Talk:Chan Kam Lee: Difference between revisions
←Created page with 'I have removed the reference to Mandarin words because Chan Kam Lee is a name and not a word in the Mandarin language. The words Chan Kam Lee are in the ...' |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
The words [[Chan Kam Lee]] are in the English language reported by an English speaker, not Chinese characters, so it's difficult to say exactly what the Chinese pronunciation or characters would be. |
The words [[Chan Kam Lee]] are in the English language reported by an English speaker, not Chinese characters, so it's difficult to say exactly what the Chinese pronunciation or characters would be. |
||
Speculations like this which are not verifiable reports to do with the subject should really be on the talk page because they are opinions and constitute original research.[[User:Chuangzu|Chuangzu]] ([[User talk:Chuangzu|talk]]) 16:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC) |
Speculations like this which are not verifiable reports to do with the subject should really be on the talk page because they are opinions and constitute original research.[[User:Chuangzu|Chuangzu]] ([[User talk:Chuangzu|talk]]) 16:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC) |
||
There are problems with this verifiability section, firstly there are links to Lee style websites which are not really independent sources but more like self publishing. Secondly some of the statements are not backed up by proper references and are probably people's personal opinions. If people are going to make statements on the main page they should be backed by references or else put on the talk page as speculations.[[User:Chuangzu|Chuangzu]] ([[User talk:Chuangzu|talk]]) 16:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 16:34, 27 October 2013
I have removed the reference to Mandarin words because Chan Kam Lee is a name and not a word in the Mandarin language. The words Chan Kam Lee are in the English language reported by an English speaker, not Chinese characters, so it's difficult to say exactly what the Chinese pronunciation or characters would be. Speculations like this which are not verifiable reports to do with the subject should really be on the talk page because they are opinions and constitute original research.Chuangzu (talk) 16:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
There are problems with this verifiability section, firstly there are links to Lee style websites which are not really independent sources but more like self publishing. Secondly some of the statements are not backed up by proper references and are probably people's personal opinions. If people are going to make statements on the main page they should be backed by references or else put on the talk page as speculations.Chuangzu (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)