Talk:sheng nu

2007
In "Report of the language situation in China (2006)" published by the Chinese Ministry of Education in 2007, Shengnü was recognised as a neologism in the Chinese language (among 170 others). I don't think it was in any way part of some government propaganda to pressurise unmarried women to get married. Seems to be (to me) Western interpolation, as usual. Wyang (talk) 02:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have provided several references that support the position that it was by and large introduced to the mainstream by the government. Here's the direct quote from the New York Times : the Women’s Federation Web site and found that it posted its first article on “leftover” women in 2007, shortly after China’s State Council issued an edict on strengthening the Population and Family Planning program to address “unprecedented population pressures.” These pressures include the sex-ratio imbalance — which “causes a threat to social stability” — and the “low quality of the general population, which makes it hard to meet the requirements of fierce competition for national strength,” according to the State Council. The State Council names “upgrading population quality (suzhi)” as one of its key goals, and appoints the Women’s Federation as a primary implementer of its population planning policy. Also, this quote from the BBC News, "State-run media started using the term "sheng nu" in 2007. That same year the government warned that China's gender imbalance - caused by selective abortions because of the one-child policy - was a serious problem." Lastly, the Independent UK , "It has been reported that the government is trying to shame these educated women into getting married and having children in order to breed a ‘genetically superior’ generation and tackle unrest amongst the many unmarried Chinese men." It is possible the term had been around prior to that, but every major source largely attributes this as the origin of the term in the mainstream and that it was state sponsored. The source you provide might simply mean that the government coined the term in 2006 instead of 2007. I can assure you that I am not pushing any point of view other than that which I have cited from some very reputable sources. Albeit English sources, and if Chinese sources of equal reputation can show otherwise then great. But I'm inclined to stick to the cited material first and foremost, and any "thoughts" on "POV pushing" or unlikely government propaganda where this view is not shared in an independent and reliable source I hope would not be an equally weighted against argument. I have adjusted the wording to allow the possibility that the word existed prior, but that it was 'coined' and used predominately to become a mainstream term by the state run media and government. Yes? Mkdw (talk) 06:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And this: "The term refers to any unmarried Chinese woman over the tender age of 27, and was coined by the All-China Women's Federation, which was founded by the Communist Party in 1949." Huffington Post. Mkdw (talk) 07:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Western media should not be relied on too much with their China-related commentaries; they rely too much on each other and often add their own interpretations to stories when transmitting them, while rarely making themselves think outside their stereotypical perceptions. Using your last post as an example, isn't it illogical for the All-China Women's Federation to coin a pejorative word which literally translates to "leftover women" to refer to a subgroup of themselves? This word existed long before 2007. I've created Citations:剩女. Let me know what you think. Not everything has to be related to the government, y'know. Wyang (talk) 10:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Wyang, I'll reply to this in full when I get home later tonight. I certainly agree with being cautious about the interpretations of Western sources on events and policies in Asia, but as the New York Times, BBC, and Cambridge study says, they were all conducted with in China or by their China bureau's which adds to their credibility. For example, Sandy To spent half a decade researching it in mainland China and other sources from China have confirmed various bits of it. You're right not "everything has to be government related" as equally as some things are government related. In this case, it's fairly clear it is unless we're going to dispute such facts, but it must be disputed by a reputable source, and not an editor here saying it's not related. I've written various writers of the stories, specifically the ones who did research in China, to find out more information about the etymology. Mkdw (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I've changed the etymology section to account for attributions of the modern term to varying sources. If you have any reliable sources that place the etymology of the term as understood and used today to an earlier time or different source, please add it to the etymology section. Do not remove cited content regardless of any personal opinions you may have regarding the reliability of "western" media, or the findings of your own original research. Mkdw (talk) 22:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I have provided reasons for this three years ago: (1) that this term was in widespread use prior to the 2000s (Citations:剩女), (2) that there was no official document showing that the All-China Women's Federation or the Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China "popularising" this term, and (3) evidence that a document by the Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China was the only event which could have been misconstrued to produce this Western media fantasy. Wyang (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of sources that attribute the term as either being coined or majorly popularized by the All-China Women's Federation or the Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China. They were cited in the etymology section. Secondly, I re-wrote the etymology section to account for the varying etymologies. Even if you found "leftover women" in text, it doesn't mean that's the etymology of the modern term. Lastly, you could have added that as a note and provided a reliable source that highlight these issues. Instead you engaged in an edit war and then you used your administrative tools to "win" a dispute you were involved in. Something I imagine is expressly prohibited. I think we need an uninvolved administrator to moderate this dispute and for you to be accountable on how you use the protection tools. Mkdw (talk) 22:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there any support for your claim (reputable Chinese sources, announcements by the All-China Women's Federation or the Ministry of Education). Unreliable Western media claims should be removed if no original sources can be found. No such source has been provided since the discussion three years ago. Wyang (talk) 23:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You fail to realize that the burden is on you. I've provided sources to support my position and you have not. Mkdw (talk) 00:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I just want to point out that news sources are not reliable in the slightest with regard to linguistics or any other sciences. Unless you find something published by an actual linguist or someone who knows enough about linguistics, it's not going to be a reliable source. Note that we do allow original research on Wiktionary, and our original research would certainly supersede unreliable sources such as the news media. --WikiTiki89 15:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

sheng nu
I'm not convinced that this is English. Capitalization seems wrong if the term is OK. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with the capitalization format on Wiktionary. Make it lowercase if necessary. Looking at the Wikipedia article link would have given you verification but have added references which seem very uncommon on wikitionary entries so I originally omitted them but put the Wikipedia article link in the appropriate template. Mkdw (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * None of your references support use of the term in English. See CFI and consider making it a Chinese entry. DTLHS (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Each reference is in English and uses the word sheng nu. For example the BBC source says, "are called "sheng nu" or "leftover women" - and it stings". It does not distinguish that one is only used in mandarin and the other only in the anglophone world. Mkdw (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * But see use-mention distinction. Equinox ◑ 20:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * My question would be moving the page to 剩女 and then adding an English language alternative? Mkdw (talk) 21:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * (Capitalisation fixed by a page move.) Equinox ◑ 20:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Each occurrence in the given references are mentions, not actual uses (they are defined in the sentences, not used naturally), and are either within quotation marks, brackets, or in italics (To show it is a foreign term, not an English one). SemperBlotto (talk) 21:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well not always. The New York Times article some times plainly refers to it such as "The Women’s Federation columns on sheng nu all share the same goal: convince single, educated women to stop being so ambitious and get married already" or the CNN article, "Since 'A level' women are financially independent, they won't resort to dating 'C level' or 'D level' men, so they end up as sheng nu". Most notably that Cambridge University uses it in the open, "Contrary to the assumption that sheng nu are somehow pioneers for a new, more liberated generation of Chinese women, she found that most remain keen to get married." I won't argue too strongly for it, not 'married' to the terms definition here -- I've changed it to Mandarin Chinese anyway. Mkdw (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ugh I changed it back to English. It's not Mandarin Chinese, which we call Mandarin, because Mandarin doesn't use toneless pinyin. Are you trying to getting this entry speedily deleted? I reverted and removed the Chinese characters because English doesn't use Chinese characters. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The Chinese characters should appear in etymology and translations sections, though. --Hekaheka (talk) 22:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, for Mkdw, this is not Wikipedia, we do not deal with 'concepts' so much as with 'words' and 'idioms'. So the English sheng nu and the Mandarin may be the same concept, but one cannot redirect to the other. If both are real, they must have separate entries, each in its own language. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Using Wiktionary entries, this would be shèng nǚ with diacritics. Not sure about the space in the middle. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to get it deleted... I created the page... two editors scolded me for calling it English, something about "use-mention distinction" and "conveying meaning". Upon their recommendation, I was instructed to change it to Chinese. Mkdw (talk) 05:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have added the Mandarin term and fixed the etymology. The Chinese definition is confirmed from Pleco and Nciku. Doesn't seem only negative (a successful single career woman) but it's made more negative by some Chinese misogynists. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 03:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, when I wrote the English Wikipedia page, I did balance the article in that there is a movement amongst some that the term could be seen as a positive to mean "successful women". I think that could certainly be added as a second meaning for sure. Most sources I found noted it as derogatory which is why I cited it as such. Mkdw (talk) 08:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I differ to everyone's expertise here. I'm obviously not familiar with the way things work here so if it ends up being deleted so be it. Just thought it'd be helpful since it's in the official lexicon of the Chinese government and I had been working on the article on Wikipedia lately. If it is kept, perhaps it's me, but it seems really strange that you would have 剩女, and then sheng nu with the exact same definition (both in English) but not refer to one another. No worries either way; I'll bow out at this point. Sorry for any troubles. Mkdw (talk) 05:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's not take it personally if people have different opinions, albeit sometimes sharply worded. Right or wrong, I added "sheng nu" as descendant of 剩女 and added "剩女" to the etymology and translations sections of sheng nu. At least the terms are now interlinked. --Hekaheka (talk) 08:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC) Sorry but the Chinese translation was added by me :) --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 02:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The term may be right and exists in English but the creator insists on inclusion of "The term was coined by the Government of China in 2007 to pressure unwed women into getting married.", which was removed earlier by User:Wyang, a native Chinese speaker. The term existed long before 2007, not coined by the Chinese government, there's no doubt about it and claims about what was used in China and by Chinese and since when should be supported by native Chinese sources. Seems like POV pushing. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 02:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * On the specific year - 2007. It's the year when the term started to be used in the Chinese media, not when it was coined. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 02:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * POV pushing? Why the lack of good faith or absence in looking into the references I provided? Being a native Chinese speaker has nothing to do with being "right". I have provided several references that support the position that it was by and large introduced to the mainstream by the government. Here's the direct quote from the New York Times : "the Women’s Federation Web site and found that it posted its first article on “leftover” women in 2007, shortly after China’s State Council issued an edict on strengthening the Population and Family Planning program to address “unprecedented population pressures.” These pressures include the sex-ratio imbalance — which “causes a threat to social stability” — and the “low quality of the general population, which makes it hard to meet the requirements of fierce competition for national strength,” according to the State Council. The State Council names “upgrading population quality (suzhi)” as one of its key goals, and appoints the Women’s Federation as a primary implementer of its population planning policy." Also, this quote from the BBC News, "State-run media started using the term "sheng nu" in 2007. That same year the government warned that China's gender imbalance - caused by selective abortions because of the one-child policy - was a serious problem." Lastly, the Independent UK , "It has been reported that the government is trying to shame these educated women into getting married and having children in order to breed a ‘genetically superior’ generation and tackle unrest amongst the many unmarried Chinese men." Lastly, the The Huffington Post , "The term refers to any unmarried Chinese woman over the tender age of 27, and was coined by the All-China Women's Federation, which was founded by the Communist Party in 1949." It is possible the term had been around prior to that, but every major source largely attributes this as the origin of the term in the mainstream (the Huffington Post directly says it was coined by the government) and that it was state sponsored. I can assure you that I am not pushing any point of view other than that which I have cited from some very reputable sources. Albeit English sources, and if Chinese sources of equal reputation can show otherwise then great. But I'm inclined to stick to the cited material first and foremost, and any "thoughts" on "POV pushing" or unlikely government propaganda where this view is not shared in an independent and reliable source I hope would not be an equally weighted against argument. I have adjusted the wording to allow the possibility that the word existed prior, but that it was 'coined' and used predominately to become a mainstream term by the state run media and government. Yes? Mkdw (talk) 06:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the use of the rollback tool here to revert my edit, from my perspective, seems inappropriate. I'm not familiar with the exact outlined usage of rollback on the English Wiktionary, but Wikimedia defines it as "Rollback is supposed to be used to revert obvious vandalism." The English Wikipedia and Simple Wiktionary define the use of rollback similarly. All I could find was, "An edit should be reverted if it is clearly and irredeemably nonconstructive; vandalism" at Help:Reverting. I know this has been frustrating for all of you since I am new to Wiktionary. I've sincerely done my best to differ to other editor's advice here. I've received some criticism and accusations which are not true, obviously not trying to delete an entry I created in the first place, and especially since it was advice offered by others. Also, I am not pushing my own opinion onto the content and meaning of the word. I have provided sources for everything, and I speak English which is why the sources I have added are in English. The word we've agreed is the English variant at this point, so English sources make sense to me. I think some Chinese sources would be extremely useful. It's important to note that the studies the English articles largely cite are from Chinese university's done by Chinese-English speakers, so we're not exactly getting an Anglophone only research. For example, the Cambridge study was done by Sandy To in Shanghai between 2008 and 2012 for Cambridge and partly the University of Hong Kong. I've found what I, and many others, would consider to be some of the best sources available known for their neutrality and accuracy in reported: The New York Times, BBC News, Pulitzer Centre, etc. I ask for continued patience and understanding -- I think we all want this entry to be accurate. If we could all, myself included, keep this focused on constructive discussion, allowing me to learn as we go the idiosyncrasies of Wiktionary, you will find I am generally very agreeable and formal in my approach. Thank you, Mkdw (talk) 08:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * At the end of the day the basic principle here is not references but citations. If pre-2007 citations can be found then the Etymology should at the very least be changed (probably along the lines of "popularised by the Chinese government..." or "officially adopted by the Chinese government..." etc., rather than "coined by"). Ƿidsiþ 08:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. Based upon the government source User:Wyang found, it confirms that the term was recognized by the government in 2006, and not 2007. I think it's very possible that the term had been used loosely prior, but all sources at present indicate that it was coined by the government, when -- that seems open -- but that does not necessarily mean it's true, merely that the sources I have report as such. Mkdw (talk) 08:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the core issue here is that the Chinese-government angle is encyclopedia information, not dictionary information: the term already existed and was in general use before they put their own spin on it and made extensive use of it. It might merit mention in a usage note, but that's about it. Whether the term exists as English depends on whether it's used as quoted Chinese or as an English term for the Chinese concept. I'll leave that to others to judge. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The government has no relationship whatsoever with the usage of this term; what they did was merely publishing a report on the language situation in China that listed this term as a neologism to show that the Chinese language was continuously changing. There was an obvious misinterpretation of the original Chinese news, for some reason. Wyang (talk) 03:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess I missed that detail. At any rate, it doesn't affect my argument, which is that there was no "coining" or "popularizing" involved at that point: it was just another stage in the history of the term (at least as far as a dictionary's treatment of such terms is concerned). Chuck Entz (talk) 03:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "The government has no relationship whatsoever with the usage of this term", that's your POV until you provide a reliable source that supports that position. Your argument might be true, but until you show us something that contradicts the numerous reliable sources I have found on the subject. If you have a problem about the accuracy of the New York Times or BBC, that's a completely different matter, but for now, they are regarded as reliable and independent sources and their reports should be the first and foremost driving source of the information relating to the term. I'm not here to soil the name of the government or push some agenda, it's merely what I have discovered about the term. Moreover, when we talk about 'coining' a word, it does not mean the first time a word is seen in print, but the first time the phrase or term is applied in its current meaning. For all we known shengnu could have existed before but not meant unwed women 27 years of age and older. Lastly, we have a source that says its coined by the government. A real reliable source. I cannot see us ignoring that source in place of opinions and original research offered here in the discussion pages. Mkdw (talk) 04:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I do doubt the reliability of those reports by NYT or BBC, as they diverged in meaning from the original Chinese-language reports they referenced. I have so far unable to find a Chinese-language source that links the word shengnu (either its coinage or "popularisation after 2007", if that indeed exists) with policies by the Chinese government. All I could find (see google:剩女 2007 教育部) is a report on the language situation in China published in 2007 by the Ministry of Education that included this word as a neologism, which is almost certainly what the NYT/BBC commentaries were in fact referring to. I therefore would not regard the secondary reports from western media as accurate descriptions of the history and development of the term shengnu. Wyang (talk) 05:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned that 'most certainly' is your assumption of the facts. We have no idea what source they used, and whether or not they misinterpreted the source you found. For all we know, they didn't use that source at all and got their information differently. With out knowing for sure, we cannot challenge their findings because of our own findings in the limited sources we've come across. Also, I would be shy to use the word 'second hand' if that is the central argument for you to discredit the sources. Most of them are citing contributions and papers written by Leta Hong Fincher, Tsinghua University and Sandy To, University of Taiwan, and Li, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Furthermore, To's study took place over 5 years in China. We're not talking about overseas reporters writing at a desk about the matter. Mkdw (talk) 06:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

It has been advised that work on a citation page would be useful for the definition. Would, "Contrary to the assumption that sheng nu are somehow pioneers for a new, more liberated generation of Chinese women, she found that most remain keen to get married." and "Sheng Nu want to walk down the aisle as much as anyone, but this growing class of highly-educated, high-earners also want to get marriage right." be suitable examples? Also, I wonder if "leftover woman" should have its own entry considering that its commonly used if not more than its 'sheng nu' counterpart? Mkdw (talk) 09:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I have replied at Talk:sheng nu. Wyang (talk) 10:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any truly unambiguous citations. Some of them are definite mentions, some could either be interpreted as mentions (use of the Chinese term in the Latin script) rather than uses (using the word 'sheng nu' as an English word). Citations that don't mention that it's the Chinese for leftover woman would be a fine thing. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This is something I can work on but have been busy with other things lately. Considering the request for citations, language, and capitalization have been met, would this meet the RFV at this point in time? Mkdw (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * RFV passed; unless another editor objects with in one week. Mkdw (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Unpassed; not been cited. Three citations for each and any challenged sense, so far we have zero for each of them. If you formatted them as citations instead of references it might clear things up a bit. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've slightly reformatted the article to get one citation for each sense but... I don't think either of them are actually citations, they merely mention the Mandarin word transliterated into the Latin script, not an 'English' word. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reformatting it. I noticed for the second definition you provided a quote but no source. Is that common? I had made them alphanumerical inline references which is commonly used on Wikipedia, but I am unfamiliar with the format you have used (a drop down show/hide box labelled "quotation"). Also, what would be a suitable citation for the word? Any examples would help me find a similar one. I looked at the attestation criteria and it seemingly meets "clearly widespread use" and "use in permanently recorded media". Thanks. Mkdw (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)