Talk:塔綠班

RFV discussion: November–December 2021

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

---

塔綠班

Neologism. Based on the etymology, this might only be good as a hot word, but no citations are given yet. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 03:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Here are some: [1], [2], [3], [4]. The dog2 (talk) 03:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@The dog2: Thanks, but I'm not sure if these count as durably archived unless we know they are published in printed form. Also, we would ideally need to have quotes for each sense - do we even need to split it as two senses? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 04:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: We could combine them into one sense, I guess. The main point is that it was coined by KMT supporters as a derogatory way of referring to DPP supporters. I don't want to get into a political debate here, and neither am I endorsing the view of either side in this political dispute, but I'll give a brief political background on the term based on what I've seen and heard. Basically, when the U.S. pulled out of Afghanistan and let the Taliban take over, there were questions being asked about U.S. commitment to its other allies. The KMT view is that the U.S. acts in its own self interests, and will keep doing political posturing but not actually send their troops to defend Taiwan should China invade. On the other hand, the DPP view is that America is a truly and sincerely benevolent nation that is committed to upholding democracy and human rights around the world no matter what, and that Taiwan can declare independence without fear because America has their backs. So basically, most KMT supporters find this view espoused by the DPP supporters to be very naive.

I know for sure that Singapore's Lianhe Zaobao and Taiwan's Liberty Times have print editions as well, while if I'm not wrong, Malaysia's Oriental Daily News scrapped their print edition and are now online only. FTV News is a TV news channel so they don't have a print edition. The dog2 (talk) 04:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@The dog2: I mean the articles themselves have to be printed in order to be considered durably archived, and I don't know if we can know that unless you can get a hold of the newspaper in some way. Not all articles published on online versions of the newspaper make it to being printed AFAIK.

Was there a particular reason for splitting the two senses? If you think it could be combined, what would it be? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 04:28, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: It was just based on what I read on Chinese Wikipedia. It mentions supporters and keyboard warriors. The dog2 (talk) 04:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@The dog2: Yeah, I don't think those should be separate senses. (Where does it actually say "keyboard warriors"? 網軍?) — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: Yes, 網軍. Or at least "keyboard warrior" is the best English translation I could come up with. The dog2 (talk) 05:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I've only found two durably archived quotes so far, both from September. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 18:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Cited except for the span requirement. Should be able to keep as a hot word for now. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 15:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Should we remove the Rfv template from the entry then? The dog2 (talk) 18:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@The dog2: Only after a week of being cited and no one has any objection (see description at the top of this page). — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 18:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• RFV kept temporarily as a hot word. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 18:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Finalising this one

@Justinrleung I've found a source from this year using this word: [5]. Unfortunately, it's online but I'm not sure if there is a print version in 中國時報. If we can find it, perhaps it's time we keep this word permanently. The dog2 (talk) 00:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@The dog2: Sorry for the late reply, but it's good now. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 00:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)