Talk:North–South divide in Taiwan/Archive 1

Maybe the lead section is too long
According to WP:LEAD the lead is kept at 4 paragraphs. There are 5 paragraphs in the leading.--Wolfch (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion
1 The corresponding Chinese name can be traced back to the sources written in Chinese and Wikidata. Per WP:MOS, we should make the main title bold at the beginning of the lead paragraph.--Formosa&#39;s storyteller (talk) 13:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Naming
geographic divide is a well-understood concept. MOS:JARGON: Do not introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader when more common alternatives will do. Ythlev (talk) 13:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

The title of this article seems to have been modified several times. --Formosa&#39;s storyteller (talk) 13:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion II
You said they're distinct Ref but I saw they shared the same references. --Formosa&#39;s storyteller (talk) 13:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read MOS:EGG and stop trying to force this link into the lead of the Taiwan article. The target of a link should be something a reader would expect from the blue text, and that is certainly not the case here.  The two concepts are connected, but they are not at all the same.
 * If you want that article to link to this one, I would suggest including a mention in the appropriate place in the article body, perhaps Taiwan. Kanguole 15:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The two concepts are connected, but they are not at all the same. How come they're not the same at all in spite of the intersection of the references? Thanks for the reply. --Formosa&#39;s storyteller (talk) 15:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The intersection implies they're connected – it doesn't make them the same. Kanguole 15:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Explanation request.
You removed a lot of sources with the reason of "excess", which is insufficient to justify your removal. Please explain your removal in detail. Regards. --Formosa&#39;s storyteller (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I remove 3 references in the lead section. These references are only cited in the lead section, which are not used in the other part in the article. By the way, there are 13 references cited in the end of that paragraph after I remove 3 reference.--Wolfch (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * These references are only cited in the lead section, which are not used in the other part in the article. Any rule of Wikipedia supports your claims that "references only cited in the lead section should be removed"? --Formosa&#39;s storyteller (talk) 17:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Is it necessary to use 16 references to support one paragraph (about 300 words) in the heading section? I think we can keep the major references. If the reference is necessary in this article, it will also appear in the main part, instead of appear in the heading section only-Wolfch (talk) 05:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It's important to know that each article on Wikipedia will be improved over time by any Wikipedian. There's no final edition. Again, it's better for us to comply with the regulations of Wikipedia instead of clinging to personal favor. Regards. --Formosa&#39;s storyteller (talk) 06:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

About the Chinese name of this article
The Chinese was listed as 重北輕南 in the leading section. That name is removed now. However, the corresponding article in Chinese wikipedia is still zh:重北輕南. There is an article zh:台灣南北差距 in Chinese wikipedia. Maybe it is the proper Chinese translation of this article.-Wolfch (talk) 06:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You will need to provide WP:RS to support your claim/suggestion. --Formosa&#39;s storyteller (talk) 06:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Do we have the reliable reference for the 重北輕南 as the Chinese name?--Wolfch (talk) 06:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Why are you asking yourself here on Wikipedia?? Wikipedia is not your personal diary. --Formosa&#39;s storyteller (talk) 06:22, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Few hours prior to the Tomb sweeping day and the four-day vacation.jpg

PeoPo
PeoPo is a small news website as opposed to a personal blog. --Dormantor (talk) 09:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I am not sure if Wolfch didn't notice your inquiry on the day you posted it.--Acclimatize to wonderland (talk) 06:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello? If everyone agrees with my statement, I think I may want to recover the reference as you can read the body of that references and know it's truly a reliable source. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dormantor (talk • contribs) 09:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, your concern was neglected by Wolfch.--Acclimatize to wonderland (talk) 06:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Please see my comment on 18 Mar--Wolfch (talk) 07:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I think I am going to wait for a day or two to see if folks have raised their enlightning points here. There's no hurry at all. My thought is that if people agree with my proposal without having time to say, I would assume that we have reached a silent concensus and then go ahead.

Kind regards and best wishes.

Dormantor (talk) 09:38, 18 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Kaldari removed the reference on 10 Mar, with the comment "PeoPo is all user-generated content, not a reliable source". (Kaldari didn't mentioned "personal blog"). I am not sure whether PoePo is a reliable source. For the time now, I don't agree Dormantor recover that reference, unless the discussion is done in Reliable_sources/Noticeboard to make sure that it is a reliable source. Dormantor can start a discussion there.--Wolfch (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you Wolfch. But I saw the tempo and pace of discussions at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard are generally fast. Whereas, I cannot edit Wikipedia round the clock, meaning I might not be able to be proactive in the discussion if I open it. Would you have a recommendation to give, please? Incidentally, I detected a hint of kinda abrasiveness towards my prior comment from your bolding empasis on your stand. Would you please treat me with a little more respect, I promise I will try to love you! Dormantor (talk) 09:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * When you proposed to recover, Wolfch appeared to stand in your way! --Acclimatize to wonderland (talk) 06:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you wish, you can support Dormantor's idea. --Wolfch (talk) 07:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello Dormantor. I think that it makes sense that you start the conversation at such noticeboard, instead of I. Sorry for that.--Wolfch (talk) 11:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Dormantor, I think you need to WP:IAR, as, through Wolfch's contribution history, I am skeptical about their neutrality. Acclimatize to wonderland (talk) 04:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Dormantor, I just demonstrated how to do, follow it next time. :) --Acclimatize to wonderland (talk) 05:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Kaldari (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank y'all for all recommendation and discussion. Sorry for the late reply. Life is busy. I am uncertain about the quality of all content from PeoPo but I would suggest that "just looking into the specific news coverage that is cited by North-South divide in Taiwan". We do not need to make effort to completely review PeoPo, which can be exhausting to us. Dormantor (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion is done on Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_293. The result is "GENERALLY UNRELIABLE" "There is consensus that PeoPo (peopo.org) is a self-published source, and is generally unreliable except when the author is a subject-matter expert or a reliable organization."--Wolfch (talk) 22:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Dormantor didn't seem to have a chance to join the discussion. Not so much lovers as friends (talk) 10:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion is done. At least, other wikipedians think it is GENERALLY UNRELIABLE--Wolfch (talk) 10:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Section Tianlongguo
Someone annotated POV to the section as follows: -

History
2009, Kuo Kuan-ying, a high-profile diplomat under Ma Ying-Jeou's government, submitted several pieces of articles to his blog calling islanders as stupid Taiwanese while calling himself as superb mainlander. In response, islanders labeled him and the decent fellow as Celestial Dragons. As Taiwanese mainlanders are concentrated in Taipei City, such metaphors soon applied to Taipei residents overall. Till nowadays, people from southern Taiwan still believe residents of Taipei unfairly occupy a bunch of resources and despise southern Taiwanese. The phenomenon suggests there has accumulated an immense tide of strong passionate hatred between islanders and mainlanders of each other owing to north-south divide in Taiwan.

-

I would like to start a discussion to improve it. Any opinion is highly commended. --Acclimatize to wonderland (talk) 11:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * , it was added by, who was a sockpuppet of . Discussion on Talk:List_of_One_Piece_characters and Sockpuppet_investigations/It%27s_gonna_be_awesome/Archive According to the original sock, it was sourced by the NTU paper. But I dug up some other articles that reference the term. Up to you if you want to neutralize, WP:TNT, or remove it as equivalent of CSD G5 WP:G5.  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff )
 * I would like to remove it as equivalent of CSD G5 WP:G5--Wolfch (talk) 11:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅--Wolfch (talk) 11:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You may want to reassure what you have actually done. G5 does not serve as a false reason for massive deletion. Undertake the enormity of remedial work (talk) 09:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, I think it is OK to remove edit added by a sockpuppet.--Wolfch (talk) 10:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You didn't delete the paragraph in question only. Undertake the enormity of remedial work (talk) 10:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I restore the paragraphs. I hope other wikipedians can delete them or improve them.--Wolfch (talk) 14:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


 * doesn't appear in the article. What you restored? 10:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Not so much lovers as friends (talk • contribs)

I've shortened this down to just two sentences for now. There's too much POV going on.

Tianlongguo (天龍國, "Celestial Dragon Country", also Tianlong) is a pejorative term referring to Taipei residents' apparent nobility or aloofness. The term is based off the Celestial Dragon characters in the Japanese manga One Piece.

AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 20:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I will restore the article to the version Nkon21 edited on 26 May.
I will restore the article to the version Nkon21 edited on 26 May (the version before socksuppet Agile Agility's edit) in this week.

If anyone has opinion for it or think it is not ok to do so, please let me know that.

user with IP 188.182.13.127 added a "Very long" template later. If I restore the article to that version, there is no "Very long" template. How do you think? Do you think this template is necessary?

Thanks

--Wolfch (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sir, I disagree. As you're likely a single-use account which suggests a WP:topic ban. Not so much lovers as friends (talk) 10:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Frankly, you attempt to use sock to justify your deletion. But you only patrol this article and track one editor only. You're far away from a patroller but a single-use account. Not so much lovers as friends (talk) 10:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , consensus usually is to just leave these alone unless they're not constructive. Reverting constructive edits just because the account this blocked for whatever reason could be an example of WP:GRAVEDANCING Ed6767 (talk) 10:21, 27 May


 * I don't think that restoring to the old "stable" version, ingoring the date formats correction is "constructive". But if it is the opinion from most peoples, I will respect these opinion and leave them alone --Wolfch (talk) 10:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * , please restore it to the version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North–South_divide_in_Taiwan&oldid=958863325 . The sockpuppet has lost all chances to improve the article multiple times over, even if it was something kinda constructive, and it would undermine all the cuts you and  were trying to make to improve the article.    AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 20:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * If someone wants to add 2019 data, then they can make a request edit here with sources. Or, if you agree with the 2019, and it is sourced correctly, then you can just restore that portion. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 20:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank for your reply. If I restore it to this version, I will also fix the Taiwan map, maybe a map without place links of Taipei, Tainan...... The place link will not in the correct place if the map is smaller--Wolfch (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've just restored it to the version by Nkon21. Hope this helps. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 11:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank for your help.--Wolfch (talk) 12:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Sociology project template added
I just found that the source above is a reference to sociology, too. 112.78.88.197 (talk) 19:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems to be Masters dissertations. Reliable_sources mentioned "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.". Does this paper had significant scholarly influence? --Wolfch (talk) 03:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Just registered an account. Regarding your statement, I just checked and found Reliable_sources: Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published sources are largely not acceptable. Self-published books and newsletters, personal pages on social networking sites, tweets, and posts on Internet forums are all examples of self-published media. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Never use self-published sources as independent sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. Loaded Question? (talk) 04:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It is in "Scholarship" section. Sorry for the mistake.--Wolfch (talk) 04:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1020710248
Per Content removal: When removing a section of an article, it is necessary that it at least be explained, and in some cases, discussed. Could you please explain why you removed such content? Thank you. -- Loaded Question? (talk) 14:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thats not content, its an overly detailed section see also that contains links within the page... Which is absurd. It was also in the wrong spot. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * For your information, referencing sections within the same article is valid according to Section_link#Usage.
 * Secondly, those links are considered as the content, which is the reason that Manual of Style/Linking has been categorized under Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (content)
 * Loaded Question? (talk) 15:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Not a link?
User:Horse Eye's Back: you recently removed the content by reason of not a link. In fact, it is a valid link of Interlanguage link to Chinese Wikipedia. Loaded Question? (talk) 14:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If you think it improves the article you can always restore it. Also for formalities sake I have to ask whether or not you’ve ever edited wikipedia under another name. You wouldn’t happen to be the banned user who added all these things whose removal you object to, right? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Loaded Question? (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

145,544 bytes
145,544 bytes is not an indicator of the article readability. Anti-crackdown (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There is another issue "This article may contain an excessive number of citations."--Wolfch (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What's the standard of excessive number of citations? Anti-crackdown (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Please refer Citation_overkill--Wolfch (talk) 23:51, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I read. But What's the standard of excessive number of citations? Anti-crackdown (talk) 05:16, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * By the way, did I mention "145,544 bytes"?--Wolfch (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Master degree
You deleted a lot of mater's dissertations that are widely referenced. Anti-crackdown (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * With regard to the mater's dissertation, Reliable_sources mentioned "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence."--Wolfch (talk) 23:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * They had because they are widely referenced. Anti-crackdown (talk) 05:17, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * For example, This master's dissertation you deleted has been significantly scholarly cited 16 times. This thesis you deleted has been documented in in the Collections: [Department of urban plan]  Just to name a few. Anti-crackdown (talk) 05:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If I have a master degree and have master dissertation, maybe my dissertation is also cited by other paper/dissertation/thesis. It doesn't means that my master dissertation have "significant scholarly influence". I don't think it is usual for a master dissertation have significant scholarly influence. As far as I know, those master dissertation don't have such significant scholarly influence. That's why I remove those references.--Wolfch (talk) 06:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The "[Department of urban plan] " is not a peer-reviewed journal. It is a report, not a significant scholarly influence paper--Wolfch (talk) 06:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In general, masters' theses are not considered reliable in their own right. However, there are certainly masters theses that are important (and at times foundational) scholarly papers in relevant topic areas (one example is the published masters thesis of Claude Shannon, which founded the entire field of digital circuitry). If a masters thesis is particularly widely cited for facts by reliable sources without comment, then I could definitely see a WP:USEBYOTHERS argument being presented for the specific reliability of the particular source—provided that we keep in mind that a masters thesis/dissertation being reliable is the exception, and not the rule. I can't evaluate the WP:USEBYOTHERS myself here for the first source (I do not know the quality of the 16 publications or how the publications actually use the source), though I think that the argument deserves consideration., would you be willing to explain a bit regarding the quality of the publications that cite the first dissertation, as well as the specific manner in which the source is used (e.g. for facts w/o comment, to cite an argument that the article is criticizing, to note that some authors think a certain thing to be true, or some other purpose)? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Anti-crackdown is blocked because of abuse of editing privileges. Please see user:Anti-crackdown and user talk:Anti-crackdown. With regards to the 16 publication, there are all master thesis. I don't see the details (w/o comment......).--Wolfch (talk) 07:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. If it's just being cited in masters theses then it probably doesn't have a WP:USEBYOTHERS case for being reliable based on those citations. Seems like a reasonable removal of the sources, though I wonder if other sources exist that could be used to verify the content that is on the page that was previously cited to the thesis (such as works cited by the thesis itself). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)


 * There is no denying that Taipei_Metro § History opens a new costly line on a yearly basis. Taiwanese will not repress Taiwanese (talk) 13:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC)