Talk:Cantonese people

Why I deleted the "Worldwide Cantonese conference" section

Hello. I have just removed the section "Worldwide Cantonese conference" because it is uncited, lacking context or explanation, not entirely in English, and generally unencyclopedic. Regards, Citobun (talk) 06:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I have remved it yet again; it was promotional, off-topic, almost entirely unsourced, and full of trivial detail including what are presumably mentions of real people leading to BLP issues. Every subject and topic has conferences, many of them much more significant than the Worldwide Cantonese conference. But they do not normally get mentioned in the related articles. They might provide useful sources, such as conference papers, but are not themselves sources and not suitable topics for coverage in the article.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:14, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

So what is the problem exactly, you claim is promotional and unsourced ? I want you to prove to me what is unsourced here. I provided Chinese baidu and also in English source for it. How is it off-topic when it's part of the notable people's list.

Many of them much more significant than cantonese conference, I agree. So what's your point though ? it's their choice and is my choice to make.

How hypocritical , there is a world Hakka conference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakka_people#World_Hakka_Conference and large section of picture of Fuzhou people in the list of notable people ( basically no different to having pictures in the previous ) infobox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzhou_people

So please, if you're going to just remove Cantonese conference you got a lot of work to do with others aswell. 77.100.234.159 - (talk) 03:00 23, June 2017

None are those good sources. The English sources reads like press releases, seemingly based off promotional material for the conference. Baidu is simply not a reliable secondary source, being an encyclopaedia along the lines of WP, though with far worse reliability. None of the sources contains the detail of the material added. In particular the lists of names, and it is important that all content about living people be properly sourced and correct. Apart from the BLP issues it is far too professional.

But even if all that were fixed and it were properly sourced, it is not a good addition. Conferences take place all the time on all sorts of topics. Academics, business people, those interested in culture or social issues, get together to discuss every topic under the sun. So of course there is a conference on the Cantonese language, as there is on every major topic. But it is not relevant to this, or any, article, and the people who attended it are not notable and certainly cannot be mentioned without sources.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Non-English sources are acceptable and the Chinese source I provided in translated English is at least 90% readable. I can name plenty of non-English sources in tons of wikipedia in other languages posted in other wikipedia. I also provided their names and their places of birth/born which are all Cantonese regions/areas. There isn't a conference on Cantonese language nor in every major topic on the "Cantonese people" wikipedia, it's only added as part of the notable people's list ( How do you decide what is notable or not ? By your logic one can remove anyone's large list of notable people based on their own individual opinions )

English translated source ----- Name, birthplace, descriptions. It is over 90% readable, it doesn't take a genius or even a 6 years old to figure that out.

https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=zh-CN&u=http://baike.baidu.com/item/%25E7%25AC%25AC%25E4%25B8%2580%25E5%25B1%258A%25E4%25B8%2596%25E7%2595%258C%25E5%25B9%25BF%25E5%25BA%259C%25E4%25BA%25BA%25E6%2581%25B3%25E4%25BA%25B2%25E5%25A4%25A7%25E4%25BC%259A&prev=search

You're also ignoring the Hakka conference and Fuzhou people's wikipedia.... are you going to do something about them ? because I really don't see how you think it's okay to remove my section of added Cantonese conference and not Hakka people's conference. - 77.100.234.159 - (talk) 03:04 24, June 2017 —Preceding undated comment added 11:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Baidu is not a reliable source. It is a user-created encyclopaedia, like Wikipedia, which alone would disqualify it from being used as a reference. But it is of far lower quality than Wikipedia, being subject to heavy censorship and political interference due to being based in China. It simply cannot be used as a source, for this or anything on WP.

What other articles contain is irrelevant, we are talking about this one. This content has been removed by two editors, so the consensus is against you on it. Stop adding it in, it does not belong for all the reasons given by Citobun and myself in our initial comments.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay fine, I won't use Baidu. I'm just going use source from straight out Guangfu world conference ( aka Cantonese world conference ). I don't even see what makes you decide that Baidu it's lower quality than wikpedia when you can't even understand it. This is your individual opinion, you do not understand Chinese and the facts behinds either. I've seen many wiki edits have been removed by several editors but are still seen on the wiki pages.

Again... you have ignored the the Hakka people world conference wiki page and the Fuzhou people's wiki page with it's large section of pictures. The wikipedia rule never says anything that you can't put a notable list of top 10 cantonese from world conference. - 77.100.234.159 - (talk) 16:58 25, June 2017 —Preceding undated comment added 01:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Stop adding this to the article. The consensus is against you, the reasons have been given above and do not need restating. It does not belong in this or any other WP article.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

This time I removed the list of 10 people. There should be absolutely no problem now since it now doesn't include the top 10 list of Cantonese people is not included. If other pages are allowed to have world conference why not in the Cantonese people and the sources is as good as others?-KnowledgeAndPeace (talk) 02:15 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Those are not valid reasons for including it. Most of the reasons given in the first two comments by two editors still stand, and you have not addressed them. What other articles include is irrelevant and not a reason for including it here.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm now going to remove the section of Hakka conference page because there is absolutely no reasons why the Hakka page is allowed to have it while Cantonese is not allowed, I'm simply copying from the Hakka pages. You made absolute no mentions of the Hakka people conference, you have ignored since months ago. I've times and times again asked you about the Hakka page and you ignored it again and again. The world wide cantonese conference section is well sourced, referenced, there's even a video them if you want me to post it. I even removed the top ten list but you still choose to remove everything.

English sources

Okay more links/sources of Worldwide Cantonese conference

Worldwide Cantonese to regroup in Hengqin

http://www.newsgd.com/gdnews/content/2015-04/13/content_122064709.htm

Guangdong hosts global Cantonese conference

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2013-11/13/content_17103104.htm

Chinese sources, Chinadaily, Cpec news, whatever you want

第二届世界广府人恳亲大会专题——中国新闻网·广东

http://www.gd.chinanews.com/guangfu2.html

首届世界广府人恳亲大会开幕 胡春华李长春等出席

http://cpc.people.com.cn/n/2013/1114/c64094-23537523.html

I can post A LOT MORE but these links should sufficient enough.

-KnowledgeAndPeace (talk) 03:05 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• KnowledgeAndPeace, kindly respect consensus, and play the ball, not the man. Drmies (talk) 17:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Drmies, you are including some Cantonese from the cantonese awards and removing others, some of the people are already listed on the wiki page so there is no need a double mention. It's basically a huge mess what you did so it's better to restore to the original page. Feng Shangshan and Yi Jinlian were already mentioined in the sports section. -KnowledgeAndPeace (talk) 06:25 10 August 2017 (UTC)

That's the fault of whoever added those 2013 awards, not mine. Redlinks are typically removed from such lists, as are extraneous details--they are redundant since a. why select which information? and b. there's an article for these people. Also redundant are transliterations. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Red links are typically removed from such lists.Than you should better do the same with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teochew_people ESPECIALLY THIS ONE ----> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hakka_people. Like JohnBlackburne who also removes my Cantonese conference section when I asked him the same about the Hakka conference he completely ignores it. If you don't remove those red links from the Teochew people and Hakka people page than it's all double standard hypocrisy again and cherrypicking .-KnowledgeAndPeace (talk) 07:15 , 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh bullshit. "Hypocrisy"? What, you think JohnBlackburne and I go around being racially prejudiced against just one kind of people, the one you're editing? You go ahead and clean up those articles: we're here (well, I am; I can't speak for John) because we saw problems with this specific article, and we are (well, I am; I can't speak for John) as yet physically incapable of editing five million articles simultaneously. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh come on. There were four redlinks in the Teochew article--only four. Drmies (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

So you chose not to remove those red links but you that in the Cantonese people page when it had only 2 or 3 ( not including the list of Cantonese from the conference awards). JohnBlackburne didn't remove the Hakka conference page and I was the one who did it today. There are 4 in Teochew and more than 40+ in Hakka people page. I see the obvious double standard. I'm now going to remove those red links in other wiki pages and I hope nobody complains about and isn't supposed to be my job.-KnowledgeAndPeace (talk) 07:40 , 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh please stop whining. You think because we edit one article we should edit all the others? I noticed you haven't done a damn thing to improve Tuscaloosa, Alabama, or Godspeed You! Black Emperor--the hypocrisy is just overwhelming. Happy now? Drmies (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I simply want this to be fair. Those wiki pages have no interest to me nor do I have anything about them.

• That Hakka list is a huge table. I'm not touching that right now. And note that Yao Yuping, for instance, is a red link, but it's referenced and the commander of an expeditionary army is pretty much automatically notable. Same with Peng Jiaheng--you get the Distinguised Flying Cross, you're notable. But by all means, go ahead and clean that article up. I've pruned hundreds if not thousands of such articles, and I have nothing to prove to you. Drmies (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

The vast majority of the red links of the Hakka list are not referenced and almost every reference is in Chinese. It's only fair you remove those red links that are not referenced in the list. It's unfair to remove the Cantonese people's page with a few red links but not the Hakka red links with a massive 40+ red links. You're absolutely wrong with Peng Jiaheng, the reference doesn't even say anything about him being Hakka, it just says he was born in Indonesia -KnowledgeAndPeace (talk) 07:50 , 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Unfair bias judgement

Off topic rant by now blocked user
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The user JohnBlackburne have repeatedly targeted only the Cantonese conference section page but ignoring all others wikipedia pages having a "conference" of their own such as the Hakka people conference. I had asked him multiple times why he didn't remove but he never replied it and kept ignoring it. I've checked on the wiki user JohnBlackburne apparently also chatted with other Hakka wikipedia users and including with other moderators to help him out. I've used multiple references, well sourced from both English and Chinese again and again but removed in the end. Other wikipedia pages with unsourced references can have a section or even just mention of their own conference so why can't the Cantonese people wiki page with multiple reference of their own have neither a section nor a mention in their own wiki page. There is no rule that says you ain't allow to mention of having a conference. It is a abuse of moderators bias judgement, unfairly deciding what page should they allow to edits and what page don't want to allow. Hakka conference page had existed since 2009, nearly a whole decade, almost 10 years. This shouldn't be consensus either but why they they ignored for so long while not allowing the Cantonese to have their own conference? it is double standard hypocrisy at best. [1] 24 December 2015 [2] 14 March 2011 [3] 7 June 2009 Also Drmies), he had ignored the red links of the Hakka people page that has over 70+ red links of unsourced figures while on the other hand my page only had a few but he chose to remove mine and unwilling to remove the ones in the list of Hakka people. The conversation can be seen in the talk page of JohnBlackburne and Drmies being extremely double standard and unwilling to remove anything from Hakka people wikipedia page. In the end it took me to do it again even though it's suppose to be their job. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cantonese_people (talk page). I demand justice for this unfair abuse, bias judgement. There is absolutely no reason for other unsourced wiki pages to have a conference of their while my sourced wiki page is not allowed to have it. My personal feelings: I don't want get blocked right now, I will stop editing the conference page to safe myself from getting blocked if that what it takes. But I won't be surprised if I get blocked since moderators have more rights/control than any normal wiki editors, they make the rules but they also abuse it and you have to submit to their way, in the end we don't even know what their real intentions are (or their real true identity behind the bias judgement). I didn't think having a conference page could bring me so much trouble, some may consider it insignificant and not a big deal, I only copied from the other wikipedia pages, if they can have it ( with sourced/ or unsourced reference ) why can't I have it aswell with multiple sourced reference. I'm supposed to believe that the moderators are being fair on this ? They absolutely did nothing to other wiki pages who had a section/or mention of conference of their own for nearly a decade but they started doing something only when I created my own. It's not fake because there is high number of multiple reference. I really can't think of any reason other than the fact they have something against to those they dislike. They are not just against wiki trolls and abusers but also against those people they dislike. I know there are moderators with nationalistic feelings and moderators with anti-feelings against other wiki editors.-KnowledgeAndPeace (talk) 12:57 , 11 August 2017 (UTC) You already said this on the edit warring noticeboard. It's a ridiculous charge; see above. Drmies (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC) I need to say all of this in case something happens to me.-KnowledgeAndPeace (talk) 1:30 , 11 August 2017 (UTC) Oh please. What's next, JohnBlackburne and I have a racist hit squad? The worst that can happen to you is you get blocked indefinitely per NOTHERE, or per our harassment policy: these accusations really are harassment. Drmies (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cantonese people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071018235722/http://www.todayonline.com/articles/208754.asp to http://www.todayonline.com/articles/208754.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Split the people list into its own article

Now at list of Cantonese people.--Prisencolin (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

How do you say corn in Cantonese

Idk how to say it 2601:246:5800:1B10:8198:7AF1:F36F:5F1B (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Like sweetcorn? Hĭ uông lìng (talk) 15:58, 22 October 2022 (UTC)