| Revision as of 09:30, 7 November 2023 editCzello (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers41,276 edits →Neither the article nor the talk page clarifies the term: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit |
Revision as of 17:11, 4 January 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,300,971 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Tankie/Archive 1) (botNext edit → |
| Line 25: |
Line 25: |
|
==Shouldn't the title be italicized== |
|
==Shouldn't the title be italicized== |
|
should not the title be italicized, since the page is about a word. Other pages about words (see:You, Faggot (slang), I (pronoun), etc.) have their titles in italics, so shouldn't that be the case here as well? |
|
should not the title be italicized, since the page is about a word. Other pages about words (see:You, Faggot (slang), I (pronoun), etc.) have their titles in italics, so shouldn't that be the case here as well? |
|
|
|
|
== Reliability of Sources == |
|
|
|
|
|
I was purusing through the article and noticed a part that seemed odd. So I looked at the sourcing, Source 10, and the title stood out as a little odd. So I decided to go to the piece in question. It is an opinion piece that has anti-Chinese misinformation in its opening paragraph that then goes on to talk about China. While the piece does have some possible uses, are there not any sources that don't open with the equivalent of blowing their foot off? Or at least something that doesn't have such an extreme bias from out of the gate? ] (]) 07:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:If you're talking about the Diplomat, it's considered reliable per ]. What is the misinformation in the opening paragraph? — ''']''' 08:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Unclear origin of usage == |
|
== Unclear origin of usage == |
should not the title be italicized, since the page is about a word. Other pages about words (see:You, Faggot (slang), I (pronoun), etc.) have their titles in italics, so shouldn't that be the case here as well?
Under the Definition section it starts with the Prague Spring (1968), but under the Usage section it states the term comes from the UK when referring to the Soviet invasion of Hungary (1956). Should there be an addition in the beginning of the Definition section that starts with the definition from British politics, or is it that the term was popularized/its definition solidified in common lexicon after the Prague Spring? Riverraleigh (talk) 01:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
.svg){kind=small}
