Talk:Chen Shui-bian

Riots after 2004 election
There were indeed riots that included violence after the 2004 election that were led and encouraged by the "Pan Blue" factions. Here is but one source: riot: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D04E7DF1138F932A25757C0A9629C8B63 Since it is stated as fact even by the New York Times, it should remain inside the article. There have been multiple attempts to censor this, and censoring it is no good. --Shrimpcrackers (talk) 13:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm misremembering things but....

I think it's important to mention that the street was originally named 'Long Live Chiang Kai-Shek Street' rather than merely Chiang Kai-Shek Street. This made the street renaming less controversial than it otherwise would have been. Also. he renamed a few other streets Shi-Min Jie for example.... -- Roadrunner


 * OK..my bad. I didn't think they would keep 'Long Live Chiang Kai-Shek Street' around for so long after his death. I really don't know this. Jiang 05:41 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * A Huaxia Economics article wrote that it was: Kuan-ch'ien Road (&#39208;&#21069;&#36335;) &#8594; Fu-ch'ien Road (&#24220;&#21069;&#36335;) &#8594; Chieh-shou Road (&#20171;&#22781;&#36335;) &#8594; Ketagalan Avenue (&#20977;&#36948;&#26684;&#34349;&#22823;&#36947;).
 * Despite the article's informal tone and bias, I believe the names are correct. Although it seems to have missed Chiang Kai-shek Street (?&#34083;&#20171;&#30707;&#36335;?) that Roadrunner spoke of.
 * --Menchi 07:06 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
 * Ketagalan Avenue is an east-west road. Kuan-ch'ien Road now is a south-north road, so the same road name has been relocated. Likewise, Chungcheng Road (中正路) was in central Taipei, but it has been renamed and today's Chungcheng Road is in Shihlin, northern Taipei. As the external link is now broken, I have found a new one at http://www.huaxia.com/tw/tdyh/msj/00026411.html .--Jusjih 01:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with his hair? It looks fake.

The aboriginal names of Chen Shui-bian need to be explained rather than just listed on the page (Why has he been given them? When was he given them? Who gave them to him? etc.) --Lowellian 17:55, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * The Taipei Times article answers your questions. I think they should be removed because they were only given recently as a political gesture and are never used. They carry no prominence and add little informational value. --Jiang 05:21, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think leaving them is okay, as long as they're accurate and it's clear what they are. Even if they are a political gesture, it's still information. --Lowellian 19:41, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)


 * It's information, but useless information. As an encyclopedia, we should only mention the important points, not obscure details. There's a lot more other things we can cover. Leaving them there might lead people to believe that they're actually significant when theyre not. --Jiang 21:14, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

-

Removed statement on the 3/29 interview with the Washington Post as this is a bit misleading. Chen didn't say that he planned to "make" Taiwan an independent, sovereign nation. His position and that of the DPP has always been that Taiwan is already an independent and sovereign nation.

His position has a whole lot of complex implications, which will take a paragraph or two to explain.

Remember that he is a lawyer.

Roadrunner 12:35, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

-

I tried to write a NPOV summary of his positions and their implications. Someone needs to proofread for NPOV as I completely detest Chen Shuibian and some of that might have leaked through.

My POV summary of "Interpretation of his actions" would read "Chen Shuibian is either evil or stupid, and in either case he is a very dangerous man."

Roadrunner 15:20, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

--

I think we have a vandal, but I'll offer one chance for an explanation. By what criterion is CSB a communist? Among all of the nasty things his political opponents accuse him of, being a communist is not one of them.

If you change the article again without any sort of explanation, I'll block your IP.

Roadrunner 03:44, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Yep he's definitely a vandal. There's absolutely no communism/capitalism discussion in Taiwan politics. It's all about pro or anti-independence. Economically, the focus has been on opening more opportunity for Taiwanese business to establish bases in China, and both parties like promising pork barrels to win constituencies. Chen is definitely NOT a communist. Just because he's anti KMT doesnt mean he's a communist. Wareware 00:34, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely. In fact being a anti-KMT makes him even more diffrent to the communist. He is certainly a patriot of Taiwan.--68.98.154.196 01:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)From Taiwan

Scandals
Something needs to be done about this passage: "Another small party that backed Chen previously, Taiwan Solidarity Union, said Friday they would likely to support the upcoming recall measure. If the recall passed, it would be up to the voters to decide Chen's fate in an island-wide referendum.

Leaders of the Democratic Progressive Party met together on Friday to discuss the unfavorable charges."

Apart from the fact that this looks like it has been cut-and-pasted from elsewhere, which Friday is Friday? This doesn't belong in an encyclopedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.252.133 (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

notoriety for his forceful and "colorful" arguments?
Questionable characterization below:


 * While his client Huang Hsin-chieh...and seven co-defendants...were all found guilty, Chen gained notoriety for his forceful and colorful arguments. He has stated that it was during this period that he realized the unfairness of the political system in Taiwan and became politically active as a member of the Tangwai movement.

I fail to see how "forceful and colorful arguments" from a lawyer constitute or lead to "notoriety". And if they did, where did he "gain" this notoriety from, perhaps the judge sitting on the military court? Or supporters? In the interest of brevity and to avoid the need to further contextualize the claim, I am going to change this to "...Chen came to be known for..." A-giau 00:37, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Affair with aide
Why couldn't I find anything about Chen's reported affair with pretty aide Hsiao Bikim? --Vladko 16:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Because this has been ruled by the court as unprovable. Besides, it brought more benefit towards Hsiao for her celebrity status than to Chen, so it was more important to Hsiao than to Chen. However, you can read more about this on Hsiao's page. Bobbybuilder 03:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Additions
This article doesn't seem to address: 1) Chen's use of Taiwanese language/dialect in speeches; 2) his status in regard to ethnic divisions/tensions in Taiwan. Badagnani 03:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Taiwanese dialect, how different is it from the dialect spoken on Fujian? i can understand what he is saying so is it even Taiwanese? has the 'Taiwan seperatist' hajacking our identity for their own agenda? or is it an unfortunate conquences of mass media misinfomation as the world became more verse with Taiwan then Fujian, see it uniquely Taiwanese? Akinkhoo 14:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess the media likes reporting on democratic countries. ;)   Jumping cheese   Cont @ct 01:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Taiwanese dialect is different, read the article. I think they're similar in a way, because they sound the same, but they are a little different.--Jerrypp772000 02:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Taiwanese dialect has some Japanese elements in it (legacy of the Japanese rule), the Min-nan dialect does not. Also, given the fact that Taiwan and Fujian has been ruled separately with communication and connection virtually cut off for more than 50 years (or 100, if includes the time under Japanese rule), it is natural that the local dialects of the two developed in different directions. Kc0616 1:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make any sense at all. People in every place may speak a little different, does that make everybody speaking a different "dialect"? And the mandarin (Guoyu) spoken by Taiwanese and mainland Chinese and Hongkongnese sound different -- are they different "dialect" of mandarin?24.11.175.146 (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The so called Recall
To be honest, i found there is no any Neutral point of view in this article especially the "recall" part. '''In Taiwan the referendum law, yet this law passed by the pan-blue majority congress, does not apply to the case of removing The Taiwan President from office. For this the original author had already failed to mention and try to misguide reader of Wikipedia by not telling the whole truth. 2nd this motion is NOT recall but rather "impeachment", the goal of this motion is to impeach Mr. Chen via congress NOT by referendum through public vote because there is NO law in Taiwan at this moment allow to do so in order to remove Taiwan president from office. yet the original author failed to mention this again. Why i am not surprised at all.'''

In Taiwan, congress has right to impeach President if Presdient has anything violate the law just like US congress can but recall. So Please do not MISLEADING reader of Wikipedia. Neutral point of view ? i found this is quite a funny point. So far base on what evidence Mr. Chen has violated any Taiwan law that Taiwan congress can impeach him? Do we see the original author mention about any evidence?

Hello? Neutral point of view?! anyone? --[[User:] 06:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That is your view; the actuality of your view has never been ruled on by the courts, and therefore remains undetermined. An assertion that the attempted recall is illegal is therefore not NPOV.  --Nlu (talk) 07:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Well. talking about "rule by the courts",Maybe Mr.(or Ms.) Nlu can show us, all reader of Wikipedia, where we can find the Taiwan law mention about to remove The Taiwan President through "recall" or referendum? NPOV? Hello?'' NPOV == Nlu's view?"' Hahahaha! Why i am not surprised at all [[User:] 07:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I did not say that the law was constitutional; saying that it has not been ruled unconstitutional is not the same as saying that it is constitutional. --Nlu (talk) 07:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess we are not living at same earth. Hahaha! '''If there is NO such law, why we have "constitutional" or "un-constitutional"? constitutional of what? un-constitutional of what? thin air? You need to have a law first then we can talk about if it is constitutional or un-constitutional. Again, Why i am not surprised at all.''' Mr.(or Ms.) Nlu, if you can do us, readers of Wikipedia, a big favor just show us the dame law about how to remove Taiwan president by "recall" or referendum, i will be very happy to apply. NPOV should base on facts and truth not imagination, Wikipedia is NOT a place for doing propaganda, for the name sake of Wikipedia. --[[User:] 07:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Read the President Election and Recall law of the Republic of China . Chapter 4, Section 70.
 * The congress can recall the president via purpose by 1/4 of its members, and pass by 2/3 its members.
 * Once the recall act passed in the Congress, the case will transfer to Centeral Election Committe to host a vote decide by people to let the president go or not. 163.28.81.2 03:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

About the Mayor of Taipei
In this portion, the original author also failed to mention at end of Chen's first term as mayor of taipei, he has more than 80% approval rate that is never seen in the history of Taipei especially for the people-elected mayor. Ethnic concentration as well as more pro-pan-blue voters in city of Taipei had decided to choose a new mayor from pan-blue, the current Mayor Ma, instead of the one with high approval rate. When talking about this part of history, I suggest this part of fact should not be left out.

How good Mayor Ma is doing after replaced Mr. Chen as mayor of taipei? You can check out the link of Mayor Ma embedded in this article. And just a friendly reminder, don't be surprised to see many Mr. Ma's "scandal" in that link had been removed. Another sign to show you when reading this kind of controversial article at wikipedia used your best judgement and checkout more information before you jump into conclusion. There are peoples out there their main jobs are creating propaganda to promote or dis-credit a person. [[User:] 19:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "Ethnic concentration as well as more pro-pan-blue voters in city of Taipei had decided to choose a new mayor from pan-blue"?? I suggest you keep your good opinion to yourself and leave the encyclopaedia to someone who can tell facts from opinions. By the way, sign after you leave a message. Machie 01:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Ceding of powers?
Did he cede some powers to the Prime Minister following the recent protests? I can't find anything about this in the article. Badagnani 04:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Need Chen Shui-bian Picture
We need to get a Chen Shui-bian photograph. I think the Republic of China government provides a picture and it is fair use. Please get that old picture back up. -Nationalist 06:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Protection
Please stop the edit warring on whether to refer to his birth place as "Taiwan" or as "Taiwan Province, Republic of China." This really needs a community consensus, and the current edit war is not productive. Please talk this through. --Nlu (talk) 05:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Taiwan Province, Republic of China is the correct factual way. After all, there is no such country as Taiwan. The country is the Republic of China. I see no reason why Taiwan Province, Republic of China is not okay. -Nationalist 07:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's extremely political. It's better to be vague regarding the political status than taking a stance.    Jumping cheese   Cont @ct 10:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Republic of China(ROC) does have a Taiwan province,which covers most of ROC, but whats the point of that? Vinson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.12.213 (talk) 03:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Why should we be vague? Why not recognize that his birth place is Taiwan Province, Republic of China. That is the real fact. It is indisputable. The government on Taiwan is called the Republic of China. Ask Chen Shui-bian himself. He is President of the Republic of China! Just having Taiwan makes it sound like Taiwan is an independent nation, which is not true. The ROC governs it. -Nationalist 03:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You conveniently forget that the world community does not regard the Republic of China on Taiwan as a sovereign nation. Hence, the most accurate terminology would be "Taiwan Province, Republic of China government-in-exile."   The ROC doesn't exercise sovereignty over Taiwan. 118.166.232.176 (talk) 09:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Taiwan Province" throws it off.   Jumping cheese   Cont @ct 04:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion on this -- but obviously you guys do. May I propose, "Tainan County, the Republic of China" as the alternative? --Nlu (talk) 05:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Taiwan and Talk:Republic of China. There's enough archives of discussions on the the proper name of "Taiwan" to keep you busy for days.  The consensus (not really, still some complaints) is basically Taiwan for the island and ROC for the government that administers Taiwan.  So...Taiwan is sometimes referred to as "Republic of China (Taiwan)" to appease both sides.  People usually know what Taiwan is, but not ROC.    Jumping cheese   Cont @ct 05:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * By having the paranthesis next (Taiwan), after Republic of China. It makes it as though ROC = Taiwan. This is not true. I like Nlu's plan. But I do not like Republic of China (Taiwan). -Nationalist 01:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's like ROC a.k.a. Taiwan. People might not know what ROC is, but the name Taiwan is well recognized.   Jumping cheese   Cont @ct 05:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Again you are equalling ROC to Taiwan. That is not true. AKA is also known as. which is equals. But it ROC does not equal Taiwan. Republic of China on Taiwan is a better way to put it. -Nationalist 06:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * as much as i believe taiwan is not a state, i don't see why ROC(Taiwan)cannot be used. ROC = Taiwan is phyiscally true since it is the only area under ROC control. and it make it easier to indentify on the map. removing taiwan doesn't make sense as ROC is not a place; while using taiwan province kinda lead to confusion as to whether ROC control more than 1 province or something (which i find even more offensive and ugly for both sides) Akinkhoo 14:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * ROC is known as Taiwan, and Chen is born in Taiwan no matter what. Some of you are saying Taiwan isn't a country, it is governed by the ROC, it's like saying South Korea isn't a country, but is governed by the ROK. Taiwan Province, ROC would only make it really confusing. I think the best would be simply Taiwan, or ROC (Taiwan).--Jerrypp772000 20:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Taiwan is governed as Taiwan Province, Republic of China. I think we can put Tainan County, Taiwan, Republic of China. That is a good compromise. ROC (Taiwan) only equates ROC to Taiwan, but that is not true-Nationalist 02:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, ROC is commonly known as Taiwan. Let's give you another example, Ireland. The Republic of Ireland is known as Ireland, even though it doesn't govern the whole island. Saying Taiwan isn't a country is like saying China isn't a country, which is just ridiculous.--Jerrypp772000 21:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The Republic of China also administers parts of Fuchien Province. Fuchien is not considered as Taiwan. Therefore, saying Taiwan wouldn't work. Fuchien is not part of Taiwan. The Constitution of Ireland says Ireland in it. So that's fine. But look at the ROC Constitution. It says ROC Republic of China, NOT TAIWAN. There is NO Republic of Taiwan. It is the REPUBLIC OF CHINA. -Nationalist 01:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is like how China is typically called China, not the People's Republic of China.  Jumping cheese   Cont @ct 05:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am NOT trying to push a view that Taiwan is part of the People's Republic of China. No Definitely NOT. I am a staunch supporter of Taiwan and the Republic of China. I just want to reflect on the true facts. Even though the ROC is nowadays commonly known as Taiwan, it is still appropriate to make it known that Taiwan is part of the Republic of China and that the actual name of the country is ROC. Now, since ROC will be linked to the Wiki article, people will read it and understand that there is The Republic of China, based on Taiwan, and the Communist mainland People's Republic of China. If we just have Taiwan Taiwan and more Taiwan, it doesn't change anyone's mind. We need to clarify to Wiki readers about the two China's. -Nationalist 05:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.gio.gov.tw/taiwan-website/5-gp/president.htm Says "President of the Republic of China (Taiwan)." Just write it like that. --Borgarde 07:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that would be fine, and it also says in the article President of the Republic of China that it is also commonly called President of Taiwan outside of the ROC.--Jerrypp772000 19:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit Request
Editprotected

The template Template:Infobox Mayor has been merged into Template:Infobox Officeholder. This is the last page that needs to be updated. Could you please update the infobox at the top of the page with the following code and then remove the outdated Infobox Mayor code from the top of this section. VerruckteDan 18:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅, let me know if there are any other issues. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it looks good. VerruckteDan 10:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Picture of the president
Hi, i am quite new on this kind of stuff, but why there isn't a photo of Chen Sui bian on the template article? i think it would be nice to see at least how does his face looks like =) --HappyApple 09:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC).


 * Copyright issues...had a pic, but it got deleted. =(    Jumping cheese   Cont @ct 11:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

nth "term" president
As discussed in the Talk:Lee_Teng-hui page, when saying in English that someone is the nth president, you are counting the number of people who have held the office, not the number of terms of office. Saying, for example, that Chen is the 10th and 11th president makes no sense in English. He can't be both because if he were, he would only be the 10th president. The president who followed him would be the 11th president no matter how long or for how many terms Chen served.

Apparently the convention in Taiwan for numbering presidents is to use the number of terms, but this is an English-language Wiki, so we must say things that make sense in English. So we cannot say Chen was the 10th and 11th President. We have to say that he served the 10th and 11th terms. Readin (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Which makes less sense than the former proposal. Which is why the majority of officeholders don't have numbers anymore. Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What was the former proposal?Readin (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The one your arguing against, "nth". Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm ok with "nth" if it's followed by the word "term" if terms are what are being counted.Readin (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's exactly the problem, The 5th President makes a higher amount of sense than 5th term President. However, due to to confusions with people who hold the office more than once, disputed officeholders, multiple officeholders, innumerable officeholders, people who contest the officeholder and acting, provisional, caretaking, interim and regent officeholders (and mixes of these) the numbers have been removed because they clutter the infobox and cause confusion, especially when the number itself is confused because of the above examples. Chen fits the bill for more than one of these so it would be best to strike these from the box altogether. Therequiembellishere (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Removing them altogether is ok with me too. I don't see that saying someone is the nth president is anything more than trivia unless the person is very early in the list.  Knowing that George Washington was the 1st president is important.  Knowing that Lincoln was the 16th president is just trivia. Readin (talk) 01:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Am I allowed to remove them now? Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I won't stop you or revert the edit, but I can't promise that no one else like (User:Joseph_Solis_in_Australia or Iamwisesun) will revert it. Readin (talk) 01:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, thank you. I'll send them here, I guess. Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic Origin
What ethnic group Mr. Chen belongs to? Is he an Han Chinese or native Taiwanese? 35.11.39.19 (talk) 21:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

He is mostly Han Chinese with ancestry from Fujian. Of course, the definition of Han Chinese changes and is sometimes based on culture. HanBoN (talk) 02:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * When speaking of Taiwan, the term "native Taiwanese" generally refers to people whose families were in Taiwan prior to the 1940s when Chiang brought several million people from China. Most of the native Taiwanese are descendants of Chinese who immigrated up to four hundred years ago.  A small number are Taiwanese Aborigines, people whose ancestors were in Taiwan prior to the 1600s when the Dutch took over.  The Taiwanese Aborigines are Austronesian.
 * I believe Chen is a native Taiwanese with all or mostly Chinese ancestry. Many native Taiwanese have aborigine blood without knowing it; a recent DNA study found that about 80% of native Taiwanese have some aborigine ancestry.
 * To answer your question, Chen can be called both "Han Chinese" because he has ancestors from China and he can be called "native Taiwanese" because his ancestors immigrated long before the 1940s. Readin (talk) 03:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Does the OP even know who the native Taiwanese are? You should look up Taiwanese aborigines. Nowadays, Taiwan is more Han Chinese than China. The OP is very ill-informed and doesn't know how absurd the question is.

Controversy
Taiwanese Prosecutors on May 20, 2008 named Chen suspect in a $ 450,000 fraud case, after he lost presidential immunity. Specifically, the investigation was for his role in the handling of a special presidential fund used to pursue Taiwan's foreign diplomacy. The Supreme Prosecutor's Office stated that: "We have formally started the investigation of the special expenses case concerning former president Chen.The office has assigned ... a seven-member investigative unit to take charge of the case."news.bbc.co.uk, Taiwan ex-leader faces graft caseap.google.com, Taiwan investigating ex-President Chen Shui-bian --Florentino floro (talk) 11:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy Speculation
The following was deleted: "The unprecedented scandal created a media firestorm in Taiwan and widespread disbelief among Chen's supporters. Strangely, in the four days following the initial news break, the biggest news out of Taiwan has yet to make its way to mainstream English media outlets such as CNN, BBC, Washington Post and Reuters. These news authorities choose to focus the coverage of this region on the impending arrival of a pair of pandas from China to a zoo in Taipei. US has been a strong ally to Chen's presidency. This virtual censorship by Western media could be an indication that Chen's corruption runs deep in today's international politics." by user: 61.229.246.213

There has been coverage by news outlets such as the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and Bloomberg. Other foreign media also use AP and AFP stories. To say that the Western media (meaning all media from Europe to the United States) are embroiled in an international corruption and conspiracy in not covering Chen Shui-bian's scandal is absurd. Naturally, this story to some western countries deserve simply a story or two in coverage not the front-to-back coverage as in Taiwan. News to international outlets may also take days in sorting out facts by foreign media. The article is about Chen, not speculation on how late coverage or less-than-your-satisfaction of coverage in western media constitute wide-spread or international corruption or conspiracy. This was a bit over-the-top. Clygeric (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Notice, my last assertion was Anglo media, not Western media. I did notice that AFP reported the news on the same day Chen made the public appology for breaking the law, unlike US/UK/Canadian media which has been all silent until a few days later. Washington Post put out a related piece "Democracy and Dirty Money in Taiwan" by "Pomfret's China" on Aug 18th. This piece is nowhere advertised on its regular news site, so the average reader won't even be aware of it unless he/she specifically search for Taiwan. (I guess that's why you are not aware of it either) Ok, here is the meaty stuff: you say that there is no media censorship among Anglo media to Chen's scandal, then explain why my IP is now permanently banned from visiting www.washingtonpost.com after I post a reader response to "Democracy and Dirty Money in Taiwan", comment #7 (see also the response exhibit on Pomfret's China):

" Li-Shei Ho: I am living in Taiwan, Chen's scandal was the biggest news in Taiwan in the past 3 days. Can you explain why Washington Post (CNN, BBC, CBC, Reuters for that matter) hasn't even aired a single news item on this matter? Your paper reported one news that is Taiwan related - a Taiwan pitcher played a perfect game in 1979's World Series. Is this news even comparable to Chen's Scandal on the level of importance? What is keeping your paper from reporting Chen's corruption scandal promptly?"

You see, my comment was deemed too offensive, that I have to be kept off-limit to Washington Post. My apprentice take note, this kind of overt reaction from the Post confirmed my analysis that US corporate media does not view kindly the demise of Taiwan's pro-independent force for the sake of their anti-China agenda. To validate my view once again, I predict that although US corporate media was slow and unwilling to report Chen's scandal admission to their audiences, they will promptly and cheerfully report the 8/30 anti-China rally organized by the Green faction. (user 61.229.246.213) 29 August 2008

Since the information is removed, it need not be an issue. Your arguments have many points, and would be ideal in any newspaper's Op/Ed sections. Such an occurrence of reporting by "Anglo" media (which is a minute, if any, difference from if I chose to use "Western") is an unfortunate coverage. At either rate, one cannot simply speculate on a conspiracy and have this speculation deem to be "encyclopedic" detail. I encourage you to write to these media outlets to express your outrage at their lax coverage of the Chen scandal. I, too, believe this scandal must be magnified for all to know, as corruption of such magnitude should not be under the light, but be always in the light of public examination and scrutiny. Thank you for your observances. Clygeric (talk) 03:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I just want to update that just as I predicted and right on que, BBC has promptly and cheerfully reported the 8/30 Rally in Taipei, titled "Huge rally against Taiwan leader," which is listed as one of the top stories on the BBC website. The Chen family saga (which is still the hottest news topic in Taiwan now) is only given minimal lip service, one sentence to be exact, in this news gem. And yes, still no news article devoted to the Chen saga on BBC. This tells you how "neutral" and "unbiased" Anglo medias really are. Also, just want to clarify, my IP 61.229.246.213 was banned from Washington post a few hours after my response posting as mentioned above. Since I am only renting my place temporarily, I feel bad for the American student from UC Berkeley who will take my room after I leave. In his room, he will not be able to read his highly esteemed Washington Post over the web. Too bad. (user 61.229.246.213) 1 September 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.112.237.54 (talk) 12:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Recent Arrest
"Prosecutors have asked a three-judge panel to formally detain the ex-president. They said "it is necessary to take Chen into custody while they continue their probe because the crimes Chen is suspected of committing are felonies". Following his detainment, the former president Chen Shui-Bian seems can no longer play his self-claimed pro-independence tricky game in misleading his southern supporters to the manipulated political stance." This is clearly biased so I removed it until someone can put up NPOV information. 220.133.88.162 (talk) 02:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

"Alleged money laundering controversies"
Cross purposes gone wild. The money laundering is alleged, the controversies are not. Either use "money laundering allegations" or "money laundering controversy", not both. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Niece
Can we include that his niece is married to Erik Ralske of the NY Philharmonic? Choicefresh (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

taiwanese folk religion - chinese folk religion...
Hi there... do u agree if I change the wording of the link? I mean, the box about chen says he practices "taiwanese folk religion", but the link goes to "chinese folk religion"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.38.223.195 (talk) 22:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Is there even such a thing as "Taiwanese folk religion"? If not, then the label is clearly inappropriate and needs to be reverted. Albert584 (talk) 05:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

When adding new information about the court case, give sources!!!
I u dont provide the source of the information, i will erase the un-sourced material... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gumuhua (talk • contribs) 18:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Image placement.... (Really angry)
Why NOT allow my picture at COMMONS and replaced without any notice in edit summary?! Give me a reason, or I will consider the replace as IRRESPECTIVE BEHAVIOR!!!!!!

This is not once, in other articles also had the same condition~! In addition to Chinese Wikipedia.  Brock contact... 05:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Call to ban "Taiwaneseamerican" and the IP from which he sticks his absurd tags
Call to ban "taiwaneseamerican" and the IP from which he sticks his absurd tags, call to protect "Chen Shubian" article:

Absurd tags such as "The KMT tried to kill him", or "US DOS consider him a political prisoner", not to say missquotations taken from the press and missourcing

Recently I have reverted some vandalism made by him, I have (for the second time) done so, but he keeps vandalising (He has also vandalized Ma Yingjiu article... How can we ban him?

Pyl also undid some of his changes, but the guy seems undeterred...

CheersGumuhua (talk) 11:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What was his response when you commented on his user talk page?
 * I agree that many of his edits are blatant bias and uncalled for, but I think you should at least make an effort to address him directly before trying to get him banned. Readin (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

While we're on the topic of banning users, Eeeeeewtw has done a lot of vandalizing and seemingly random edits. He has a number of warnings on his talk page. Perhaps we should attempt to take some action against his account. Readin (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Separate article
Shouldn't the whole post-Presidency investigations be a separate article? Nada (talk) 07:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Source translation
Can anyone provide a translation for this source ? Readin (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * page does not exist. Blueshirts (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Taiwan ruling
The line "Some analysts also share similar view.." is copied almost verbatim from the BBC report, and phrased awkwardly.. shouldn't it be phrased differently?

Nada (talk) 21:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Mandarin Text
To be honest, is it completely necessary to include the Mandarin translation of all the Chinese names in this article? It's just wonderful that people want to add such useful tools, but there is a page specifically for Mandarin. Thoughts? GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Mandarin is a spoken language, so you mean the Chinese (i.e. written Chinese) translation. Yes, it is necessary. A Chinese name transliterated into English could correspond to so many Chinese characters, that it is most of the time impossible to guess which Chinese characters they are a transliteration of. Without the Chinese, it wouldn't be possible to get information from this article in English and write about it in Chinese without having to guess half of the names. Keep the Chinese. AugustinMa (talk) 04:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

POV
This article desperately needs clean-up. I'm not familiar enough with the situation to deal with it myself, but certainly passages such as this from the section about his recent criminal conviction read as biased whatever the facts of the case.

Supporters (very few) of former President Chen say the prosecution was politically motivated and point to unusual moves by the current government such as replacing judges who had granted Chen release on his own recognizance with judges who immediately ordered Chen jailed and isolated in mid-trial.[110][111] Some self-claimed analysts with no credibility share similar view as they suggest there is some truth to the claim made by Chen Shui-bian that this case is more of a witch hunt by the current administration aimed at pleasing Beijing. But the evidences speak otherwise.

Luke Parks (talk) 11:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Nobody is happier than I to see former President Chen in jail for corruption. Notwithstanding that it's not in keeping with Wikipedia policy to say "there are people who claim to be analysts but they are cranks".  Either their opinions are notable and should be included with more neutral language (minority opinion, fringe opinion, etc.) or their opinions are not notable and have no place in the article at all. The article needs some cleanup desperately.Simonm223 (talk) 11:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Absolute agree.. the article doesn't seem balanced. Also, the line "Supporters of former President Chen say the prosecution was politically.." from the intro cites a source that doesn't back up the sentence.. it should be modified. Nada (talk) 16:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I put the sentence and the sources there. I went back to them to provide a quote but they seem to have changed.  There does need to be some balance however between the assumption that a conviction means a fair process was followed to determine guilt and the numerous problems with the procedures including the inability of Chen to speak privately with his attornies early in the trial, the numerous leaks from the prosecution, the mid-trail switching of the all the judges to a different set of judges more freindly to the ruling KMT and more hostile to Chen, the unusual step of detaining Chen for months before he was charged with any crime while KMT figures already charged with similar crimes were allowed to remain free, etc. Readin (talk) 01:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Find reliable sources, keep comments neutral, don't misrepresent quotes to suggest they say things they don't.Simonm223 (talk) 03:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I took considerable care in adding the lines, I spent time finding sources to back them up, and I take great offense at your insulting suggestion that I misrepresented quotes. News articles do sometimes get changed by editors after first appearing on a news website.  Please read what I wrote above, and choose your words more carefully in the future. Readin (talk) 04:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Given that the sources have changed, the sentence needs to change. I'm short on time right now so I can't do it.  If no one else wants to do it I'll try to update it tomorrow.  Please do so in a balanced way.  There are two sides to the story.  This LA Times article might be a source. This might have some useful info too.  This YouTube has a quote from the current President Ma's university advisor. Readin (talk) 02:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Life Sentence Reaction
"Supporters of former President Chen say the prosecution was politically motivated" Why shouldn't the article mention the other opinions that the verdict reflects the Taiwan majority mood within the same source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.243.169.72 (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So find a reliable second party to confirm this quote.Simonm223 (talk) 03:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's listed in the exact same source which supports the first statement. So both are reliable or neither.
 * Well if it says that then put it in using neutral language and there shouldn't be a problem.Simonm223 (talk) 15:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Now that Chen has been sentenced and future legislation won't risk freeing him, the legislature wants to move toward decriminalizing what he was accused of doing. Is this worth mentioning or would it be too POV to point out that Chen's behavior was consistent with the behavior and expectations of other elected leaders of the Republic of China?  KMT proposes ‘decriminalizing’ fund Readin (talk) 13:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Make sure to avoid WP:SYNTH.Simonm223 (talk) 14:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't misrepresent the source. The Taipei Times article is talking about "special funds" (特別費), which was what Ma and also other DPP heavyweights have been charged with, and it is something that's given to hundreds of officials nationwide. Chen was not charged with stealing this fund, but "state funds" (國務機要費), a case that ended in 2006 and then snowballed into the current bribery/money laundering case. Plus it's a DPP legislator who claims the behaviors of elected leaders and Chen were "consistent." Blueshirts (talk) 16:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Chen Shuibian's trials and sentence needs a separate article
It's too long and clogging up this article. Also, it's important enough to justify a separate article. Much better to transfer it to another article, with a judicious summary here. 116.14.15.16 (talk) 13:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It was indeed clogging up this article. Someone already created a main article on the corruption charges a while ago, moving all of the "Post Presidency" section over. So I removed the section and kept the "main article" line.-- Jerrch 16:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This was sloppily done and needs cleanup. The text needs to be rewritten so it doesn't read like a timeline. New material should be added by condensing and summarizing the old material. And it needs updating in light of the past couple months.--Jiang (talk) 10:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Chen Shuibian expressed desire to visit his hometown in mainland china and directly referred to himself as chinese
http://articles.cnn.com/2002-03-31/world/taiwan.nukes_1_nuclear-weapons-nuclear-posture-review-nuclear-threat?_s=PM:asiapcf

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2006/07/02/2003316835

Many DPP leaders have visited their ancestral hometowns in Fujian in the mainland

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/print/91760.htm

http://www.taiwandc.org/twcom/101-no4.htm

http://books.google.com/books?id=1tQY4jn5iNwC&pg=PA333&lpg=PA333#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

According to the Taipei Times article, that is not all that Chen said on the question of whether he is Chinese. "Making comparisons to other historical migrations such as the English settling in the US and later calling themselves Americans, Chen said this spirit is the same as his Chinese ancestors leaving China and deciding to make Taiwan their permanent home." Readin (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

he referred to himself and the entire audience of taiwanese americans as chinese in a speech at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel

Rajmaan (talk) 04:00, 20 December 2012 (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.

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

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Chen Shui-bian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080118190500/http://english.www.gov.tw:80/TaiwanHeadlines/index.jsp?categid=8&recordid=99228 to http://english.www.gov.tw/TaiwanHeadlines/index.jsp?categid=8&recordid=99228
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070822212721/http://au.news.yahoo.com:80/070216/2/12g11.html to http://au.news.yahoo.com/070216/2/12g11.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Chen Shui-bian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060305045342/http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au:80/common/story_page/0,5744,16258960%5E28737,00.html to http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16258960%255E28737,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Second sentence
The second sentence of this article doesn't make sense grammatically. --2.245.219.175 (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Hunger strike?
It's not clear why the "Hunger strikes" category was added. --Ronz (talk) 23:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Chen Shui-bian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110121170446/https://www.businessweek.com:80/1998/46/b3604055.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/1998/46/b3604055.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130527141450/http://www.tibet.net/en/flash/2004/0504/images/chen.jpg to http://www.tibet.net/en/flash/2004/0504/images/chen.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Chen Shui-bian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080525124645/http://magazine.sina.com.tw/chinatimesweekly/1482/2006-07-18/ba14259.shtml to http://magazine.sina.com.tw/chinatimesweekly/1482/2006-07-18/ba14259.shtml
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.businessweek.com/1998/46/b3604055.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://udn.com/NEWS/NATIONAL/NATS4/4348497.shtml
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all%2CpubID.25113/pub_detail.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100612174824/http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2010/new/jun/9/today-p5.htm to http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2010/new/jun/9/today-p5.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100614233409/http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2010/new/jun/12/today-t1.htm to http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2010/new/jun/12/today-t1.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100622234910/http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2010/new/jun/19/today-p2.htm to http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2010/new/jun/19/today-p2.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060422070523/http://www.ait.org.tw/en/news/officialtext/viewer.asp?ID=2006030302&GROUP=BG to http://www.ait.org.tw/en/news/officialtext/viewer.asp?ID=2006030302&GROUP=BG

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:28, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Chen Shui-bian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121017234252/http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2010/new/jul/20/today-p8.htm to http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2010/new/jul/20/today-p8.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100412003338/http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2010/new/apr/8/today-p7.htm to http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2010/new/apr/8/today-p7.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090921041030/http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2009/new/jul/13/today-p1.htm to http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2009/new/jul/13/today-p1.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100820162842/http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2010/new/aug/18/today-p9.htm to http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2010/new/aug/18/today-p9.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100822154855/http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2010/new/aug/20/today-p8.htm to http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2010/new/aug/20/today-p8.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100823070232/http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2010/new/aug/21/today-o8.htm to http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2010/new/aug/21/today-o8.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100826011928/http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2010/new/aug/24/today-p11.htm to http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2010/new/aug/24/today-p11.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Serious NPOV issues regarding the shooting
There are serious NPOV problems in the section about the shooting. Everything seems to be basically unsourced and the wording seems to suggest that the shooting was a conspiracy, and there's some clear editorializing in there. I'm not sure it can be fixed. Per WP:BLP I think the entire section should be scrapped and re-done. DrIdiot (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

"Japan"
I removed this content: Chen's and the Democratic Progressive Party are pro-Japanese, and look favorably on Japan's colonization of Taiwan, the issue of WW2 comfort women, and terrotiral disoputes between Taiwan and Japan ie, Diaoyu Islands,

Rationale: it's WP:OR and editorializing, China Daily is not RS especially on Taiwan (see WP:RSP), and the first link does not make any direct statements about Chen himself, only his advisor Shi Wen-long, whose relevance is a bit of a stretch. DrIdiot (talk) 05:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Also want to remark that the standards for WP:BLP are far higher. Need direct statements from Chen. DrIdiot (talk) 05:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Political positions section
Lots of cn tags from a decade ago. Going to clean up that section. Some removed material will be posted here. Here's the first:

Ancestral hometowns in Fujian in mainland China have been visited by DPP leaders and their families.

Reason: not a relevant sentence to Chen himself. Also not really a political position? And the sources are opinion pieces. DrIdiot (talk) 09:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

More removed content:

Chen's position on Taiwan's political status is that Taiwan is already an independent, sovereign nation named the Republic of China. This has the implication that a declaration of independence is unnecessary as Taiwan is already independent. This view point, however, is subject to change in each election campaign. At the same time, it also has the implication that the pledge by Chen to preserve the status quo or not change Taiwan's sovereign status would not preclude a declaration of independence but would preclude acceptance of the one China policy.

Some said that Chen's position on this issue was intended and to some degree succeeded in placating his pro-independence supporters without crossing any red lines that could trigger war with the PRC. His supporters saw these positions as creative and indicative of a willingness to compromise. Many of his critics (especially those from the Pan-Blue coalition) believed that his positions and actions showed that his seemingly conciliatory statements were merely a smokescreen to advance a hidden agenda of advancing de facto Taiwan independence. These suspicions appeared to arise from the actions of his KMT predecessor Lee Teng-hui who now readily admits to secretly trying to advance de facto Taiwan independence during his presidential terms.

President Chen admitted that he leans towards independence but his main position is opposition to adopting the One China principle since it prevents Taiwanese people from being able to decide upon their own future.

Rationale: per WP:BLP better to remove unsourced content. The first paragraph I've replaced. The second paragraph is kind of an opinion. If we could specific references some could be worth adding back in. The third seems a bit redundant. DrIdiot (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Removed:

In an interview in July 2005, Chen explicitly repudiated the position of Lee Teng-Hui that Taiwan / Republic of China and China / People's Republic of China are two different countries. He said, "The Republic of China on Taiwan and the People's Republic of China on the mainland are two separate countries with divided rule and do not exercise sovereignty over each other," he said. "Under the principle of popular sovereignty and self determination, we consider that the question of whether Taiwan should be united with China should be the decision of the 23 million people of Taiwan."

Reason: First, it's confusing what this is saying, and who is saying what. Also, not sure why it's relevant. Can't find source. DrIdiot (talk) 04:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)