Talk:Anson Chan/Archive 1

Various positions

Chan served in various positions before appointed the Chief Secretary. Perhaps we can add those to the succession box. — Insta ntnood 05:05, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

7/7/2006: Edits by 137.189.4.1 and re-revert by WangFeiHung

I removed edits by 137.189.4.1 only for it to be restored by WangFeiHung. [1] -- link shows my revert, followed by WangFeiHung's revert to 137.189.4.1

Discussions whether 137.189.4.1 = WangFeiHung aside, the statements amount to invalid and unjustified criticisms. For example, "The Airport authorities were made up mostly of British men - earning high salary from Hong Kong taxpayers." or "the locals had to pay taxes to London" was not backed up by any quantifiable facts - against Wikipedia's policy on verifiability.

I would assume such edits to be acts of vandalism and remove them and hope other editors support me in this.

Nevertheless, I moved the few valid points in 137.189.4.1's edit to a section of critisms and controversies as in articles about other public figures who may be controversial. Feel free to expand on it, but please quote sources.

--mintchocicecream 14:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough on the Airport comment. But other sections are valid.

You are vandalizing the page by reverting back to a pro-British NPOV version.

WFH

--by WangFeiHung ??:??, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

WFH = 137.189.4.1 = WangFeiHung, you don't seem aware of the fact that the British Colony of Hong Kong did not -- ever -- pay taxes to the United Kingdom. --by DOR 20 Nov 2007

Please refer to Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:NPOV to understand what is acceptable in Wikipedia. Or refer to other profiles of famous people. I have added a NPOV tag here. --mintchocicecream 06:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I ask all users to please revert all edits made by WFH, regardless of its contents, on sight. WFH has proven himself to be a Communist extremist who cannot conform to the NPOV rules of Wikipedia. I will personally revert anything revised by him myself if no one backs me on this.Arbiteroftruth 05:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you think everyone who disagree with your anti-Chinese racist NAZI viewpoint is a Communist, then there must 6 BILLIONS Communists in this world. How is "pro-democracy" NPOV?????

WFW

WFH, we are not Nazis for what we wrote on this page. They are all backed by facts. Perhaps you should take a look it the real history of Nazism. I am sure you, WFH, are in a minority of one in the world when it comes to this matter.

Ignorance is not bliss on Wikipedia. Save your schtick for somewhere else. I emphasize that any edits you make to this page, regardless of the quality or its NPOV-ness, will be reverted by me and whoever will support me on this endeavour. I will do this alone if no one supports me. I will ensure that none of your extremist, POV, Communist edits, WFH, will see the light of day here on Wikipedia. Arbiteroftruth 01:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbiteroftruth, you seem to have a bias against communism. Is that proper here? --by DOR 20 Nov 2007

NPOV dispute

WangFeiHung's attack on Anson Chan belong in a criticism and controversies section. I moved them to such a section only for the user to revert my edit. I am not entering an edit war - but would like other editors to take a look.

For example:

"dictatorial colonial rule" -- that doesn't seem vey NPOV to me at all
"criticism of Chan by pro-Chinese figures" -- pro-Chinese, or pro-Beijing? Chan is Chinese herself!
""Iron Lady" Chan, deputy under Tung and the last uneleted and London appointed British Governor" -- spelling mistake aside, both the British and PRC administration do not let people elect their own leaders...
"But she never spoke out against the British occupation of Hong Kong and its dictatorial colonial rule where the local citizens could not elect the governor, hold high paying top government jobs, and were forced to pay high taxes to London. Her views now fit more with the pro-British and pro-colonial crowd in Hong Kong." -- unsourced and unjustified (comment added by Arbiteroftruth: Hong Kong never paid a dime to London or Beijing. Hong Kong tax dollars stays in Hong Kong. Always have been)

I think WFH's edits are entirely laughable and requires a look.

--mintchocicecream 06:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is "pro-democracy" NPOV? There is nothing in her that is pro-democracy during the British occupation.

She never spoken against the British occupation and brutality. Show me ONE (1) souce that claim she did. She did NOT.

Master Hung Fei Hung

That statement only proves your extreme leftist bias. Your Maoist tendencies are products of propaganda, not facts. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a North Korean propaganda website. Please stop your POV edits. I will, once again, emphasize that I will revert all of your edits, HFH and associates, regardless of whether it is fact or propaganda. Arbiteroftruth 02:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

Please see BLP. Criticism of living people in the bios should be handled sensitively. Also it is better if it woven into the text rather than in a separate section. The communist and non or anti-communist views on these matters are all valid and should be included (se NPOV), provided they are verified. It is not the wiki editor's job to reach a synthesised position of truth: that is original research. It is the editor's job to show the different positions on the truth adopted by relevant parties. Obviously the Communist view is an important one and highly relevant, so should be represented. Against this should be set other views. The reader will then have a balanced overview on the issues, and be able to make up their own mind. It is not the editor's job to judge whether e.g. a politician's views are NPOV. That is a common mistaken interpretation of NPOV. It is the wiki editor's job to take a NPOV and properly represent leading participants in an event, even if those participants appear to have POV agendas. Tyrenius 00:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I am happy if the information was verified and sourced. However, the edits were unsourced and despite repeatedly asking the WangFeiHung (and variants) to source his edits, this wasn't fixed. Thus, I felt it clearly falls under unsourced criticism and was appropriately removed. --mintchocicecream 07:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK then. As long as no one is trying to censor a view because they don't agree with it. By the way, disputed edits should not be called vandalism, if the editor is acting in good faith. Remember AGF. Tyrenius 19:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User disputes - warning!

A complaint has been made about the nature of disputes on this article. This warning does not imply any particular blame, but is a reminder of proper conduct.

Personal attacks are unacceptable. A personal attack is saying something negative about another person. See NPA if you want further clarification. If you find yourself writing the word "you", be very careful what you follow it up with. Deal with facts and issues, not someone's personal motivations. Remember to assume good faith.

Continued insertion into the article, or arguing on the talk page, of statements or opinions without verification will be regarded as disruption. Non-negotiable policies are VERIFY, NPOV and NOR. Read them and stick to them.

If there are suspected sockpuppets, then study SOCK and take the appropriate steps. Do not make accusations directly to or about the individual on your, their or the article talk page. Collect hard evidence. You may wish to report on Suspected sock puppets.

If you experience a problem or think another editor is violating policy, report it to me with the diff. To record a diff, find the edit in the edit history and copy the URL at the top of the page with a square bracket either end. To get this[2], cite this:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tyrenius&diff=63910624&oldid=63910146]

Violation after this warning is likely to result in an immediate block.

Tyrenius 23:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nationality

Is Anson Chan still a British citizen or BNO passport holder? BN(O) 10:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

poorly written

there are tons of grammatical mistakes in there. plus, the trivia stuff aren't really that trivial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larryau (talk • contribs) 12:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is "On Sang" part of her name on official documents? Heimm Old 20:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]