Talk:Paper tiger

Paper Champion
"Paper Champion", is I think, totally unrelated to "paper tiger" - doesn't it mean "champion *on paper*" ???? It should be removed from this article. 90.242.7.48 11:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, these two terms have both different meanings and different etymologies. say what

I'm italian, but I've never heard of the term "paper tiger" (or "tigre di carta", of course) before. I think it may be something that is getting lost with time, if ever it was common. I'd suggest removing "The phrase is of common usage in Italy" from the article. 85.20.115.2 (talk) 15:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

In Information Technology
The term paper tiger is quite common in the IT field, a term used to describe an individual whos quantity of certifications belies their acutal level of experience. The term is a bit of a double entendre, as very often the certifications themselves are issued on paper. 98.150.85.243 (talk) 06:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Whether the phrase is common can be disputed, and I would see no reason to include the above information in the article. However, it is quite true that the correlation between certification and competence is low, possibly even negative.88.77.185.48 (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"US Imperialism should be changed to "alleged US imperialism by Mao Zedong" or somthing less assertive to maintain neutrality.
Simply saying "US imperialism" take one view over another, and it is strongly denied by most people- often only accepted in the more radical trains of leftist ideology such as communism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.114.227 (talk) 23:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "The policy of forcefully extending a nation's authority by territorial gain or by the establishment of economic and political dominance over other nations." No change is needed. Like it or not, Whether you think its done good or bad, it is well within the accepted definition of "Imperialism." Whether or not such a term is useful in modern international society, though not a topic for this article, would be a better place to voice such concerns. 96.28.157.126 (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Only "radical trains of leftist ideology" acknowledge U.S. imperialism? That's just silly. Your revisionist POV is clear. And verifiably false. Show me a U.S. history book that doesn't include U.S. imperialism and I'll show you a very bad history book.

I think that we should try to be as impartial as possible, so we should not say anything that might be disputed. Wikipedia should stay impartial. If some do not think that America is imperial, then say, "supposedly imperial". Even if you think that America is imperial (as I do), Wikipedia should avoid taking sides. Jwoodward48wiki (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Notably, there is a very large Wiki article entitled "American Imperialism", and the topic does not appear to be subjective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.19.232 (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

"This article needs copy editing in order to create readable prose, proper spacing, and/or standard section length."
Which is it? Does the article have unreadable prose, improper spacing, and/or nonstandard section length? If it is incorrect grammar I can fix it, or spelling, but I looked over it and the only problem I saw were the excessive quote density and the short length. If somebody increased the length without adding quotes, both problems would be solved. Jwoodward48wiki (talk) 22:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Paper Tiger
Similar to someone that can't fight their way out of a paper bag 2A02:C7C:B472:2B00:E037:3C0A:631E:4F04 (talk) 14:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)