Talk:Milk Tea Alliance

Deleted article

A related article, previously titled China-Thailand meme war, was previously deleted following discussion at AfD. I don't think it needs to be revived, but interested editors might want to request undeletion for selective merging here. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@Paul 012: Its loosely related but not the same topic at all. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Section

@PailSimon: Please provide direct quotes from the source which support your language and explain what you meant by your edit summary. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

PS, sorry our edits overlapped. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

The source states "Such efforts, then, are to seek to frame the Milk Tea Alliance phenomenon as something along the lines of being an American-engineered “color revolution” which backs it up. Saying that China is engaging in disinformation is an obvious breach of NPOV and it is an especially problematic assertion given that its being based off the opinion of one single source when many reliable sources would state that America is attempting a colour revolution in China.PailSimon (talk) 21:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

You missed the rest of the paragraph "Such efforts, then, are to seek to frame the Milk Tea Alliance phenomenon as something along the lines of being an American-engineered “color revolution.” Disinformation to create this perception involved creating false documents indicating correspondence between Taiwanese authorities and American government officials, coordinating efforts at providing aid to students in Thailand.” If "many reliable sources would state that America is attempting a colour revolution in China” exist then you can of course add them in addition to this one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Well one of the things I would take issue with is that the subsequent line you just quoted does not back up what you wish to say. This line simply states that there have been some fabricated documents (lets assume this is true) which is not necessarily to say the American-inspired colour revolution hypothesis is false.PailSimon (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Unless you have sources which say otherwise this discussion has run its course. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Well as I have said above you have provided no source stating the American-inspired colour revolution hypothesis is false which is what you want the article to say. I can offer contrary sources if needed. PailSimon (talk) 00:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

They obviously treat it like what it is... An absurd conspiracy theory. Your sources are needed now. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

You have asserted that they threat it like a conspiracy theory but have yet to substantiate the claim, meaning your assertion can therefore be dismissed. Here's one example of a source that does not just dismiss out of hand the Chinese hypothesis. Not that this source is needed given that you have yet to provide a source stating it is false.PailSimon (talk) 10:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

That article mentions neither color revolutions or the Milk Tea Alliance. Try again. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

It makes references to the Hong Kong aspect of the Alliance. Now how about you provide a source? PailSimon (talk) 16:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

It makes reference to Hong Kong but not in the context of the Milk Tea Alliance, it doesn't even mention it once. I already provided a source, we’ve been working from it this entire time as you well know. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Firstly the Milk Tea Alliance does not need to be mentioned by name because the article refers to the constitutents of the alliance of which Hong Kong is. Secondly you clearly have not been paying attention because I have actually pointed out above how your source does not state what you claim it to state. I will repost it again for your sake - This line simply states that there have been some fabricated documents (lets assume this is true) which is not necessarily to say the American-inspired colour revolution hypothesis is falsePailSimon (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC).

This is getting tendentious... Actually mentioning the Milk Tea Alliance is in fact the bare minimum for us to be able to use the source to make an explicit and controversial statement about the Milk Tea Alliance. The article I gave clearly treats it as false as both I and Citobun have told you. If you wish to get another opinion you can but I’d recommend finding a source which actually backs up your conspiracy pushing about the Milk Tea Alliance first. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of tendentious you once again fail to explain how the source threats it as false. Why dont you actually explain how instead of dodging the question for the millionth time? PailSimon (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Disinformation is inherently untruthful if it was true and they were spreading it it wouldnt be called disinformation by reliable sources... How about this bit which lays out both what the disinformation effort is trying to portray the Milk Tea Alliance as vs what it actually is... "attempting to depict the Milk Tea Alliance phenomenon as deliberately engineered by the Taiwanese government in collaboration with the American government. The Milk Tea Alliance refers to online exchanges between netizens from Taiwan, Thailand, and Hong Kong, often mocking the authoritarianism of the Chinese government, something that began after Chinese netizens attempted to harass a Thai celebrity who had visited Taiwan over the perception that the visit involved expressing support for Taiwanese independence.” I see nothing about US government involvement in their description of what the Milk Tea Alliance is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Well once again the article only actually calls the allegedly forged documents fake news. It never says the foreign collusion hypothesis is fake news. It says disinformation is being used to promote the hypothesis but not that the hypothesis is itself disinformation which is of course two different thimgs.PailSimon (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

The source doesn't call anything fake news, they don’t appear to use that term at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@Citobun: Please use the talk page as opposed to edit warring.PailSimon (talk) 10:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@PailSimon: Pot, meet kettle. Don't leave frivolous warning templates on my talk page. You've reverted three times in 24 hours, I've reverted once. You have yet to provide your sources. Citobun (talk) 10:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Putting aside your tu quoque argument, I have just provided sources above in fact.PailSimon (talk) 10:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

You have now reverted twice in the space of a few minutes. Textbook edit warring behavior right there. Stop edit warring and gain a consensus as is wikipedia policy.PailSimon (talk) 10:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

The source does not support what you are saying at all. And it also doesn't even relate to the subject of this article – the Milk Tea Alliance. So stop edit warring. And stop spamming my talk page with hypocritical warning templates. Citobun (talk) 10:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

None of this excuses your edit warring. I will keep warning you as long as you continue. Now how about you actually engage in the discussion instead of edit warring? PailSimon (talk) 10:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

And what excuses your edit warring PailSimon? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

You're not really in a position to lecture others on edit warring.PailSimon (talk) 16:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I’m not lecturing you, I’m asking what you think excuses your edit warring. Obviously you think something does or you don’t think what you’ve done is edit warring. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@PailSimon: you keep responding up top but you’ve gone silent down here, answer the question: do you think something excuses your edit warring or do you think its not edit warring? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I admittantly was too revert-ready however to compare my actions with Citobun, who has been edit warring without consensus or discussing on the talk page is a silly comparison.PailSimon (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Bright

In the Background section, "Bright" needs explanation. Davidships (talk) 02:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

The article used to mention in passing that Bright is Vachirawit's nickname, but this was removed in a recent edit by Yeenosaurus. I've changed the remaining instances to use his given name, though, since that is the proper form of address per WP:MOSBIO. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I removed it for style reasons, but I forgot to leave it in my edit summary; thanks for clearing it up. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 18:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, both, for clarifying. Davidships (talk) 03:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Milk and Chinese tea

I strongly propose dropping the part that states Milk Tea alliance has something to do with Chinese people not putting milk in tea. The source is unreliable and from personal experience with other people supporting the MTA I have never seen milk tea being used for being exclusionary. Not to mention the fact that China does have "native" milk tea in Inner Mongolia. Artoria2e5 🌉 17:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Categorization

@Horse Eye's Back: Can you please explain how "the whole article does [discuss the foreign relations of the PRC]", but "there is no mention of cyberwarfare"? The foreign relations of China refer to the Chinese government's interactions abroad, but the only sentence in this article that even references the Chinese government is the following uncited claim: "The Chinese embassy in Bangkok posted a long statement on Facebook condemning the online criticism and a fierce digital battle ensued between Thai netizens and the Chinese embassy." While I do not doubt that the Chinese embassy made such a statement and was met with fierce criticism from Thai netizens, I doubt the use of a term as dramatic as "digital battle" is warranted. Returning to the primary point, this article is almost exclusively about how netizens from Hong Kong, Taiwan, Thailand, and Myanmar are countering Chinese (PRC) nationalists online, not the Chinese government directly. If a distinction is not made between the Chinese government and its fervent supporters online and/or we need only a single mention of the government to warrant the inclusion of Category:Foreign relations of China, then we may as well add the following categories: Category:Foreign relations of Taiwan, Category:Foreign relations of India, Category:Foreign relations of Myanmar, and Category:Foreign relations of Thailand.

If you think that "cyberwarfare" is too loaded of a term for competing online propaganda campaigns, then there is no equivalent category which describes the same situation (I assume you would agree that the categories "Internet-based activism" and "Social media campaigns" are sufficient anyways; the only benefit of "Cyberwarfare in China" is the geographical distinction). Yue🌙 19:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can tell this is not a page about competing online propaganda campaigns, what source are you getting that from? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

An equivalent edit would be adding Category:Foreign relations of the United States to 50 Cent Party (wumao) because the latter's subject denounces the U.S. government and engages with its supporters online, but the U.S. government has never interacted with or acknowledged wumao commentators in any official capacity. Yue🌙 19:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't appear equivalent to me, they aren't similar concepts. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: 五毛黨 and 自乾五 are the pro-PRC equivalents to the Milk Tea Alliance in terms of function: Promoting their viewpoint on domestic and foreign issues and countering online commentators who oppose them. The important difference is 五毛黨 and 自乾五 claim to be grassroots but are often accused by Western netizens of being paid by the PRC government, while Milk Tea Alliance supporters claim to be grassroots but are often accused by Chinese netizens of being funded by the U.S. government and its subsidiaries. Regardless, this difference is not relevant anyways no matter which claims of either one believes.

Can you directly respond to the question "how does the 'whole article' discuss the foreign relations of the PRC"? This article mentions nearly nothing about the Chinese government's actions or response(s) to the movement (i.e. Aside from the one sentence I mentioned). The inclusion of this category would make more sense if the Milk Tea Alliance was a pro-Chinese operation and/or funded by the Chinese government, but it is the exact opposite. Yue🌙 20:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

We don't go with what netizens say we go with what WP:RS say, as far as I am aware no WP:RS says that the Milk Tea Alliance is "funded by the U.S. government and its subsidiaries" but we have a plethora of WP:RS of WP:RS at 50 Cent Party which say that they are. Are you maybe getting confused with Tankie or Little Pink? The whole article doesn't need to discuss something for a category to apply, you agree that there is such coverage in the article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

What I know for certain is an anonymous editor first added the category "Foreign relations of China", but the only mention of the Chinese government in this article is one unsourced, hyperbolic sentence about the Chinese government waging "a fierce digital battle" against Thai netizens. If I remove this sentence per WP:RS, then this article has nothing discussing the foreign relations of China. That is my only point that matters. Yue🌙 20:54, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

That makes sense to me and I'm fine with removing the foreign relations cat for now, I still don't understand the cyberwarfare tag though. At least the foreign relations tag had some backing albeit unsourced, that has no backing at all in any form. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)