Talk:Tiao-kuai
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. |
|
 Start |
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| Mid |
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. |
|
|
|
|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. |
|
| Start |
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| Mid |
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. |
|
|
|
|
 |
A fact from Tiao-kuai appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 31 March 2005. The text of the entry was as follows: "Did you know
|
|
This does not seem to make sense:
- For example, there are parallel institutions for police in the United States but not in the PRC. Conversely, there are parallel institutions for securities regulation in the United States, but not in the PRC.
– Kaihsu 08:56, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
- Yeah, and seeing as no-one’s done anything about it in a year and a half, I’ll put up a nasty template and hope someone does. —Felix the Cassowary 13:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see how that's hard to understand. The sentence is in context of the differences with Chinese style federalism and American style federalism. There are parallel institutions for both police and securities regulation on both federal and state levels in America, while there are no parallel institutions for both police and securities regulation on both provincial and central government levels in mainland China. -- Миборовский 01:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Um... the word ‘conversely’ is the confusion. If something is the converse of something else, it is the opposite, goes the other way, is (kinda) the reverse. And going back to the context, it says that there are parallel institutions in China as in America. So when you see the word ‘converse’, and see it says there’s ‘parallel institutions for securities regulation’ then you assume the next bit’s going to be ‘in the PRC but not in the US’ based on what happened before. Only it’s not, and you double-take and wonder whether the second half of one sentence or the other is wrong, or if the word ‘conversely’ is wrong (which makes the example less useful).
- So, with that in mind, it makes no sense. Not being either American or Chinese (and so having no idea about whether America or China have parallel institutions for both police and securities regulation, nor if if America has both and China has neither, what’s an example of China having parallel institutions and America not having them), I’m afraid I have no idea how to fix the sentence.
- —Felix the Cassowary 14:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
