Jump to content

Talk:Ma Ying-jeou/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

This article is biased for the DPP

This article was obviously written by people who really hate Ma. There is too much exaggerated information on scandals and what not. Even though Ma was cleared two times by the courts. And he was chosen as President of the Republic of China. There is way too much negative data about him and some of it is pure BS and imagination too. Beautiful Formosa (talk) 04:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The very reason he won the election means that his actions should get special mention. Lots of politicians have detailed discussions of corruption allegations.
Also it doesn't help if you're not specific. Refer to actual text and suggest improvements. John Smith's (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Need an exact quote for Taiwan being a sovereign country

Taiwan a "sovereign country" [1 1]

Need an exact quote for this. In these sorts of theological debates, it matters very much if he mentioned the "Republic of China" somewhere in the sentence. The statements "Taiwan is sovereign" and "Taiwan is a sovereign country" are very different if you are familiar with the debate.

Roadrunner (talk) 19:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Japan Today - News - Taiwan presidential frontrunner calls island 'sovereign country'". www.japantoday.com. Retrieved 2008-03-19.

Hongkong/British Hongkong

When he was born, Hongkong was a British colony, shouldn't it be British Hong Kong? I made the edit a couple of times and got reverted. Why shouldn't it be British Hongkong? Speedboy Salesman (talk) 12:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It should be Hong Kong, British Empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.165.35 (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Which may go on to explain his name as in HK Cantonese his name is homophonic to "Ma, dog of the English". 86.178.230.146 (talk) 13:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Chinese Navy

Was Ma in the ROC navy? I have seen pictures of him in uniform. maybe it should be mentioned if he was in the navy? 86.161.106.151 (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

He was in the Marine Corp as Lieutenant and later promoted to Major as reserved officer. 220.131.224.55 (talk) 00:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

5 Do's and 5 No's

Under the View on Taiwan independence section of this article, there were mentioned of 5Do's and 5 No's. What were they? Could someone who knows the details please expand them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyl (talk • contribs) 18:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

NEED PROTECTION!!!

Looking at today's edit history, it looks like we need to protect this from anonymous IP edits! HkCaGu (talk) 05:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't202.132.6.251 (talk) 00:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Now that the semi-protection is in force, we can finally clean any unreverted vandalism up. HkCaGu (talk) 16:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Move proposal.

Why is this page not "Ying-jeou Ma?" According to Wikipedia guidelines, Chinese/Taiwanese names have to be named by the order of the last name, first name. Prowikipedians (talk) 05:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

We're there already, last name then first name! HkCaGu (talk) 05:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Does it matter which way HE signs his name? I think we should follow that...which would mean following the traditional Chinese word-order. --Dawud —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.165.204.218 (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent rallies against Ma Ying Jeou, and other bias

I noticed that for other Taiwanese politicians, major rallies made the news and in fact a lot of minor and major incidents are showed. But its a total clean slate for Ma. The recent news hasn't been up there, such as changing the 633 point or that 300,000 - 40,000 (depending on media, both should be cited) have protested against his policies in Taipei. A lot of emphasis over the dramatic drop of the stock market and the economic growth stall. Why is this major news excluded and not mentioned? --24.193.80.232 (talk) 05:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't heard of any big protests about Ma's policies yet. The most, of course comes from the DPP, which is of no surprise since they're still pissed that they lost the election. Hey, if you want to add stuff about these protests, go ahead, no one's to stop you, but don't say that people are being biased. It takes time for stuff on Wikipedia to get updated. Usually it's only behind by a few days, atmost-a month. The recent news is not on there because nobody placed it up on there, not that it's not allowed. There's a difference Liu Tao (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
It's been all over the news with no shortage of photographic proof (see Flickr, etc). It should definitely be mentioned 122.167.93.133 (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with 24.193.80.232.--Jerrch 19:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes it should be mentioned. It is something that happened.--pyl (talk) 05:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Possible Defamatory Statement?

Ma's last name is common among the Hui people, Chinese descendants from Muslim, Arab, or Persian merchants.

Someone inserted this statement even though its relevance is hard to establish. Apparently, the statement is true so I am wondering if this is just a veiled attempt to make a defamatory statement. Needless to say, I have removed the statement in the meantime. 122.105.145.124 (talk) 04:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Is Ma descended from the Hui people? If he's not then the statement is clearly irrelevant. If he is descended from Hui people, then it's a tougher question. I don't think there is anything defamatory about being descended from Muslim, Arab or Persian merchants. But is it interesting, noteworthy or important? Readin (talk) 04:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
'Ma' means 'horse' in Chinese, a surname common along with horseback nomads who assimilated into the Chinese society, so it might be possible that he is a descendant from those you speak of. But even if he is, it doesn't really matter, because those people assimilated a long time ago, generally speaking before or during the Han dynasty, (circa. 200 BC - 200 AD), so by now, it doesn't really matter who his ancestors were. Also, there's a chance that Ma is not even a descendent of these people, since the last name is very popular among the Chinese. Based on statistics, it's the 14th most Chinese common last name. As far as I know, I don't think Ma is Muslim, but I do know that he was born in Hong Kong and moved to Taiwan at the age of 1. Liu Tao (talk) 18:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree. This comment should (if at all) appear in a "Ma" article, not on the "Ma Ying-Jeou" article. I merely edited the poor writing that the contributor wrote with and I appreciate that this sentence was taken out. It is unencyclopedic material, at least, with regards to Ma Ying-Jeou. Clygeric (talk) 04:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
There is no reason whatsoever to suppose that Ma is a Hui. By way of analogy, there are many Jews named Goldsmith, but are we going to note this on every article about somebody named Goldsmith, regardless of whether they are Jewish? Remove. --Dawud —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.165.204.218 (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Ma's merger policy

Pyl reverted information about most Taiwanese preferring to maintain the status quo. As an explanation he wrote, the extra info can also be misleading as that is a Pan-green POV; saying "majority.." can suggest majority agree with their POV, but recent polls show govt has major support for their mainland policy. Earlier, in another revision, he wrote copyedit, npov "something most Taiwanese don't want" can give an impression that most Taiwanese want independence, but in fact, most Taiwanese prefer status quo

I agreed with his removing "something most Taiwanese don't want" isn't the best wording. Better would be to say directly what most Taiwanese do what, which is as he said, to maintain the status quo. But in reverting this, he renounced his claim that most Taiwanese prefer status quo.

Polls have long suggested - I know most editors are aware of them so I won't spend time looking them up right now, that Taiwanese prefer to maintain the status quo rather than either of the more extreme options of merging with China or declaring independence in spite of Chinese threats.

The argument that "but recent polls show govt has major support for their mainland policy" does not change this long-standing poll data. Ma claimed during his campaign that he would safeguard ROC sovereignty. He claims that his moves to be more friendly for China are for the purpose of economic prosperity and lessening of tensions. Unless we have poll data that shows most Taiwanese believe him to be lying and that they now support his policies because they agree with pan-green accusations that Ma is trying to merge, how can we use the statement that most Taiwanese support his mainland policy to mean anything more than most Taiwanese supporting his attempts to lessen tensions and help the economy? There is no evidence anything has changed from the long record of polls saying most Taiwanese support the status quo. Readin (talk) 04:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand the possible misunderstanding that's why I added more clarifying info in the edit summary. That info added by User: JoshuaKuo was a purely Green's POV, while other POVs aren't added. For example, the government's POV is that what they are doing is not merging Taiwan with mainland China. They are just normalising the relations so that the Taiwanese can do things in mainland China which they already have been able to do in other countries.
I am sorry that I might have misled you to think that the Taiwanese have departed from preferring the status quo. There haven't been any polls conducted since the TVBS one in June to suggest that they have. But all recent polls show a majority support for what the government is doing in relation to mainland China (which suggest to me that they don't interpret what the government is doing according to the Pan-Green's POV). I understand that we aren't allowed to make interpretative claims in the main text so I didn't added that claim.
I think this is a relatively small issue so I don't particularly wish to add all the figures to the main text unless a balance of POV is required. If you are curious about the results, I can you can find them on the websites of Mainland Affairs Council, Apple Daily and the Global Views magazine. They might be in Chinese only though.
If the clarifying info is added, it can suggest most Taiwanese support the Pan-Green's POV, which is not the case. Then we will have to add the government's POV and the poll figures to balance the POV. I don't think this is worth it myself.--pyl (talk) 04:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
While reading the China Post, I came across an article reporting the survey results by Global Views magazine which I mentioned above. So I changed the main text and included the survey results as well as the figures by the mainland affairs council. I think the figures are sufficient so I didn't bother looking for the figures by Apple daily. But I remember them being similar to the other two cited. I also rewords the criticisms so the main text now reflects the actual wording used by the pan green coalition.
I hope this would resolve the concerns shown by the recent edits of various editors.--pyl (talk) 10:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

newspaper funding

If we are to examine newspaper funding and ownership, we should do so for all the significant news sources in Taiwan. Also, the fact that a newspaper is funded a particular way may lead to accusations of bias, but that does not always translate to inaccuracy. A newspaper can be very biased and at the same time be very accurate. Readin (talk) 01:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the time right now. But according to the rules, it is up to the person who wishes to assert statements on Wikipeida to prove that the relevant sources are reliable and unbiased. I dispute the sources. Please provide the relevant independent evidence. You may wish to ask for independent advice on the relevant boards.
Please do not assert the statements until the evidence is provided.--pyl (talk) 01:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
If that is the way it is to be. I also do not have time to research the ownership of every newspaper. Readin (talk) 02:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
We still have a lot of work to do. It will take a lot of time to remove every citation that comes from a source somehow linked to one party or the other, which as stated on your initial edit is the reason you say Taipei Times is unreliable. Readin (talk) 02:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I've put a query about this on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard Readin (talk) 02:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

"[W]e" don't "still have a lot of work to do". I am not the person doing the massive deletion when you decided to have issues with things that weren't disputed previously so you feel you can "get even". I am just watching you venting your anger by deleting stuff or making smart arse comments like you usually did when things don't go your way. I can only overlook it and "play dumb" that many times. You could have just simply posted a query on the board like a reasonable person would have done. If you read our discussions properly, China Post is actually American, reflecting the interest of your country, not of the KMT. The bit about needing to provide evidence for independent sources is in the verification part of the rules. I don't have time to quote it now. It was quoted for your benefit in talk: Republic of China previously.--pyl (talk) 04:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Part of NPOV is applying neutral standards. If we are to suddenly apply a harsh standard of proof for one source's reliability because it has a particular POV, then we need to apply similar standards to other sources with different POVs. I'm asking on the noticeboard about what standard of proof we should use. Readin (talk) 04:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
There are numerous issues in asserting those statement. I told you I didn't have the time to tell you the relevant issues in detail so I just picked the most obvious one. I still don't have the time to give you an extensive list, but I will just start with the more obvious stuff.
1. It is against the NPOV rule
  • by quoting a statement issued by a group of "experts" from a DPP funded newspaper always expressing the DPP's POV.
  • by "condemning" a democratic country of "serious violation of the rule of law and human rights abuse" is a pretty serious allegation and a big claim.
  • the "experts" appear to have pro-independence POV; did you check their credentials? The Australian "expert" wrote extensive papers on Taiwan's "nation building".
2. It is against the reliable sources rule
  • They are opinions of "experts".
  • Taipei Times is not a reliable source in this case.
  • According to WP:REDFLAG, "[e]xceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources", by the reasons I stated above, this is an exceptional claim and the quality of the sources is highly dubious.
According to WP:BURDEN, you need to establish that the sources are reliable. I don't believe I am applying a harsher standard in this case. It is common knowledge in Taiwan that Liberty Times/Taipei Times are highly biased newspapers. It is similar to Central Daily News which is run by the KMT, or Xinhua for the CPC. Taipei Times/Liberty Times/Central Daily News/Xinhua are generally fine for fact reporting, but they should be avoided for opinion pieces or for reporting opinions of others.--pyl (talk) 07:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
The statement did not condemn a serious violation of the rule of law and human rights abuse. It said that some experts had done so. Perhaps I should have been more specific in saying who the experts were (although the name and a basic piece of information about each is available at the source). I did look over the qualifications. Some were pretty lame while a few were useful. One of them is a former chairman of AIT.
Recently there have been allegations that the Ma administration is using the police and judiciary for political purposes. When the DPP is the only one making the allegations, of course they are questionable. However the open letter is from people who are not part of the DPP with some knowledge of the situation and with reputations to protect. This makes the allegations something to be taken more seriously.
You are right that any newspaper should be avoided for opinion pieces. However in reporting the opinions of others, when the exact words of the others are printed in full, the newspaper should be considered reliable. I think what you are really trying to argue is whether the opinions are notable, whether the former head of AIT notable and sufficiently objective that his statements on this matter should be considered when weighed together with the other signers of various notability and knowledge. Readin (talk) 07:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I do also have issues with the nobility of the opinions, but that's another issue. At this stage, I am saying Taipei Times fails to be a reliable source in this situation and I think we should sort this out first at the reliability sources board before pursing other issues such as NPOV and nobility.--pyl (talk) 04:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the disputed section, per opinions of the administrator Metropolitan90 on the reliable sources board, as follows:-

I am not saying, "Don't use the Taipei Times, it's biased and unreliable." I am saying, "If you use the Taipei Times, also use a pro-KMT paper for balance. And if you use the Taipei Times, use the original articles that reported on the detentions, not just a later article about foreign reaction."

In other words, if a pro-KMT paper on this subject is not used for balance, don't use Taipei Times. If a balancing source from a pro-KMT source is added, then we can discuss nobility and NPOV balancing.--pyl (talk) 01:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Tsai Ing-wen

"it suggested that 26% of the respondents were satisfied with the DPP Chairwoman Tsai Ing-wen's handling of the crowds in the series of protests, while 53% of the respondents were unsatisfied."

Why is this here? This article is about Ma Yin-jeou, not Tsai Ing-wen. Readin (talk) 01:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It is in the same poll to show the support base of both Ma Ying-Yeou and Tsai Ing-wen after the same event. This event has taken too much space in Ma Ying-jeou's page, and it is only partly related to Ma Ying-jeou. There are quotes from Tsai Ing-wen as well as loose quotes from newspapers in this article. They should be condensed or moved to cross-strait relations.--pyl (talk) 01:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I moved the materials to cross-strait relations and added the condensed materials as well as the reactions and news for the series of protests.--pyl (talk) 02:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

ostrich putting its head in the sand

@user Pyl, you can remove all the unfavorable remarks from international press, and keep Ma Ying-jeou squeaky clean, but it would not make any different in real life when KMT and Ma Ying-jeou are facing increasing revolts from the opposition. Unless Ma has decided to turn back the clock and start Martial Law.Arilang1234 (talk) 08:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

@user Pyl, my apology to you, because I did not know you have move the press reports to Cross-Strait relations. However, many remarks were directed at 'Mr.Ma', or 'you', not 'Mr. President'. May be from now on we should start addressing Ma as 'you'? Or may be rename this article Ma Ying-jeou as you?Arilang1234 (talk) 09:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The issue of Chen not calling Ma as president is condensed and addressed in this article. Please check it.--pyl (talk) 09:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Display of ROC national flag?

Many TV reports and internet blogs mentioned that the display of national flag was stopped by Taipei police. Shouldn't this fact be mentioned here? After all, Ma Ying-jeou is the president of the ROC, or is he?Arilang1234 (talk) 10:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss this issue in cross-strait relations. I don't think we should talk about the protests in detail in Ma Ying-jeou as this is not the proper article for that.--pyl (talk) 10:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

@Pyl,I did go and have a look, it is as quiet as here. I think my observation "ostrich putting its head in the sand" is correct, editors here all seem to 顧左右而言他(translation:look other ways and talk something else.) Are missiles really that scary?Arilang1234 (talk) 10:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if missiles are relevant to editing articles on Wikipedia. Please remember Wikipedia is not a soapbox.--pyl (talk) 11:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about the 'missiles' remark, but the 'national flag' is certainly a relevant issue here. My question remains, this is THE Ma Ying-jeou main page on wikipedia, and Ma is the president of the Republic of China. If we do not talk about ROC national flag here, I wonder where else we can talk? I propose the KMT flag to be put on Ma Ying-jeou, and requesting consensus:
The Kuomingdang flag

Arilang1234 (talk) 12:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Flag of the Republic of China is the place.--pyl (talk) 11:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying Ma Ying-jeou do not deserve the Flag of the Republic of China, or the other way around? Or KMT and ROC are having a new flag? Or from now on they would just hang a piece of cloths(may be white?) on the flag pole just to look good? This is wikipedia and the whole world is looking, a nation with no flag? A president with no flag and was happy to be addressed as "you". Is this an April fool joke? May be it is worth an entry at Guinness World Records?Arilang1234 (talk) 11:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
How apt is it to discuss this issue with sarcasm? Please try (at least try) to be fair and balanced, not attack-dog 100% or stalwart lackey 100%. If there are newsworthy (and encyclopedic, but NOT trivial) stories about Ma Ying-Jeou, please post them neutrally with its citations from neutral sources.Clygeric (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Requesting consensus for adding National Flag on Ma Ying-jeou

The Flag of the Republic of China

Discussion will be on for 3 days, 9 Nov, 10 Nov, and 11 Nov 2008. I hope by then a consensus would be reached.Arilang1234 (talk) 12:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

  • If you're able to find a neutral source which reported on any activity by the government on curbing its own national flag (not talk or rumors, but actual action), then certainly write neutrally about it and cite it. There were no actions in curbing the displays of flags or emblems during the Chen Yunlin visit, and Ma even defended this via his interview with Zhong-Tian News. But, however, like I said, if there are credible sources regarding the actual actions of removing or curbing the displays of flags or emblems, do write neutrally about it. But I believe there are no sources (as there were no actual occurrences of curbing of the display of national insignia), so I would say, no. Clygeric (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  • By Jonathan Adams Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
from the November 5, 2008 edition, http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1105/p06s01-woap.html
Is this report good enough?Arilang1234 (talk) 01:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
The keywords being "For many pro-independence Taiwanese"? This is a biased POV.--pyl (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Asia Times Online

No

Living in a vacuum may be another option?

Please be civil. Calling people "living in a vacuum", "ostrich putting its head in the sand" or "顧左右而言他(translation:look other ways and talk something else.)" is considered to be personal attacks.--pyl (talk) 02:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I offer my kowtows to user Pyl if my remarks had cause bruises on his sensitivity.Arilang1234 (talk) 03:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with user "pyl" - Wikipedia is not a soapbox and rumors are not encyclopedic. There have been no active efforts in curbing any national insignia or emblem. We all have our own heated passions and they belong outside encyclopedic sources. We have all been civil here, and hopefully there need not be anymore rumor-based "news". Clygeric (talk) 03:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

How did Ma pass his Harvard Thesis?

Recent developments have shown Ma's old thesis to be highly suspect and has brought up the suspicion that he only passed because he had high ties. His thesis has over 1,000 errors, misattributed or missing words, and other defects. See for yourself: Blacklisted "examiner" URL: ...com/x-1969-Boston-Progressive-Examiner Pictures here: Blacklisted "examiner" URL: ...com/x-1969-Boston-Progressive-Examiner~y2009m3d6-Retired-schoolteacher-gives-Taiwan-President-Ma-Yingjeou-a-failing-grade-on-his-Harvard-thesis and here: Blacklisted "examiner" URL: ...com/x-1969-Boston-Progressive-Examiner~y2009m3d7-Help-a-retired-schoolteacher-grade-President-Ma-Yingjeous-Harvard-Law-School-thesis . Gosh I wish I had the same sort of pass for my thesis. Of course the Presidential office has released a statement saying that he got his degree and made an academic contribution so nothing else should matter. A) We should put this in as it has already become major news in Taiwan, B) we should make clear that Ma did not pass the bar exam both in the USA and in Taiwan, which he claims he did but there is zero records of. --24.193.80.232 (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Per (A), the thesis is Harvard-caliber, Harvard-certified, Harvard-granted -- whether you personally agree with Harvard's granting of this degree is irrelevant. The word and confidence of Harvard's doctoral committees trumps the independent auditing and opinion of a retired Taiwanese teacher. Per (B), Ma has never claimed to have passed a bar exam and is not a licensed attorney anywhere - please provide credible evidence when you make such charges. Please refrain from any snarks on Wikipedia; this is a source for encyclopaedic material, not an open forum for bashing a political leader.Clygeric (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

they probably gave him a diploma if he promised that in the future he would destabilise mainland China, and serve the western financial oligarchs

Birthplace

I reverted a change that would have given Ma's current claims about Ma's birthplace the weight of fact. Ma has made separate claims on separate occassions. We have no reliable source to show for which is correct. The ROC president's office at this point in time reflects Ma's current claims - which is to be expected given that Ma is currently the president of the ROC. But that doesn't make his claims more believable than his earlier claim. Both the press release from the ROC president's office and the statement on the birth certificate come from the same original source - Ma himself. Given that same source, and that both were made in official capacities, neither is more authoritative than the other. In this case, both dates should be given along with the circumstance in which they were stated. I believe Ma has stuck with the Hong Kong location longer, and has stated it more often, than the mainland China location, so I think it makes sense to mention the Hong Kong location first with the other location being just something that needs to be noted. Readin (talk) 03:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how to best phrase it, but the claim of "PRC citizenship" is ridiculous--as ridiculous as the U.S. green card controversy. Most everyone on Taiwan is PRC citizen anyway according to Nationality Law of the People's Republic of China, and both PRC and ROC citizenships are meaningless when you consider those don't mean a lot in terms of residency and eligibility. A more valid point would be that Ma may have been too "patriotic" to consider HK a "legitimate" British territory that he described his birth place as part of Xin'an/Bao'an County of Guangdong, hence "Shengchun" (Shenzhen). An issue that doesn't affect his eligibility to hold office should not be overblown as the DPP wanted to. HkCaGu (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the PRC citizenship things is not worth noting. Readin (talk) 13:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

See, I think it is worth noting. It builds a bridge between America and Taiwan, and shows that no matter how different our two cultures, people are amazingly ignorant everywhere. --68.44.13.238 (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Quba Osman

Please reference Nationality Law of the Republic of China & Nationality Law of the People's Republic of China. He is currently a ROC citizen, not a PRC citizen, and the PRC will never issue him one since he holds ROC citizenship, as the currentl law read. However Ma was feeling at the moment his daughter was born should not effect where he was born when signing a legal document. Additionally, check the Chinese language version, it even mentions this because there is evidence. When I first posted this, it was indicated there. The reference showed a copy of the birth certificate in question. 93.205.169.153
It's you who hadn't read the contents. PRC citizenship and ROC citizenship are almost a complete overlap. All Taiwanese are considered by PRC to be its citizens. (And most rights in the PRC are not based on citizenship alone.) HkCaGu (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the current way is best: the officially-listed birthplace, and then a separate section with the MA. birth certificate. Whether or not we agree or disagree, he is OFFICIALLY born in HK (via official info from the President's Office), but there exists a document that has his writing "Shenchin" as a birthplace. Both are now listed, one official; the other, controversial but not in official data. I think this shall suffice and we can avoid exaggerating a tempest in a teapot. Clygeric (talk) 22:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Another thing I must point out is that the "Examiner" is a freelance writing site and not a media source. When we refer to it, let us refer to the documents, etc, rather than the content of the writings from the site. It is a site with independent writers (ie. like "Associate Content" and unlike "Associated Press") Thanks for everyone's professionalism. Clygeric (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
You all-caps "OFFICIAL" like it is the final word. Remember, "OFFICIAL" is not synonym for NPOV, nor is it even a synonmyn for TRUE. But anyway, in this case we have two competing official documents, both authorized by Ma himself, making two separate apparently contradictory claims. Readin (talk) 13:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello. Yes, I understand it's not NPOV - apologies if my writing betrayed what I meant.

Ma has never responded directly to Chai Trong-rong's documents. Whether or not Chai's obtaining of the documents (via his daughter) is legal is yet unknown (and irrelevant). There's also no authenticity of this (ie, we can't really say both data - "official" and the one from Chai's documents - are authorized by Ma (yet). The Hospital has a museum, and even it has Ma's birth listed in its historical notables. Ma has his birth certificate, too; his passport also lists his birth as HK. In gathering data for a person, Ma is born in Hong Kong (ie. we can pull up any news article link that writes anything along the lines of "the Hong Kong-born Ma..." and cite it, too, for wiki. I'll re-emphasize again that the "Examiner" is a free-lance writing website, and not a news/media source; perhaps we can use this story instead ([1]) from the Taipei Times? Again, in this one, as in the Liberty Times, it states that Ma has already shown his birth certificate to the public already. Thanks. Clygeric (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

being born in the mainland does not mean he is a PRC citizen. many taiwanese are born in the mainland but do not poses prc citizenship. in fact, those who have left the mainland often cannot get their citizenship back. i know many people who were born in the mainland who are unable to get prc citizenship. prc citizenship is very strict with people who leave the mainland for long periods of time. it's not like in western countries where you get the citizenship for life, no matter where you go. even though the mainland considers taiwan part of China, they are very strict about who gets the prc citizenship. if you look at the taiwan compatriot pass, there are a lot of limitations on it, and taiwanese are treated as virtual foreigners, having to check in with the police and so forth. if you compare the taiwan compatriot pass and the hong kong return home permit, you can see that the hong kong return permit have much more freedoms than the taiwan compatriot pass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A9ds8fyu8s (talk • contribs) 16:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Typhoon Morakot

Can someone please add a new section about Ma's handling of the 2009 Typhoon Morakot . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.43.203.141 (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed tag

A "citation needed" tag has been added after the word "current" in the opening sentence of this article, and edit-warred over. What is a citation needed for? There are plenty of citations already in the article to confirm that Ma is the current president, and there is no requirement to provide citations in the lead section of articles when the information is cited in the article body. I'm reverting again, because the editor adding this tag has broken the WP:BRD cycle by re-reverting rather than opening a discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The tag was actually for the "sixth" part and a discussion about it has been started there. The numbering of the presidents of the ROC looks like WP:OR to me (unless I'm missing something) so that's why I was requesting a source. Laurent (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, now I understand. It's just a pity that you chose to edit war rather than discuss the issue. I've added a source from the ROC government news agency to show that Ma is officially recognised as the sixth president. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The article cited is an anomaly. Mistakes commonly seep into news articles. Can you find a second one? ROC presidents are simply not numbered a such; Ma is always cited as the 12-term president both by the Taiwanese media and the ROC government. We are doing readers a disservice by calling him the 6th president when this convention is used only by the uninformed.--Jiang (talk) 01:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's another offical news agency source. Phil Bridger (talk) 01:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

That's the same article. Everything in the first article is copied verbatim into the second. Compare [2] with [3]. If we want to compare sources, there is so much more supporting "12th term president" than "6th president".--Jiang (talk) 02:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I woul support using '12th term president' over '6th president'. In Chinese, the counting is done based on the number of terms, not the number of Presidents. We say 'Ma is the 12th term president of the Republic of China', nobody says 'Ma is the 6th President of the Republic of China'. Don't get it wrong, that's just how we count OUR presidents. If we're counting American presidents, we do it the American way, by the number of Presidents (eg. Obama is the 44th President of the United States). Liu Tao (talk) 03:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree we should write "12th term president" as it seems to be the official way and possibly the most common way to count ROC presidents. This page in English on president.gov.tw uses the same numbering system. Laurent (talk) 14:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Ma's credential of handling economic affairs for Taiwan

Law education is not enough to understand economic governance in the given jurisdiction for career politicians like Mr. Ma I am afraid. See Economic capabilities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.164.42.205 (talk) 10:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

PRC vs Mainland China

There appears to be an ongoing edit war between GotR and an IP editor over the use of "PRC" vs "mainland China". Both are useful terms but they are not completely equivalent. The PRC is the national government, i.e. the state, that contains mainland China, Hong Kong, and Macau. When talking about moves aimed at annexing Taiwan, it is the PRC, not mainland China, that is making these moves. But when talk about tourists coming to Taiwan who had formerly been unable to enter, we're talking only about mainland Chinese, not about people from all parts of the PRC (I'm pretty sure people from Hong Kong had long been able to visit Taiwan).

I haven't reviewed every single usage of the terms in the article, but appears to me that GotR's usages are more correct.

I'm not sure I understand the edit war over "Hunan" vs "Hunan Province". It doesn't seem like a big deal. On one hand "Hunan" is the name of the article so it should be fine. On the other handnative English reader unfamiliar with Taiwan and China might assume Hunan is a city or county in Taiwan, so appending "province" might help if the reader knows that China is divided into provinces. Either way is good and probably not worth fighting over. Readin (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S. the edit notes about whether the PRC owns/administers/whatever Taiwan don't make sense. They don't seem related at all to the edits being made. Readin (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
1) You are completely correct (as often you are) with regards to when to use PRC and when to use Mainland; as always, in this Cross-Strait context, we should avoid the charged, unqualified term China. 2) I too could care less which way the Province tag goes for Hunan, although (albeit fake) Hunan-themed restaurants and dishes are ubiquitous at least here in the U.S., so I doubt Hunan (and Sichuan for that matter) is as obscure as you may make it out to be. 3) Please keep in mind this hopping IP has been harassing me at every turn, following my edits within 24 hours they are made, and was actually range-blocked for 2 weeks for this sort of disruption. Now (s)he has, perhaps only after being reminded of the potential for a re-block, resorted to writing "PRC" in place, instead. I cannot make any Taiwan-related edits (even to DAB pages) without acknowledging that this edit warrior is on my trail, waiting to Wiki-assassinate me some day. However, I apologise for my blanket-reverting here and will be more cautious in large articles such as this. GotR Talk 18:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The investments and transportation etc. mentioned in the article excludes Hong Kong and Macau, but includes the Hainan island. So both terms, PRC and Mainland China, are not completely accurate in the article. I also think that Hunan or Hunan province is not so important. However, the main problem is the usage of the term "mainland China". GotR often contrasts Taiwan with mainland China in his edits, implying that both Taiwan and the PRC are part of China, which is not NPOV. I used to change those usages to the common name "China", but GotR says that it is not NPOV as well, as it implies that Taiwan is not part of China. So I have ceased doing that and change it into the PRC instead as a more neutral version. Futhermore, GotR sometimes makes POV edits such as [4] this one, in order to "annihilate Taiwan independence", according to his edit summary.114.137.215.64 (talk) 05:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Hainan is politically a part of mainland China, and geographic comparisons only matter in the context of explicit references to Hainanese, which there are none here. Anyone who claims the term mainland is not neutral shows where (s)he comes from, and here, you have further proved yourself by perpetually (until some point last week) forcing the "Taiwan is most certainly not part of China" POV down readers' throats. You have ceased doing that precisely because you know it will lead to another block—be grateful of my mercy (by not yet reporting you to ANI) here; do not pretend otherwise. GotR Talk 06:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

You claiming that Hainan is politically a part of mainland China again proves your POV about "Taiwan is part of China", otherwise there is no "non-mainland China". This is also a reason why the term "mainland China" is not neutral. Hongkong and Macao does not count because "Mainland China" is used before they are returned to the PRC. I admit that some of my edits were not neutral (until some point last week), but probably you are not less POV pushing than me, forcing "Taiwan is most certainly part of China" down readers' throats. Actually I haven't been really blocked before, as you see the diversity of my IPs is much wider than 61.219.36.0/24, so it is not the reason.114.137.215.64 (talk) 07:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice try at a comeback when you have no real case for one. In every context (i.e. this one) except for Hainan, Mainland China is defined as the 22 provinces+5 autonomous regions+4 direct-controlled municipalities; anything else is strictly original research, and that is what you are spectacularly displaying here, redefining terms to suit one's own political needs. If you continue tracking my edits, as numerous as they are, outside of switching the more concise "mainland" to "PRC" on DAB pages (which I can tolerate for now), you will likely be re-blocked, this time for at least a month, and I may even convince a few to shore up all of your IP ranges. I don't need to deny my views on Cross-Strait Relations, and you sound as if I am. GotR Talk 07:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's see the Oxford dictionary. Definition of mainland(noun):a large continuous extent of land that includes the greater part of a country or territory, as opposed to offshore islands and detached territories. So in the case of "mainland China", where is "the smaller part of the country"? Where are the "offshore islands and detached territories"?111.243.33.42 (talk) 09:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

If you're asking whether the term "mainland China" is open to the possibility of there being an "island China", then yes, it is. Taiwan is referred to as "island China" and its governing regime as "China" in quite a few English-language books and monographs, especially before desinicizing Hokkien chauvinists rewrote Taiwanese history textbooks in the 1990s to deny remembrance of the island's Chinese heritage. However, such an argument is immaterial original research, since regardless of the implications, "mainland China" is the accepted, common, and neutral (because of its ambiguity) term. Shrigley (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
What was being done in the 1990s, as I understand it, was an attempt to undo the denial of memory perpetrated by the Chinese that arrived in the 1940s and 1950s. Yes, Taiwan has Chinese heritage. It also has native heritage (both from aboriginal tribes and from the actions of Han people living in Taiwan). It also had Japanese influences. It has its own history of colonization by Dutch, Spanish, Chinese and Japanese which is quite different from what happened in China. Yet people who grew up prior to the 1990s may know very little about these because those memories were denied by the KMT. When I was in Taiwan my primary contact was useless as a tour guide because she knew almost nothing of Taiwan's history. In school she was forced to memorize all of China's dynasties (most of which had never even heard of her homeland), but she couldn't tell me anything about the Spanish fort a few miles from her house. In most old cities, street names offer tantalizing clues about the history. Knowing that Chinese characters carry clear meanings (unlike old names in English that are often based on foreign names or that have changed so much over time as to be unrecognizable), I was looking forward to learning street and place names and learning what they meant and where they came from. Instead I quickly realized that nearly everything had been renamed after 1945. The 1990s was an attempt to restore some of the heritage that was stolen. Readin (talk) 04:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that "mainland China" implies there being an "island China", but not open to the possibility that "Taiwan is not part of China", making it not neutral. I disagree about your argument on rewriting history, but it does not change the fact that if Taiwan is part of China is a disputed question. Using "PRC" avoids this kind of disputes, and allows more ambiguity. This is not original research since the the Oxford dictionary is a reliable source.111.243.33.42 (talk) 03:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Despite the New Territories (I believe that's what the Kowloon side is called) being on the same land as mainland China, they are generally not considered part of "mainland China". A Hong Kongese visiting "mainland China" is not going to Kowloon. When Hong Kongese talk about the differences between the people of Hong Kong and the people of mainland China, they don't mean to exclude Hainan when they say "mainland China". Regardless of the definition of "mainland", the meaning of "mainland China" is pretty clear in English. It means the territories ruled by the PRC with the exception of Hong Kong SAR and Macau SAR.
I'm not a big fan of using the term "mainland China" either. I think simply saying "China" should work most of the time since Taiwan is clearly not part of China. However there is a NPOV issue. There are plenty of arguably reliable sources making the absurd claim that Taiwan is part of China, and even more absurdly that it is part of the PRC. I have given it some hard thinking in the past and just haven't been able to come up with a more neutral term. If we just say "mainland", we imply that China is somehow obviously the main part of whatever country Taiwan is in (i.e. that Taiwan is part of China). If we just say "China" then we imply that Taiwan is not part of China (and there are otherwise reliable sources that say it is part of China). I agree that the term "mainland China" has a slight bias in favor of the annexationists, but I just can't think of a better term. I'm not sure if you noticed, but just as GotR found all uses of just "China" and changed them to "mainland China", I found all usages of just "mainland" and changed them to "mainland China". That's how we try to keep NPOV. Readin (talk) 03:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ma_Ying-jeou/Archive_2&oldid=763925587"