Talk:50 cent

Issues to be resolved
It appears there has been some disagreement between me and the two of you over some of the changes that I’ve made to this entry so I’ve opened this discussion in an attempt to resolve them. There are multiple things I find problematic with what’s currently in the article here so i’ll explain  my objections one by one

1: Under the “Etymology” section the definition of 50 cent army says it is “in reference to their supposed pay of 1/2 yuanRMB per online post at the time they first came to public attention.” But this is misleading as the main Wikipedia article contains a multitude of sources which has verified the phenomenon as an objective fact

2: Under the “adjective” section the term is described as derogatory when functioning as a synonym for the term cheap. I am not sure how this conclusion was arrived at. It is not clear to me that term has the connotation of being even slightly offensive especially when one considers the alternative synonyms.

3: Under the “noun” section 50 cent is referred to as a synonym for wumao. This however does not make any sense as terms refer to two different things. 50 cent is the payment that wumaos receive for doing their jobs while wumaos are the ones who receive the “50 cents.”Running the two together would be akin to saying wage is a synonym for worker.

4: Under the “usage notes” section one finds much the same problems which also exists in the “noun” section. When we want to dismiss the views of “anyone online [who is] in any way supportive of China or the CCP in a way disliked by the speaker” we call them “wumaos”, “50 cent-ers”, “members of the 50 cent party” and the like. We don’t call them “50 cent” as that would simply be ungrammatical Stormandfury (talk) 22:29, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I reverted your edits because you deleted a sense out-of-process (points 3 and 4). Feel free to start an RFV if you want to dispute whether that sense actually exists. For point 2, the pejorative nature comes from its use in context. I have no opinion on point 1. &mdash; S URJECTION / T / C / L / 05:50, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

RFV discussion: September 2022–February 2023
RFV-sense:


 * 1) as an adjective where the term is described as derogatory when functioning as a synonym for the term cheap.
 * 2) as a noun where it is referred to as a synonym for wumao.

The background to the dispute can be found here and I am not seeing anything on Google Books that provides attestation for either sense of the term.

Sorry in advance if there are defects with this RFV as this is the first time I’ve done this Stormandfury (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)


 * @Stormandfury looks like a good RFV. A cursory search tended to confirm your suspicions. Let's leave it for (at least) 30 days and see if anyone can find any evidence to support this entry. This, that and the other (talk) 04:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


 * @This, that and the other it’s been well over 30 days and it doesn’t seem like anyone else has “found evidence to support this entry” as nobody else has commented on this rfv. What are the next steps? Can I proceed with my changes to the entry in question? Stormandfury (talk) 08:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking more closely, I see some use on Reddit:   Let's leave this open for a bit longer until we have some more clarity on the community's expectations for non-durable online sources. This, that and the other (talk) 09:05, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

RFV Failed Ioaxxere (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)