Talk:2022 Beijing Sitong Bridge protest

Identity of the protester
Why not add a paragraph about the protester (as well as the propaganda materials he posted online), as there is in the Chinese-language version of this article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 04:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC)


 * It is still not sure whether the suspect is exactly the protester. Maybe it's better to add the paragraph to the article after it is confirmed.--A Chinese user (talk) 04:54, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Linguistic aspects
Keahapana (talk) 20:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Mair, Victor, Translation strategies: open protest at Sitong (Four-Way) Bridge, October 20, 2022, Language Log.

Requested move 24 October 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

Beijing Sitong Bridge protest → Bridge Man – As seen across international media, this seems to be the WP:COMMONNAME. It's also a lot more concise and searchable, as Google searches for the current title generate about 57K results while Google results for "Bridge Man China" show 398 Million results. Bridge Man today is currently a redirect to this article, and hasn't existed since October 22. InvadingInvader (talk) 01:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 03:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A descriptive title is appropriate. My assessment of the news coverage overall is that there is no common name for the event, with a variety of phrasings and word choices describing the event. See WP:NDESC, and WP:NCEVENTS on what to do if there is no common name. It probably ought to have a "when", as WP:NCEVENTS tends to recommend; i.e. also support adding 2022. Adumbrativus (talk) 03:05, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. I’ve not seen media refer to the “Beijing Sitong Bridge protest”, which is a clunky title. “Bridge Man” seems to have gained most usage. My second choice would be “Beijing bridge protest”. Bondegezou (talk) 06:40, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose a serious clear title like Beijing Sitong Bridge protest is needed which reflects quality sources. 2022 Beijing bridge protest is an alternative if needed. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Google result doesn't seem to exceed 20. B.T.W. Bridgeman is a common word. Luciferrrrrrr (talk) 07:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC) — Luciferrrrrrr (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * What about converting Bridge Man into a redirect for Bridgeman and listing the protest under there? InvadingInvader (talk) 23:37, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. I've navigated to this page many times, and every time I find it difficult. "Bridge man," it seems, is the term a plurality people are using to refer to this man in the English-speaking media, so I think this is the term we should adopt. I would not be totally opposed to the alt proposal "Beijing bridge protest," though I still think "Bridge man" is clearer and closer to what the common person would expect the title of this article to be. Sophyphreak (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2022 (UTC) — Sophyphreak (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * • Oppose A formal title for this protest is necessary. Also, its better suited to adopt a name like Beijing Sitong Bridge protest, which focus on the protest element, rather than changing it to Bridge man that focuses more on Peng Lifa. Patton84 (talk) 16:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Alt proposal Beijing Sitong Bridge protest → Beijing bridge protest. Addresses opposition's concerns, and if more bridge protests become common, we can add the year later on. InvadingInvader (talk) 23:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Not without 2022. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Relisting comment: requires a more thorough consensus, hopefully with more uninvolved participation — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 03:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: WikiProject China has been notified of this discussion. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 03:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: WikiProject Human rights has been notified of this discussion. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 03:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above. Current descriptive title is better in this instance, the "Bridge Man" moniker hasn't universally caught on, and could be confused with other things going forward. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:34, 9 November 2022 (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.
 * Oppose "Bridge Man" move proposal, but would support a move to 2022 Beijing bridge protest. BarleyButt (talk) 08:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Updates to the translations
Sorry, I haven't done a lot of wikipedia, so I'm sorry if my save history is a mess. Both native English speakers and native Chinese speakers have a tendency to strip the soul out of the Chinese when they translate it to English. Modern Chinese uses a lot of really beautiful and powerful rhetorical techniques that modern English doesn't usually employ, but they often work perfectly well in English when translated properly. I'm a veteran protestor in a radical direct action and civil disobedience organization, so I feel I've updated the translation in English so that it's both a correct rendering of the original and evokes in the reader a similar feeling as a native Chinese reader. I'm happy to further defend my translations if need be. Sophyphreak (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have some concerns since I am interested in Chinese. First, "起来不愿做奴隶的人们" is directly referred to the lyrics of March of the Volunteers, see no reason to change it. Also, the protestor mentioned "罢工" (workers' strike or simply strike), I think just use "quit" is bit too soft. ときさき   くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 00:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize that it was referring to the March of the Volunteers, so that was a nice catch. But as is common when translating Chinese into English (and vice versa), the words "Arise! Ye who refuse to be slaves!" are simply not words a contemporary English speaker would use. "Ye," especially, is Elizabethan English and is often associated with the King James Version of the Bible, much of which is totally incomprehensible to the modern native English speaker's ear. "Arise," as well, is a word with a very old feel to it and, similarly, is not used by contemporary native English speakers. If anything, the translation of the March of the Volunteers should be updated to reflect a more contemporary English. Edit: Also, I just noticed that this writer did not directly quote from the national anthem but actually changed his wording a bit. The anthem opens with: “起来不愿做奴隶”, but he wrote “起来不愿意做奴隶”. This demonstrates the writer's intention not to directly quote from the source material but rather to use immediate, contemporary words that might most intensely resonate with the ear of the common person, and the translation should reflect that.
 * With respect to 罢课罢工, I actually changed it to "quit" because I found "strike" too soft. If we're working in a non-English European language, or if it were the 1960's instead of today, "strike" would definitely have the rhetorical power you're trying to preserve. But I changed it to "quit" for that very reason--it's jarring in a native English speaker's ear in a way that "strike" is not. "Strike" has very selfish overtones in contemporary English because of the successful rightwing politics of the Reagan/Thatcher era, but "quit" is something scary and means taking on a huge risk--this is why I feel "quit" better preserves the rhetorical power even though it's less specific. Not to mention it makes it a lot easier to match the poetic cadence of the Chinese to say "Quit school. Quit work." than it is to translate it the way it normally is.
 * The objective of the protestor was certainly to jar the listener and make them think critically about the political system that they live in, and using short, snappy sentences using immediate and contemporary English would, I feel, best preserve the rhetorical objectives of the original speaker. Sophyphreak (talk) 19:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Something really new to me since I've seen a lot U.S. socialists and communists used the word "strike" instead of anything else. Would you mind sharing me some materials about the word usage of direct action in modern English? (I may use them to judge some edits on Wikipedia) Thanks in advance! ときさき   くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 20:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I associate with mostly US socialists and communists in my social life, especially protest culture people on the far left. These are not the kind of people that would do a lone protest in America, let alone in China. I know it's reaching, but I think this guy on the bridge--the kind of single-minded courage and genius-level wordcraft he demonstrates--would probably notice this poor context of the English word "strike" and choose "quit" instead, assuming, of course, he wanted to keep the same meaning as what he has in Chinese. (For context for other readers, "quit" is a fair translation of 罢. In this particular case, it's clear the writer means it in the context of workers taking power for themselves--that is a unionist/socialist/communist context--but I think it's more important to preserve the feeling of how jarring the words themselves are as well as the structure of the words than it is to preserve every shade of content that is clearly intended by the source text writer. At the end of the day, we must do our best to answer the question if the original author spoke native English as well, how would he have translated it. I think considering the symmetrical, poetic nature of the original Chinese, it's very likely he would've chosen a snappy couple of sentences like "Quit school. Quit work." and it's unlikely he would've written as clunky prose as most mainstream outlets try to push.) Sophyphreak (talk) 16:18, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

While I appreciate the contributions made and discussed above, shouldn’t we use that translations offered by reliable sources in preference to ones done by Wikipedians? Bondegezou (talk) 07:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course, but the question for now it that there is little consensus have been reached by medias. For instance, should we pick CNN or the Guardian? ときさき   くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 09:29, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't have to pick just one. We could give one translation in the main text, but include alternative translations in a footnote. Bondegezou (talk) 10:50, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree. Do you have a draft something? Like which one should we may put in the main text? -- ときさき  くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 13:20, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I would disagree with this except I haven't seen any outlets try to translate these three texts in their entirety like this wikipedia article attempts to do. At the end of the day, at the very least some amount of either original translation or some amount of usage of non-mainstream sources is required to get a full translation of the texts. (The fact of the matter is that mainstream sources don't spend a lot of money on good Chinese-to-English translation, so we should not be surprised by this fact.) Sophyphreak (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: Rather than collectively drafting an original translation, why not use the above published RS version by Victor H. Mair? Keahapana (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This only translates one of the banners. It is not a translation of either the loudspeaker message or the other banner. Sophyphreak (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

To add to article
Basic information to add to this article: what happened to the protester following his arrest, and where he is now. 204.11.186.190 (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Why isn't there a picture of the banners themselves?
A quick google search reveals dozens of pictures of the banners. Why aren't one of these used for the main picture, as opposed to some random picture of the bridge from 2003? 2620:106:A000:700:8018:54C4:5F6B:735C (talk) 13:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)