Talk:Li Cunxin

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Chu Chu China.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
I support the proposed merging of the Mao's Last Dancer and Li Cunxin articles. Both articles tell essentially the same story: the biography of Li Cunxin. This could be achieved by redirecting searches for "Mao's Last Dancer" to "Li Cunxin", and by incorporating the requisite information. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.100.243 (talk) 14:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Stock broker
He returned to the world of ballet after 15 years as a stockbroker. See Australian Story documentary 1 October 2012. No mention of this in career section. Manytexts (talk) 10:52, 8 October 2012 (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: Move. Objections are reasonable, but we have consensus that this article is the primary topic of the two articles of the name. Cúchullain t/ c 20:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Li Cunxin (dancer) → Li Cunxin – WP:2DABS: "If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article." The dancer is clearly primary in English-language sources, and I'm actually the one who wrote the other Li Cunxin page. Timmyshin (talk) 11:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Support – That's the original situation until 19 June this year. I never understood why the above scheme was broken in the first place. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - revert to previous situation per Google Books results. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose – There are two main criteria for determining WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: usage and long-term significance. In terms of usage, the dancer does get more mention in English-language sources, but that's a symptom of WP:RECENTISM, which inflates the importance of recent topics; and WP:Systemic bias, which overrepresents topics related to English-speaking countries. However, Wikipedia's goal is to strive to counter such bias, not perpetuate it. In terms of long-term significance, there is no doubt that the Tang dynasty general, whose deeds are remembered and studied by historians a millennium after his lifetime, is far more significant than the dancer. He was also one of the famous Thirteen Protectors (Shisan Taibao), whose stories have been made into numerous traditional operas (most famously by Guan Hanqing in the 13th century), films (e.g. The Heroic Ones, Shaw Brothers 1970), TV dramas (1980s series by TVB), and novels (most recently by Ni Kuang, ). Many later political groups were named after them. Sadly, none of these, except the Shaw film, is represented on the English Wikipedia at the moment, but you can catch a glimpse of it from the zh-wiki article zh:十三太保. -Zanhe (talk) 03:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest that the dancer's usage will outweigh the general's long-term significance on the English Wikipedia for quite some time to come. At any rate, the guideline WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not postulate that long-term significance takes precedence over usage, but that consensus will decide the primary topic. I understand that the essay WP:RECENTISM is about inappropriate editorial content, not about article titles. The same applies to the essay WP:BIAS. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've never said long-term significance takes precedence over usage, and that general should be made the primary topic. On the other hand, you seem to believe that usage takes precedence over long-term significance. -Zanhe (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As the only main contributor of the Tang general's page (see ) as well as The Heroic Ones and The Wild Bunch (TV series) I believe I'm much more qualified to speak of his significance, both in history and in popular arts, than you. To be concise, he's not really significant in either. Just move the page, it helps everybody. Timmyshin (talk) 13:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I greatly appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, especially in underrepresented topics like these. However, your arrogant tone is not appreciated. I have written several hundred articles on Chinese history and film, with 120+ DYK credits, so you're going to defer to my judgment in the future on other topics? The general is not a household name, but was active in making history and remembered in history and art for 1,000 years. He certainly has more long-term significance that a dancer whose main claim to fame is his autobiography. -Zanhe (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I offended you, it was not my intention. However, a person can only know so much, and trying to say much about a topic that he is unfamiliar with, is... arrogant. Of course, there is no right and wrong in discussions like this, since significance is purely subjective. But the logic that just because someone is older or ancient, he automatically has more long-term significance than a modern person, is in my opinion flawed. If you truly believe that logic, then you should not oppose my other RM since the Tang warlord has longer-term significance than the Ming topic (per this logic). Timmyshin (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted, but you're still twisting my logic (a bit). It's one thing to compare a living person still actively promoting his work with an ancient person who's been dead for 1000 years, and quite another to compare a 600-old topic vs. a 1000-year-old topic. I have already stated my opinion, which obviously differs from yours, but I don't try to attack other people's credibility just because they disagree with me. -Zanhe (talk) 00:17, 11 September 2014 (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.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Li Cunxin. 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/20120604203129/http://www.queenslandballet.com.au/media/press-releases/2012/li-cunxin-announced-new-artistic-director/ to http://www.queenslandballet.com.au/media/press-releases/2012/li-cunxin-announced-new-artistic-director/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)