Talk:Four Asian Tigers

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Japan?

For four asian tigers, why Japan is not in this group?

Thank you.Manzzzz(talk) 03:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The original term is Four Little Dragons (四小龍), meaning the four rapidly growing economies. They were “little” compared to Japan, which was already a developed nation then. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 10:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The term was coincided by the time these four economies were still considered emerging market or developing countries dates back to 1970s and 1980s. Meanwhile, Japan was already a member of G7 and regarded as the only one developed country in Asia in forementioned era. Sheherherhers (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Four Asian Tigers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Underdeveloped Section on Industrialization and Underrepresented Viewpoints

Lead section summary is a little too long and detailed with information that isn't covered in the body of the article. For example, the summary discusses neoliberalization and it's related policies; but it is only briefly mentioned once in the body.

Section 'Territory and Region data' needs to cite sources of data- many figures missing citation.

Underdeveloped section on information regarding the start of industrialization and characteristics of the Four Asian Tigers. Hong Kong has specific mentions of industrialized sectors(ie textile, clothing, plastics), but not for other countries such as Singapore and Taiwan. Expansion/elaboration on details of 'government involvement' is also needed to understand how different countries developed their economies(ie. the level of involvement from the state and private sector during industrialization would help understand the difference in development between Korea and Singapore). Missing information on ESI(Export Substitution Industrialization) as a characteristic of these four countries.

Organization and flow of this page is distracting. The order of placement for subsections 'cultural factors' and 'financial crisis' section seem out of place. Rather than have Cultural Factors with it's own subsection, perhaps a new subsection about overall factors for successful development of Asian NICS. Included with the cultural factors should be political and economic factors(ie the significance of political unrest in China in spurring foreign investment in Singapore)

SocDev127J (talk) 01:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Syang0209 (talk) 08:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)== Lack of Connection to Important Concepts ==[reply]

In the introduction section of the article, the Four Asian tigers should be identified as "NICs" (newly industrialized country) since these countries are labeled by political scientists and economists.

The second paragraph of the introduction offers many different theories to the reason of success of NICs but are presented in an inefficient manner. There was mention of only one institution or expert that offered a theory: a World Bank report. Other theories were suggested but not entirely distinguished. One such reason, state intervention, has been mentioned but can be labeled otherwise as "embedded autonomy" a term explored by Peter B. Evans in his novel, Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation. Connecting the article to prominent and distinguished concepts and experts legitimizes the importance of the article and its study. The reason of industrial policy should also be explored more.

In the "Overview" section, the two development policies, factor accumulation and macroeconomic management, should be explained thoroughly as opposed to simply being mentioned, or at least hyperlinked to a Wiki article or a separate source besides the overused World Bank report, to enrich the contextual studies of the NICs success. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syang0209 (talk • contribs) 08:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Geniuses?

Could "developing the cerebral intellectual abilities of their human talent, fostering and retaining their gifted geniuses" not be replaced by "education"? It reads very strange. Are a few "gifted geniuses" really more important than a highly skilled/educated workforce in general?

84.86.90.172 (talk) 07:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page reads like an essay and contains many pleonasms ("cerebral intellectual", "highest top scores", "advanced innovative world leaders in state of the art technologies", etc. It also contains several factual errors. For example, it is not true that high school students in these four countries consistently outperforms "all other countries in the world" and achieves the "highest top scores on international math and science exams such as the PISA exam". High school students from Japan, Finland and Estonia have scored just as high or higher than some of these four in recent comparisons. It is also questionable if results on the PISA can be used to back up this statement at all. The "such as" suggests there are other comparisons with similar outcomes. If so, what are those comparisons? Otherwise, this should be changed to a simple statement along the lines of "High school students from these four countries consistently score near the top in recent PISA tests" with one reference.

It also seems unlikely that 100% of Singaporeans own a smart phone (an average of 1 smart phone per citizen does not mean all citizens owns one, as many probably own two or more). At least this statement needs a proper source.

If the lists of technologies and achievements can be reduced, the historical narrative will be easier to follow. The narrative could start from 1945 to set the stage. Much of this story also applies to Japan (almost everything in the page does, so perhaps what makes these four countries/territories special should be emphasized).

MagnusPalmblad (talk) 12:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Much of this overblown language was recently inserted into the introductory paragraph, completely derailing the historical summary. Per WP:LEADPARAGRAPH, that paragraph should identify the tigers and briefly outline the trajectory that made them so remarkable. If there is to be an extended discussion of education and technology, it should be in the body of the article, not the lead, and certainly not in the opening paragraph. Kanguole 12:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved this material from the lead to a new "Education and technology" section, but it still needs extensive cleanup. Kanguole 13:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have again reverted the insertion of this material into the lead paragraph.[1] Other problems with that edit are flags in the infobox contrary to WP:INFOBOXFLAG, linking to a copyright-violating copy of The Dictionary of Human Geography and removal of many fixes by several editors. Kanguole 13:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The recently added references to support "superior IQ geniuses"[2][3] are to blogs with data purporting to show that IQs are highest is east Asia and lowest in sub-Saharan Africa. The blogs appear to be based on the much-criticized study of Lynn and Vanhanen. We cannot use controversial claims with such a weak basis. Kanguole 12:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Four Asian Tigers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 November 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved away from the current title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 15:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Four Asian Tigers → East Asian Miracle – Requesting a move to "East Asian Miracle" based on the more commonly used term. Google Ngram shows more results for "East Asian Miracle", which also has 239,000 results on Google Scholar compared to 91,400 for Asian tigers. Alternatively, rename to Four Asian Dragons, reflecting the name used by the originating countries of this economic phenomena. Google search results show 21 million for "four asian dragons," 11 million for "four asian tigers," and 58 million for "four little dragons." Google Scholar results show 62,700 results for "four dragon economies," 56,700 for "four tiger economies," 66,900 for "four asian tigers," and 79,900 for "four little dragons". Another possible title is "Four Little Dragons" based on Google Ngram showing more results for "four little dragons" than "four asian tigers". OjdvQ9fNJWl (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—Relisted. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted OjdvQ9fNJWl (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Four Asian Dragons" based on this ngram, which shows the "tigers" form is much more common in English. When searching Google for a phrase, it is necessary to surround the words in quote marks, which seems not to have been done in the searches cited above. Policy is to follow English-language usage rather than other languages, even those of the source countries. Kanguole 08:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Google Ngram shows more results for "four little dragons" than "four asian tigers". OjdvQ9fNJWl (talk) 04:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but without "four" we see that the "dragons" usage peaked in the early 90s, and had now been displaced by "tigers". This is connected to the extension of "tiger" to fast-growing economies elsewhere in the world (Celtic Tiger, Baltic Tiger, etc). Kanguole 08:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Another possible article name is East Asian Miracle, which also has 239,000 results on Google Scholar compared to 91,400 for Asian tigers. The article can be restructured around the overall economic trend. OjdvQ9fNJWl (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The above was a response to the proposed target "Four Asian Dragons". The proposed target has since been changed to "East Asian Miracle", which I would also oppose because it represents a change in topic from the present well-defined and notable topic. Kanguole 23:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the modified proposal. "East Asian Miracle" seems much more vague and also seems like it would have a different scope that has not been agreed as desirable. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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) 16:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are these countries grouped together?

The lede should say what these countries have in common, and why they're grouped together with a nickname. We don't have a wikipedia page for every possible combination of four countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zsrocks04 (talk • contribs) 06:39, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Four_Asian_Tigers"