Talk:Chinese Academy of Sciences

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Academic Journals (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals 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-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.
WikiProject China (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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-Class article 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.
 

Publications section[edit]

First of all, I deleted the previous section header of "External links" in this Talk page which contained dead links and all appeared to be ads.

The publications section should not just contain the series of Science China journals as they are not the only ones published by CAS; there are at least a couple of dozens of which we can consider listing them all in said section. See for instance, http://english.cas.cn/publications/ Yen-Tzu (talk) 14:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Restoration of reform section[edit]

This section is taken from the UNESCO Science Report. As it has been deleted without prior warning and with no explanation, I have restored it. The procedure for deletion should begin with the person proposing deletion providing notification of their intention on this Talk page and an explanation of why they are proposing to delete the section. Contributors should then be given time to react and consensus should be reached before any action is taken to delete a section. --Susan Schneegans (talk) 07:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The removal was in fact explained, in this edit summary. I myself don't think it is appropriate to base such a long section of an article on a single source. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
The section was removed because of Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources, however the text does not come from a primary source. --John Cummings (talk) 21:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
I still don't think it is appropriate to base such a long section on a single source, though. Moreover, I see that Pol098 has expressed concerns that the source does not verify all of the content that was added (although given that Susan Schneegans's approach has been to copy material from that source directly, I would be surprised if this is the case). Cordless Larry (talk) 21:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Yes, there's some conflict between the title of that page and its content. The first sentence reads "Wikipedia is not a mirror of public domain or other source material", and the inclusion of massive and otherwise unreferenced tract from UNESCO is, precisely, the mirroring of public domain or other material. It's understandable that in the early days of Wikipedia people thought that importing free content from elsewhere was a good idea, but that time is, fortunately, long past – indeed, now we have the gargantuan task of removing or rewriting that content, much of which is more than a century old. Why cannot Susan Schneegans write this section in her own words, drawing on a number of reliable sources instead of copy-pasting the text of just one (who knows, it might not be accurate)? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)