text:
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 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)

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 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)
 * The point is now "loose-knit", big or small, but "INTELLECTUAL".
 * Neo-Maoism as you stated is irrelevant to the article, I have no comment.
 * 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: 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:
 * Can you demonstrate, beyond an ideological disagreement with Xu that they are not a reliable source.
 * 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)

 * 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
 * I am not obliged the entail my past expericens of editing Wikipedia.
 * 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)
 * 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 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:
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * Tone down the social movement section slightly to focus effectively exclusively on resistance to resurgent Maoism within contemporary Chinese politics.
 * 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.
 * 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:
 * Indeed it was named by conservative liberals in the beginning, though the term is now used by anyone.
 * Totally agree. If my memory serves me correctly this is mainly Wang Shaoguang's idea.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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 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? 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)

title: Talk:Chinese New Left


text:
User:NickK~enwiki~enwiki

de: Benutzer:NickKfr: Utilisateur:NickKro: Utilizator:NickK

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User:NickK~enwiki~enwiki


text:
Jean-Baptiste Charles Bouvet de Lozier

Jean-Baptiste Charles Bouvet de Lozier (14 January 1705 – 1786) was a French sailor, explorer, and governor of the Mascarene Islands to the east of Madagascar.

He was orphaned at the age of seven and after being educated in Paris, he was sent to Saint Malo to study navigation. He became a lieutenant of the French East India Company in 1731. He succeeded in convincing his employer to provide him with two ships and send him on an exploration mission in the South Atlantic. With his ships Aigle and Marie he discovered on 1 January 1739 a tiny island which was named Bouvet Island after him, the world’s remotest island; however, he mislabelled the coordinates for the island, causing it to be lost until it was rediscovered seven decades later in 1808. Shortly afterwards, he had to abandon the expedition because most of his crew had fallen ill; his ship then called at the Cape of Good Hope and returned to France.

Ten years after his expedition, Bouvet de Lozier was appointed governor of the Mascarene Islands twice, once from 1750 to 1752 and a second time from 1757 to 1763.

title: Jean-Baptiste Charles Bouvet de Lozier


text:
User:Tam~enwiki

Tam - That's me! I like to dabble here there and everywhere, a little of what takes my fancy... So, Wikipedia suites me very well as a medium to satisfy my curiosity and need to contribute.

My homepage

title: User:Tam~enwiki


text:
Eliphalet Dyer

Eliphalet Dyer (September 14, 1721 – May 13, 1807) was an American lawyer, jurist, and statesman from Windham, Connecticut. He was a delegate for Connecticut to many sessions of the Continental Congress, where he signed the 1774 Continental Association.

Early life and education
Dyer was born in Windham and attended Yale where, he graduated in 1740. He read law and was admitted to the bar in 1746.

Career
After completing his legal education, Dyer became a member of the militia. In 1747, he was elected justice of the peace and a member of the colonial assembly. He was also involved in several of the land development schemes for the Susquehanna and Wyoming Valley areas.

During the French and Indian War, Dyer served as a lieutenant colonel in the militia. He participated in the expedition that captured Crown Point from the French, as a Colonel of the Third Connecticut Provincial Regiment in 1755. In 1758, he led his regiment to Canada in support of Amherst’s and Wolfe’s operations.

In 1763, he visited London as an agent for the Susquehanna Land Company in a failed attempt to gain a title for a colonial venture to the Wyoming region. Connecticut sent Dyer to New York City for the Stamp Act Congress. This Congress of protest was an important precursor to the American Revolution. In 1766, he was elected a justice of Connecticut’s superior court. He held that post until 1793, serving as chief justice after 1789.

As the Revolution began, Dyer was named to the state’s Committee of Safety and named a delegate to the Continental Congress in 1774. He served in the Congress during 1774–1775, 1777–1779, and 1782–1783. John Adams, in his diary, characterized Dyer as "...longwinded and roundabout, obscure and cloudy, very talkative and very tedious, yet an honest, worthy man; means and judges well."

Personal life
Dyer retired from public life in 1793. He died at home in Windham on May 13, 1807, and is buried in the Windham Cemetery. His daughter Amelia was married to Joseph Trumbull, who officially served with Dyer in the Continental Congress but did not attend any sessions.

title: Eliphalet Dyer


text:
Christian Methodist Episcopal Church

The Christian Methodist Episcopal Church (C.M.E.C.) is a Methodist denomination that is based in the United States. It adheres to Wesleyan-Arminian theology. Though historically a part of the black church, the Christian Methodist Episcopal today has a church membership of people from all racial backgrounds.

History
The CME Church was organized on December 16, 1870, in Jackson, Tennessee, by 41 former enslaved congregants, with the full support of their white sponsors in their former Methodist Episcopal Church, South. They met to form an organization that would allow them to establish and maintain their own polity. They ordained their own bishops and ministers without their being officially endorsed or appointed by the white-dominated body. They called this fellowship the Colored Methodist Episcopal Church in America. The church used this name until 1954, when successors adopted the current name.

Organization
In the Christian Methodist Episcopal Church, bishops are the Chief Officers and are elected by "delegate" votes for life until the age of 74, when he/she must retire. Among their duties are the responsibilities of appointing clergy to serve in local churches as pastors, performing ordinations, and safeguarding the doctrines and discipline of the Church. The General Conference, held every four years, comprises an equal number of clergy and lay delegates and is when a bishop can be elected. In each Annual Conference, CME bishops serve for four-year terms. CME Church bishops may be male or female.

In 2006, there were an estimated 850,000 members in 3,500 churches. , the CME Church has grown to more than 1.5 million members across the United States with mission and sister churches in Haiti, Jamaica and fourteen African nations.

Doctrine
The foundational doctrines of the Christian Methodist Episcopal Church are found in what is commonly referred to in Wesleyan Methodism as The Articles of Religion. The Articles of Religion were derived from the Church of England and abridged by John Wesley, Founder of Methodism, for Methodists in America in 1784.

Hymnal and responsive readings
Sunday worship services in the CME denomination commonly include a Responsive Reading from scripture. A leader reads a line of scripture and the congregation reads a response. Bible passages are not arranged by topic; responsive readings are. Often, a single responsive reading consists of excerpts from several Bible passages.

The CME Responsive Readings are published in The Hymnal of the Christian Methodist Episcopal Church. Items 1–545 are songs, and items 546–604 are Responsive Readings. The official Responsive Readings are from the King James Version of the Bible.

CME connectional emblem
The official logo or symbol of the Christian Methodist Episcopal Church was originally authorized by Bishop B. Julian Smith for the Centennial General Conference held in Memphis, 1970. It was officially adopted by the General Conference in 1974 as the denomination's connectional marker.

Designed by Will E. Chambers, the logo shows the place of the Christian Methodist Episcopal Church in the rapidly changing urbanized society and its relation to God's people. The logo is composed of:

 * The World Globe which represents the vineyard of God;

 * The Skyline which stands for the Church's concern for human and urban problems and people's alienation from God and one another;

 * The Weather Vane which symbolizes the need of the Church to be flexible in terms of meeting the contemporary needs of people; and,

 * The Cross which denotes, by its vertical bar, the need for a proper relationship between people and God, and by its horizontal bar, the need for proper relationships between people. The total Cross is a sign of the final-assured victory through the blood of Jesus Christ.

Ecumenical activity
Since the early 20th century the CME Church has explored the possibility of merging with other African American Methodist churches that are very similar in doctrine and practice.

In 1918 representatives of the CME Church, the African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church, and the African Methodist Episcopal Zion (AME Zion) Church met in Birmingham, Alabama where they agreed to propose a merger. This "Birmingham Plan" was approved by the CME General Conference but did not win enough support in the annual conferences.

in the late 20th century, the CME Church engaged in new talks with the AME Zion Church on a merger, with CME General Conference delegates approving a union in principle in 1986, and AME Zion delegates giving the same approval in 1988. Bishops of each church reopened the question in 1999, adopting a timeline for an eventual merger.

In May 2012, The Christian Methodist Episcopal Church entered into full communion with the United Methodist Church, African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, African Union Methodist Protestant Church, African Methodist Episcopal Church, and Union American Methodist Episcopal Church. These Churches agreed to "recognize each other's churches, share sacraments, and affirm their clergy and ministries."

Notable bishops
The church elected the first woman bishop in 2010. In 2022, the church elected its second woman bishop. In addition, Jefferson-Snorton became the "first woman to give the episcopal address" during the quadrennial General Conference.
 * 1st Bishop William H. Miles (1828- 1892)
 * 2nd Bishop Richard H. Vanderhorst (1813–1872)
 * 3rd Bishop Joseph A. Beebe (1832–1902)
 * 4th Bishop Lucius Henry Holsey, D. D. (1842–1920)
 * 5th Bishop Isaac Lane, D. D. (1834–1937)
 * 6th Bishop Robert S. Williams, D. D. (1858–1832)
 * 7th Bishop Elijah Cottrell, D. D. (1853–1937)
 * 8th Bishop Charles Henry Phillips, D.D. (1858–1951)
 * 59th Bishop Teresa E. Jefferson-Snorton (1st woman bishop) (1955–)
 * Bishop Denise Anders-Modest (2nd woman bishop)

Colleges

 * Homer College, Homer, Louisiana; not a true college
 * Lane College, Jackson Tennessee
 * Paine College, Augusta, Georgia
 * Miles College, Birmingham, Alabama
 * Texas College, Tyler, Texas
 * Phillips School of Theology, Atlanta, Georgia

title: Christian Methodist Episcopal Church


text:
Battle of Athos

The Battle of Athos (also known as the Battle of Monte Sancto or the Battle of Lemnos) took place on 1–2 July 1807New Style as a part of the Napoleonic Wars during the Russo-Turkish War of 1806–1812.

Background
In December 1806, Ottoman Sultan Selim III felt threatened by Russian activities associated with the Napoleonic War. The Sultan closed the Turkish Straits to Russian shipping and declared war on the Russian Empire. On 22 May 1807, the Russian navy and the Ottoman navy engaged in a short sea battle in the Aegean Sea near the Dardanelles.

After the Battle of the Dardanelles in May, the Russian navy continued to blockade the strait during the month of June. Although the blockade served an important military purpose in and of itself by impeding the flow of food and materials to Constantinople, the Russian navy in the Aegean Sea sought primarily to draw the Ottoman navy out of the strait for a decisive engagement on the open sea. Although the Ottoman navy had numerical superiority, the Turks attempted to avoid a direct confrontation with the Russian fleet. As a result, the Ottoman navy sheltered in the strait and ventured out to attack the Russian naval base on Tenedos only when conditions were favorable.

Maneuvers before the battle
To lure the Ottoman navy into the Aegean Sea, the Russian Vice-Admiral, Dmitry Senyavin, undertook numerous maneuvers with his fleet often reducing the number of ships that he had positioned in the vicinity of the entrance to the Dardanelles. On 5 June, Senyavin sent Rear-Admiral Greig in command of four battleships to the island of Lemnos, approximately 41 miles west of the Dardanelles. Greig and his squadron was then brought back quickly when Senyavin falsely suspected that the Ottoman navy was entering the Aegean Sea. On 13 June, Greig was sent back to Lemnos this time with his full force of five battleships. Russian marines were temporarily landed on Lemnos, but by 18 June Greig and his squadron had returned to Tenedos.

Finally on 22 June, Seyid Ali, the Kapudan Pasha or Grand Admiral of the Ottoman navy, left the Dardanelles with a taskforce of 16 ships including 8 battleships and 5 frigates. After tacking into the wind all day Seyid Ali anchored his fleet near Imbros, approximately 12 miles North-Northwest of the Dardanelles. Over the course of the following days, Senyavin and his Russian fleet attempted to work their way up to the Turks but were prevented in doing so by light winds and a strong adverse current. The Ottoman fleet also kept underway during this time always keeping an escape route back to the Dardanelles open. On 24 June, Seyid Ali’s task force was joined by four additional ships, 2 battleships and 2 frigates.

On 27 June, Senyavin decided to try to approach the Ottoman fleet by sailing to the west side Lemnos where there was less current. When Senyavin made that move, Seyid Ali and his entire taskforce bore down on Tenedos, bombarding the fortifications and a brig in the harbor. A failed attempt was also made to put a land force on the north side of island. After four hours of bombardment, the Ottoman fleet disengaged and drew off to a position between Tenedos and the Asiatic shore. Over the course of the next two days the Ottoman fleet returned to Tenedos two times to bombard the fortifications and land their marines. At 8 am on 29 June, Seyid Ali’s taskforce sighted Senyavin and the Russian fleet approaching from the north. The Turks ceased their bombardment of Tenedos and took their only course of escape fleeing west toward Lemnos.

Upon reaching Tenedos, Senyavin used the next two days to reprovision his fleet and to hunt down and destroy Turkish small craft remaining in the vicinity. Aware that the Ottoman task force had taken a western course when it sailed from Tenedos, Senyavin and the Russian fleet of 10 battleships departed their naval base on 30 June in a northerly direction continuing to block the access to the Dardanelles. At the end of the day, the Russian fleet had reached a point six miles north of Lemnos. Early the next morning, Senyavin sighted Seyid Ali’s taskforce to the west of Lemnos and immediately moved to attack.

Battle
When Senyavin caught up with the Ottoman taskforce between 8 am and 9 am on the morning of 1 July, the Turks had their battleships aligned in a straight row heading north. Senyavin arranged his battleships in two parallel rows of five ships each and approached the Turks in a perpendicular manner from the east, striking the Turkish flagships in the middle of the column. The Ottoman immediately opened fire and badly damaged a lead Russian ship, the Rafail. The remaining Russian battleships paired up and turned to the north to engage the Turks in a broadside manner. Senyavin sailed to the head of the column with two battleships and quickly put a leading Turkish frigate out of action. This caused the battleship following the frigate and the entire Turkish column to heave to and slow. The two fleets then engaged in battle until 10 am when the Turks began to break away with the Russians in pursuit.

At noon the winds died down and Senyavin broke off the engagement. The Ottoman taskforce began to gather east of the Mount Athos peninsula while the Russians maintained their position to the east of the Turkish fleet. Later that evening, a light breeze came up and the Ottoman taskforce continued on a northerly course toward the island of Thasos. During that time, the Turkish frigate Sadd al-bahr fell behind and was captured by the Russians without additional fighting.

On the morning of 2 July, most of the Ottoman taskforce was near Thasos. Two Ottoman battleships and a sloop were seen straggling behind the fleet and were quickly set upon by the Russians. The Russians drove the three ships up the gulf west of Mount Athos and forced the Turks to run the ships aground and set them on fire. Two days later on 4 July, the Turks were seen setting two badly damaged ships on fire near Thasos.

During this time, the Russian fleet concentrated near Lemnos and then made its way back to their beleaguered naval base on Tenedos where they helped defeat the Turkish marines who had been attempting to capture the base without success for nine days. The Ottoman fleet meanwhile made its way back to the safety of the Dardanelles losing two additional ships near Samothrace in the process.

Aftermath
Of the 20 Turkish ships involved in the battle, only 12 returned to the Dardanelles. Lost were 3 battleships, 3 frigates, and 2 sloops. The total number of casualties is not known but was estimated to be heavy. The Russians did not lose a single ship but suffered casualties of 79 killed and 189 wounded.

There were no further naval battles between the Russians and the Turks with respect to the Dardanelles during the Russo-Turkish War of 1806-1812 as the Treaties of Tilsit signed on 7 July between Napoleon and Tsar Alexander of Russia provided that Senyavin’s fleet be sent back to the Baltic Sea. At that time, the British also began to negotiate a peace treaty with the Ottoman Empire and supported their position by a show of force, bringing their own navy into the Aegean Sea.

title: Battle of Athos


text:
Talk:Ageism

Bias
The introduction is definitely pro-youth by more than 2:1. Nine lines describe ageism of the young against the old, and twenty-one lines describe ageism of the old against the young. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mooseman2 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Specific case: Steele
has edit warred for the inclusion of a specific case, Steele v. Mattis in US federal court. It's not clear why that specific case needs to be mentioned or why it should be covered in such intricate detail.

Since this editor has not edited other pages and is a WP:SPA, WP:COI and/or WP:COATRACK appear clear. I've removed it and I think we should understand why it should be included before it is added a third time. Toddst1 (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender, Race and Computing
— Assignment last updated by NavyBear314 (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Some questions about this article
1. Definition.

The article defines ageism as follows:

> Ageism is a bias against, discrimination towards, or bullying of individuals and groups on the basis of their age.

Who is to say that this is the correct definition? I mean to use this article as a specific example in order to understand general Wikipedia editorial policy.

For example, what if someone were to say, “the definition in the article should reflect common use of the term”. I think this would imply non-normativity and pure descriptivity, in deciding on a definition. I am curious if that idea is consistently upheld across Wikipedia articles. For example, what if someone attempted to write an article defining a word that is currently considered a slur? I.e., “A [slur here] is [implied definition of slur term based on common usage by people who use the term]”. Does this mean that there is indeed normativity in what is considered the “correct”, “proper” or “appropriate” definition of a concept, for a Wikipedia article?

If so, what other principles are to be observed, other than “common usage”? Someone on a philosophy forum once said to me that two major types of definition are lexical vs. real: lexical definitions analyze and present how a word is used; real definitions aim to characterize the essential properties of some thing. I also read Wikipedia recommends disambiguating concepts into multiple articles. In light of these two ideas, maybe this article can be separated into a number of sub-aspects it contains.

For example, I find the most broad use of the suffix “-ism” to be “a phenomena associated with”, “the doing of”, or “a doctrine associated with”. “Masochism” is apparently named after a person called “Masoch” who wrote novels about sexual activities involving voluntary physical pain. Thus it seems to mean, “Doing like Masoch”, or, “the general phenomenon of doing like Masoch”, or, “the doctrine or theory relating to doing like Masoch”.

“Feminism” is similarly “a doctrine or theory related to femininity”, or, “an activity related to that doctrine”. It is commonly taken to mean, “a doctrine which analyzes feminity and is positively oriented towards femininity in some way (for example, by seeking to improve the status of females)”.

”Racism” is often taken to mean, “holding a false belief about a particular race”. But compared to the use of the “-ism” suffix above, we can consider that it could more generally mean, “any phenomena associated with race, in some way”; or even, “a doctrine that analyzes race and is positively oriented towards it; ie, seeking the improve its status in some way”. I once read an article which said “Racism is the idea that people have races.”

Thus:

- Ageism could be false beliefs regarding a class of people who share a certain age.

- But it could be more broadly, anything to do with the idea of age at all; for example, the idea that we have something called “an age”.

- Or it could be some kind of theory or social movement promoting the concept of age.

So, how do we decide what the Wikipedia article should say “ageism” is? If we merely take a census of how it is used in public discourse, are we sure we did not miss out on certain other uses than the ones in the current definition? If none are to be found, what is stopping someone from writing an article with a new definition of “ageism”, forcing the Wikipedia article to acknowledge that other use of the term? And if the editors reject a certain definition from being mentioned in the article, by what principle? If the article is to focus on a thing rather than a word, are there any Wikipedia principles stopping someone from claiming “ageism” actually refers to many different distinct things, and should be split into articles for those accordingly?

To make this more concrete, consider if I changed the first line of this article to:

- “According to an APA article by Kirsten Weir, ‘ageism’ is ‘discrimination against older people because of negative and inaccurate stereotypes’.”

- “Ageism is a word that is used variously by different people. Person X says “…”, whereas person Y says “…”.”

- “Ageism is any phenomenon that has to do with age. For example, it could be the social phenomenon of associating people with “an age”. It could be a behavior associated with a particular age (like a “mannerism”). It could be a social movement related to age in some way, positively or negatively oriented.”

What does Wikipedia policy have to say about this? Which of the above is most “Wikipedia”? If we are supposed to take a census of “quality sources” and try to summarize what they have in common, does this defer the question to “Then what is a ‘quality source’?”

Julkhamil (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ageism


text:
Talk:Christianity in Iran

Untitled
Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

 * Archive 1 (up to Dec 12, 2005)

"The Islamic conquest of Persia, in the 7th century, was originally good for Christians as they were a protected minority."

You might want to work on this. The second class status of non muslims in muslim conquered lands and the mechanisms that killed off the original cultures is well documented by Bat Yeor although I don't know of texts relating to Persia in particular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.124.143.3 (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Rewardashir and ethnic Persian Christians in ancient times.
You may also want to mention the Metropolitan of Rewardashir (Simeon) and his communications with Catholicos Ishoyahb III. The former wanted independence as he felt the his province (Fars) was evangelized by Thomas, while the latter represented the sea of Mari and Adai.

It's interesting, further, than Simeon produced a book of Canon Law in Pahlavi. There is also a Psalter written in Pahlavi.

I point this out because the article makes it seem that ancient Christianity in Persia was only due to the presence of non-Persian minorities (Armenians, Assyrians, etc.), whereas this is not strictly true. There were likely *ethnically* Persian Christians, who had strong contacts with their brothers in Malabar India. In fact, the community of Syrian Christians in Kerala, India are probably the result of intermarriage between Persian and Indian Christians. To this day they possess Crosses from the 9th century (or earlier) with Pahlavi inscriptions.

References: 1. "The Church of the East," (book) by Wilheam Baum & Dietmar W. Winkler on Ishoyahb III of Adiabene (650-8): "In a letter to the metropolitan of Rewardashir (present-day Zaydun), he summarized his views regarding primacy in the East and mentioned congregations in India. Ishoyahb had to content with efforts for independance in the Persian province of the church -- his rival Simeon of Rewardashir produced a law book in the Persian language -- and only through a personal visit to Rewardashir was the catholicos able to persuade the metropolitan to recognize the supremacy of Ctesiphon." (p. 43)

2. "History of the World Christian Movement," (book) by Dale T. Irvin, Scott Sunquist "We know very little of any distinctive ethical teachings the community [Malabar Christians in India] may have upheld, although in one of Timothy's letters he states that marriage between Persian and Indian Christians is permissible, another indication that there were Christians whose cultural identity was fully Indian." (p. 310)

Sources Needed, No Drive-By NPOV Tagging Please
First of all, I removed the NPOV tag. I'm not really saying that I actually believe the viewpoint is neutral; my main concern is that if you put an NPOV tag on an article, you should state why you believe it is NPOV. In other words, there should be an actual ongoing documented NPOV dispute in the talk page that specifies which way and how it is skewed. No drive-by NPOV tagging please. To quote from NPOV_Dispute...

Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort.

That being said, this article has a much bigger problem than merely neutrality. Almost nothing in the article is sourced. Unfortunately, I am basically a drive-by-reader. I have no information on Christianity in Iran and I really can't help with many of the sources except via Googling. It seems many of the sources that would be needed to substantiate the "current status" content are not in English. Can someone who is familiar with Iran or with Christianity in Iran please help to clean up this article?

It's an interesting read, but currently with almost no substantiation whatsoever.

JorenCombs (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Disagreements on history wrt Nestorian schism
A ntv recently modified some edits I had made so it seems a short discussion here is in order.

First, the text originally discussed the Nestorian schism as a split between the "Western" church and the Persian church. This, of course, refers to the fact that the Persian congregations split from the official Roman imperial establishment in the 5th century (of course, the church in the Roman Empire split during the same period). Although Persian historians commonly use and understand the term "Western" within this context to refer to the Roman Empire as a whole, East and West, this is not necessarily the way the general public would understand the term. In fact, because the article really doesn't go into the world context of the time the average reader might not even be aware that this refers to any part of the Roman Empire. Euphamisms like "Western" which can be so easily misunderstood in a context like this should be avoided in favor of more literal terms like "Roman". A ntv apparently seems to suggest that the distinction between "Roman" and "Byzantine" might be confusing to laymen so perhaps using "Roman/Byzantine" addresses that concern. I'll change accordingly.

Second, A ntv took issue with my mentioning the Nestorian schism as being the genesis of the Assyrian and Chaldean Churches arguing with both the timeframe and the relationship between these churches and the original community of believers. My thoughts:
 * The timeframe is debatable I suppose but it was the 5th century schism that established the independence of the Persian community of faithful and began its independent hierarchy.
 * I'm not sure that I agree with the argument that there are other communities of faithful that consider themselves theologically descended from the original Persian Christians. I'd be interested to know the literature that discusses theses.
 * Regardless, the history discussion is incomplete. It does not clearly explain the origins of the Assyrian Church (or even the Chaldean Church).

I'll leave this alone for now to allow for some discussion.

--Mcorazao (talk) 02:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S. If there is some particular phrasing that is preferable to "Roman/Byzantine" by all means please feel free to edit. I'm only suggesting that the phrasing should not mislead the average reader (i.e. the fact that a scholar on the subject would understand what is meant does not mean that it is not misleading). --Mcorazao (talk) 02:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

 * When a reader reads "Roman" about Church history he thinks to the Papacy that in this case was not involved at all. The issue was between the Church of the Byzantine Empire, urged by its emperator to be united with Costantinople, and who wanted to be out from its jurisdiction.
 * The divisions in Chaldean Catholic Church/Assyrian Church of the East/Ancient Church of the East happened many centuries later, and all of them claim to be the true heir of the ancient Church of the East. So in wiki we shall be WP:NPOV and do not give priority to a single claim.
 * About the history of these split up, I've written it with lots of refs in Chaldean_Catholic_Church (please read it: the present chaldean do not came from Sulaqua split). It is anyway the history of the Church of the East, it does not exists a separate history of the Christianity in Iran. Anyway the areas of the present Iran where Christians lived in the 17th-19th centuries was the area West to Lake Urmia: the area of Urmia was under the Patriarchate of Alqosh, the area of Khosrowa unde the Patriarcate of Qochanis, but the influeneces changed a lot.
 * Anyway all the Chaldean Catholic Church/Assyrian Church of the East/Ancient Church of the East claim that the Church of the East was not borne in the 5th century but it was borne with the Saint Thomas the Apostle. In the IV century there was the split of the hierarchy between the pro-Byzantine_Empire and the East part, but the hierarchy itself was probably more ancient. A ntv (talk) 06:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

600 Churches?
I'd envite comment - see Talk:Religion_in_Iran please Smkolins (talk) 19:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I great enjoy for Iran Christians fellow for I heard the christian revolution is highly dominate and truth become reflect even though they may be persecutes, murder and a devil protest face them as result I would like to thanks Lord that being with them his glorious power and spirit with them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.55.85.45 (talk) 12:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

 * I removed one leading space in the comment above, so that Wikipedia inserted line-breaks, instead of one real long sentence. This was merely a formatting issue; I did not wish to offend someone by editing their post.71.101.33.73 (talk) 10:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

New persecution situation in the world-wide news now: Rev. Saeed Abedini, a U.S. citizen, may face the death penalty for preaching
Rev. Saeed Abedini, a U.S. citizen, is being held in IRAN on trumped-up charges of National Security issues, but in actuality, for preaching the Christian religion.

Abbas Pir-Abassi, known as a "hanging judge" because of his draconian rulings, is set to hear Saeed's case at 9:00am Iran Time (GMT +3:30), e.g., 1230am (the 21st) EST. Here is his Facebook:

https://www.facebook.com/PrayForPastorSaeedAbedini

You can Google search and verify that Pastor Saeed Abedini has been in the news lately, so this is a current situation.

New persecution situation in the world-wide news now: Rev. Saeed Abedini, a U.S. citizen, may face the death penalty for evangelizing the Christian gospel.

71.101.33.73 (talk) 10:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Propaganda by Lisa Daftari (FoxNews)
Case examples: She's a political activist, daughter of Iranian political emigrants, apologist of former Pahlavi dictatorship. She even wrote article supportive to Saudi Wahhabi monarchy against Iran. We wish good luck to mrs. Daftari with her political agendas, but she should know that encyclopedia isn't place for that. --109.165.148.54 (talk) 02:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In Feb 2012 she claimed "Iran court convicted Naderkhani to death". Despite dozens of sites followed her, it proved as false.
 * In Dec 2012 she claimed "Iran re-arrested Pastor Nadarkhani on Christmas Day". Again, it proved as false.
 * In Dec 2012, after all propaganda about Nadarkhani was proved as false, she started with new and almost identhical story about "American pastor Abedini being imprisoned without notice of charges in Iran". Some media follows her again (her article is the oldest one ), and many activists would like to include her agenda here in encyclopedic article, but it doesn't follow WP:NPOV and WP:RS.
 * No idea what you are saying here - she did not edit the article. You've also been warned on your profile talk to stop disruptive editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.22.29 (talk) 16:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Christianity in Iran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150402175628/http://www.222ministries.org/iran/iran-today/religion-and-religious-freedom/ to http://www.222ministries.org/iran/iran-today/religion-and-religious-freedom/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

"Christian mission"?
What does this sentence mean? "Christians of Iran have played a significant part in the history of Christian mission." It is unreferenced so no context. It doesn't seem to fit the linked article "Christian mission". --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 22:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Christianity in Iran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131231000642/http://www.christianexaminer.com/Articles/Articles%20Apr09/Art_Apr09_23.html to http://www.christianexaminer.com/Articles/Articles%20Apr09/Art_Apr09_23.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131231000642/http://www.christianexaminer.com/Articles/Articles%20Apr09/Art_Apr09_23.html to http://www.christianexaminer.com/Articles/Articles%20Apr09/Art_Apr09_23.html
 * Added tag to http:///EBchecked/topic/433619/Orumiyeh
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150331174726/http://old.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=180160 to http://old.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=180160
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029184117/http://amar.sci.org.ir/Detail.aspx?Ln=E&no=95486&S=GW to http://amar.sci.org.ir/Detail.aspx?Ln=E&no=95486&S=GW
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/sources/census/2010_PHC/Iran/Iran-2011-Census-Results.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Christianity in Iran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304050236/http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/mar/assessment.asp?groupId=63010 to http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/mar/assessment.asp?groupId=63010
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029201952/http://stfrancismagazine.info/ja/images/pdf/7DuaneMillerSFM5-5.pdf to http://stfrancismagazine.info/ja/images/pdf/7DuaneMillerSFM5-5.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040625122043/http://www.iranchamber.com/religions/history_of_christianity_iran1.php to http://www.iranchamber.com/religions/history_of_christianity_iran1.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080316085600/http://www.iranchurches.ir/ to http://www.iranchurches.ir/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090302212151/http://www.onlinekelisa.com/ to http://www.onlinekelisa.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Claims by Evangelicals
A 2015 study estimates between 100,000 and 500,000 Christian believers from a Muslim background living in Iran, most of the evangelical Christians. - this sounds like a mere fantasy for anyone engaged in Iranian studies. Such claims come from missionary organizations whose reliability is highly questionable. --MehrdadFR (talk) 18:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The article also doesn't say that; it has not said that since the 19th of October, when I actually read the associated cite (which appears in fact to be a serious piece of research), updated the sentence to reflect what the study said, and removed some questionable claims from missionary organisations. So why are you complaining about text that isn't even in the article? Pinkbeast (talk) 04:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I was indeed referring to older version (I even made a small mistake when edited), but even in this way it's questionable and requires more serious studies. As far as I know, there are only a several thousands of protestant Christians in Iran, more then ten times less then the lowest claims by those missionary organizations. Claims about apostasy are removed because it's utter nonsense without any basis in Iranian law or Shia Imami (Twelver) tradition. I'm well aware there are tons of articles (mainly non-professional) which claims otherwise, but it's factually wrong. --MehrdadFR (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "As far as you know" is not the basis on which citing is done; it is not as if you are in a position to count all the Christians in Iran. The paper cited (which I've actually read, unlike you) appears, again, to be serious work, and not simply to take the claims of missionaries at face value. Likewise it is not sufficient for you to claim something is "utter nonsense"; I have cited Der Spiegel on the subject of apostacy, and would have no difficulty in producing more cites. What you should do is produce cites that support your position (note that given the extensive state censorship and repression, a source from Iran that says everything is fine cannot be trusted); what you are doing is working up to yet another block for edit warring. Pinkbeast (talk) 10:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The fact is that you "can not trust Iranian source" (despite it's scholarly work) because you think there's "the extensive state censorship and repression" (your personal prejudicial opinion), is not the basis on which citing is done. Again, there are academic publications regarding to the subject, and there are also all Iranian laws available online. Regarding mine "as far as you know", I forgot to add "...from serious studies, books, and official data". Vast majority of Christians from censuses are Armenian and Assyrian, while several thousands others are Catholic and Protestant. --MehrdadFR (talk) 00:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * P.S. I just found in Sanasarian:2000 the number of Protestants are "a few thousand", with estimates giving from 5,000 up to 15,000. I also found in Afshari:2001 (a dissident) that there's no any law regarding religious conversion, but he himself claims that Iranian government sometimes used "extra-judicial" methods for apostasy cases, although they denied everything. If issue is to be addressed in article, then everything should be included: (1) No laws, (2) No religious basis, (3) Official denials, (4) "According to Afshari...". I'm sure you can find plenty of citations more but Wikipedia is not a news aggregator, you can find the same for flat Earth or "no internet in Iran". Be a little bit more constructive next time, happy new year and greetings from Tehran. --MehrdadFR (talk) 01:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It is entirely straightforward to show extensive state censorship and repression; Amnesty document it routinely.
 * Not according to Afshari: according to Der Spiegel, a perfectly good source. Deal with it. Pinkbeast (talk) 08:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's obvious you're trying to force POV, so conversation is over. --MehrdadFR (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You cannot simply remove cited material because you don't like it. Have you learned nothing from your previous blocks? Pinkbeast (talk) 13:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You should seriously study more about WP:Neutral point of view and WP:Identifying reliable sources. Beside, your threats are laughable. --MehrdadFR (talk) 13:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

RFC on recent edits

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I invite comments from other editors on recent changes to the article pertaining to the state of Christian converts in Iran. My position and a proposed edit are in the section immediately below. I regret this is a "Bad Question", as described at Requests for comment, but to be more specific would be to (non-neutrally) restate my own position. Pinkbeast (talk) 12:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion
This edit was done after the above discussion. I do not think it is helpful.

Material added
"Conversions have been the subject of several controversies" is useless verbiage. The paragraph's text serves to establish the issue.

"it has been reported in the Western press" is pure weasel wording because the editor doesn't like what the source said. Der Spiegel didn't say that it has been reported in the Western press that apostates can face the death penalty; Der Spiegel said that apostates can face the death penalty. We should write what the source says.

Additional cites are available and could be added. http://www.deathpenaltyworldwide.org/country-search-post.cfm?country=Iran - "Apostasy is also punishable by death under shariah, which is enforceable by domestic courts". https://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/Rapport_Iran_final.pdf - "judges have invoked the said Article 214 to mete out the death sentence in many apostasy cases on the basis of the views of Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of the IRI".

Hence a simple statement that apostates can face the death penalty should be restored.

"Iranian officials repeatedly rejected such claims" - that a murderous regime like Iran denies many of its own murders is not remarkable. Unless there is some reason to suppose their assertion can be proven, it should be removed.

"the Islamic Civil Code was silent on apostasy" - other cites explain how apostates may nevertheless face the death penalty.

"According to Reza Afshari, the Judiciary still provided legal space for the clerical judges to apply traditional Islamic law, not codified in state laws, so the crime was punishable by fines, lashing, and prison terms, leaving it to the Islamic judges to impose the death penalty if they desired."

This literally says that judges _can_ impose the death penalty.

"According to the Iranian scholars ..." - this sentence is a pointless diversion, serving only as a smokescreen over the well-cited fact that apostates can in fact face the death penalty. It hardly seems pertinent to the point at hand and hence should be removed.

"insisting that Nadarkhani has a history of committing violent crimes ..." - it does not seem necessary to so expand upon the regime's denials (especially not by direct cut and paste from the source). The regime is not one we would typically regard as a reliable source on the probity of its own actions, and hence it is not helpful to give undue weight to their self-justification. A simple statement that they have denied the claims would suffice. (The source added is useful for this purpose and should be retained.)

Material removed
"Hence the statistics of Iranian Christians omit an unknown number of secret conversions." Now, I hear the cry of synthesis coming, but this does follow fairly obviously from the fact that apostates can face oppression and death. It could be altered to "Hence, reliable statistics on the number of Iranian Christians are not available.", cited to https://www.theguardian.com/world/iran-blog/2014/may/12/iran-converted-christians-sanctuary-germany-muslim - "The underground nature of the Christian conversion movement has made numbers impossible to determine accurately". (This cite also states that apostates can face the death penalty.)

(There are a lot of American Christian evangelist Websites that blithely assert there are loads, but I don't think they're remotely reliable sources either...)

"After the Iranian Revolution, Christians in Iran were not allowed to proselytize or evangelize Muslims" - this could stay removed; we are more concerned with the current state of affairs, anyway.

"There are some officially recognized ethnically Iranian Christian communities, as the descendants of Muslims who converted to Protestant Christianity in 19th century were exempted from the laws passed in 1979" - a simple "citation needed" would be more appropriate than removal of this material. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

 * This is a prepared edit in my sandbox incorporating my proposals above, to make the intention clear. Pinkbeast (talk) 12:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Your prepared edit appears good to me, but it would help to briefly summarize what remains at issue here. Jzsj (talk) 11:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If I make it I expect to get reverted immediately, so I'm endeavouring to establish that there is support for my proposal in the hope that that reversion won't happen. Sorry for the delay in replying - I've been away from Wikipedia for a week. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I Think the prepared edit looks good. Fusion2186 (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Need clarity on Anglo-American Protestants sects
In most of the article, we are quite careful when describing each Christian group and their position in Iran. It appears that most of the older groups are tolerated there.... Syriac, Oriental Orthodox, Chaladean Catholic, etc.

When it talks about "persecution" of supposed converts from Islam, it doesn't mention that this is to completely artificial Protestant sects created in very recent times, originating mostly in the United States (such as Assemblies of God) and Britain. Some of these groups are strong supporters of Zionism and have shady political connections to those aforementioned powers, who may be hostile to Iran.

You do not get a sense of this at all from reading the article. There are very legitimate reasons to be wary of some of these sects as thinly veiled political fronts, for national security reasons. We need to make clear that this is not like the Saudi Arabia situation. Claíomh Solais (talk) 08:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No doubt you will be producing solid cites for this proposed change. Pinkbeast (talk) 03:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Christianity in Iran


text:
Talk:Antisymmetric relation

Regarding the terms "equality" and "antisymmetry"
I believe there is a cycle in the definitions: Equality is defined as binary relation which is reflexive, symmetric transitive and antisymmetric. The definition of antisymmetry refers to the notion of equality (a R b and b R a => a = b). I don't know how to fix this.

cheers, chris
 * The '=' above is identity, not equality. Identity is primitive in metaphysics and logic, but is characterised by Leibniz's Law. The reference to equality in the article is more strictly speaking equivalence; two objects can be equivalent without being identical (consider the universal equivalence relation: \forall a, b \in X, a R b). Acanon 20:43, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

prakash kumar devta from IIITB

 * I would answer this by saying that the axiom of antisymmetry is an axiom of first-order logic with equality. So equality comes first. One can then prove that equality is the only reflexive, symmetric and antisymmetric relation. Hope that helps. Sam Staton 14:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

So, to clarify, the definition of antisymmetry states that if one picks elements a and b, then a R b and b R a implies that a and b are in fact the same element, correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Undsoweiter (talk • contribs) 00:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

question
suppose R is a subset of A x A where A = {a,b} R={(a,a),(b,b)} is this antisymmetric? if yes then why?
 * The article gives "Greater than or equal to" as an example of antisimmetry. So, the "equal to" "a=b" relation here is just a particular case of it. Futhermore, the article clearly states that the equality relationship is both simmetric and antisimmetric ;) Actually, any xRy=true coincides with xRx, which satisfies both yRx and x=y. These two implications are the only requrements for the antidependency. So, any of your relations are antisimmetric. Javalenok'
 * Am I wrong in saying that.. you're wrong? Greater than or equal to isn't antisymmetric, right? I'm pretty sure its neither symmetric nor antisymmetric. Fresheneesz 04:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No, as the article says, the relation "greator than or equal to" is antisymmetric. Paul August ☎ 05:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Uh, .. where? This article? but greater than or equal to has cases where aRb exists but a does not = b... so .. i'm pretty sure i'm right. 67.161.46.169 02:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

 * The fourth line of the article says: Inequalities are antisymmetric, since for different numbers a and b not both a ≤ b and a ≥ b can be true. In other words if both a ≤ b and a ≥ b, then a = b. That is the definition of antisymmetric. Paul August ☎ 03:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Picture
I had a picture of the equality relation, Arthur Rubin deleted it. Why? First off, we need examples of antisymmetric relations. Secondly, pictures most definately do illustrate the concept. Please tell me why my picture should not be edited back in. Fresheneesz 02:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Your picture incorrectly said that for x ≠ y, xRy "must be false". Paul August ☎ 03:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh ok yea you're right. Needs a better picture then. Crap.. my picture should be deleted in that case. How do I do that? Fresheneesz 03:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm scratching my head wondering why you editted your picture as you have. Paul clearly misread the part that says "Must be false if the check mark with the same number (z) is true for it to be an antisymmetric relation" as saying "Must be false if x is the same number as y for it to be an antisymmetric relation" and you seem to have misunderstood which statement he meant and have edited the other statement such that now it is wrong when originally nothing was wrong. I'll revert the picture.86.5.179.220 (talk) 04:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Using a Vin Diagram, an anti-symmetric relation would have self loops around each variable in the relation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.83.230.33 (talk) 00:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Table
The table under examples is IMHO very confusing. The relation "x is even y is odd" is antisymmetric, but I don't understand how the table helps illustrating it. It seems that the table tries to illustrate some conditions for an unspecified relation to be antisymmetric but it is very involved and hardly helps understanding. Can it be removed?

Perhaps it would be helpful to instead have an example of something that's not antisymmetric. E.g., a pre-order like "is cheaper than" for fruits? (if two different fruits have the same price, then it is not anti-symmetric). 130.238.11.101 17:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the table either. Does anyone? I guess "the relation x is even, y is odd between a pair (x, y) of integers is antisymmetric" in the vacuous sense, since there is no pair of integers such that the condition, x is odd, y is even and y is odd, x is even, is true. If so, maybe this could be made explicit, as that's quite an unintuitive concept in itself. Fomentalist (talk) 01:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

antisymmetric property
please explain me about the antisymmetric relation in greater details with more examples. please include the examples of real time situations if any.

thanks and regards.

Mrs.r.joshi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.235.49.2 (talk) 07:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the first few lines do not tell me what anti-symmetry means. I know what identity, symmetry, asymmetry, (and barely) equality mean, but what is this anti symmetry. The in-my-face formulas are not gettin it through, since I don't know what I'm looking at, or what to look for.- neveos —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.37.195 (talk) 06:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Agreed with the other two posters, this topic seriously difficult to understand. 174.113.181.104 (talk) 06:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to fix ambiguious equivalent mathematical notation
Regarding the sentence beginning "In mathematical notation, this is:", the alternate definition

FOR all a,b elements of X, aRb AND NOT(x = y) then NOT(b)Ra

is ambiguious as it is not clear that NOT(b)Ra equals NOT(bRa). Therefore, I suggest changing the alternate definitioin to

FOR all a,b elements of X, aRb AND NOT(x = y) then NOT(bRa)

DLA (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Seems unnecesary to me, as there is no reason to believe that "NOT" is defined on X, making the first interpretation unreasonable.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Divisibility on integers
Divisibility on integers is not antisymmetric. For example, $$-2 | 2 \land 2 | -2$$ does not imply that $$2 = -2$$. I've changed the example to divisibility on natural number, which IS antisymmetric. Catskineater (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Question about vacuous antisymmetric relations
Based on the definition, it would seem that any relation for which $$R(a,b) \wedge R(b,a)$$ never holds would be antisymmetric; an example is the strict ordering < on the real numbers. Such examples aren't considered in the article - are these in fact examples or is the definition missing something? Dcoetzee 23:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

 * That's correct. In fact, $$\forall a, b \in X, \lnot(R(a,b) \land R(b,a))$$ is equivalent to "R is asymmetric" (the stronger condition of the two alternatives for "asymmetric"). So every relation that is asymmetric is also antisymmetric, as is already stated in the article for asymmetric relation. Catskineater (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Diagram
Shouldn't the ZV say "to be false for it to be a antisymmetric relation"?
 * Ah, exactly
 * Even and odd antisymmetric relation.png

( Martin | talk • contribs 19:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC))

title: Talk:Antisymmetric relation