Talk:走狗

帝国主义的走狗

Please do not remove 帝国主义的走狗 (running dogs of imperialism); we do include entries for important, commonly used key phrases at en:Wiktionary, as in the case of 且听下回分解. 71.66.97.228 07:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

8,300 Google Books hits for this phrase. 71.66.97.228 07:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Those are two different things. 帝国主义的走狗 is NOT includable under Phrasebook guidelines. Please do not add SoP material unless you have a very good reason. A Google Search proves nothing. ---> Tooironic 15:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You are incorrect. At Wiktionary we do include entries for very widely used and notable phrases, particularly for the Mandarin language, such as 经天纬地之才. Just because some originate centuries ago and others just under one century ago does not mean that we privilege phrases or idioms of ancient vintage. In China's recent revolutionary history this is one of the key phrases used as an idiom (not a "sum of parts"), always in this way, in communist propaganda; this turn of phrase was picked up by other communist movements in East and Southeast Asia. If you actually address the issue rather than responding without any specifics, it would be helpful. 71.66.97.228 00:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Please do not remove derived terms without comment or prior considered and thoughtful discussion, as was done here. 71.66.97.228 02:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh, no. 帝国主义的走狗 is completely decipherable by its parts and there is nothing binding about the words that would make it enterable on Wiktionary. It does not exist in any of the multiple print dictionaries, nor in the online dictionaries. It is even absent in the various communist jargon glossaries which have very lax criteria for inclusion and list almost anything remotely resembling a catchphrase or slogan. If we include this then we have to include every other possible combination of 帝国主义 + 的 + noun, e.g.:

• 帝国主义的本质
• 帝国主义的策略
• 帝国主义的进攻
• 帝国主义的侵略工具
• 帝国主义的理论
• etc etc etc

As for 经天纬地之才, it is not a good example as it has not been through the Wiktionary RfD process, however it is liable to be deleted on the same grounds. For future reference remember that particles like 的 are a dead giveaway that the phrase is very, very likely to be SoP. ---> Tooironic 10:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for inviting me but I don't have a strong opinion on this. I usually prefer keeping than deleting. We have quite a number of SoP entries, which are useful and help understand the language, culture and history. Even if we don't have current CFI for such phrases, they may be created in the future - espeically if some users are very keen to create them. This phrase is not typical in English but it was typical in China, translating back and forth would not be intuitive. These are my arguments for the moment - weak keep. I won't fight if it gets deleted but if it's kept it should be properly formatted with some usage notes. It could also be part of "phrases", "phrasebook" or other categories where it would be considered out of place. The anon user 71.66.97.228 is enthusiastic and has some knowledge, which could be used, so let's take this into account as well. --Anatoli 23:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Like I said earlier, it is not includable under Phrasebook criteria - it's not even a phrase, but merely two words strung together. We cannot include just any combination of words that someone finds interesting. And I will repeat: Google hits are NOT part of our Criteria For Inclusion. You will plenty of hits for word combinations like "有趣的事" or "流行的說法" too, but that doesn't mean we will create entries for them. I'm not just making this stuff up - this is Wiktionary policy. The only way you could get 帝国主义的走狗 included here is if you can establish that is a proper noun, which I do not believe to be the case. ---> Tooironic 12:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

e Please don't fail to mention the nearly 8,000 Google Books hits for this exact "catchphrase" (not the others you mentioned), most from Chinese political books published between the 1950s and 1970s. 71.66.97.228 06:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

There are two main criteria that we typically look at when considering whether to include a phrase in Wiktionary. The first is that there should be evidence that the phrase is actually used. You provided the 8,000 Google Books hits as evidence to this end. The second is that the phrase must be idiomatic. In other words, you can't easily figure out the meaning by examining its component parts. This second one is where you're running into problems with this phrase. 帝国主义 means imperialism. 的 is a possessive. 走狗 literally means running dogs. Taken together then, the phrase can be translated as "running dogs of imperialism" or "imperialism's running dogs". One could perhaps argue that "running dogs" is an idiom, but that would only apply to 走狗, not the entire phrase. An idiom is something that is difficult or impossible to figure out by examining its parts. Examples of legitimate idioms include 暗度陈仓 and 茅塞顿开. -- A-cai 12:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Then it can be called a "Phrase," as is 且听下回分解, where all elements of the phrase are easily understood. Like 且听下回分解, 帝国主义的走狗 has been very widely used, and translated into several other Asian languages for use in communist propaganda of the 20th century. 71.66.97.228 21:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I hate to admit this (because I was the one that created the entry), but 且听下回分解 may not meet Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion either. However, I will attempt to explain why I personally think 且听下回分解 is more valid as an entry than 帝国主义的走狗. First of all, 且听下回分解 can be found in at least one mainstream Chinese dictionary (Guoyu Cidian). Your case for including 帝国主义的走狗 would be much more compelling if it likewise were included in a mainstream dictionary. Secondly, 且听下回分解 is not exactly as easy to understand as you seem to suggest. 下回 actually has two possible meanings. In order to correctly understand the entire phrase, it would help if you were familiar with both meanings. This would involve properly understanding the historical context of the phrase. 帝国主义的走狗, by contrast, seems more straight forward to me. -- A-cai 01:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

How does the phrase differ from workers of the world, unite, whose meaning is very clear without further explanation? Both are political catchphrases of wide 20th century usage. 71.66.97.228 21:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

workers of the world, unite is at least an imperative structure and functions almost as an interjection. Your phrase, by contrast, merely consists of two nouns strung together and has no special function beyond that. ---> Tooironic 10:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Tooironic on this one. The phrase workers of the world, unite has an implied meaning that is not explicitly stated, i.e. the proletariat, having been exploited by the bourgeoisie, should unite in order to overthrow the capitalist/imperialist system blah blah blah (to quote Steve Ballmer[1] :) In other words, it refers to a specific kind of worker and a specific kind of uniting. For example, it does not imply, "Medical workers of the world, come together and find a cure for leukemia." Therefore, the phrase is idiomatic. In other words, the full meaning of the phrase is not apparent by just knowing the meanings of the individual words. This is what distinguishes it from your phrase. -- A-cai 13:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

So it seems that the only way to keep the very common and important phrase 帝国主义的走狗 in the entry is to have an example of usage just below the definition line. 71.66.97.228 01:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep, sure, you can just add it as an example sentence. Be sure to follow the proper formatting though, e.g. at 进一步. ---> Tooironic 11:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Origin of figurative usage

There ought to be some material about the origin of the figurative sense of this concept. Wikipedia says that ‘running dog’ is first seen in English in Red Star over China by Edgar Snow. Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)