# Talk:Baizuo

Why is this part
"The word baizuo is, according to political scientist Zhang Chenchen, a Chinese word that ridicules Western "liberal elites". He further defined the word "baizuo" with the definition "People who only care about topics such as immigration, minorities, LGBT and the environment" and “have no sense of real problems in the real world”; they are hypocritical humanitarians who advocate for peace and equality only to “satisfy their own feeling of moral superiority”; they are “obsessed with political correctness” to the extent that they “tolerate backwards Islamic values for the sake of multiculturalism”; they believe in the welfare state that “benefits only the idle and the free riders”; they are the “ignorant and arrogant westerners” who “pity the rest of the world and think they are saviours”. The term has also been used to refer to perceived double standards of the Western media, such as the alleged bias on reporting about Islamist attacks in Xinjiang.[8] The use of the word "Baizuo" could be an insult on the Chinese Internet."
Constantly edited away? I've lived in China, this is the meaning of the word, that is the best explanation anyone who doesn't live there will get of the word. Some words are harder to define than others because you learn their meaning through hearing it used, this is one of those, and those words need more explanation for people who do not speak the language to understand. This is a perfect explanation of how the word is used.
I find it VERY ironic that sensitive people in the west removes the definition of the word that is used to describe sensitive people in the west.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.4.133.131 (talk) 12:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC) 

Anyway, the description looks accurate. Perhaps that is the reason. ——Nikolas Ojala (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
It's edited out because people use wikipedia as a way to promote their ideas and opinions and to further their own ideas they have to also remove anything that challenges those ideas or ridicule it. By making sure no one is exposed to "wrong-think" the chance people will approach the beliefs of extremists increases. It's a damn shame but wikipedia has for the last decade just become worse and worse as a source as it is heavily hijacked by political groups who use wikipedia as an influencing tool by editing articles and preventing anyone else from doing so.158.174.118.27 (talk) 14:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
First of all, I'd like to welcome you to Wikipedia; it's always frustrating when you're a new user and have concerns that you want addressed, and even though you're using an IP right now, I really hope you decide to stay. I've explained why I, at least so far, have been removing the definition in the Zhihu User Definition section below. To clarify, though it's not always reinserted with its original citation, the removed text above stems from a pretty egregious example of citation misuse. It strongly implies that it is a definition based on Zhang's analysis of the term's use; rather, in the cited piece Zhang is quoting user-generated responses from Zhihu. While the particular wording is also a potential issue - extensive but selective quoting is often a sign of original research - for me the bigger issue here is the user-generated part. Even with the Zhang aspect rewritten, the definition is a user-generated primary source, and because of that, I think it is unfit for inclusion, in accordance with WP:UGC and WP:PSTS. That said, for a neologism like this there might not be a better definition elsewhere, hence the dilemma. There may also have been copyright concerns raised, but for that you'd have to ask Diannaa. Lastly, before editing further I recommend you consult WP:GOODFAITH - your above comment strikes me as more polemical than what is generally accepted on WP. Darthkayak (talk) 07:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
bro, the current text sound even MORE LIKE ORIGINAL RESEARCH, at least this has citation, the current intro doesn't even have any... I argue that it should not be replace by a even more questionable and uncited paragraph that use "probably" to justify it lack of research. this is why wikipedia is no longer see as an unbiased source, it one standard for pro western view and another standard for the rest of the world...  101.127.8.197 (talk) 02:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Introductions generally do not need citations if they restate content presented in the body of the article that is cited. This policy is in our Manual of Style as MOS:LEADCITE. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

By the enthusiasm of some random editors on this article. 
As if they see, finally, their comrades in another land far away. Am hardly serious though. There isn't really anything to modify or hide if you ask me. Those Chinese racists were rather blatant about their opinions since there is absolutely no social taboos about racism in China.(How do I know? I am from there myself.) Of course citations are needed and information needs to be reliable. However Wikipedia only provides you guys a page of information. The reality of this world lies 1 inch right of our Wikipedia. 

)----損齋 (talk) 20:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Was wondering what was behind this borderline incoherent flamebait you posted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baizuo&diff=prev&oldid=788073401  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baizuo&diff=prev&oldid=790446467  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A192.157.122.211&type=revision&diff=790450301&oldid=754545672. Classy stuff. And pretty mind-boggling actually, if you think simply using the word a few times makes you a racist, fascist, white-supremacy sympathizer. Well, I guess one can only hope that you no longer believe someone has to be Chinese or a sinophile to make the edits listed...-_- Barely made one (talk) 22:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

An user has been attempting to add information mentioning the word being on Urban Dictionary. At first they cited Urban Dictionary directly, which is discouraged by WP:USERGENERATED. After a couple of reverts, they cited a source mentioning the Urban Dictionary definition, but to me it appears to be a mere mention of the definition (from what I understand anyway, the source is German) and not actually covering on the UD definition. Requesting other user input on this. --TL22 (talk) 03:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Pinging @Karl.i.biased: --TL22 (talk) 03:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Okay, let's get things straight here. First, I didn't add the info about urban dictionary. In fact, my only additions to the article were it's Categories and the section "See also". If you open the article's history (strange you didn't do that before accusing me of something) you'll see that the mention of urban dictionary was added by the article's original creator at the article's inception almost half a year ago.
Hence, your entire statement about me first adding one link, then another is erroneous. The link to the german newspaper was always in the article, and it was always used to source the SENTENCE that mentioned the urban dictionary, it's just that the link to the source appeared at the end of the entire sentence. I had to make a copy of that link and paste it immediately after the word urban dictionary. And that was only because someone threatened me with a block.
Third, I actually don't get your main argument. The newspaper mentions the article on this word appearing on urban dictionary, and so does wikipedia. What kind of windmills are you fighting with here? Karl.i.biased (talk) 03:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
The newspaper you linked to only seems to briefly mention the word in order to understand what it means, and doesn't spend the entirety of the text covering the UD definition, now that I check. Also, the only reason Wikipedia mentions it being on UD is because you added it yourself. My main point before I saw the German newspaper thing is that user-generated sources should not be used in articles, as they're generally unreliable, however now it's that there's just not much significant coverage to warrant the mention. --TL22 (talk) 03:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
1) I am not linking to this newspaper. The statement about the urban dictionary was always sourced by this newspaper. It was this article's original creator who added the newspaper to the article.
2) I did not add the urban dictionary link to this article!! Did you even read my reply above yours?! Karl.i.biased (talk) 03:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I have struck the statement I did about that you had added the UD link, but keep in mind that you were readding the info by reverting Fred. Also, just because someone else added it a while ago does not exempt it from guidelines and policy. --TL22 (talk) 03:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I am not fairly certain you did not read either of my replies above. Please, read them first, then state your argument against the way the article is written right now; clearly and without trying to accuse me of things I did not do. Karl.i.biased (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Regardless of whether the term being on Urban Dictionary is notable (my opinion: it's not) I don't believe we should be using Urban Dictionary as either the sole or a supplementary source for that. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

It's sourced by 3 secondary sources.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karl.i.biased (talk • contribs) 23:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Do these sources get into great detail about the UD definition or otherwise cover it profusely, or only mention it in order to get a basic grasp of the word? Because if I have to be honest, it's like using an actual dictionary as the source, only user-generated, as I have stated previously. Either way, mind linking to the sources in question just to check? --TL22 (talk) 00:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
If it were to be determined that the term being on Urban Dictionary is notable enough to include in the article, we still should not use Urban Dictionary as a source. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
*1) Sites like Urban Dictionary, Youtube, etc can be used on Wikipedia **WHEN there are several other third-party legitimate sources sourcing the same statement**. I can't pinpoint you the exact rule on the Wikipedia rules page cause I am a noob, but I've seen similar sources used in that context by admins and such. More importantly, this makes sense because we alread source the same statement by sources that are okay, when we additionally link to the urban dictionary page itself we are just letting the people who want to double-check a quick link to that article. Nothing more. But even if it turns out I am wrong - by all means, remove the citation, not the whole article.
*2) I don't understand why you remove a significant part of the article, and then ask other people to discuss the removal on the talk page. This article was stable for 6 months. Does this mean this part shouldn't be removed? No. But it does mean that we should FIRST come to the conclusion on the talk page, and then remove these chunks of the article, not vice-versa.
*3) Apart from the citation to Urban dictionary itself, the big stumble blocks, as far as I understand, are:
*1) Using terms regressive left and white guilt in see also. In my opinion, they should remain there. The term itself is pretty similar to the term regressive left. In fact, if you type in Baizuo on chinese wikipedia you'd get redirected to the page for regressive left. As for white guilt - since the term white guilt represents far-left people of white race, I think it's pretty obvious to add this term to see also of a page about chinese term for the far left and that term literally means "white left" in chinese.
*2) Notability of Urban Dictionary. In this case, I'll leave it to the new editors to explain to me why it's mention should be removed. The burden of proof is on you. Karl.i.biased (talk) 08:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Karl.i.biased has been blocked for edit warring again. To be fair, I should've pulled back sooner, myself, so here's a response. Contested content supported only by unreliable sources should be removed when it's identified. WP:UGC sources, such as Urban Dictionary Etc. should only be used as a supplemental source, but we need a specific reason to cite that source. It's not that we never cite such sources, but we need to explain why it's being cited. What does being on Urban Dictionary tell a reader about this word, according to reliable sources? Passing mentions don't cut it. 
A source which explains the connection between regressive left and baizuo would be helpful. English Wikipedia, Chinese Wikipedia, and Wikimedia (where language links are stored) all have their own guidelines and practices, and do not, automatically, pass these on to each other. 
Far-left? Who is calling this a term for the far-left? That's telling... The sources refer to Obama and Clinton as baizuo, and if Obama and Clinton are being labeled far-left in an ostensibly communist country, we're going to need to back up and find some more sources, because something got lost in translation. We need to be cautious of "white guilt" in the see also, because it's not a neutral connection, nor is it as obvious as it's presented. We're not trying to paint a conceptual picture of what we think the word feels like, we're trying to summarize what reliable sources have to say about it. Grayfell (talk) 09:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
@Karl.i.biased: The burden of proof is not on removal of content, it is on inclusion of content. You have simply not shown why this material should be included. Assertion is not proof. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Heat Street is not a reliable source. It may be used to state the opinions of those who write articles which appear on Heat Street where those opinions are notable, but it cannot be used for statements of fact. It's been discussed before on the reliable sources noticeboard here, but if you disagree and believe it's a useful RS then it would be best to start a new discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Heatstreet isn't, or wasn't, a reliable source, per many past discussions. It did not have the reputation for accuracy and fact checking. Further, it repeatedly failed to clearly differentiate between journalism, editorializing, and gossip, making any statements difficult to evaluate. Grayfell (talk) 08:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@Karl.i.biased: The Global Times article cited specifically attributes the line "only care about topics such as immigration, minorities, LGBT and the environment" to Chenchen Zhang. The paragraph containing the quotes, which are in quotation marks, concludes with ...reads Zhang's article published in opendemocracy.com on May 11. These are not Global Time's definitions, they are merely reporting on Zhang's definition. Attributing this line to the Global Times is totally inappropriate, as it misrepresents sources. Additionally, the line after that starting with "in short..." is unsourced, and appears to be editorializing. It is only superficially neutral, as it is not a faithful summary of the previous source. Grayfell (talk) 08:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey. I don't speak Chinese; could somebody figure out which journalist actually concluded that "the word is an example of "Chinese values" exported to Western countries" so we can attribute this to them instead of the site itself? PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

There’s similar term means “Regressive left” on Chinese internet called “Baizuo”, See the related article on Chinese Wikipedia— Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonsun147258 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC) 

Disagree. These words and phrases have differing cultural, political, and ethnic origins. Although they may carry similar meaning, they clearly have contextual differences that set them apart and should be treated accordingly.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.78.105.25 (talk) 13:29, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Disagree. And I have changed this redirection, now Baizuo is linked to zh:白左.Fire and Ice (talk) 07:42, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. Regressive left is too academic, but Baizuo is just a slang, simliar to champagne socialist or social justice warrior.  --Yejianfei (talk) 02:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey, I don't think we need several quotes of Chenchen's remarks- I think this is undue. I've cut it down to a smaller direct quote. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I see you have removed this or similar text a number of times without consensus:
23:39, 2 March 2018
08:43, 4 March 2018
21:03, 12 June 2018
22:50, 15 June 2018
If your objection is excessive quotation paraphrasing would be acceptable, but the content itself provides the only meaningful description of the term. If including it would be undue then the article with this content included should be nominated for deletion. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Faulty reasoning. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. There is basically a block quote worth of material from Chenchen Zhang. Only the first quote actually meaningfully describes the word, while the other two are basically just his analysis of that definition (which are also not clearly shown to be his quote, which should be changed). Even the original definition needs to be made clear as a "claim" as opposed to a solid fact, similarly to how the first paragraph of Liberal elite is phrased. I'm a bit new to Wikipedia, so I don't want to edit this without larger or more experienced user agreement, but if a more experienced user could explain what criteria would be necessary here to reach consensus, that would be great.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockyjs (talk • contribs) 08:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

It comes off as petty that Chenchen's quote is repeatedly removed for no real reason, and shows bias as implied by Ojala when he mentioned "Anyway, the description looks accurate. Perhaps that is the reason" [for its removal.]
Whether its removal was due to bias or not the quote should remain as it will better define the word and make the reason for its usage less vague and better explained.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jezza2K01 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC) 

It's WP:UNDUE. Welcome to Wikipedia. PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:56, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
It's not undue. Stop deleting it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:584:300:FDF0:16E:7318:FEB:C64 (talk) 21:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

It appears there is somebody disagreement about some well sourced content.  Perhaps an RFC is the next step? 23.114.214.45 (talk) 05:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome to start an RfC if you can figure out how. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Even better, you can give an actual reason to have reams and reams of direct opinion quotes from this one dude. But uhhhhhh that hasn't been forthcoming for months so I guess it won't start now. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:30, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
PeterTheFourth, "WP:DUE" is a two-edged sword and not a free pass to copyedit pages based on your personal political preferences. If you are going to edit culture war topics based on WP:DUE, you should make a very great effort to "write for the enemy" and apply it even-handedly, to the point where a review of your edits will make it impossible for the casual observer to infer your own allegiance. For every edit you make in order to enforce WP:DUE in favour of "your" side, you should feel obliged to make at least one WP:DUE edit in favour of the opposite side, or your edits will end up being part of the problem of systemic political bias on Wikipedia, not of the solution.
"WP:DUE" is also relative to the article topic, and a page on internet slang will obviously be based on online sources like blog articles by political scientists reporting on the content of  Zhihu , Urban dictionary and the like. --dab (𒁳) 10:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
--dab (𒁳) 10:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Dang, you've got me. My personal political preferences bias me to edit down the amount we quote a specific chinese guy's opinion on what a phrase means. Clearly, this article is not complete without a complete recount of this dude's dream holiday, favourite sport (motocross), and favourite food (rutabaga). PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Sarcasm doesn't make the accusation any less correct. Stop deleting the quote.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:584:300:FDF0:16E:7318:FEB:C64 (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I've placed a {{Original research inline}} template on the following text:

It [Baizuo] refers to the left faction in the culture wars in Western politics
What is exactly is "the culture wars in Western politics"? (note there is no article on this subject). This phrase gives very little in the way of Google searches, and I strongly suspect it is a statement inserted by someone with an overactive imagination. Surely the gradual general trend towards partisan politics in a small handful of Western countries does not constitute an actual war?
This contentious wording sentence needs sourcing, re-wording, or removing. --Anxietycello (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

That's weird, when I searched for culture wars, every single result on the first page was relevant. Maybe you should stop dishonestly pretending that reality doesn't exist.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:584:300:FDF0:16E:7318:FEB:C64 (talk) 22:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

"A related term is shèngmǔ (圣母, 聖母, literally "holy mother", title for the mother of an emperor), a sarcastic reference to those whose political opinions are guided by emotions and a hypocritical show of selflessness and empathy, represented by celebrities such as J. K. Rowling and Emma Watson." This phrase has prejudge of certain person.

For awhile now this passage has been added and deleted from the page: 'In more than 400 answers submitted by Zhihu users during 2015 to May 2017, the term is defined as referring to those who are hypocritically "obsessed with political correctness" in order to "satisfy their own feelings of moral superiority" motivated from a "ignorant and arrogant" Western-centric worldview who "pity the rest of the world and think they are saviors".'
Though the passage isn't generally cited when people add it, it appears to be more or less pasted from the openDemocracy piece. I've been deleting it as in my view it seems to violate WP:UGS. The content isn't necessarily bad though, and I can see it being justifiable as source for how the term is used. What do people think? Darthkayak (talk) 23:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Leucoleftism. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 3#Leucoleftism until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  signed, Rosguill talk 20:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Western leftism and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 1#Western leftism until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The pinyin is right but the Mandarin pronunciation is wrong, recommend deleting it and leaving the Pinyin 2A02:3032:E:6918:77A6:7C61:C23E:9AA7 (talk) 08:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

The line below is confusing and reads like they are opposed to netizens' support of Trump -
The term originated in the 2010s, probably initially to mock American and Western communists who traveled to China to support the communist revolution and has since come into widespread use due to Chinese netizens' criticism of Western liberal to leftist ideologies and of European governments, particularly Angela Merkel and the German government, for their alleged over-tolerance to immigration issues, and to netizens' praise of Donald Trump's populist policies. 103.119.209.197 (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Sigh... When I was writing it, I wondered if it would be a problem to have a long sentence with a statement that is "not in the same direction" as the rest of the sentence, but considering that this isn't the Simple English Wikipedia I ended up thinking it would be OK. I'll just add another "due" for now (and due to netizens' praise of Donald Trump's populist policies). ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 09:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@JArthur1984: Hi. So in fact a large part of the use associated with the word baizuo is against Muslims and Islam (per sources), and in this case I do think the quote is of some importance. Of course, if you have any other comments, such as better and more important quotes, I am willing to hearing about it. ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 16:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your point about the usage, as anyone would. This is largely covered in the subsection on immigration however. I only disagree on the weight of the unattributed quote in a text box. What makes this particular unattributed quotation encyclopedically significant? JArthur1984 (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
@JArthur1984: I would assume that "encyclopedically meaningful" means that it would fit in with the content of the encyclopedia, in which case I would argue that the quote box more specifically reflects the general anti-Muslim sentiment mentioned in the text, and allows the reader to get a sense of people's sentiments in the most visceral form possible (which I think is one of the reasons Chenchen Zhang cites this quote in her paper, in addition to the fact that she only cites Trump as someone who is explicitly attribtued in her paper). As for the notablity issue, it's probably true that the phrase wasn't uttered by a celebrity, but the word baizuo inherently carries quite a bit of populist overtones. ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 02:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Your assumption is correct. I am more cautious on this issue and view quoting particular posts as suspect even if they nicely illustrate a point. In my view, this is one of the major difference between a scholarly paper and an encyclopedia project.
With this being said, I do not mind if you wish to revert me on this instance. It is not one where I wish to remain in disagreement or seem to deadlock.  JArthur1984 (talk) 02:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
@JArthur1984: For my part, I'm more concerned about how you think the quote is inappropriate for this place. Therefore, if there is no third party opinion, I would not do that. :) ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 02:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Jtchen26: Hello. I decide to bring the issue to the discussion page. In my previous GA review I asked how best to write the lede (see above), and was told that roughly the first sentence from each paragraph would be the most appropriate to synthesize. The Foreign Policy article, in my opinion, though quite good, is not as deep or as broad as Chenchen Zhang's ([1]) or Qinna Shen's ([2]), and in both of their articles, instead of focusing on the topic of naivety, they focus on right-wing populism and conservatism in China. Second, I personally feel that the context of naivety/progressive is well summarized in the etymology section below, and adding it to the first lede seems disproportionate and redundant. ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 02:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Given the first important sentence of the first paragraph is "Although the word is most commonly used in its literal sense, it is sometimes used to mean idiotic (白痴) liberals," this seems to contradict with the Foreign Policy article. I propose rewriting the first sentence of the lede: "used to refer to white liberals/leftists and to their values, especially in relation to refugee issues and social problems, as well as to anyone perceived as naively moralistic in general", or something along those lines. I don't mind if you see "naively moralistic" as not the main concern of the sources presented - it's just a placeholder, anything would function in its place.
I feel this would better represent the first sentence of the first paragraph, clear up the seemingly contradictory statements in the lede and first paragraph, and state the same idea more efficiently. I don't see this as redundant if it can be incorporated into a rewrite of the very first line, as well as serving as a summary of the first sentence of the first paragraph. Jtchen26 (talk) 02:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
@Jtchen26: Can you analyze where this contradiction exists? ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 02:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
The claim made from the Foreign Policy article is that the word is less used literally and more to in general. The claim made from Wang (2019) is that the word is less used in general and more literally. I think rewriting the first sentence of the lede to include this definition (once decided) would remove this as well as clear up our other problem. Jtchen26 (talk) 04:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
@Jtchen26: Can be good, but would you mind checking other sources cited first? ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 05:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
I'll see if I can rewrite it more, busy right now, will get back to it later. I like the idea of rewriting the first sentence though, let me know if you think of something. Jtchen26 (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
@Jtchen26: Yes. A new issue I've discovered - and probably the source of my confusion - is that the word baizuo is already non-literal when used to refer to liberals and leftists in the West; the word baizuo literally means "white leftist," and it's very clear that the word itself is already somewhat skewed when used to refer to leftists in the West (e.g., as has been mentioned in the latter part of this post, Barack Obama is clearly not white). As for morality or whatever, if it does need to be included, it may need to be further elaborated as opinionated, such as "the term is often used to describe behavior associated with what is considered naive", but in that case it should be included in the etymology section, not at the beginning, which should contain the most important content. ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 06:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Just got back, I like the way it's written now. The definition is probably important enough to be put into the lede like this (and it represents the etymology section) and it makes sense the way you've rewritten it. Jtchen26 (talk) 01:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

@JArthur1984: I don't see how words like 'relation to their alleged ineffectiveness with refugee crises and social problems' and 'their over-tolerance of open borders and by netizens who agree with Donald Trump's strong border' are guaranteed to be neutral at all, and how that version could still be better, can you explain anything about that? ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 12:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I tried to improve it from these after the edits that took them there. Or I thought I did -- that's not how I would have meant to write it. I have no objection to your language in the most recent edit. JArthur1984 (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
@JArthur1984: Thank you for your reply! ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 18:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if these categories are appropriate. "Baizuo" isn't against everything in Western, it's against left-liberalism. They're friendly to Trumpism, unlike other anti-Western Chinese nationalists who hate Trump. ProKMT (talk) 06:08, 24 November 2024 (UTC)