issue would also affect the narrative structure of the later text. It is certainly not for Wikipedia to resolve such specific academic disputes, so an 'implicit' reference to neo-Maoism seems to me to be one option (which is what is happening now), but unfortunately the editor does not agree with me. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 13:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Well I'm doing a source audit - let's see where it takes us. Simonm223 (talk) 13:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Good to know that! ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 13:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

OK, I've finished my first pass. I also reached out to the good folks at Wikiproject China to get more eyes on this article so that we can have a more holistic review of WP:SYNTH and WP:DUE concerns. I do believe that a connection of the "new left" to "neo-Maoism" is reasonably established but I'm not the only person who is likely to want to review sources to discuss that. I am less certain (as I mentioned further down) that any reasonable reference-driven link exists between the new left and Bo Xilai. For refs I was on the fence or had additional questions on I've created additional discussion topics. Simonm223 (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Economist Article - "The Princelings are coming"

Currently citation 5. I'm on the fence about the Economist and so the individual expertise of the author may be relevant. Article is paywalled. Can anyone provide information about the author or a link that doesn't require me to pay The Economist? Simonm223 (talk) 13:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@Simonm223 I haven't found information about the author, but there is a section of the article titled New Left, and the following references to Neo-Maoism and hardline Maoists, which I may not be able to post in full here for copyright reasons, so I'll pick what I think is the most important paragraph:

"These include diehard Maoists (who are a marginal force in Chinese politics, but still enjoy some appeal among retired officials and workers laid off from state-owned enterprises) as well as social democrats who want a fairer distribution of wealth. Many in this camp believe that China is far from enjoying the golden age now being proclaimed by some. The country is too divided between rich and poor to be experiencing a shengshi." ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 13:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm honestly leaning toward excluding this source as it's making claims without any demonstration of relevant expertise - the editorial department of the Economist is not an expert source in Chinese political factions. But I'm willing to see what others feel. Simonm223 (talk) 13:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@Simonm223 It looks like it was written by the editorial team, but to be honest the Economist isn't the only one to say so, so you can go on. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 13:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Paulos Huang theological article

Citation 6 as of now - it's not high-priority. Nothing is sole-sourced to it. But I read the abstract and it seems... prescriptive rather than descriptive. I've requested the full article from the author and we'll see if he sends me a copy. It looks like an interesting read regardless. But I did want to mark it as being questionable for this project. Leaving in pending review. Simonm223 (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

If you search for the chapter title and book title, there is a copy on Google Books that you can preview several pages. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 13:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I want to read the full text of this one anyway. It's up my alley outside the bounds of the Wikipedia project. Simonm223 (talk) 13:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure about your situation, but maybe you could try Wikipedia:TWL? ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 13:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@Simonm223 I will be away for several hours long, feel free to leave comments and I will read them when I return. Also, I hope the TWL is useful to you. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 14:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I contacted Huang directly. We'll see if he replies.Simonm223 (talk) 14:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@Simonm223: What's now? ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 10:43, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Alas he never got back to me. Simonm223 (talk) 13:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

"The recasting of Chinese socialism: The Chinese New Left since 2000"

Reference 11 right now. This one, from the abstract, looks like it's probably critical for describing how to handle post-1990s "new left" phenomena. If anyone has a copy of the full article let me know. I would like to read more than the abstract. Simonm223 (talk) 13:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@Simonm223: There's one on the Researchgate. Someone else has also uploaded what appears to be an uncopyrighted version to their website, but I'm still concerned about copyright issues so I won't put it up here. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 13:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

"New Left intellectuals have ‘taken up the role of establishment intellectuals, serving or supporting the party’, whereas the liberals have sought to ‘carve out a role as public intellectuals’ in vying for decentralized government, the protection of individual liberties, and increased marketization." Is rather at odds with the antagonistic characterization of the intellectual movement to the state that the current article uses. I'm just starting to dig into this paper but I think it will be a valuable tool. Simonm223 (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

But also the next para: "its representatives do not speak monolithically, but rather coalesce around rejuvenating Chinese socialism while differing in terms of approach."Simonm223 (talk) 16:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

This paper has a lot to say about the New Left's argument that state capacity to control the economy is a necessary precondition of democracy that seems absent or even distorted to a more pro-free-market position in the article. I'll keep reading before working on some rewrites to the economics section.Simonm223 (talk) 16:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how the tone of antagonist was inferred, but it's true that the New Left intellectuals varied, and while on the whole they were trusted by the establishment, it was more because they were needed to counter the liberals. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 21:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic if everyone will allow it but this has me convinced I should read Wang Hui directly: "Against the conventional view, he noted that the tragedy of the Cultural Revolution was precisely not the result of politicization as symbolized by political struggles inside and outside the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and government over political debates, theoretical explorations, and unprecedented discussions on political organization. Rather, it was because of ‘depoliticization’, which caused factional struggles that reduced the possibility of social self-government – a political model that transformed political debates into power struggles – and essentialist class viewpoints that transformed political concepts of class into pure status arguments."

In the conclusion, this line, which should probably be in the lede. "All share in a commitment to criticizing capitalism in its latest forms and defending the positive legacy of Chinese socialism, especially Maoism" Simonm223 (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Alright I've finished my review of this article. It is really something we should be using more as a source since it's a clearly reliable source that provides an overview of the intellectuals at the core of this political movement. Hilariously the last paragraph does provide a small justification for including mention of Bo Xilai - which I'd previously wanted to excise. I think I want to digest this paper for a bit but a few notes that we should do:

1. revise the lede to demonstrate that the New Left is a movement, mostly named by its antagonists within Chinese conservative liberalism, that is largely built upon a recuperation of Mao.
2. Bring up the mass line as it occupies a key role in a few of the central thinkers and it is presently not mentioned at all in this article.
3. Tone down the social movement section slightly to focus effectively exclusively on resistance to resurgent Maoism within contemporary Chinese politics.
4. Retain the Bo Xilai section but focus on it as an attempt at praxis from Cui Zhiyuan rather than focusing on Bo's fall from grace.
5. Expand the intellectual views section in general with attention to anti-modern modernity, confucian socialism, the mass line, and contextualizing the references to social democracy as being disputed. A lot of the economic democratization stuff is actually closer to Anarcho-Syndicalism than Social Democracy.

Any thoughts on these recommendations? Simonm223 (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@Simonm223: This version is good and I agree with the direction, but isn't it a bit lacking in polish to decide everything on the structure in just one paper? My suggestion is that you may put the structure here, expand it based on the next few other sources, and then rewrite the article based on the structure then. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 20:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Let me explain my thoughts specifically:

1. Indeed it was named by conservative liberals in the beginning, though the term is now used by anyone.
2. Totally agree. If my memory serves me correctly this is mainly Wang Shaoguang's idea.
3. It's OK. I think it would be possible to "condense" some of the events, for example, by enlisting only the abstract of the unrests, while focusing on the less controversial forum Utopia or something.
4. Perhaps too few? Shifting the subject back to the intellectuals is good, but the fact that one article dictates a specific writing style worries me a bit.
5. I support. Because the New Left (both the scholars and the Neo-Maoists) focus more on China's own culture.

In general, I would say that the direction is right, but perhaps the details still need to be amended with specific reference to other papers. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 20:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

cc User:Liang5276x, User:Fire-and-Ice & User:Newbamboo. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 20:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm of course not suggesting we sole-source this article. In fact you'll note that I've been very restrained with which sources I removed during my audit, erring on the side of caution. However I do think, while they may have let their passion get ahead of them in our initial encounter, that Juyiscally does have something of a point regarding scope creep in this article. It's certainly apropos to talk about the interesting and complex relationship that contemporary China has to Maoism but this article has clearly been framed to present an antagonistic relationship between "The Chinese New Left" and the Chinese state that is entirely at odds with how these neo-Maoist scholars have interacted with the state. Frankly Wang Hui is pretty cozy with Xi Jinping and seems, from the primary source reading I've been doing, to see him as a potential vehicle for the sort of socialist resurgence he prefers. I've said before that Wikipedia, to be neutral, should "address the controversy" in this case - that is to talk about both how some Maoist activists have become antagonistic to a state they see as too liberal but also how some Maoist activists and academics have seen a promise of a renewed socialism under Xi. I think that this article has, over time, been subjected to too much of a North-American POV regarding this loose-knit movement and, with that, a concomitant attempt to point to anything that the Chinese state does as universally opposed by Chinese citizenry. This is, of course, absolutely absurd. Xi Jinping enjoys significant domestic support at levels that would make many leaders of liberal democratic countries jealous. As such I do think, based on a pretty careful review of where this article is right now, that adjustments to re-focus on the New Left as a movement of scholars and activists who adhere to neo-Maoist and post-Maoist socialist positions (such as Confucian socialism) and to stop trying to make the tent big enough to encompass both anyone disliked by liberal conservatives and anyone antagonistic to the CPP from the left. My point about this source is that it is a high-quality academic source with a Chinese author that acts as a secondary-source survey of key figures within the movement. We are only using this citation once if I remember correctly. It should carry more perfectly due weight than that. Finally you will note that I mentioned previously that I'd notified the Wikiproject China noticeboard. I'd politely ask you not to tag in individual editors who have not previously participated in this discussion so as to avoid the appearance of WP:CANVAS. Simonm223 (talk) 11:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, so first, I didn't realize there was a potential canvas problem, let me explain: Newbamboo is the editor who translated this entry to the Chinese Wikipedia, and Fire-and-Ice and Liang5276x participated in the discussion and editing of this entry on the Chinese Wikipedia. I apologize if this may cause troubles. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 14:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

As for the content, since you said so, I don't see a big problem with that. So let's take this as a direction for now, and if I find something interesting later we can discuss it then. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 16:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Bo Xilai section due?

I'm finding I'm sympathetic to the suggestion that a lot of the material about Bo Xilai is erring pretty close to WP:SYNTH and that there's insufficient sources tying Bo to the New Left movement. Just feeling the waters before I section blank that. Simonm223 (talk) 14:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

The situation is similar to that between the neo-Maoists and the intellectuals, but more distant. You can also refer to this article. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 20:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Radio Free Asia

@Simonm223 What makes you think that Radio Free Asia is an unreliable source? Wikipedia:RADIOFREEASIA says that it is generally reliable and furthermore says that Per the result of a 2021 RfC, editors have established that there is little reason to think RFA demonstrates some systematic inaccuracy, unreliability, or level of government co-option that precludes its use. Also, it is used as citations in more than a thousand articles including China-related topics such as Uyghur genocide where it is used in multiple instances. StellarHalo (talk) 01:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

They are literally an American state propaganda vehicle. Simonm223 (talk) 10:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

RFA is part of the U.S. Agency for Global Media, which some journalists consider a "propaganda arm" of the U.S. government. However, most of these are reliable for most news reporting they produce, and content solely sourced to them including RFA should definitely not be removed outright without any discussion on case-by-case basis or prior tagging with {{Additional citation needed}} where needed. Of course, attribution is appropriate. –Vipz (talk) 11:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Frankly I don't particularly intend to be bound by a two-year old RfC I don't think I participated in or was made aware of. I'm pretty negative on using newsmedia in general. RFA is about as reliable as China Daily. Would you include that "with attribution?" Simonm223 (talk) 13:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Many reversions

I am trying to understand the disagreement regarding the recent RVs.

Is the core of the disagreement that the article whether the article is limited to "New Left" intellectuals of the 90s? The article is not limited in that way. The concept of a Chinese New Left has been applied in other contexts. It is amorphous. These other contexts can also be included in the article.

One disagreement today relates to the Times of India source. I agree that this paragraph should not be included. The source does not reference the New Left, although it talks about resurgent Maoism. We should remove it for now unless sources can tie it into the "New Left" specifically. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

@JArthur1984: The same question as before: does the term New Left refer only to the intellectuals of the 1990s, or does it encompass the Maoist activists that followed? I gave a number of sources that said it didn't refer exclusively to the intellectuals of the 1990s, but Juyiscally didn't recognize it and couldn't give any sources to support that view. I had previously suffered exactly the same thing at Chinese Wikipedia, although Juyiscally claimed not to have used Chinese Wikipedia.

In addition, one thing that worries me is that IP user of the Chinese Wikipedia directly and explicitly state that will selectively cite reference, picking and choosing only the parts that the IP user thinks are correct (It is inside the zhwiki link above, reads "更重要的是，我什么一定要“用”那些支持新左派标签的来源呢？不用为什么就成了一个问题呢？既然很多条目都已经存在大量支持新左派标签的来源（目测百分之九十以上都是某一个人添加的），在这种情况下加上一个反对新左派标签的来源怎么就居然成了“难以容忍”的呢？" [More importantly, why should I necessarily "use" sources that support the New Left labeling? Why is it a problem if I don't use them? Since many entries already have a large number of pro-New Left labeling sources (and it is estimated that over 90% of them are added by one person), how does adding an anti-New Left labeling source in this case actually become "intolerable"?]).

While it is true that we may need to remove unrelated and unanalyzed content (I certainly agree and wait for a better plan, i.e. mentioning less of Maoist activists, removing unrelated incidents), I assume that we should reach agreement here over what should be done, instead of doing something vehemently.

ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 18:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes. It is important for the other editor to slow down and proceed in a clear way. I recommend that the editor address questions point-by-point on the talk page.

I agree with you - this topic cannot be limited to the 1990s intellectuals. That is an artificial limitation. That is only one form of usage for the Chinese "New Left." JArthur1984 (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

@JArthur1984: I am 100% in favor of discussing each topic individually. Unfortunately, however, Juyiscally has now selectively ignored the sources on the discussion page. And, Juyiscally has stopped even reading the articles. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 07:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Note: Juyiscally has been shown to be the same user I previously encountered on Chinese Wikipedia. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 18:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)