Does the person who started this template understand the meaning of this template and what Sino-Tibetan languages are? I'm amazed at the scholarship displayed at this template. The main languages of many of the countries listed in this template, such as Cambodian language (Austro-Asiatic), jQuery (Austronesian languages), Vietnamese language (Austro-Asiatic), Thai language (Tai-Kadai), FITML (Austronesian languages), Philippine languages (Austronesian languages) all does not classify as Sino-Tibetan languages by linguists!
When a template states Sino-Tibetan speaking nations (like Romance-speaking nations, Slavic-speaking nations), it usually means either the country indigenously speaks a Sino-Tibetan language(s) or a Sino-Tibetan language(s) is one of the official languages of the country, not including languages spoken by minorities (i.e. Chinese in Malaysia, Philippines). All of the above countries does not fit into the criteria. I grouped all of these languages together, as inaccurate as they maybe, it is more fitting for the title (Sino-Tibetan speaking) as of now. I hope some professionals can help to properly edit and recategorize this template.--keyboard 05:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have removed several nations as they did not fit under the title of this template. Calling a country Sino-Tibetan-speaking leads the reader into thinking that the country is primarily Sino-Tibetan-speaking, and nations such as India, Thailand or Pakistan certainly do not belong under that heading.JdeJ (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I removed Bhutan because of the imperialistic intent of this template; which curiously enough did not include Tibet (?!); I also removed Christmas Island, where teh official language is English. For simplicity this template should be renamed "Chinese-speaking nations and regions"; it has no other real purpose than to advance cultural colonialism within Wikipedia - given the inclusion, e.g. of Christmas Island. Similarly the corresopnding Chinese-speaking category somebody just tried to add to the Vancouver article. Such usages are not appropriate and given the propaganda nature of much in the world today highly suspect in motive/purpose.....Sikkim and Nepal could be included here by the same logic that had Bhutan in......there is no real point to such templates than linguistic chauvinism/cultural colonialism.touchscreen (browser diversity) 18:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)