Talk:Chinese New Left

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The latest news  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'  - 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)
thread_title:  The 'Socialist Countryside' 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Postmodernism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Move to 'Chinese New Left'? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Would like to see more New Left ideas and their sources 

message: 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)
thread_title: Quick Info Box

message: 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)
thread_title: NPOV

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Revision

message: 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)
replies: text: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Which Hu Ping? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: @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)
replies: text: I contacted Huang directly. We'll see if he replies.Simonm223 (talk) 14:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @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)
replies: text: Alas he never got back to me. Simonm223 (talk) 13:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paulos Huang theological article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Bo Xilai section due? 

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

text: 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  where needed. Of course, attribution is appropriate. –Vipz (talk) 11:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Radio Free Asia