Talk:Xiaomi/Archive 1

Intro

The article's introductory section appears to place unnecessarily emphasis on the company's alleged imitation of Apple. I would suggest that these criticisms be moved to a section towards the end of the article, perhaps titled "Comparisons with Apple" or "Criticisms of Xiomi". The introduction should primarily describe the company's focus, products and marketing/sales approaches. Perhaps one sentence should be included on its alleged copying of Apple. I also think the phrase "counterfeiting philosophy" is too strong to be reasonable in the context. I am making this point here, without proposing edits, to give the authors and others a chance to comment first. Eduard Grebe (talk) 08:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Your comment is a bit confusing as I can find no reference to the copying of Apple in the introduction. The "counterfeiting philosophy", which is in the current market positioning section, is taken from reliable sources. Multiple reliable sources discuss the counterfeiting of culture that the company has positioned itself in by having the CEO copy aspects of Steve Jobs' persona and product introductions. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 12:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Hugo Barra personal matters

I also think the sentence "In August 2013 the company announced that it was hiring Hugo Barra from Google where he served as vice president of product management for the Android platform, after the revelation that Google co-founder Sergey Brin was in a relationship with Barra's ex-girlfriend", while factually correct and properly referenced, is rather unfair since there is no actual evidence that Barra's move from Google is linked to Brin's relationship with Barra's former partner. While that issue may be mentioned, I think it is being given too much prominence. Eduard Grebe (talk) 08:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

This was taken from multiple reliable sources that made the link - it is not WP:SYNTH. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 12:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't dispute the accuracy or the inclusion of this fact, but I think six references for one detail is kind of overkill/redundant. Can we just decide on one or two that are reliable? --Petergalt1980 (talk) 02:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Which do you propose? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I propose we use "Lee, Dave. "BBC News - Google executive Hugo Barra poached by China's Xiaomi". Bbc.co.uk. Retrieved 2013-08-30." as a source and delete the rest. --Petergalt1980 (talk) 02:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

That one is a good one to use for the side of the discussion saying that the departure had nothing to due with the girlfriend issues. Both sides need to be represented of course though since both were reported and we need to maintain neutrality. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

To me, it is unfair. But can not be improved...It will be ok, if the reader is rational and understood "there is no actual evidence that Barra's move from Google is linked to Brin's relationship with Barra's former partner"...but gossip type...oh, no!--B3430715 (talk) 06:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was:

Moved to Xiaomi per naming conventions and Zanhe's recommendation below. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Xiaomi Tech → Xiaomi Inc. – Company refers to itself as Xiaomi Inc. in English and is not registered as Xiaomi Tech in any English speaking countries or any other countries for that matter. Xiaomieditbase (talk) 10:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Move to simply Xiaomi, just like Google, Microsoft, Walmart, etc. -Zanhe (talk) 04:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• That works — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xiaomieditbase (talk • contribs) 01:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

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.

Market position: POV-section

All this talk of "counterfeiting", which is a rather specific legal term, and the repeated references to Apple seem to be a little POV. It does contain references, but they merely report the impressions of some people: such an impression is not a fact that deserves to be presented as a consensus. I don't believe Xiaomi was ever accused of selling fake Iphones, which would be counterfeiting (they don't resemble Iphones, and they run a version of Android). Perhaps it needs some cleaning up. Cerberus™ (talk) 06:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Cerberus™. It seems a wide range of opinions exist regarding Xiaomi's likeness to Apple.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Petergalt1980 (talk • contribs)

The section is well sourced and does attempt to discuss both sides of that debate. What specific additions are you recommending? Perhaps we can reach a consensus on additions to address Cerberus' concerns? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

As user Cerberus™ pointed out, the section uses the term "counterfeiting" which is a specific legal term. This is problematic as Apple has never taken legal action against Xiaomi for patient infringement. Most of the quotes in the strangely titled "Market Positioning" section (note that no other articles on similar companies have this section. Recommend change to "Image controversy") are from editorials and opinion pieces, which by definition present the biased view of the author in an inherently unencyclopedic tone. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style --Petergalt1980 (talk) 03:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of if it is a legal term or not - Wikipedia editors are not supposed to decide the legal question. We are just supposed to report what reliable sources have stated in a neutral tone. Both sides of the counterfeiting argument are currently present - and since the counterfeiting claim has been the subject of a lot of coverage in reliable sources, it does appear warranted to cover with coverage from both perspectives. To address your concern I've gone ahead and added a link to a New Yorker article with the same claim. There are more. But overciting seems to be overkill. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

P.S. You may also find it useful to review Wikipedia:Rs#Biased_or_opinionated_sources regarding how best to deal with strong opinionated sources. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, I'm puzzled as to why this section is titled "Market Positioning", as other articles about similar companies do not include a "Market Positioning" section (See Huawei, Google articles). As there seems to be a wide range of opinions on this topic and we seem to take different views on them, I recommend changing the section heading to "Criticisms and controversies" (Please see Microsoft, Huawei articles). My concern is not the lack of sources or the reliability of these sources, but rather that they are not properly presented as biased (i.e. there is no in-text attribution to the sources). Petergalt1980 (talk) 02:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Microsoft and Huawei do not have a unique market positioning that takes advantage of similarities to another company, and as such wouldn't have such a section. Criticisms and controversies would work for that section though if you'd like to change the title of the section. Glad that you recognize the reliability of the sources as well - if you'd like to propose some attribution language changes that will address your concern adequately, please do. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 12:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

P.S. You may want to read over Market_positioning as well to familiarize yourself with the term. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 12:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

As you saw, I have made the changes. Thanks for your help on this (this is my first go at Wiki-ing).Petergalt1980 (talk) 02:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

neutrality

Because there might be bias on this part, we have 2 options: 1, remove that part, 2 re-edit the thing to non-bias based!

• Problems:

1. removing the red star, did not invoked Chinese national pride! read again the article! and why do i get a non-English/non-chinese site here?
2. according to the article Ushanka, there is a A similar type of headwear is worn as part of China's People's Liberation Army's winter uniform. Seen in an iconic image of Lei Feng, this type of hat is often called by Chinese "the Lei Feng hat" (雷锋帽, Lei Feng mao). And so the word "Lei Feng hat" shall be used, not Ushanka!

--B3430715 (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• problem part 2:

Guessing/assuming Xiaomi's translation is stupid...however, please add some strong fact to support this: "millet and so refers to an early Chinese Communist Party revolutionary idiom"

perhaps from some text book, history article, wiki history...and not from a non-Chinese tech news reporter --B3430715 (talk) 21:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

All of these issues were addressed in the cited articles, and were summarizing what the independent third party sources stated. Putting in your own view of them amounts to either original research and/or synthesis and is not appropriate. The millet quote was taken directly from the Chicago Tribune - a very reliable source. Here is the link: [1]. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

well, here is the thing, i didn't (or maybe not smart as you do) been able to find another site, place mentioning this!--B3430715 (talk) 21:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

You have also removed non-English language sources without any explanation of why you did so. That is not appropriate. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I mentioned in problem 1, can you tell me what that non-English/non-chinese site said? It has nothing to do with anything! --B3430715 (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

You can run it through google translate and read it yourself in the language of your choice. Deleting it before doing so without knowing the content is really not the way to go. Please exercise more caution in your editing behaviours as they are starting to be extremely disruptive and counter-productive to improving the article. Thank you. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

You can too see that the translation simply says the same thing as other sources had already mentioned!--B3430715 (talk) 21:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Not true at all. But you have deleted the content it was attributing to that source without consensus. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 01:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

---

ConcernedVancouverite, can you explain this? In the same reference you used, it said as following: These revisions aren’t consistent, however. The bunny sports a five-pointed star in the cartoon below (posted September 19th), while the traditional Chinese text indicate that the graphic was intended for audiences outside mainland China. --B3430715 (talk) 21:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like there may be an English language issue here with you misunderstanding the content and edits. I have noticed many of your edits to the article have introduced grammar errors, and I am guessing English may not be your first language. I'll assume you are not acting in bad faith and that you are having issues understanding the language involved correctly and also that you are a bit unfamiliar with the rules of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. But I encourage you to slow down and read those policies to understand the issues. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I want you to explain this! you did no grammar error check, but only deleting. I encourage you to slow down and read those policies to understand the issues.--B3430715 (talk) 21:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Facebook is not a valid reliable source - you citing a direct link to the facebook page amounts to original research. Please stop adding original research without understanding the policies. It is disruptive. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to ask the question again, since you ain't answering. Why do you remove However, these revisions aren’t consistent, some photo posted later, showing the red star again. from the page, as you did this? In the same reference you used, it said as following:These revisions aren’t consistent, however. The bunny sports a five-pointed star in the cartoon below (posted September 19th), while the traditional Chinese text indicate that the graphic was intended for audiences outside mainland China.--B3430715 (talk) 21:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

When a vandalism edit is reverted the entire edit is reverted. Your addition of original research and inappropriate links such as facebook was reverted and the entire edit as such was reverted. Your hostile tone is not appreciated, nor is your disruptive editing patterns. Since you are still a fairly inexperienced editor you may consider learning the norms a bit more before assuming bad faith. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

To further assist you in understanding the issue with your edits, your edits such as these: [2], [3], [4] all added original research and/or synthesized commentary and are inappropriate. That is why they were reverted. Please try to understand how Wikipedia works and WP:AGF. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, that is no auto reverting! you did manage to restore the site that has the duplicate/same but translated information. Regarding my edits you pointed out, I'd already explained some, and I have no time to argue more, but to step further/around. --B3430715 (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

---

Let's face the current problems now: 1. Do you have any objections on the red star part? 2. do you have a secondary source to back up the claim: "millet and so refers to an early Chinese Communist Party revolutionary idiom"? --B3430715 (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

You keep demanding explanations and approvals but do not respond to the questions I have asked you regarding your understanding of why your edits were original research/synth and a demonstration that you understand the rules going forward. You will need to acknowledge an understanding of the rules going forward before this can be productive. The current red star section has grammar errors you have introduced and also has portions introduced that do not match the sources. So no, I am not ok with the changes you have made. But before we try to resolve that you will need to demonstrate you understand what original research is, why it is a problem, and then we can have a productive conclusion to fixing the errors you have introduced. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Cause I found myself wasting my time, things you questioned, I answered. And then you would ask again and again(in different spots!). Bring up this original research thing again and again. Like this one here, you obviously never check the references before you intentionally put your original research tag. In addition to that, your claim here was never in the citation given, and so you have violate no original research policy and NPOV policy by reverting/supporting/adding bias point of view into the article. Would you first like to explain your actions? And you are most welcome to get some others step in to figure out the current problem. --B3430715 (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The OR and notinsource tags were added for claims you have added that are not in the sources to help you understand the specific issues. I have been trying to give you specific feedback to which you are simply ignoring or attempting to shift to something else. Please look at the specific tags I have placed and note that the article cited, for instance, makes no mention of Taiwan, which you have placed as additional language. That amounts to original research. Regarding the diff you requested additional information on here that is directly from the source cited where it states clearly, "and its old school communist worker hat evoke Chinese national pride." I have now explained what you have asked about. Your turn to explain your edits such as these: [5], [6], [7] so we can be sure you understand what is wrong with them before we try to reach consensus. It will be impossible to reach consensus if you do not understand basic OR guidelines and SYNTH guidelines on Wikipedia. As a fairly inexperienced editor I understand that you may be confused by the rules and norms. But put some effort into understanding them by looking at your own actions and we can both improve Wikipedia together. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

No, you have not answered a single question! I have been trying to give you,ConcernedVancouverite many specific feedbacks to which you are simply ignoring or attempting to shift to something else. Here, the source never said "the ACTION of Xiaomi replacing the red star, =>invoked Chinese national pride! You are just playing on words ain't you? Moreover, that source you are using is proved to be nothing but a Genius guess or aka. original research,because the Mobile Internet and Mission Impossible thing I have provided later is contradictory to what that said.

and for this, the 2 sources did claimMobile Internet and Mission Impossible and taiwan...--B3430715 (talk) 17:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I will not argue back and forth with you over English language misunderstandings you are having as clearly there is a language barrier and you have misunderstood what is written in the article. The reference was referring to the red star and hat and the national pride components of it. It was not stating anything about the action of removing the star being national pride. You are clearly getting extremely agitated and I would suggest you take a break before you continue to assume bad faith through your misinterpretation. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Hahaha...you said:In September 2013, Xiaomi replaced the red star, which invoked Chinese national pride, on its mascot's Ushanka with Xiaomi MiTalk app logo.

Your adjunct usage, made a similar statement like: In September 2013, I ate the apple, which made you angry, on the table. and showed nothing but action>reaction process.

It sounds like there may be an English language issue here with you misunderstanding the content and edits. I have noticed many of your edits to the article have introduced grammar+logical+diction errors, and I am guessing English may not be your first language. I'll assume you are not acting in bad faith and that you are having issues understanding the language involved correctly and also that you are a bit unfamiliar with the rules of WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:SOURCE#Newspaper and magazine blogs and WP:Notability (events).

Plus, you haven't explain your action here, the 2 sources did claim Mobile Internet and Mission Impossible and taiwan...My conclusion: I encourage you to slow down and read those policies to understand the issues.--B3430715 (talk) 19:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

To be frank you are sounding rather silly accusing a native English speaker that has been trying to help you understand Wikipedia of having an English comprehension issue when you have demonstrated such an issue yourself multiple times with the grammar errors you have introduced to the article as well as your misunderstanding of the content of the sources and article. Parroting back messages which were sent to you in good faith as well is non-productive and makes you sound like a child on the playground saying, "Nanny nanny poo poo" or the equivalent. As an FYI, I will continue to remain focused on improving the article regardless of your tactics. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

P.S. It appears you have had a similar issue before and you engaged in similar behaviour here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive744#Disruptions.2C_deliberate. I will not engage in your game - it is not amusing and not beneficial to the encyclopedia. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 01:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

So now, instead of trying to answer/avoid my questions/doubts, you decide to bring up another matter? Oh, come on, are you running out of excuses to explain your actions? if not then prove it by answering the questions! --B3430715 (talk) 01:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Please re-read the above. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 01:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

If you can, BOLD your point above that have anything to do with my concern or Remove my errors(if any)in the article. Otherwise, I'm going to conclude that you are running away with tail between legs.--B3430715 (talk) 02:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

P.S. YES,someone sent me to this place Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive744#Disruptions.2C_deliberate. And ended him up here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive745#User:B3430715. So, not my responsible...I guess.--B3430715 (talk) 02:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Please re-read the above. To make that bold for you: I will not engage in your game - it is not amusing and not beneficial to the encyclopedia. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Cause there is nothing to be bold! I'll see what you can do AND how is that making a difference to my claims and you original claims.

BTW, reply here, when you think that you are done & WP:NORUSH. Finally, a friendly reminder for this, "technewsworld" you'd just used as a source doesn't meet the WP:SOURCE stand,look here WP:IRS. "technewsworld" just happened to paraphrase "techinasia" wrong, and miliao never had a red star in the very beginning.--B3430715 (talk) 03:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Ushanka vs. Lei Feng

There has been a tag added claiming that the word "Ushanka" should be changed to "Lei Feng" in the article. All of the sources cited refer to the hat as Ushanka yet the editor who added the tag claims that based upon their reading of the Ushanka article and their knowledge of the issue it should be called a Lei Feng in this article. I have searched for independent reliable sources using the terms Xiaomi and Lei Feng together and have only turned up articles where they incorrectly name the CEO of the company Lei Feng such as: [8]. All other mentions of the mascot utilize the term Ushanka, including the citations used in the current article. Here are some examples: [9], [10], [11]. As such, since the only independent reporting of the mascot's hat call it an Ushanka it seems that barring the discovery of independent third party sources calling it a Lei Feng that the tag should be removed and the word choice left as Ushanka to avoid introducing original research based upon an editor's view of what the "right" word to use should be. I welcome the offering of any third party sources that anyone can turn up suggesting that Xiaomi's mascot's hat should be called a Lei Feng, but barring the discovery of those the tag should be removed. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

have you tried to search for mi buddy and leifeng hat, vs mi buddy and Ushanka in chinese? I believe no. And "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense". Plus, they are Tech news blogger/reporter, not fashion reporter!--B3430715 (talk) 02:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Please read that link to WP:COMMON you have provided where it states, "When advancing a position or justifying an action, base your argument on existing agreements, community foundation issues and the interests of the encyclopedia, not your own common sense. Exhorting another editor to "just use common sense" is likely to be taken as insulting, for good reasons. If in a particular case you feel that literally following a rule harms the encyclopedia, or that doing something which the rules technically allow degrades it, then instead of telling someone who disagrees to use common sense, just focus on explaining why ignoring the rules will improve Wikipedia in that instance." In terms of additional searches I have done numerous other searches and have not discovered any mentions of Lei Feng. If you have done otherwise please provide the sourcing that shows we should use Ushanka in English for their mascot. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:COMMON is above any policy. I believe, long time ago, people would use Master instead of Sensei or Sifu, chinese boxing instead of kongfu. Now you are just challenging my good editorial judgment and common sense base upon your likeness+editorial judgment+common sense.--B3430715 (talk) 17:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sourcing

A reliable source tag has been placed on a claim that was sourced to three independent sources (The New Yorker, the Chicago Tribune, and Reuters). As these are clearly reliable sources by Wikipedia definition I am removing that tag which appears to have been placed by an editor who believes those sources are wrong, and that as such they must be unreliable. This claim demonstrates a misunderstanding of what such a tag should be used for, and as such I am removing it. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Have you ever heard CNN controversies and Criticism of the BBC? How are (The New Yorker, the Chicago Tribune, and Reuters) differ and better? Again..."a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense"...

the tag will remain until someone have translated the "Comment clutter" into English. If you want, you may help by finding someone credible + reliable that are both Category:User zh-4 and Category:User en-4 or higher to do the transition.--B3430715 (talk) 02:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Please read that link to WP:COMMON you have provided where it states, "When advancing a position or justifying an action, base your argument on existing agreements, community foundation issues and the interests of the encyclopedia, not your own common sense. Exhorting another editor to "just use common sense" is likely to be taken as insulting, for good reasons. If in a particular case you feel that literally following a rule harms the encyclopedia, or that doing something which the rules technically allow degrades it, then instead of telling someone who disagrees to use common sense, just focus on explaining why ignoring the rules will improve Wikipedia in that instance." The issue at hand is if the New Yorker, Chicago Tribune and Reuters should be categorized as non-reliable sources. There is no mention of CNN or the BBC at all here. As you have added the Chinese language comments, if you feel they are relevant, please secure a translation of such to convince others of your viewpoint. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Why are you scared to see the translation? a direct quote from xiaomi ceo explaining the name? See who is wrong with the translation as solid proof! --B3430715 (talk) 17:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Penwhale has kindly provided a translation here [12]. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Australia and NZ not part of Europe

Recently some original research added claims that Australia and NZ are part of Europe (see [13]). I propose that since no reliable sourcing is provided to make such a claim that it is removed. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, come on! I just made an error to wiki link "NZ" under Europe, because co.nz and co.uk gave me an impression that they are "related". You got the website, you can modify if you like. And for a statement like Europe (including UK), New Zealand and Australia., the Conjunction (grammar) ("," & "and") made NZ and AU not a part of Europe..."It sounds like there may be an English language issue here with you misunderstanding the content and edits"....--B3430715 (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

where is the 3rd person?

An argument between 2 can go on like this forever. WHY, would i need to continue wasting my time? I'd requested a 3rd person, added multiple issues tag to the article as well...Yet no one showed up.--B3430715 (talk) 17:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm happy to provide a 3rd option - I've read through the article and the talk page and there seems to be a lot of bickering and nit-picking on a range of issues, so can you please each list the issues you'd like my opinion on in the template below. Tobus2 (talk) 00:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion

Tobus2 (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by B340715

1.The meaning behind xiaomi's name. I think the earlier Chinese source (posted in 2011, done with direct quotation from Xiaomi Ceo)is contradicting with the later English sources(posted in 2012/2013, done with no direct/indirect quotation, a possible original research from article writer).

I say there is a Chinese source not translated. But ConcernedVancouverite suggest to forget about the Chinese source, and stick with 3 English source (1 of them is using another's words, so 2 different English articles). The 4 sources are listed in the translation request area below.

2.Name of Xiaomi mascot's hat. Several English source suggested Ushanka, and I pointed out in the article Ushanka mentioned there is a A similar type of headwear is worn as part of China's People's Liberation Army's winter uniform. Seen in an iconic image of Lei Feng, this type of hat is often called by Chinese "the Lei Feng hat" (雷锋帽, Lei Feng mao). And so the word "Lei Feng hat" shall be used, not Ushanka!

ConcernedVancouverite suggest to forget about how Chinese calls it, use whatever the English sources (written by Tech reporters) said. Even though this google:米兔+雷锋帽 tells the answer.

3.bias opinion regarding red star, bias opinion 2, I come across, unpublished synthesis,what is this?,removing bias...
4.for this, "technewsworld" doesn't meet the WP:SOURCE stand,look here WP:IRS. "technewsworld" just happened to paraphrase "techinasia" wrong, and miliao never had a red star in the very beginning.

If i'm doing OR by verifying the sources, then that is a total nonsense!

--B3430715 (talk) 04:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Viewpoint by ConcernedVancouverite

Thank you for joining the conversation as a third party. I agree with your initial assessment and hope that having a third opinion can help to move this article forward and avoid unnecessary bickering going forward and help improve the encyclopedia. There are currently four primary editing questions that I believe are pending:

1) Should the New Yorker, Chicago Tribune, and Reuters be tagged as non-reliable sources or not? My view is that those three sources are reliable sources, and that they should not be tagged as non-reliable just because another editor does not like what they say. As such I had removed the tag with this edit [14]. It was then re-added here by B3430715 [15]. So the question is should those three sources be tagged as non-reliable because editor B3430715 views them as inaccurate or are the sources considered reliable sources by Wiki standards?

2) There is a disagreement about what English word to use for the mascot's hat. The name "Ushanka" is currently sourced, and all of the sources which have been provided utilize that name. Editor B3430715 has argued that since the Wikipedia article about Ushanka mentions that it can be called Lei Feng that it should be in this article. Unfortunately there have been no third party sources that use the term Lei Feng when writing about the mascot's hat. In my view the hat may very well be called Lei Feng in Chinese, but we do not have a third party source using that term as the English translation. In fact, some of the sources specifically mention that the hat is a Russian hat (an Ushanka). So the question at hand is what word to use for the hat in English - should it be the word that is used in all English language sources found when discussing it, or the word that B3430715 feels should be used based upon his opinion and synthesis?

3) In addition to the talk page discussions, editor B3430715 has added a significant amount of hidden comments that make it difficult to read the article in edit mode. I had raised the issue of the excessive use of hidden comments which make it difficult for other editors to engage in conversation around the questions raised in them, and proposed removing the hidden comment clutter and having those discussions about the content on the talk page where it is easier for all editors to see and comment on. The full details of that question can be located here [16] So the question is: Is it better to have hidden comments with large amounts of text or to have those points made on the talk page for all to see?

4) Is it appropriate to add original research to an article such as this edit [17]? The link added appears to be a sales link directly to a vendor of the company's products and used as a citation to state the products are available in certain countries. The products are clearly available in other countries, but adding a link to a sales page from a vendor appears to be a violation of WP:ELNO and also is original research. While this specific issue has now been addressed after the original research tag was added, and the editor found an alternate third party source, the bigger question is if the original link was ok, or a violation of WP:ELNO? My adding of the OR tag to the initial link was opposed. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion by Tobus2

Note that the third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

The Name:

"Millet" referring to a Communist Party idiom is from Reuters, which is one (if not the most) respected news agency in the world, whether they got it from a Xiaomi press release or whether the journalist linked "millet" and "chinese" to this Mao Tse-Tung quote "What we have now is millet plus rifles, what you have is bread plus cannon"[18] is unclear. Whatever the source it has spread to a large number of english news sources and so I think a mention of it is warranted in the en wikipedia. At the same time, the qq.com source provided and the Xiaomi web site[19] both mention that MI=Mobile Internet/Mission Impossible so it should also be mentioned as it is the official position - I note that they are only referring to the "Mi" part (specifically the logo), not the full "millet" name so there's no direct contradiction here (they haven't come out and said "no it doesn't mean that" or anything). So, in my opinion both interpretations are worth noting along with their sources/contect. I'd also swap the translations around - I assume that if I went into a shop in China and asked for "Xiaomi" they'd give me millet, not short-grained or small rice, meaning that the correct translation is "millet" and "little rice" is the literal word-for-word meaning. I'd suggest something like this (with refs of course): "The name Xiaomi means millet (literally Xiao - "little", mi - "rice") which Western sources have linked to a Chinese Communist Party's revolutionary idiom (quote Mao here?). The official Xiaomi website gives no explanation for the name but says that the MI logo is short for Mobile Internet and also Mission Impossible, referring to the obstacles encountered in starting the company. In a 2011 interview CEO Lei Jun also stated that the name was chosen because it is "cool" and symbolised the company starting out small." .... the idea being to present all sourced interpretations within their contexts, not saying that either is correct but just stating that certain people/groups have said it.

The Hat:

From my understanding the hat is a traditional Russian hat that was adopted by the People's Army. Thus the real name for it is "Ushanka" and so that is the name we should use. But as it is also known colloquially in China as "the Lei Feng hat" and this is a Chinese example, that name should also be mentioned. The red scarf should also be mentioned as it's ubiquitous and mentioned in one the refs. I'd suggest: "Xiaomi's mascot is a bunny wearing an Ushanka (locally known as a "Lei Feng hat"(ref if exists)), with a red star and a red scarf around its neck".

Bias:

All the bias/NPOV issues seem to be about the removal of the red star and its significance. I think the whole issue should be dropped from the article - it's basically rumours from a tech magazise with no statement from the company and appears to have been nothing anyway (the last few images I see on the Facebook page all have the star). It might be suitable for a fan site to say "there were 2 pictures of the mascot with no star on Facebook in September 2013", but if that's all there is to it then it's not suitable for an encyclopedia - it's basically gossip on the level of "Brad seen with strange lady two nights in September - is he leaving Angelina!" and probably shouldn't have been included in the page in the first place. So, in my opinion, delete all the references to the star being removed (and thus remove the source of the bias claims). If they do end up removing the star for real in the future it can always be added back in and there will be more reliable sources for the reasons etc.

Tags:

I think both of you have been overdoing it with the tags - the point of tagging is to flag something when you don't have time to fix/discuss it yourself so that others (or yourself) can fix it in the future, or to get a discussion started. Flagging stuff a part of an ongoing argument/discussion with an editor doesn't really help anything and could probably be construed as vandalism if it got out of hand. Since all the issues are currently under discussion, I'd suggest removing all the tags currently on the page. As it stands all the tags make the page look like it's unreliable and unusable, when really it's well written with lots of good sources (possibly oversourced!) and just has a few minor disputes going on like every other page. So in my opinion, NONE of the tags currently on the page are warranted or needed, and you should both refrain from using tags as weapons in the future.

In-page Comments:

There doesn't seem to be any point to the comments in the page - they are in Chinese so very few editors can read them anyway. Again this seems more like part of the argument than a genuine attempt to improve the page, so I think they should go. Anything important can be put on the talk page if not already here (translated first of course). I also note that some of the links are given their original Chinese title, these should probably translated and given a "language=" tag instead.

WP:ELNO:

Yes, this kind of link should be avoided and a non-commercial link used instead, as has happened here.

Summary:

Hopefully I've covered all the points you both have raised, if there's something I've missed please let me know - I've deliberately focused more on the article content than necessarily answering who was right or wrong. It seems to me that both of you are editing in WP:Good Faith - neither is making ridiculous, unsourced or highly POV claims nor engaging in overly disruptive behaviour. Because you've been arguing for a while though, you are both being highly critical of the other's edits and are starting to do silly things (like over-tagging everything, or not fixing simple mistakes etc.). Just remember that this is a collaborative project - you are both on the same team and both have things to offer the page and each other. In this particular case there is no direct contradiction and both of your views can be presented side-by-side without too much trouble, it's just a matter of trying to accommodate the other person's ideas instead of rejecting them outright.

Tobus2 (talk) 02:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

---

Addition Viewpoint by B340715

I agree with most of the part, except with few things maybe you'd overlook.

1.The Name: qq.com basically direct quoted Leijan's word from his microblog (you can tell from the image), and there are 2 part(tweets). The mi part and the xiao part. As for the mi part, you may like to see the indirect quotation in English.

As for the Xiao(small) part (many people asked why small rice and not big rice google:小米为什么不叫大米), the second tweet said this(“‘佛家一粒米 大如须弥山’小米，我们希望去掉高大全，从小处着手。”雷军特意强调。), and no English translation can be found (That's why i'm waiting for the translation).

2.The star:The red star part, my first thought is to remove the whole thing, because wiki is not WP:NOTNEWS,WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL,WP:GNG. However, ConcernedVancouverite managed to find tons of sites...so I say, fine, make it no bias. In case sb brought that up again.

3.The hat:And so I did this,[[Ushanka|Lei Feng hat]], since that should not be the focus anyway. Same thing goes to the "Mi-Bunny".

4.Bias:a war was about to be declared...if no 3rdO

5.Tags:I start adding tags after ConcernedVancouverite added this "OR" tags everywhere IMPULSIVELY. But my reason is to get 3rd person evolved. Because I don't get to "win" against a wiki patrol.

6.U forgot about this:for this, "technewsworld" doesn't meet the WP:SOURCE stand,look here WP:IRS. "technewsworld" just happened to paraphrase "techinasia" wrong, and miliao never had a red star in the very beginning.

I say we are approaching to the solution, but not there yet...some translators don't want to get into a "content dispute"...--B3430715 (talk) 07:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Addition Viewpoint by ConcernedVancouverite

Thank you for your thoughtful analysis, Tobus2. I agree that it would make sense to: 1) Follow your proposal for the name. 2) Follow your proposal for the hat. 3) Follow your proposal with removing the content regarding modifications to the mascot pending further reporting in reliable sources. 4) Follow your proposal to remove the in-page hidden comments. 5) Confirm that B3430715 understands the rules of WP:ELNO and why that type of link should not be added, and gain agreement from B3430715 to stop adding such links to Wikipedia. 6) Regarding removing all tags from the article, I think it would likely be best to make the proposed changes and then re-assess the article to see if there are any outstanding issues, and as long as the issues that were tagged are resolved remove the tags appropriately.

I support the above fully and agree with the resolution as summarized here. I see B3430715 still has some issues with each of your proposed resolutions though, suggesting some further dialog between you and he may help him understand the reasoning behind those changes, so I will leave the discussion for now until you and he can reach an understanding about things as my trying to explain it may just inflame things. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 18:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion by Tobus2

NAME: My main point was that the different sources are all reliable and don't directly contradict each other, so all the "meanings" can and should be included here. I tried to include the 2nd tweet by saying "...and symbolised the company starting out small", but I was using online translation and the real meaning was hard to work out (Bing gives me: "Buddhism a grain as big as Mount Meru ' millet, we want to get rid of tall, start small" and google is worse), I'm sure a native or experienced Chinese speaker can give a better translation and then this can be *added* to the other interpretations of the name. I'll message WeijiBaikeBianji and see if I can get a good translation/explanation of the 2nd tweet.

STAR: It's good you both agree. WP:NORUSH also applies here - if something is important today then it will still be important in a month or two. We don't need to update WP every time a new story or article appears in the media. We can wait and see if it's really true, or really happens etc.

HAT: If only one name is going to be used in the text then it should be Ushanka - the real name of the hat as it is known in English speaking countries (and on WP). Since the article is about a Chinese company and to some degree references Chinese culture then an aside giving the Chinese-specific term is probably OK, but it definitely shouldn't be used *instead* of the common name.

TAGS: Reading the article for the first time it seems to me like none of the tags are warranted - it's a good, well-sourced, balance article despite the disagreements. If you still feel tags are warranted then of course leave/reinstate them, but please be honest with yourselves and make sure you're using them in good faith with the aim of improving the article, not just to score points in an argument - these tags are things the public sees, not just other editors.

TECHNEWSWORLD: I skipped this on purpose because it was part of the content I suggested removing. For the record I think the story did misquote techinasia - the messaging app never had a star so it couldn't have been removed from it. You've both agreed the whole section should go given the star hasn't really been removed (yet?) so it's not an issue anymore.

MOBICITI: The main reason WP doesn't like commercial sites is that it opens us up to spam. Companies can (and often do) register as an editor and then link to their commercial website to drive up traffic to their site, basically using us as free advertising - we're the sixth most popular site on the net and regularly get top spot on Google. So while mobiciti was added innocently and did support the claims being made, we can't allow it lest we become nothing more than a billboard for various companies. The exception to this rule is in articles about themselves like this one, we can use the Xiaomi website as a ref here. B3430715, do you understand this now?

Tobus2 (talk) 02:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

---

Agreement From B340715

Thank you Tobus2, for your thoughtful third opinion. I agree that it would make sense to:
1) Follow your proposal for the name (that is including both the english and chinese sources)
2) Follow your proposal for the hat, with removing the content regarding modifications to the mascot pending further reporting in reliable sources. (that is to remove the whole thing, including the hat, star,mi bunny,miliao...thing for now)
3) Follow your proposal to remove the in-page hidden comments.
4) Confirm that ConcernedVancouverite understands the rules of WP:SOURCE,WP:NOTNEWS,WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL,WP:GNG,WP:SYNTH, WP:OR,WP:NPOV, WP:IRS and thus gaining an agreement from ConcernedVancouverite to stop adding such things to Wikipedia.
5) Regarding removing all tags from the article, I think it would likely be best to make the proposed changes and then re-assess the article to see if there are any outstanding issues, and as long as the issues that were tagged are resolved remove the tags appropriately.

And finally I'm done with this whole thing. In the last couple days, I did over a hundred edits and spent hours on a article of a thing that I don't even own(<--this emoticon is not communist?). I need a rest now .--B3430715 (talk) 22:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment clutter

There appears to have recently been a ton of invisible comments added to the main article that seem better suited to talk page as they are rather opinion based. They include the following, "-- Added by editor B3430715: I think the sources above failed to google translate the news released in 2011 http://tech.qq.com/a/20110714/000278.htm -- “很多人问小米这个名字怎么来的？大家第一时间想到的是小米加步枪。其实，小米这个问题还有不少故事，首先小米拼音是mi, Mobile Internet，小米要做移动互联网公司；其次是mission impossible，小米要完成不能完成的任务。最后，“小米”这个名字亲切可爱，你周围有叫小米的人吗？” “‘佛家一粒米 大如须弥山’小米，我们希望去掉高大全，从小处着手。”雷军特意强调。-- I suggested that "Reuters" failed the translation and came up an original research in Feb 2012(Neither a direct speech or indirect speech are used!). The "Chicagotribune" just happened to copy & past the exact same words from Reuters, nothing special. And in 2013, "Newyorker" just expanded based on this original research --Added by editor B3430715.-- "technewsworld" just happened to paraphrase "techinasia" wrong, see talk page--Added by editor B3430715"

Per Wikipedia:COMMENT#Invisible_comments I propose removing those comments from the main article and should the editor of those comments wish to raise the points that they do so on the talk page where other editors will find the comments more easily and be able to respond to them should they choose to. I do note that the bulk of the comments are the editor complaining that independent reliable sources got things wrong and that the editor's own knowledge of the subject is more correct than those sources - which appears to be a combination of original research and/or WP:SYNTH, and as such in my view has no place on an encyclopedia. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

According to WP:PRIMARY and WP:SOURCE, the Newspaper and magazine blogs you used as primary sources, "may", and i suggested "can" be classify as unreliable. And "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense"... --B3430715 (talk) 02:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Please read that link to WP:COMMON you have provided where it states, "When advancing a position or justifying an action, base your argument on existing agreements, community foundation issues and the interests of the encyclopedia, not your own common sense. Exhorting another editor to "just use common sense" is likely to be taken as insulting, for good reasons. If in a particular case you feel that literally following a rule harms the encyclopedia, or that doing something which the rules technically allow degrades it, then instead of telling someone who disagrees to use common sense, just focus on explaining why ignoring the rules will improve Wikipedia in that instance." The issue at hand is that there is currently comment clutter - if you'd like to have the content of those comments discussed it would be more productive to have that discussion on the talk page. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I did provide my reason with source, you choose to do this, then remove it with an invalid excuse.--B3430715 (talk) 17:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Per the third party opinion and subsequent agreement by B3430715 below I have removed the comment clutter from the article. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Removal of original research

Recently some original research has been added to the article with this edit [20] that is a direct link to a commercial website selling the materials cited in the claim. The introduced claim that the provider is selling the items in Europe appears to be original research. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

This issue has been resolved and the WP:ELNO link which had been added is now removed. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)