Talk:Chinese Academy of Sciences/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Publications section
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
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)
- Given that no attempt has been made in a year and a half to address these issues, I have removed the section. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:31, 14 March 2019 (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)
- 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)
- 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)
Photos
I've removed the Image Requested tag (left in this section, commented out). This page now has two photos (zero when the tag was added 11 years ago), is that enough? If not, what specifically should be added?Dcpeets (talk) 06:18, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
When was it renamed?
"After the Communist Party took control of mainland China, the Academia Sinica was renamed Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS)." This sentence suggests, wrongly, that it was renamed in 1949. I was invited to give a couple of lectures at the Academia Sinica in Beijing in the 1980s and kept some of the old letters, on Academia Sinica letterhead: at the top 中国科学院研究生院, and in English "Graduate School, Academia Sinica", with the postal address "P.O. Box 3908, Beijing, The People's Republic of China, Telephone: 81-0831". They're dated 1987. Sayitclearly (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)