Talk:Xiaomi

Market positioning selection deleted

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations for how to request investigation of possible sockpuppetry, including requests for CheckUser intervention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petergalt1980 (talk • contribs) 07:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you mean by sockpuppetry in this context? Your comment is rather unclear. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 12:43, 23 September 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 [1] 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)

Changes implemented

I have made the changes proposed by Tobus2 and agreed upon by the editors involved. The only outstanding issue as far as I can see is the removal of the excessive maintenance tags at the top of the article. I propose those are removed unless any other issues are surfaced? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I suggest to first:

remove the sites claiming "Has Xiaomi redacted the Communist red star from its mascot" and so on...

And add WeijiBaikeBianji's translation...we see how it'll look--B3430715 (talk) 02:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the articles you have referred to. It is unclear what portion of WeijiBaikeBianji's translation you are proposing to add to the article and where. Can you be more specific and propose the language you hope to use for it here so we can reach consensus? P.S. Are you referring to Penwhale's translation perhaps? Please clarify with the proposed language. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

i suggested to do the way how Tobus2 proposed...expect to replace the chinese translation part with Penwhale's translation...so, something like:

The name Xiaomi means millet (literally Xiao - "little", Mi - "rice"), which several Western sources have linked to the CCP's revolutionary idiom (What we have now is millet plus rifles, what you have is bread plus cannon.) . In a 2011 interview, CEO Lei Jun said "Many people have asked how I came up with the name Xiaomi. Many people thought it was based on millet plus rifles. But there are more stories than that."

The Xiao part of it, which means little in Chinese, refers to the Buddhist concept 'One grain of rice of a Buddhist is as great as a mountain', suggesting Xiaomi wants to work from the little things, instead of starting by striving to be tall, big, and perfect...

The Mi part of the name, which means rice in Chinese, is an acronym for for Mobile Internet and also Mission Impossible, referring to the obstacles encountered in starting the company.

It is a bit unclear from what you have written here how you are actually hoping to phrase it as you have several disjointed thoughts added at the end, which do not sound encyclopedic and do not have sources. It would be helpful if you put together exactly what you are proposing as a clear single paragraph with appropriate sourcing so we can reach consensus. I'm not clear from your writing here what exactly will make you happy with the translation and what won't, so I would prefer to see it clearly written by you with something you feel works and then we can see if we can reach consensus from that. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

---

something like that, you can work it out....and then add the 2 sources http://www.techinasia.com/xiaomi-phone/ , http://tech.qq.com/a/20110714/000278.htm ...--B3430715 (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

WeijiBaikeBianji: Please explain the background to the editing here.

I was asked, apparently because I've listed my proficiency in Chinese on my user profile, to look at a Chinese-language source for this article. I'm happy to help with editing here. But may I ask, what is at issue now among editors who disagree with one another about recent edits? I can check the sources, but before I step in, I'd like to know where the editing disagreements are. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Finally...you can first read this Chinese news posted in 2011: http://tech.qq.com/a/20110714/000278.htm regarding the meaning behind xiaomi's name. And then read

1. http://ca.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idCATRE81Q0RH20120227?sp=true
2. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-06-05/news/sns-rt-xiaomi-fundraising-update-1l5e8h57ok-20120605_1_smartphone-source-funding
3. http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/09/xiaomi-phones-apple-google-china-hugo-barra.html

see if the English "definition" given by the above 3 sources are correct/incomplete/wrong. I encourage you not to read the existing discussion, cause I don't want to alter your first impression. --B3430715 (talk) 04:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Penwhale has kindly provided a translation here [2]. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Android

I don't have the time at the moment to investigate but from an article that I read [3], it seems that they don's use Android, they use a "fork" of Android which is not the same, probably they don't use Google Play, etc. - Fernando

you can check this: MIUI--B3430715 (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)