Talk:Donald Tsang

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.
Hong Kong Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Hong Kong, a project to coordinate efforts in improving all Hong Kong-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Hong Kong-related articles, you are invited to join this project!
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.
Hong Kong To-do:
edit purge
  • Clean up all MTR station pages. They are literally all over the place. Two model pages are Tsing Yi Station and Sheung Shui Station. They each describe a feature special to the station, Station layout, exit, and connections, as well as neighbouring stations and the station "box".
    • We will also need plenty of updated pictures (e.g. removing all KCR-related images except those on the KCR article). Check that all pages have basically the same language structure as Tsing Yi Station and Sheung Shui Station. Links to location maps are good too. (Should also perform these checks on Chinese Wikipedia.)
  • Clean-up pages that link with TVB, especially its series pages.
Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is supported by the Christianity in China work group. See also Portal:Christianity in China.

(with unknown importance)
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] Non-neutral POV sneaked in

I removed the quotations around the word "interpretation" under the section "Acting Chief Executive." An interpretation by the Standing Committee of the NPC is an interpretation, and by putting it in quotation the editor is passing value judgment on it, indicating that it really isn't an interpretation but something else. That violates wikipedia's policy of neutrality, so unless someone could provide citation to it, no quotation mark should be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hker1997 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Title

Is he entitled to the title of 'sir'? I remember the media in 1997 did have that label under his name. Did he lose it after the handover? --Jiang

Some press from the UK are still using the prenominal title. — Instantnood 10:47 Mar 3 2005 (UTC)

When he got it, HK was still part of Britain, so it wasnt honorary. But now he's no longer a british citizen. does he lose the title? i think so... --Jiang 22:17, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't know. But the UK press are calling him in this way. — Instantnood 10:46 Mar 4 2005 (UTC)

BBC does not, at least--Jiang 10:32, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 Mr Tsang served under several British governors and was made a
Knight of the British Empire just before the handover, although
he does not use the title.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4335331.stm

Ming Pao News (2005-03-13) quotes Donald Tsang as saying that he himself only uses the GBM title on his name cards:

   至於代表前朝港英身分的英國爵士勳銜，曾蔭權昨日在傳媒簡報會上說，
 英國政府頒勳銜給他，是肯定他在1997年前30多年從事公職，當中不涉及
 效忠的問題，同樣的勳銜亦曾頒發給其他國家的政要，例如李光耀，也沒
 有效忠的問題。
   他表示，爵士勳銜他已接受了，也說了多謝，會保留，但名片上不會用，
 正如他有3個名譽博士銜頭，名片上也沒有，只印上了大紫荊勳章，因為
 這較為切合他政務司長的身分。

At the very least, this means he doesn't put Sir in front of his name himself. -- KittySaturn 02:43, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

Actually can non-British citizens use Sir as a title? — Instantnood 08:17, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, sort of. "Sir" title can only be used for persons in countries which recognizes the Queen as the head of state. (i.e. thus, Canada, New Zealand and I think Australia citizens can use Sir as titie too) SYSS Mouse 18:33, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Correct, however by convention Canadian citizens are no longer bestowed such honours (at the request of the Canadian government).BaseTurnComplete 20:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
A substantive knighthood is not lost if the holder subsequently ceases to be a British national. JAJ 19:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, the article on declined British honours says that he is still a knight eligible to use the title Sir, he just opts not to use it. That would be consistent with the above.BaseTurnComplete 20:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Backbone?

Following comment by 71.0.234.71 [1] was removed from the article:

He is also known as the Asian Neville Chamberlain. Why? Here is his 
quote regarding Tiannenmen Square.
"I had shared Hong Kong people's passion and impetus when the June 
4 incident happened. But after 16 years, I've seen our country's 
impressive economic and social development," Tsang said. "My feelings 
have become calmer."
Tsang is truly the most co-opted, dishonorable politician on the Asian 
continent. We wish he had a backbone.

Some rewriting would be necessary. — Instantnood 09:59, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Basically he is a good bloke but don't expect him to perform magic. After all he was just a high school graduate and worked his way to the top by hard-working.

[edit] Pronunciation

Besides Pinyin, someone should input the Jyutping since this is an article about a Hong Kong politician. --WongFeiHung 14:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British citizenship

I have changed the comment "renounced British citizenship" to "lost British nationality". People in Hong Kong automatically lost British nationality (British Dependent Territories citizenship) on 1 July 1997. There was the option to register as a British National (Overseas) but this was voluntary. See British nationality law and Hong Kong The only way Mr Tsang would hhave had British citizenship is through specific links to the UK itself, or if he acquired it through the British Nationality Selection Scheme. JAJ 18:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


This article is already out of date Donald Tsang has been reelected as Chief Executive in 2007. 218.191.232.236 16:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too many boxes

I feel there is a clutter of boxes on the right side. Is there any way the content of thr cv infobox can be merged with the {{Infobox Officeholder}}? As most of the cv info is already in prose, I am sorely tempted to just delete it. Ohconfucius 15:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sir?

Do we have a reliable source on whether or not he is actually allowed the title of "Sir"? The source we have right now ([2]) says that the UK government has no policy on him using the title, which would seem to imply that he can still use it. But that source is also not very informative. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The knighthood is not honorary [and this is the correct British spelling]. What source do we need? See [3] [4] [5] [6] for media usage.
If we take out the "Sir" we also take out KBE - those go together and neither appears on his website. The opening should reflect proper usage (usually we put the full and complete name here), and the should reflect official usage ("the honourable" does not belong in the opening per policy)--Jiang (talk) 07:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
User:Ohconfucius believes that he can't use the title because he is no longer a British subject.[7] Actually I don't much care if the opening contains "Sir". But I thought since he himself does not use it as a title, maybe we should not have it in the opening. I would prefer we keep it in the infobox though.
Another thing that I want to bring up is the use of the <English name> <Romanised Chinese name> format for his name ("Donald Tsang Yam-Kuen"). Even his official English biography with the HK government refers to him only as "Donald Tsang" or "Mr. Donald Tsang".[8] I propose we do the same in the article, maybe with the exception of the infobox. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The convention seems to be to list the full and complete name (regardless of common usage) in the lead section while leaving styles and more common usage in the infobox. see Tony Blair
I'm sure Yam-Kuen is part of his legal name.--Jiang (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
That's fine. Not a big deal. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • "Only the two highest ranks entail admission into knighthood, an honour allowing the recipient to use the title 'Sir' (male) or 'Dame' (female) before their name, so long as that person is a national of a realm where the Queen is Head of State. If not, the recipient may use the honour as post-nominals but not the title before their name" This comes from Order of the British Empire and I believe is correct. Some could point to the ambiguity, as it is done in the article, that he was beknighted whilst still a British subject, but the fact is HM the Queen is no longer Head of State for Hong Kong. Furthermore, it has been pointed out in Parliamentary questions there may not be an impediment for him to use it, Donald himself does not use the title "Sir". So we should take out the "Sir", but the KBE can stay. The ambiguity in the article (ie that he is entitled to use it for life) is unsourced, and for the moment I am removing it as original research, pending references. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

See the media links above. There is no ambiguity here. What he uses on a daily basis is not relevant - Jimmy Carter does not go by James Earl Carter.--Jiang (talk) 05:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added some links to the article that clearly demonstrate this. It cannot be implied otherwise.--Jiang (talk) 05:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "it should not be deleted even if it is OR."

PLEASE!! Show me the guideline which says that, and I'll leave it alone. Ohconfucius (talk) 21:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

How is the text you deleted original research and why are you deleting it? Please justify all deletions.
We have templates to tag such things, if you want to make a claim and justify it: Template:Original research, Template:Or#Logic_for_usage. But given the articles I've linked from reputable sources and my deletion of the claim that the media has stopped using the title since 2000, I don't see how any OR remains.--Jiang (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I have a major issue with your assertion. Ohconfucius (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

What assertion? Please be more specific on what exactly is incongruent with the sources.--Jiang (talk) 22:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The assertion which is used as the subheading here, which you wrote as an edit summary. Ohconfucius (talk) 22:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That is irrelevant as there is no original research in the article, as no justification has been made that original research exists. So what specifically is not supported by the sources?--Jiang (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The assertion "it should not be deleted even if it is OR" is bullshit. Ohconfucius (talk) 22:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and nominate Template:Original research and Template:Or for deletion then since if any OR should be deleted on sight, then there is absolutely no use for those templates. And do you have evidence of original research or are we blowing hot air?--Jiang (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Please be rational. I am not suggesting anything of that sort. You are the one who made that assertion in the first place. Instead you could jolly well have said "this is not original research" in the edit summary, and there would be no stupid argument. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let's not bicker

Ok, can we at least agree that he is entitled to use "Sir" if he so choose to use it? Let's be clear on that first. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

i don't believe there is even an entitlement to it since Chinese citizens does not have such titles. We could call each other 'Sir' if we want to but it carry no official weight. so there should not be a 'Sir' there, as we don't see any reference to non UK knighting being addressed in such way, why should he be? it would be totally inconsistance and illogical. Akinkhoo (talk) 12:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Donald Tsang was knighted when he was still a British subject. This alone already allows him to use "Sir" for life. Although he later lost his British nationality, this absolutely does not affect or change the title conferred on him.
Other notable examples include Sir Sze-yuen Chung[9], Sir David Li[10], Sir TL Yang and etc. Both Sir Sze-yuen and Sir David were knighted when they still hold British nationality, but what they lost when they became members of the HKSAR Executive Council are their British nationalities, and not the right to use "Sir".
Sir TL Yang gave up his British citizenship in 1996 when he wanted to contest in the CE election. He even wrote a personal letter to HM the Queen at that time, declaring that he decided to give up his knighthood. Sir TL later lost to Tung Chee-Hwa in the election and was appointed a memeber of the HKSAR Executive Council. He eventually stepped down from the Council and wrote a letter to the Queen wanting to restore his knighthood. The tale ends here but actually, all these that he had done was totally unnecessary. That's because the title conferred is for life, his knighthood cannot cease to be existed by writing to the Queen.
And so far, the only way to lost the entitlement is to commit a criminal offence (e.g. fraud, murder, high treason and etc.). By committing a criminal offence, knighthood and any kinds of titles can be stripped off.
Actually, not only Hong Kong, in many former British colonies like Fiji and etc., people still retain both their titles and knighthoods after independence. It is entirely normal and we should not be confused by personal preference. --Clithering (talk) 14:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)