Talk:Republic of China presidential election, 2008

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] KMT Party Symbol used instead of the Republic of China flag in article

I don't know why or who did it, but the Republic of China Flag should be used to represent the Republic of China, not the KMT party symbol. Will someone fix this? --24.193.80.232 00:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't like it either, but it's actually the ROC emblem. Didn't you know that ROC was based on KMT?--Jerry 00:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, in some ways. Generally speaking, if it was not for the KMT, the RoC would have never existed. Also, about the symbol, it's called an emblem or jack. --Liu Tao 21:02, 06 March 2008 (UTC)
Flag =/= Emblem of party, they are slightly different Sgt Simpson (talk) 16:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prologue

Though there is some interesting info here, it is way too speculative to say what the major issues are going to be in an election over two years away. No one could have predicted for example that recent elections would have centered around scandals of the administration, since they were only recently discovered!

The other ridiculous thing about this article is that if we were to do some prediction in an encyclopedia, the PFP _mostly likely_ won't even exist by 2008. This is really way too speculative of an article.

I agree, this article is too speculative. Wenzi 21:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Meh, the article about the next US election was here already last year, so I don't see why there shouldn't be an article about a 2008 election in 2007. --Sumple (Talk) 23:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 第十二任中華民國(台灣)總統副總統選舉

The official style is 第十二任中華民國總統副總統選舉, there's no need to add 台灣 to the title. Huangj2 01:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] extrapolation

year blue green
1996 78.9 % 21.1 %
2000 60.7 % 39.3 %
2004 50.1 % 49.9 %
2008

– Kaihsu 16:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You reversed the 2004 percentages ludahai 魯大海 14:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:New Party (Taiwan).png

Image:New Party (Taiwan).png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DPP pairing name

The DPP has announced the changing of the pairing name from Hsieh-Su (謝蘇配) to Chong-Cheng (長昌配) (please correct my spelling). The reason for the change was because the character "Su" sounds like the word "lose (輸)" in mandarin. I have edited the article, but please correct my spelling. Thanks.  Dooga  Talk 19:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: DPP Pairing Name

With regards to changing "Hsieh-Su" to "Chang-Chang", I feel it unnecessary as it is an English article. The names of the election tickets simply articulate the 2 candidates' English last names, and since the article is in English, the Chinese homophonic superstitions of having Su Tseng-Chang's last name sound like the character for "to lose" should not apply. Rather, it should probably be added to any "Trivia" sections as it is an interesting point to have the Chinese name of the ticket changed because of superstition. Clygeric 21:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It cheapens and trivilises the article - removed. John Smith's 12:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion Polling

umm...about the opinion polling section...the polls should be listed from most recent to the earliest. nat.utoronto 15:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent POV additions

Finally a recent issue has surfaced regarding the integrity and crisis management capabilities of Ma Ying-jeuo. In January 2008, the DPP accused candidate Ma Ying-Jeou of having a United States green card. Initially, Ma responded by saying that no one in his family has a green card, but later recanted to state that he had had a green as a student, that his wife also had had a green card, and that one of his daughters is a native-born US citizen. Ma Ying-jeuo, however, believes that his green card had expired when he applied for a non-immigrant visa, which is actually incorrect under Title X of the United States Code. Many in Taiwan have pointed to this incorrect interpretation of law as evidence that Ma was never a real student of law but instead spent his days in the US spying on other Taiwanese students. Ma also produced an unverified page of a passport which showed that he had not gone to the United States for over 1-year between 1992 and 1994, which he further claims validates his claim that his green card expired. However, again Ma Ying-jeuo's legal interpretation has again been called into doubt since absence from the United States for over 1-year only gives the US government the right to revoke a green card, but does not automatically revoke a green card. Moreover, Ma Ying-jeuo has failed to produced his complete passport and instead is relying on a photocopy of a passport - not necessarily his - to justify his claims. The issue is currently in dispute and has led to a general decline in Ma's opinion polls with respect to his integrity and his handling of a crisis situation. In fact, many in Taiwan have joked that the reason Ma doesn't have a green card is because he has already surrendered it when he received his US naturalization certificate when he became a US citizen.
text added by ShihRyanJ (talk · contribs) on 09:23, February 6, 2008 (UTC)

I have remove the above text from the article as it is completely unsourced and pov. nat.utoronto 15:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I have replaced it with:

A recent issue that has been brought into the presidential campaign is the questioning of Ma Ying-jeou's loyalty to the Republic of China and to the people of Taiwan by his opponent Frank Hsieh and the Democratic Progressive Party legislators[1][2]. Hsieh stated that Ma would not have become former President Chiang Ching-kuo's English secretary in 1977 if Chiang had known that Ma was in possession of a green card and his status as a US permanent resident[2]. Ma Ying-jeou responded by stated that he had not violated any law by possessing a US green card and that he never intended to hide the fact he was once a US permanent resident. He also maintained that possession of a green card, as well as have the status as a US permanent resident was not against any government regulations at the time[1]. Ma also stated that his green card was automatically invalid when he applied for a US visa at the American Institute in Taiwan in 1985[2]. Hsieh's questioning of Ma Ying-jeou's loyalty to the Republic of China and to the people of Taiwan continued when he stated that several of Ma's family members carried US passports and citizenship, including Ma's US born daughter[2]. Ma's response was that

"[My family members] have US passports, but they love Taiwan very much. Obtaining a green card has nothing to do with the issue of loyalty. It is only a way to live or travel in the US[2]"

— "DPP continues attack on Ma Ying-jeou: Green With Envy?" Taipei Times (Thursday, January 31, 2008)

According to a TVBS political opinion conducted after Hsieh released his statement statement questioning Ma Ying-jeou's loyalty, the Ma-Siew ticket dropped 3 percentage points to 53% support, while the Hsieh-Su ticket remained at 26%[1]. A later TVBS political opinion poll, released two day after the poll conducted after Hsieh released his statement statement questioning Ma Ying-jeou's loyalty, showed that the Ma-Siew ticket regained its previous position at 56%, while the Hsieh-Su ticket gained 4 percentage points to reach 30%[3].

References
  1. ^ a b c Ma 'never intended' to hide green card — China Post (Thursday, January 31, 2008)
  2. ^ a b c d e DPP continues attack on Ma Ying-jeou: Green With Envy? — Taipei Times (Thursday, January 31, 2008)
  3. ^ TVBS political opinion released on January 31, 2008

text added by nat.utoronto on 17:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I've sourced it with both verifiable and reliable Pan-blue and Pan-Green news sources. nat.utoronto 17:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Democratic Progressive Party of Taiwan flag.svg

Image:Democratic Progressive Party of Taiwan flag.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Simplifed Chinese on Header

I don't see the point of putting simplified Chinese as part of the article. Why not put Russian for that matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinniereno (talk • contribs) 01:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] South News Comment

I don't see where we are getting the notion that "And South News is on the extreme end of Pan-Green." This sounds opinionated and potentially, and unnecessarily, damaging. Citation should be needed to reintroduce this comment to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerui (talk • contribs) 23:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If you read Chinese, you'll find the evidence self-explanatory. The current headline says "蕭萬長說大謊、湮滅證據‧蕭萬長應退選" = "Vincent Siew said big lie, destroyed evidence. Siew should withdraw from the election". Another article "馬英九持有永久居留綠卡之惡毒大隱騙" = "A poisonous lie of Ma holding permanent residency green-card". --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 06:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not so sure what makes them "extreme" rather than "Pan-Green"...if you are going to pander to this end and consider the slant of Green extreme, then the Pan-Blue China Times should be considered on the "extreme" end of Pan-Blue. - Kerui
I thought it's blatantly obvious. The use of "big lie" and "poisonous" makes it very biased. You can't find such use in China Times or UDN. But I'm not going to hold on to this indefinitely. I'm ok with the current version. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 11:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Kerui - smacks of original research. Treat all the polls the same and don't try to qualify them. John Smith's (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with the principle. While polls and newspapers in general should not be labelled according to their political views, there are exceptions. Not many would trust Xinhua to report on Tibet accurately, and the political biases of South News and China Times are even more apparent. Herunar (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MOS

Please use "Republic of China" and "Republic of China (Taiwan)", rather than "Taiwan (Republic of China)". At the moment the MOS says we use the first two where appropriate. John Smith's (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Section on foul language

Is the section of "Foul language incident" really necessary? Chuang is not even a member of the DPP. I don't see any significance in the incident.--Jerrch 19:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Who cares whether Chuang is not a member. He supports Hsieh and was standing in for him. That impacted the election. It was a decisive factor. Beautiful Formosa (talk) 23:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, this election is between the DPP and the KMT, so Chuang's incident has no significance on the election. Second of all, the whole section is not cited with verifiable sources, and violates WP:NOR.--Jerrch 23:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
It caused an uproar even in the DPP circles. The DPP even apologized to Ma for Chuang. Beautiful Formosa (talk) 03:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
uh, are you kidding? It's one of the biggest incidents during the election. Blueshirts (talk) 13:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Chuang was quite a character on media, denouncing Ma as a cowardly chicken willing to sell Taiwan to China. He's only a deputy secretary for the Department of Education, which is part of the Chen administration, if it is worth any significance. Imagine an education officer's misconduct using foul language on TV! Is that good example for Taiwan kids? I ought to apply English subtitles to YouTube videos to the community sees just how offensive his speech was. :-) To put things in perspective, imagine an US Secretary using "motherfucker" on television...Petershen1984 (talk) 14:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hsieh office incident

There's a bit of problem with the following part of this section:

Four pan-blue legislators entered the Hsieh election headquarters without permission, on the pretext that they were there to investigate the claim that the government provided them office space for free. Hsieh's supporters surrounded them and fighting broke out. The pan-green called it an illegal search and said the pan-blue camp will carry out further similar actions if they controlled both the executive and legislature.
{{{source}}}

The office building was not owned by government, it was owned by a bank, I think. I don't remember exactly, but what had happened was that the DPP's were using an extra floor that they didn't rent for their office. The legislators along with the "bank manager" came to ask for the payment. Heck they never even reached the door of office, and were only there for a minute before they just went back down the elevator. Even when the legislators tried to leave, some DPP members just blocked the elevator door, not allowing them to, until like more DPP members began crowding outside the office building and began ruffing stuff up. Look, they recorded everything that happened in and out the office building, just go to youtube and you'll see that the DPP are exagerating things and making some of the stuff up like, "kicking at the door" or something like that.

The basic problem I have with this part is the way it is worded and described, it sounds like the KMT are trying to break in or something, but they never even did anything. I'm wondering if someone can deal with it.

--Liu Tao 8:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The KMT legislators did try to break in, and the YouTube videos show that too. Also, there wasn't any extra floor either.--Jerrch 00:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The KMT legislators never even did touch the office door. They got out of the elevator, and was blocked out of the office for 1 minute, and then they just left. They didn't even make a big fuss about it, they just left. It was the DPP who were making a big fuss, yelling and blocking the legislators' way, blocking the elevator not letting them down, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liu Tao (talk • contribs) 05:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The KMT legislators intended to kick up a fuss about what they saw as discrepancies in the rental arrangements. However, the DPP were were organised enough to check them in the lobby, and then stop them from entering the offices.
They did not "break in", though perhaps their intention was to enter the offices without invitation. The section can do with some improvement in expression. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PRC Response

Someone is implying that ROC and PRC are not two different countries. Is that NPOV at all?--Jerrch 01:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

"Someone" is not taking a stance either way. "International" implies they are different countries, which is not NPOV. It is generally accepted, by such diverse range of figures as Chen Shui-bien, Lee Teng-hui, the KMT, the PRC, and the international community -- that while the PRC and the ROC are different and separate political entities, they are not in a state-to-state international relationship.

If you feel the current set up implies they are the same country, how about "PRC responses" and then "Responses from other governments"? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

They are different countries for sure. I could go with your proposal only if both of those sections go under International reactions.--Jerrch 02:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I cite the following official sources as evidence that most countries and governments do not view the PRC and ROC as "different countries:
Joint Communique of the United States of America and the People's Republic of China: "The U.S. side declared: The United States ac- knowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States Govern- ment does not challenge that position. It reaffirms its interest in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves."
European Parliament: "On Taiwan, the EU pursues a 'one China' policy, recognising the Government of the PRC as the sole legal government of China."
The One-China Principle and the Taiwan Issue, Taiwan Affairs Office and the Information Office of the State Council
This news report talks about (now President-elect) Ma Ying-jeou's defence in the election debates of the 1992 consensus, saying that it undoubtedly exists even if the DPP disagreed with it.
Most importantly, I cite this official statement from the Mainland Affairs Council of the Republic of China, which defines the relations between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait as: "Since 1949, both sides of the Taiwan Strait have been governed as separate entities" (emphasis added).
No official source, whether in Taiwan, mainland China or elsewhere, sees the two sides as "separate countries". I have no doubt you can dig up sources that say that they are two separate countries (feel free to do so).
However, to present mainland China and Taiwan as separate "countries" as you insist on doing by listing the PRC as "international" is clearly non-NPOV. My compromise offer is already on the table. Please engage. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Sure, sure. Provide even more sources that "proves" that Taiwan is part of China. But how are you going to prove that the ROC and the PRC are under one single entity, or that they aren't two independent sovereign states? If they are only two political entities, are you saying that neither of them are nations/states/countries?--Jerrch 22:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Taiwan is a part of China. China being the Republic of China. I have evidence. See the Taiwan Provincial Government Website. If Taiwan was a sovereign country, why is there a Provincial Government? Rather, Taiwan is still administered as a Province of the Republic of China. Beautiful Formosa (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I would think that the current setup with the PRC being in its own section other than "domestic" or "international" would be a fair compromise. Little would I know that the section titles common in other articles on current affairs would evoke such tense reactions.--Huaiwei (talk) 04:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that if we put it under "domestic," it would simply be inaccurate rather than running into NPOV issues, but international simply means that there are two separate nations and the ROC and the PRC are obviously two sovereign states.--Jerrch 22:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
"Simply"? "Obviously"? "sovereign"??? Who died and made you professor of international law? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I've put up sources showing one point of view. All you have are words like "obviously" for the other side. And you expect the article to swing to your POV view?
Putting PRC as neither domestic nor international is largely NPOV. If anything, it panders slightly to the views of people like Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bien. But it's probably the best we can get with the limited tools of language we have. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
What Jerrch said is true - they are, by all definition, two sovereign states, although de jure they are commonly recognized as one country. I see no problem with Jerrch's comment - it's very brief and straight to the point and it offers a good discussion, so please cool off and stop pointing fingers at the well-intentioned user. I agree that putting the PRC into a different section could easily satisfy both points of view, but here I want to raise another question - is it suitable for there to be a section for "domestic reaction" beside the PRC reactions and other reactions? It seems a bit silly - they are participants of the contest and are merely summing up their victories or losses - it isn't a reaction, but part of the result. I would suggest putting the section into the results section, as is common in other election articles on Wikipedia. Herunar (talk) 07:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
No they are not. They are not two "sovereign states" by almost all definitions at international law. The orthodox view at international law is that in 1949, the People's Republic of China succeeded the Republic of China, via succession of states, to the sovereignty of China. Neither the PRC nor the ROC has ever declared that the single sovereignty of China was ever split into two at any point. I am mindful that other people hold unorthodox views on the subject, which is why I am not pushing that "the Republic of China" does not exist - which is what international law says on the point. Putting the PRC outside both "domestic" and "international" was a fair compromise given this.
Jerrch is confident in his understanding of the international law - a misplaced confidence. Looking up the topic in any international law textbook, or indeed, any judgment of a superior court in a common law system or any international court, will show you otherwise.
It is pointless arguments with over-confident editors like this that makes me attracted to the ideas of Citizendium, despite all the shortcomings of that idea. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

how about just list all of them under reactions, with Taiwan first, then PRC, then all other countries. Blueshirts (talk) 07:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comment about previous negative reaction

The statement [1] I removed was complete nonsense. China did react negatively in the past, but that's because the DPP won. As it is even written in the article, China is expected to be pleased with the results - why would she respond negatively? These are completely opposite situations. The source cited was about what happened in 2004 - no relations with the current situation, so it also fails OR. Herunar (talk) 07:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It appears that you have problems understanding the real situation here. China views the Taiwan elections, or just about any situation in Taiwan, as a "domestic affair". They criticised the US in 2004 for their congratulatory message as being an interference in China's internal business as clearly stated in the source. That the Chinese wish for a KMT victory by no means shifts this position. In fact, highlighting that the Chinese criticised the US in 2004, and did not do so (so far) this time round also indirectly suggests something about the Chinese view of the election result. This is, however, not directly stated in the article, thus there is no violation of WP:OR. It is for the reader to analysis the facts for themselves.--Huaiwei (talk) 08:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I can see your logic, but I agree with Herunar that the ref cited does not say anything about 2008. Drawing a connection between 2004 - when the DPP was elected - and 2008 - when the KMT is elected - is WP:OR. Ideally, a reference is needed that draws this very connection. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
That's my point. Drawing a connection between 2004 and 2008 is OR. Do the Singaporean government believe that sending a message this time will please instead of provoke China? We don't know. You may be right - China may see ANY congratulatory message as interference - but then the opposite might just as well be true, that China wouldn't care about such interference if KMT wins. We don't know, and there is nothing in that source that talks about this. Your sentence was pure OR and speculation - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for asking questions to stimulate the readers' thinking. I'll remove again per this and the above comment. Herunar (talk) 12:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese name

My view is that a Chinese name, incomplete (in traditional only, contrary to Wikipedia MOS to use both traditional and simplified), descriptive (the entire name is descriptive, being trivially translatable between the Chinese and English names with no possibility for confusion), and without romanisation is useless.

I have re-formatted the name complete with both traditional and simplified scripts, and romanised, via the Template:Chinese template. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

What a worthless addition. Simplified Chinese has no businuess here, and neither does Wade-Giles. Sgt Simpson (talk) 13:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

For the MoS guidance that Chinese names should always be presented in dual script form, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (use of Chinese language)#Introductory sentence. If you have an issue with that, please raise it on the relevant talk page. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I seriously hate to see the intro sentence immediately broken up by a long line of Chinese characters and pinyin which nobody gives a crap about. Can those things be moved somewhere else? Blueshirts (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I haven't read the MoS carefully, but I was under the impression that if the article in question is about subjects that are covered in traditional Chinese (e.g. ancient history and articles about places where simplified chinese characters are not used, i.e. Taiwan and Hong Kong), it is not necessary to match all traditional characters with simplified characters? This is the English Wikipedia, meant for English users - if the subject is about, say, Cao Cao, who died two millenia before simplified chinese was introduced, why would english readers care about how his name is written in simplified chinese? If this is what MoS demands, it doesn't make sense anyway. Herunar (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
You are assuming everyone can read traditional Chinese - which they can't. Like it or not, simplified Chinese and Hanyu Pinyin is becoming the default international standard for Chinese.
I put the names in a box somewhere, not in the lead sentence. it seems to have been deleted. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. the Republic of China (which this article pertains to) still uses Traditional Chinese and does not recognize Simplified Chinese. Therefore, we should respect the ROC government's wishes and use Traditional. This isn't an article about the PRC. It doesn't matter what the world is doing. This is for the ROC only, not for the world. Just like Hong Kong, they still use and recognize Traditional. Beautiful Formosa (talk) 02:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
That's not the point. This article is targeting the world. Users of Wikipedia, if they wish to chase up primary-language information on the topic, will want to be able to use the Chinese name - and Simplified is just as important for this purpose as traditional. As is pinyin, in case they want to know how to read the characters.
If there's no consensus for removing the language information altogether, I'll add the box back. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
It's there in the footnote section. Please don't add it back in the intro sentence, it's unwieldy and extremely ugly. Blueshirts (talk) 06:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
We don't care if everyone can read traditional Chinese. This is the English Wikipedia, not the Chinese Wikipedia. Why don't we put it in Russian, German and Polish for that matter? Readers only want a name that is accurate and true to its origins - if they want to read Chinese, it's all there in the Chinese Wikipedia.Herunar (talk) 07:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Didn't notice it was in the footnotes. My original view, mind you, was that it shouldn't be in this article at all, and that's still my preference. But footnote is good. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ma denying he ever had a green card.

Can someone post a citation to this other than the Taipei Times? (i.e. I'd like a link to a news article in which Ma denies he ever had a green card.)

Roadrunner (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I think he never denied he had a green card. He denied that his green card is still valid. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
An anti-Ma video on YouTube said that he first denied he had a green card, then denied that it was valid. Not sure how much truth is there in that. Herunar (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)