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)