Talk:Li (unit)

message: I really question that.  Perhaps more specific reference should be quoted.  An 8X change was unbelievable.  Kowloonese 23:20, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
*Any reference at all would be great.  This whole article seems to contradict itself.  To paraphrase... "a li was 500 meters.  A li was 576 meters."  77, 500, or 576m?  It can't be all three. 134.131.125.49 20:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  77 meters??? 

message: I have found a source that claims that a li was 555 meter in the 1750s. --Ghormax 15:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  555 Meter? 

message: "In South Korea, however, the ri currently in use is a unit taken from the smaller Chinese li. It has a value of 10/33 millimeter."
Who says?  I just talked with three Koreans who have never been out of the country (a teacher, a nurse and a student of chinese), and they all agreed with-out a leading question (other than is the li a unit of measure in Korea?) that a li is about 0.4 km. Kdammers 12:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right. In Korea, 1 ri is defined as 1296 ja where 1 ja is 10/33 metre. So it is exactly one tenth of Japanese ri. --Kerilka 06:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ROK 

message: I removed the interwiki :nl:Kelurahan which points to an article on the Dutch Wikipedia about a type of Indonesian village, like the english (redirecting) article Kelurahan to which it links. There are a few interwikis that point to articles with comparable titles, so someone might check and possibly remove these too. I can't, because I am unable to read these languages. Btw, there is no Dutch article about the li, so I couldn't insert a better link. Bertux (talk) 07:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong interwikis? 

message: The article says "Joseph Needham claimed that during the Qin and early Han Dynasty the li was 0.4972 km (0.309 mi).[1] However, more recent and reliable determinations show that during the Early and Later Han dynasties the value of the Chinese li was 0.4158 km (0.2584 miles).[cites Hill]". I'm willing to consider that Needham is wrong about some stuff, but he is being corrected by book written by a virtually unknown author published by a print on demand company—BookSurge. As far as I can tell Hill's book has not been reviewed in academic venues. If there are compelling sources cited by Hill in his book, those should be detailed. Otherwise it's just a credibility contest between authors' credentials, and Hill loses badly here. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 00:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have raised the issue of Hill's self-insertion of his vanity press book at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:John Hill. You may want to discuss it there. --Orange Mike  |  Talk 13:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

text: It's true that I have added  a link to your page and to BookSurge, the publisher of your book for identification purposes, mainly because you are not a well-known author, and BookSurge not a well-known academic publisher either. On the other hand, prior to those edits of mine, you have yourself added your book to multiple Wikipedia articles   , including to this one:   . Have mörser, will travel (talk) 17:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is [[User:John Hill|John Hill]] more authoritative than [[Joseph Needham]]? 

message: I have just read the two complaints above and am distressed at what seems to be a misuse of my work and an (unwarranted) attack on me and my work. I just checked the 'history" section for this article and it seems that the text that Have mörser, will travel is complaining about was inserted by him or herself - see "Revision as of 02:42, 28 September 2011." He or she then compounds this insult by insinuating here there is some sort of "credibility contest" between myself and the renowned sinologue Joseph Needham. This is pure fantasy, If anyone wishes to examine my response to the "Conflict of interest notification made by Orange Mike, please have a look at what I have written at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:John Hill. I strongly object to this underhanded attack on my reputation and ask for a public apology. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 00:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's true that I have added  a link to your page and to BookSurge, the publisher of your book for identification purposes, mainly because you are not a well-known author, and BookSurge not a well-known academic publisher either. On the other hand, prior to those edits of mine, you have yourself added your book to multiple Wikipedia articles   , including to this one:   . Have mörser, will travel (talk) 17:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Excuse me, but have I missed something?

message: After prolonged discussion I think Have mörser, will travel and myself have finally resolved our differences with a bit of give on both sides. I have, therefore, just rewritten the paragraph about the Qin and Han li,  added references and deleted the earlier paragraph, plus the reference to my book (and did some other minor editing). I hope it will meet with everyone's approval but, if you have any criticisms, queries or suggestions, please discuss them here first so hopefully, we can work out any differences or changes before getting into quarrels about them. Best wishes to all, John Hill (talk) 10:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Issue resolved and new paragraph and references on Qin and Han ''li''

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Li (unit). 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/20061010111927/http://www.convert-me.com/en/convert/units/length/length.cli.en.html to http://convert-me.com/en/convert/units/length/length.cli.en.html
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) 10:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi everyone. I'm new to editing Wikipedia after many years away, so please forgive me if I get some of the norms wrong.
I've never heard of a Li referred to as a Chinese mile. Can anyone find a source for this? If anything, it seems that a Chinese kilometer might make a bit more sense, since a kilometer is 公里 and a li is 里. I've added a citation needed tag rather than deleting it, because I didn't want to be so assertive/aggresive. NeoChrono Ryu (talk) 02:30, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese mile? 

message: Redirect needed from Li (unit of measure). 173.88.246.138 (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect needed from [[Li (unit of measure)]]