Talk:Seattle and Florence Li Tim-Oi: Difference between pages

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:53, 10 June 2007

Florence Li Tim-Oi (Chinese: 李添嬡 Cantonese Lei Tim'oi, Mandarin Li Tian'ai; 5 May 1907 in Hong Kong – 26 February 1992 in Toronto) was the first female priest to be ordained in the Anglican Communion. Already appointed as a deacon to serve in the colony of Macao, she was ordained priest on 25 January 1944 by the bishop of Hong Kong, in response to the crisis among Anglican Christians in China caused by the Japanese invasion. Since it was to be thirty years before any Anglican church regularized the ordination of women, her ordination was controversial, and she resigned her licence (though not her priestly orders) after the end of the war. She was appointed an honorary (nonstipendiary) assistant priest in Toronto in 1983 and formally reinstated as a priest the following year. She is commemorated in the Calendar of Saints of the Anglican church on February 26.

External link

This Hong Kong biographical article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

This Anglicanism-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+'''Florence Li Tim-Oi''' ({{lang-zh|李添嬡}} [[Cantonese (linguistics)|Cantonese]] ''Lei Tim'oi'', [[Mandarin (linguistics)|Mandarin]] ''Li Tian'ai''; [[5 May]] [[1907]] in [[Hong Kong]] &ndash; [[26 February]] [[1992]] in [[Toronto]]) was the first female priest to be [[ordained]] in the [[Anglican Communion]]. Already appointed as a deacon to serve in the colony of [[Macao]], she was ordained priest on [[25 January]] [[1944]] by the bishop of Hong Kong, in response to the crisis among Anglican Christians in China caused by the Japanese invasion. Since it was to be thirty years before any Anglican church regularized the [[ordination of women]], her ordination was controversial, and she resigned her licence (though not her priestly orders) after the end of the war. She was appointed an honorary (nonstipendiary) assistant priest in Toronto in 1983 and formally reinstated as a priest the following year. She is commemorated in the [[Calendar of Saints]] of the Anglican church on February 26.
-::You know.. You can make edit's yourself, Soapy.;)  There isn't a residency requirement to editting on this article. --[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] 21:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
-== Major edit ==
+==External link==
+* [http://www.litim-oi.org/ The Li Tim-Oi Foundation]
+* [http://www.oxford.anglican.org/page/4886/ It Takes One Woman]
+{{DEFAULTSORT:Li Tim-Oi, Florence}}
-{{User|Sean mc sean}} did a major edit of the whole article on 2007-01-29, but marked it minor and left no edit summary.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seattle%2C_Washington&diff=103964688&oldid=103934845] It was well-intentioned and constructive, in my opinion, but I thought it should be brought to the attention of the other editors of this article. Best wishes, [[User:Wsiegmund|Walter Siegmund]] [[User_talk:Wsiegmund|(talk)]] 18:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
+[[Category:1907 births]]
+[[Category:1992 deaths]]
+[[Category:Canadian Anglican priests]]
+[[zh:李添嬡]]
-== Cliamte/temperatures? ==
+{{HongKong-bio-stub}}
-Hmmm, didn't know Seattle's climate was "Mediterranean". And I think some of the average temperatures listed are too warm... <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Dude6789|Dude6789]] ([[User talk:Dude6789|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Dude6789|contribs]]) 16:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
+{{anglican-stub}}
-== Climate edits ==
-The last few days have been notable for a flurry of edits and reverts to the climate section. Can someone explain what was wrong with the 00:57, 2007 February 10 version, please? It uses the words "mild [[climate|temperate marine]] climate", rather than "somewhat warm, mild [[Mediterranean climate]]" to describe the climate of Seattle. If other similar inaccuracies have been introduced, it might be best to revert to that earlier version. [[User:Wsiegmund|Walter Siegmund]] [[User_talk:Wsiegmund|(talk)]] 16:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
-:I believe the best answer to your question can be found at [[Talk:Mediterranean climate]]. As far as what's going on here, [[User:GS121389]], aka [[User:140.142.183.54]], [[User:140.142.182.153]], [[User:140.142.182.168]], etc. seems to have an interest in the article saying Seattle has a Mediterranean climate with certain averages. As far as what is wrong with temperate marine climate.. Nothing that I can tell. I wouldn't call Seattle's weather Mediterranean, but my interest in climate is the weather report in the morning, so I'm no expert. --[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] 20:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
-::I just added a couple sentences to the climate section that I hope will suffice. Terms mediterranean are sometimes used and there are decent references for it, but I think the term tends to be used in a broader sense than usual, meaning there is a wet winter and a normal summer "drought", which is a characteristic of mediterranean climate as I understand it.  But if you are talking about temperatures, Seattle is hardly mediterranean! Still, the term is used, so I figure it can be used here, with a little disclaimer/explaination.  I myself like "marine west coast", but, being a rather rare climate, it may not be common knowledge that a summer drought is normal.  Quite the contrast to the "ever rainy" stereotype that ought to be mentioned. After all, in the summer in Seattle, the grass turns dry, brown, and dormant, as in California. This doesn't happen in the east of the US. [[User:Pfly|Pfly]] 10:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
-:::oops, I should say I added it to the [[Washington]] page's climate section, not the Seattle page. [[User:Pfly|Pfly]] 10:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
-::::Thank you for the explanation of the dispute. It seems to me that it comes down to the question of what source should be used for climate data. In my opinion, the best climate data, in the sense of [[WP:RS]], is the [[National Weather Service]]. I am dubious of the quality and provenance of sources like the Weather Channel, for example. The Seattle Tacoma International Airport Weather Service Contract Meteorological Office lists averages spanning 75 years from 1931 to 2006. I suggest that this source be used for the article. I argue that Seatac readings are regularly reported by local news media as representative of conditions in Seattle. Moreover, they should not be very different from any other local data of comparable quality and duration.[http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliRECtM.pl?wa7473]
-::::Regarding climate, I find sources for both [[Mediterranean climate|Csb]] and [[Oceanic climate|Cfb]] classifications.[http://koeppen-geiger.vu-wien.ac.at/pics/kottek_et_al_2006.gif][http://www3.shastacollege.edu/dscollon/images/Maps-Images/world_climate_map.jpg] My suggestion is to report that Seattle's climate has been classified both Csb and Cfb. July and August average high temperatures are only a bit above the 22 C that I saw a the cutoff for Csb. Those same months average a total of 46 mm of rain and are dry by comparison with the rest of the year but not as dry as prototypical examples of Csb climates. [[User:Wsiegmund|Walter Siegmund]] [[User_talk:Wsiegmund|(talk)]] 05:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
-:::::If there are reliable sources saying both, then I don't see why both can't/shouldn't be recorded in the article as being Csb and/or Cfb. --[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] 20:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
-== Page protection? ==
-Why is this page protected?  Is Seattle a particularly controversial city?--[[User:Margareta|Margareta]] 21:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
-:Oh wait, it's not.  I was able to edit.  It looks like the tag just didn't get removed.  I'll do it...--[[User:Margareta|Margareta]] 21:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
-::Ok, it's semi-protected, which I discovered when I was about to remove the tag.  I've changed the tag to accurately reflect this.  Still, I'm surious about the protection.--[[User:Margareta|Margareta]] 21:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
-:::We had an anon with a dynamic IP address that was defending a preferred version of the climate section so the sprot was requested. The protection is for 3 days, but if you'd like to shorten it, you're more than welcome to head on over to [[WP:RFP]] and request that it be unprotected. --[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] 22:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
-== Removed map ==
-Over two years old and never completed--with out-of-date references like [[Seahawks Stadium]]. Posted requests for updating here and on the main Map Help Wanted page a while back, but never got any takers. I don't have the time to do it, much as I would love to.... any ideas? --[[User:Lukobe|Lukobe]] 18:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
-*What kind of a map would be most appropriate?  [[User:Sherwelthlangley|Sherwelthlangley]] 23:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
-== Seattle Non-Profits ==
-I deleted this from the demographics section's sidebar on homelessness:
-Local [[non-profit organization]]s dealing with poverty and related issues include the Fremont Public Association, the Asian Counseling and Referral Service, Peace for the Streets by Kids from the Streets, and the Seattle Indian Center.
-Because, while this is all true, it is a very unbalaced portrait of social services in Seattle. PSKS does very little in the city compared to other social service agencies not mentioned. Because a more complete list would be prohibitive, I suggest it be ommited altogether.
-[[User:66.194.72.10|66.194.72.10]] 23:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
-Why not simply remove PSKS? The others are well respected. (Though the FPA has changed its name to something rather meaningless, I believe.) --[[User:Lukobe|Lukobe]] 06:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
-== Links to seattle.about.com ==
-Please tell me if I should be putting this somewhere else, but the talk page seems like the right place.  [[User:Billywatson|Billywatson]] is quite determined to have this page link to about.com's Seattle guide.  He is also the editor of said guide.
-After I initially removed his link spam from the main body of the article and commented on [[User_talk:Billywatson|his talk page]], I received an angry email from the same user, and found that one of my edits to [[Olympic_Sculpture_Park]] had been reverted by him.  I have been trying to resolve this dispute through email, in the course of which I added a link to his Seattle guide in the one place where I thought it appropriate.  [[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] removed that link and subsequently gave an explanation on [[User_talk:Eldang|my talk page]] (with which I was satisfied) of why it doesn't belong, but I notice Billywatson has been back since to put the link back in.
-I'm not interested in getting into an edit war with anyone, so I think I'll steer clear of changing anything myself, but if the general consensus agrees with Bobblehead's position then perhaps it should be made clear and acted on. [[User:Eldang|Eldang]] 04:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
-:The added information that Billywatson is the editor of that page would seem to preclude him from adding the link to the external links section due to a [[WP:COI#What is a conflict of interest?|conflict of interest]] which is definitely against [[WP:EL#Advertising and conflicts of interest|WP:EL]].  Aside from removing your link on the Olympic Sculpture Park, Billy Watson's edit history seems to only be adding links to about.com, so it is entirely possible we could start warning him about [[WP:SPAM]] violations.  That being said, I'm not strictly opposed to the link, I just don't see it as providing anything uniquely encyclopedic to the article that is not provided by the other links already included in the lengthy external links section. --[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] 19:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
-::30 minutes after you removed the link, a new user account was created ([[User:Sandylee253]]), and that account has done exactly one thing: re-add the about.com link 2 minutes after it was created. I have removed it, and requested that anyone who wants to include it make the case here. Regardless of their identity, this would be more productive than simply continuing to re-add the link each time it is removed. [[User:Eldang|Eldang]] 21:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
-== Overall averages ==
-What was wrong with adding overall averages to the climate section? Many other articles have it, and I don't see why it "brings down" the article. [[User:192.147.169.5|192.147.169.5]] 20:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
-:No idea. My guess is that [[User:Tellyaddict|Tellyaddict]] was a little overeager in reverting your change based on your IP addresses history of vandalism. Note that I'm not saying you're the one doing the vandalism, but your IP address is a shared IP address and has been used for that purpose in the past.  You may wish to consider creating an account As far as including the "Overall Average", why not call it the "Mean" and go with that? --[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] 20:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
-::Okay, I'll do that. [[User:777fortytwo|777fortytwo]] 21:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
-== Average temperatures, etc. ==
-An anonymous editor, [[User:192.147.169.5|192.147.169.5]] ([[User talk:192.147.169.5|talk]] <small>•</small> [[Special:Contributions/192.147.169.5|contribs]]), has substituted a table from [[The Weather Channel (United States)|The Weather Channel]] for the one from the Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC) with the edit summary, " I believe these averages are more commonly shown."[http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/monthly/USWA0395][http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliRECtM.pl?wa7473] I was not able to verify that The Weather Channel is a commonly used source of climate data on Wikipedia. Weatherbase seems to be used most often on other city articles, when a source is given, e.g., [[Los Angeles, California]],  [[San Francisco, California]],  [[Houston, Texas]] and [[Boston, Massachusetts]]. [http://www.weatherbase.com/weather/weather.php3?s=149427&refer=&units=us] Of about ten large US cities that I looked at, only [[Dallas, Texas]] cites The Weather Channel.
-The Western Regional Climate Center "is administered by the [[National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration]]".[http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/wrccmssn.html] It is hosted by the "Desert Research Institute (DRI) [which] is the nonprofit research campus of the Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE)"[http://www.dri.edu/Aboutdri/] As such, I would expect its staff to be mostly scientists and technical people. The other two source are for-profit corporations and accept advertising. The Weather Channel is a news organization that reports on weather related topics.
-The provenance of The Weather Channel data is not given. The provenance of the WRCC data is stated as 7/23/1931 to 10/31/2006 and is for the Seattle Tacoma International Airport Weather Service Contract Meteorological Office. This information as well as the additional decimal digit of temperature makes the WRCC data more useful, in my opinion. Weatherbase states "Years on Record" but not the date of the most recent update. The latitude and longitude of the location where the data were taken is stated.
-The policy [[WP:ATT]] states that "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible." I think all three sources probably comply with this rather vague standard. Another issue is whether republishing either The Weather Channel or Weatherbase data violates [[WP:COPY]]. My reading of [[Fair use]] is that it may, and that the WRCC source which is directly attributable to the federal government is more likely to be compliant. Of the sources I've investigated, I think that the WRCC is the most reliable source. [[User:Wsiegmund|Walter Siegmund]] [[User_talk:Wsiegmund|(talk)]] 20:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
-:Interesting question on the copyright violation... The weather channel's information is based on the same information as the WRCC's information so not sure if the weather channel can claim copyright, but then, I'm not anywhere near a layman on copyright laws. The weather channel is just using a smaller range for the average and the fact that the range isn't known is probably a reason not to use it. One thing that might work against using the 1931-2006 average from the WRCC is that global warming has increased the average temperature by a degree or so. The average is technically not from 1931 to 2006. There's a reading in July 1931, but every other monthly average is blank until June 1948.[http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?wa7473] Realistically, I don't really care which version we use, just seems like a lot of wasted cycles in the server to squabble over a difference of a few degrees. --[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] 21:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
-::There are a lot of different sources with different averages. I simply meant that I had seen the ones I posted the most. But I'm no expert, so I guess I'll just trust the other averages, but I'm going to try and add mean averages to them. [[User:777fortytwo|777fortytwo]] 22:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
-== Signficant Buildings Error ==
-The Columbia Center is the tallest building in Seattle and, with '''83 stories''', has a greater number of floors than any other building west of the Mississippi River.
-The Columbia Center has 76 stories so I am going to correct this.
-"In the 90's a genration of childeren were born into the cold world of Seattle, know as the children of the attle. These kids included jackie, jessica, austiin, ben, jen, kk, rian, gabi, cassie, leah, and bob."
-Who put this crap in?  I typically don't edit, just look for errors and vandalism.  Can someonetake care of this?
-== Seattlite or Seattleite? ==
-The article used both spellings before I changed it to Seattlite. Any linguists want to weigh in? <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/128.208.85.43|128.208.85.43]] ([[User talk:128.208.85.43|talk]]) 07:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
-: m-w.com has "Seattleite," [http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Seattleite] without "Seattlite" offered as an alternative. The city's website spells it "Seattleite" except for two places. And a Google comparison favors "Seattleite" to "Seattlite," 95,700 to 30,000. Unless someone has a compelling counterargument, I'd say we should go with "Seattleite." -- [[User:Scarequotes|Scarequotes]] 20:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
-:Neither.  "Seagros". [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] 04:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
-::Definitely "Seattleite." --[[User:Lukobe|Lukobe]] 06:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
-I have been using the Seattle article for some general research purposes all week (since 4/12/07) As of 4/18/07, the introductory paragraph has been horribly vandalized, and I don't know how to remove or edit content from that section. I truly hope that someone who is more saavy on this website will do the service of removing this ridiculously immature content. Thank-you.