Talk:Donald Tsang/Archive 1

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


 * "On 25 March 2007, Tsang was re-elected as Chief Executive in a contested small-circle election arranged by Communist Party of China for the post for a second and final term, from 2007 to 2012."


 * I don't understand why some of these things get written in. It's not even factually correct to begin with. The 3rd CE isn't Tsang's second term, but it's actually his first, because the previous term (2002-07) belonged to Tung and Tsang was simply finishing that term. So constitutionally speaking, Tsang can have another term from 2012-17.


 * I don't dispute the fact that all CE elections are "small-circle" election, but is it encyclopedic to say it as such in this setting? This is often a problem I have with some of the articles about HK.


 * I'm simply going to start a "Criticism" section at the CE article to deal with some of these issues.Bourquie (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well spotted! Ohconfucius (talk) 02:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Backbone?
Following comment by 71.0.234.71 was removed from the article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * The knighthood is not honorary [and this is the correct British spelling]. What source do we need? See    for media usage.
 * If we take out the "Sir" we also take out KBE - those go together and neither appears on his website. The opening should reflect proper usage (usually we put the full and complete name here), and the should reflect official usage ("the honourable" does not belong in the opening per policy)--Jiang (talk) 07:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Ohconfucius believes that he can't use the title because he is no longer a British subject. Actually I don't much care if the opening contains "Sir".  But I thought since he himself does not use it as a title, maybe we should not have it in the opening.  I would prefer we keep it in the infobox though.
 * Another thing that I want to bring up is the use of the   format for his name ("Donald Tsang Yam-Kuen"). Even his official English biography with the HK government refers to him only as "Donald Tsang" or "Mr. Donald Tsang".  I propose we do the same in the article, maybe with the exception of the infobox.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The convention seems to be to list the full and complete name (regardless of common usage) in the lead section while leaving styles and more common usage in the infobox. see Tony Blair
 * I'm sure Yam-Kuen is part of his legal name.--Jiang (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Not a big deal.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "Only the two highest ranks entail admission into knighthood, an honour allowing the recipient to use the title 'Sir' (male) or 'Dame' (female) before their name, so long as that person is a national of a realm where the Queen is Head of State. If not, the recipient may use the honour as post-nominals but not the title before their name" This comes from Order of the British Empire and I believe is correct. Some could point to the ambiguity, as it is done in the article, that he was beknighted whilst still a British subject, but the fact is HM the Queen is no longer Head of State for Hong Kong. Furthermore, it has been pointed out in Parliamentary questions there may not be an impediment for him to use it, Donald himself does not use the title "Sir". So we should take out the "Sir", but the KBE can stay. The ambiguity in the article (ie that he is entitled to use it for life) is unsourced, and for the moment I am removing it as original research, pending references. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

"it should not be deleted even if it is OR."
PLEASE!! Show me the guideline which says that, and I'll leave it alone. Ohconfucius (talk) 21:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


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

What assertion? Please be more specific on what exactly is incongruent with the sources.--Jiang (talk) 22:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The assertion which is used as the subheading here, which you wrote as an edit summary. Ohconfucius (talk) 22:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That is irrelevant as there is no original research in the article, as no justification has been made that original research exists. So what specifically is not supported by the sources?--Jiang (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The assertion "it should not be deleted even if it is OR" is bullshit. Ohconfucius (talk) 22:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and nominate Template:Original research and Template:Or for deletion then since if any OR should be deleted on sight, then there is absolutely no use for those templates. And do you have evidence of original research or are we blowing hot air?--Jiang (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please be rational. I am not suggesting anything of that sort. You are the one who made that assertion in the first place. Instead you could jolly well have said "this is not original research" in the edit summary, and there would be no stupid argument. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's not bicker
Ok, can we at least agree that he is entitled to use "Sir" if he so choose to use it? Let's be clear on that first. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * i don't believe there is even an entitlement to it since Chinese citizens does not have such titles. We could call each other 'Sir' if we want to but it carry no official weight. so there should not be a 'Sir' there, as we don't see any reference to non UK knighting being addressed in such way, why should he be? it would be totally inconsistance and illogical. Akinkhoo (talk) 12:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Donald Tsang was knighted when he was still a British subject. This alone already allows him to use "Sir" for life. Although he later lost his British nationality, this absolutely does not affect or change the title conferred on him.


 * Other notable examples include Sir Sze-yuen Chung, Sir David Li, Sir TL Yang and etc. Both Sir Sze-yuen and Sir David were knighted when they still hold British nationality, but what they lost when they became members of the HKSAR Executive Council are their British nationalities, and not the right to use "Sir".


 * Sir TL Yang gave up his British citizenship in 1996 when he wanted to contest in the CE election. He even wrote a personal letter to HM the Queen at that time, declaring that he decided to give up his knighthood. Sir TL later lost to Tung Chee-Hwa in the election and was appointed a memeber of the HKSAR Executive Council. He eventually stepped down from the Council and wrote a letter to the Queen wanting to restore his knighthood. The tale ends here but actually, all these that he had done was totally unnecessary. That's because the title conferred is for life, his knighthood cannot cease to be existed by writing to the Queen.


 * And so far, the only way to lost the entitlement is to commit a criminal offence (e.g. fraud, murder, high treason and etc.). By committing a criminal offence, knighthood and any kinds of titles can be stripped off.


 * Actually, not only Hong Kong, in many former British colonies like Fiji and etc., people still retain both their titles and knighthoods after independence. It is entirely normal and we should not be confused by personal preference. --Clithering (talk) 14:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Heung
I have moved some content from the Daniel Heung article which I believe is relevant to Tsang's biography. However, I do have some misgivings about the positioning of the material, because Heung is not exactly a white sheep, and could taint Tsang's biography. Having said that, in reality, Tsang was tainted by association in HK, and his role in the scandal was indeed questioned. I would welcome any suggestions how we would deal with it. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Controversies
Tsang has made several obviously pro-Beijing comments that received widespread controversy in Hong Kong. The most recent one deals with Tinanamen Square in 1989 - where he said it was insignificant compared to China's economic power. I was wondering if maybe these controversial comments deserve a place in the article?Colipon+(T) 04:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I was just yesterday looking for that quote, but could not find it in the Standard (although there was an article about the walkout). AFAIR, there was an almost identical statement from Beijing, which if juxtaposed would indicate he was regurgitating the party line. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Reuters BBC Chinese Best I could find so far. Colipon+(T) 18:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Spinoff
I think time is nearly ripe to spin off part of this article into Donald Tsang as Chief Executive of Hong Kong. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 10:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Democracy-Cultural Revolution
why not include the little 2007 controversy regarding his comments characterising the Cultural Revolution as an extreme form of democracy? the Chinese Wikipedia has information on the controversy. Mathpianist93 (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Title
Is he entitled to the title of 'sir'? I remember the media in 1997 did have that label under his name. Did he lose it after the handover? --Jiang
 * Some press from the UK are still using the prenominal title.  &mdash; Instantnood 10:47 Mar 3 2005 (UTC)

When he got it, HK was still part of Britain, so it wasnt honorary. But now he's no longer a british citizen. does he lose the title? i think so... --Jiang 22:17, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know. But the UK press are calling him in this way. &mdash; Instantnood 10:46 Mar 4 2005 (UTC)

BBC does not, at least--Jiang 10:32, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) Mr Tsang served under several British governors and was made a Knight of the British Empire just before the handover, although he does not use the title. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4335331.stm

Ming Pao News (2005-03-13) quotes Donald Tsang as saying that he himself only uses the GBM title on his name cards: 至於代表前朝港英身分的英國爵士勳銜，曾蔭權昨日在傳媒簡報會上說， 英國政府頒勳銜給他，是肯定他在1997年前30多年從事公職，當中不涉及 效忠的問題，同樣的勳銜亦曾頒發給其他國家的政要，例如李光耀，也&#27794; 有效忠的問題. 他表示，爵士勳銜他已接受了，也說了多謝，會保留，但名片上不會用， 正如他有3個名譽博士銜頭，名片上也&#27794;有，只印上了大紫荊勳章，因為 這較為切合他政務司長的身分.

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


 * Actually can non-British citizens use Sir as a title? &mdash; Instantnood 08:17, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, sort of. "Sir" title can only be used for persons in countries which recognizes the Queen as the head of state. (i.e. thus, Canada, New Zealand and I think Australia citizens can use Sir as titie too) SYSS Mouse 18:33, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Correct, however by convention Canadian citizens are no longer bestowed such honours (at the request of the Canadian government).BaseTurnComplete 20:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * A substantive knighthood is not lost if the holder subsequently ceases to be a British national. JAJ 19:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, the article on declined British honours says that he is still a knight eligible to use the title Sir, he just opts not to use it. That would be consistent with the above.BaseTurnComplete 20:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Tsang's fluency of cantonese wrongly called into question
The article states that

"tsang's level of fluency is mediocre" ,and cites an article from the standard that says that "Commentators said Tsang's failure could be attributed to a lack of eye contact, an over-reliance on a "cheat sheet" and a mediocre command of Chinese combined with poor debating skills." http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?we_cat=11&art_id=99533&sid=28627281&con_type=3&d_str=20100618&fc=7

In other words, it is saying that he doesn't have a good command of the language. Command of a language is nothing to do with fluency, many people are fluent speakers of their native language, but lack what could be called a "good command of the language", i.e, possibly not being able to articulate themselves well, or not being a good public speaker etc. To suggest that Tsang managed to work in the Hong Kong civil service without fluency of cantonese is ridiculous, and furthermore, although I believe Tsang is an exceptional speaker of English, and fluent, I would still never call into question the fluency of someone in their native language without citing proper references. Therefore, I'm editing this line Guitar3000 (talk) 05:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC) I removed the section on language ability completely, suggest to put something better in here than the last oneGuitar3000 (talk) 05:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

What about his Education background
Did he study at Harvard????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.198.101.70 (talk) 04:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

We can hardly tell if Tsang is entitled to the title 'Sir'
The Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China (the Basic Law of the HKSAR) stated clearly that the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) must be a citizen of the People's Republic of China without the right of abode outside the territory of the People's Republic of China.

Tsang could call himself 'Sir Donald Tsang' before Hong Kong's transfer of sovereignty because he was definitely a British national.

After the transfer of sovereignty of Hong Kong, Tsang served the HKSAR government as the Financial Secretary and Chief Secretary for Administration before becoming the Chief Executive; he must have renounced his non-People's Republic of China naionalitiy (nationalities) (if any) because the Basic Law of the HKSAR forbids top officials and the Chief Executive of the HKSAR to have the right of abode in any non-People's Republic of China territory. So, theoratically speaking, he would no longer be entitled to the title of 'Sir' because he would no longer be a Commonwealth Citizen in this case. However, it is still possible for Tsang to remain entitled to use the title 'Sir' while serving the HKSAR government.

If Tsang is a British National (Overseas) which is a British national status not recognised by the People's Republic of China, he could become the Chief Executive of Hong Kong without renouncing such status, since he is solely a citizen of the People's Republic of China to to the People's Republic of China and, technically speaking, having this nationality does not violate the regulations for HKSAR Chief Executve candidate stated in the Basic Law of the HKSAR. As the status of British National (Overseas) is just unilaterally unrecognised by the People's Republic of China, this status remains a British national status as it always does and Tsang will be entitled to the title 'Sir' because of this British nationality.

As Tsang has never told the public what nationality (nationalities) he has, we can hardly decide whether he can be 'Sir Donald Tsang'.

Douglas the Comeback Kid (talk) 07:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC) Douglas the Comeback Kid

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglas the Comeback Kid (talk • contribs) 21:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Please refer to the referenced discussion above. The title is not lost upon lost of British nationality; what matters is that he held British nationality when the honor was conferred, indicating that his honor is substantive and not honorary. Unless you can find sources indicating this, and contradicting the reliable sources cited above, your assertions are original research.--Jiang (talk) 06:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

KBE
According to the official protocol released by the government of HKSAR, Donald Tsang does not use the British Honour along with his name, and hence I have reverted the edit by OhConfucius. Please see WP:POSTNOM, which states: "Post-nominal letters (honorific suffixes), other than those denoting academic degrees, should be included when they are issued by a country or widely recognizable organization with which the subject has been closely associated. Honors issued by other entities may be mentioned in the article, but should generally be omitted from the lead." Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 07:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, "Post-nominal letters (honorific suffixes), other than those denoting academic degrees, should be included when they are issued by a country or widely recognizable organization with which the subject has been closely associated." is crystal clear – Tsang has been closely associated with a colonial administration, so it is quite proper to include it. Interpreting WP:BLP in such a way so as to uninvent a British honour bestowed by HM on a civil servant to the crown on the grounds of alleged disparagement of the subject is, OTOH, improper. It may or may not be the case that "Sir" is/has been used to disparage, but I'm pretty certain that neither Chris Patten nor HM had that intent; quite the contrary, is my guess. Nobody reading the article in its current state will consider it disparagement. If you wish to "prove" that this has been used to disparage, you might just wish to include a sentence to that effect although it would be highly debatable whether same is anything more than trivia. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 08:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

First, there is no consensus to remove "Sir" and "KBE" as asserted. I'd like to continue the discussion and form a Wikipedia-wide standard at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies since the MoS as worded fails to cover situations like these. Second, there is absolutely no reason to keep KBE as post-nominals but remove "Sir" as the title as this would perpetuate the misconception (held by various people on this talk page) that as a former British subject, Tsang is only entitled to the post-nominal but not the title. To keep one but delete the other would be patently misleading, and far worse than deleting both.--Jiang (talk) 08:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree with this back-door way of reintegrating the "Sir". There are individuals who have been bestowed the knighthood but are not allowed to use "Sir" as a title because they are American (or another nationality), so it would seem legitimate to use one without the other. However, the use of "Sir" seems primarily to be what is causing the most disagreement, plus the fact that he is hardly ever so referred to in Hong Kong, I would accept that this be dropped from the lead, but I still believe the KBE postnominal should stay. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 08:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Whenever a source lists out "KBE" it will invariably include "Sir". Example. No source will leave out the "Sir" and include the "KBE". Plenty of sources leave out both, but my rationale for leaving it in is that the bolded leading sentence is meant to reflect full and complete names and titles and not common usage. By leaving "KBE" but excluding "Sir", this article will send the wrong impression that his KBE is honorary and that he is not entitled to the title. How is this not the case? There are certainly cases where one is entitled to use KBE but not Sir, that is, where the KBE is honorary, but this is certainly not the case. Given the number of people confused by this fact on this talk page alone, we should not post anything that could be interpreted in this direction.--Jiang (talk) 09:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you insist on the 'all or nothing' approach, I think it makes more sense to remove them both. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 09:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? If we're going to do it here, we might as well edit the MoS to justify it elsewhere.--Jiang (talk) 09:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The case is so rare that it isn't even a style issue but a local one. I think we can easily leave the MOS as 'the rule', and this case as 'the very rare exception'. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 09:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Rare in what sense? --Jiang (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I have initiated another thread on WP:BLPN since Jiang does not believe that consensus has been formed over the issue even after multiple users have expressed their opinion on the subject. This type of attitude is frankly unproductive and unbecoming of an administrator. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 15:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I will file a RFC on this issue and promise to respect the decision made through community. I'm happy to discuss this with you as MoS issue, but you keep bringing up BLP as if this is something factually dubious and lacking in reliable sources.--Jiang (talk) 16:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Till then let us agree to keep the title as well as the postnom away from the lead? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure, go ahead and remove it if you want. I'm not going to edit war like its 2004. (the glorious days before 3RR existed, when we spent our Friday nights engaging in epic revert wars over insignificant things like this across several pages and hours at a time. we had so much adrenaline going then. oh those were so fun!) --Jiang (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Now please go ahead and file the RfC when you find time to address this trivial issue so that we do not have to waste further time. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 10:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This is not HK Government's Wikipedia. Tsang's knighthood is substantive and he has never renounced his knighthood. Removing his title and the post-nominal letter "KBE" is a total disregard of the fact. By selectively showing GBM only is sheer bias. --Clithering (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Just have a look at Who's Who and World Who's Who online. Both sources refer him as "TSANG, Sir Donald Yam-kuen". And I maintain my belief that Who's Who is one of the authorities on the use of British titles and post-nominal letters. --Clithering (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If we leave out "Sir" from the lead of Donald Tsang's entry, we should also leave out "Dame" from the lead of Elizabeth Taylor's entry, who is commonly referred as "Elizabeth Taylor" without the title and post nominal letter DBE. --Clithering (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * In fact, many people who are invested members of British knighthoods or orders of chivalry seldom use their titles and/or post nominal letters in public. One of the many notable examples is former MP, Tam Dalyell, who is a baronet but chooses not to be called "Sir Tam Dalyell, Bt" but simply "Tam Dalyell". In his case, his article title is "Tam Dalyell" instead of "Sir Tam Dalyell, 11th Baronet", which should be the conventional way of naming in wikipedia. But his full title is retained in the lead of his article. My own view is that the same arrangement should apply to Donald Tsang's article or else it is an intentional covering up of basic facts and information. --Clithering (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I strongly recommend that you review the discussions above and on the biographies of living people noticeboard (please see BLP noticeboard discussion). The burden of proof is on the user including the material to prove its appropriateness and consistency with WP:BLP.  Wikipedia will not disappear in a day, so I invite you to review the discussions.  If you still have objections to the changes made to the article, you are free to initiate an RfC.  Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 19:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Re: "The burden of proof is on the user including the material to prove its appropriateness and consistency with WP:BLP." That's already been done. That Tsang is entitled to the title "Sir" is corroborated by multiple reliable sources and is referenced in the article. This is a style dispute, not a BLP dispute.--Jiang (talk) 01:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Jiang, what is the status of the RfC you were planning for dispute resolution on this? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 03:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The knighthood is fact, thus there is no "burden of proof" required; all similar bios of individuals granted knighthoods make use of these postnominals. Whether the title 'Sir' or the postnominals are "actively used" is a red herring. You seem to be the only one arguing that it's "inappropriate" because "some people use it in a derogatory manner", yet the 'proof' is thin on that front. It's now time to put KBE back where it belongs. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 01:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Please do not sideline the issue which I have raised previously – here and on the BLP noticeboard. The knighthood is a "fact", however that the subject no longer uses the title is an overriding fact which goes on to prove that it is highly inappropriate for Wikipedia users to determine whether or not his British title should be displayed along with his name in a biographical article.  Once again, I refer you to the BLP noticeboard discussion which I have linked above. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 03:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

While we respect how one is commonly called by using the commonly known name as article name, it is wikipedia's practice to put his full name, including full british title and post-nominaal letters at the lead of the article (see Tam Dalyell, David Steel and many other British peers who do not wish to be known by their peerages). If this principle is not followed, the whole MoS should be rewritten so that we can move Edward VIII to Edward, Duke of Windsor.

This is neither Donald Tsang nor HK Government's wikipedia. HK government has an internal circular regulating the use of titles and post-nominal letters. The circular prohibits all government officials, not only Sir Donald Tsang, from using british titles and post-nominal letters out of political reasons. I dont see why HK government policy, which is a political decision, should be extended to here in Wikipedia.

Tsang's own personal preference may be influenced by the policy of HK government. And I wonder why his own preference should have overriding value in a case where so many people know he is a British knight. In many authoritative sources, like Who's Who that I've mentioned, he is referred to as "Sir Donald Tsang" and it is not uncommon to find the usage of "Sir Donald Tsang" in various publications and websites as well. (see ). Wikipedia is everyone's wikipedia. We should not cater the personal choice of Sir Donald while disregarding the facts that he is a British knight whose British title has been generally referred to in the public. So why should we treat his case differently?

Last but not least, someone has suggested that "British government does not have a policy on [the use of British title] concerning Donald Tsang". This may be true, but does the British government have a policy on others? There may be a policy on royal family members and public office holders. But I doubt if there is a "policy" on Tom Jones or Helen Mirren. My answer is that it's protocal that matters, not policy. --110.4.27.76 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC).
 * I agree that it's "highly inappropriate for Wikipedia users to determine whether or not his British title should be displayed along with his name in a biographical article", but it's highly inappropriate for Wikipedia users to choose to ignore his British title in the first formal introduction of the subject. The IP user above makes very cogent argument that HK Govt has policy not to use these titles, and for good reason, which means Tsang doesn't use the style himself. I'm sure that if push came to shove, Tsang would have happily given up his knighthood to become CE in the same way he would have renounced (or not claimed) his BNO, but that question has never arisen. It's totally within our norms to display the postnominals in the first sentence, and not to do for the grounds argued by Headless Nick amounts to pre-emptive self-censorship, which could be used to de-emphasise any other piece of notable information that the subject does not like even though it may fulfil the letter and spirit of WP:BLP and would otherwise be worthy of mention in compliance with WP:LEAD. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 06:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I was planning to submit a RFC, but it helps to wait a couple days so that we are on the same page with regards to policy before we do that. Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington, if you think WP:BLP applies, then quote it. I am utterly unconvinced that WP:BLP is relevant here. Note that BLP states "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." I agree that exclusion amounts to pre-emptive self-censorship. We don't even have evidence to support that the subject dislikes mention of his knighthood, but even if we did, this would be a notable, relevant, and well-documented piece of information on a public figure that cannot be excluded simply based on the subject's whims and preferences.--Jiang (talk) 06:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The information clearly belongs. We all seem to be in agreement. What NMP disagrees with is that it belongs in the lead. However, according to WP:MOSINTRO, one could legitimately expect the information in question to be there. I'd go further to say that readers would be astonished to read about it in the body of the article and would question its exclusion from the introduction. The inclusion of same is made more clear and more specific in WP:OPENPARAGRAPH, which states: The opening paragraph should have:
 * Name(s) and title(s), if any (see, for instance, also Naming conventions (royalty and nobility));
 * Dates of birth and death, if known (see Manual of Style/Dates and numbers);
 * Context (location, nationality, or ethnicity);
 * In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable.
 * Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability.
 * The notable actions or roles the person played;
 * Why the person is significant.
 * To summarise, there are no grounds for excluding it under WP:BLP; it is indicated in WP:LEAD and WP:MOSINTRO, and it is strongly suggested in WP:OPENPARAGRAPH that this ought to be included. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 06:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I strongly agree with what Ohconfucius and Jiang have said. What we need to do is to strike a reasonable balance among Tsang's preference, general usage among public, and also the dignity of HM, who is the "fount of honour". So to adopt "Donald Tsang" for the article name, "Hon. Donald Tsang, GBM" for the infobox and "Sir Donald Tsang Yam-kuen GBM, KBE" for the lead is the most satisfying arrangement for all which does not violate any Wikipedia guidelines as well. In fact, Tsang has never renounced his knighthood. HM has not forfeited his knighthood. And When Tsang received his substantive knighthood, he must have realized that he has become an "ordinary member" of the Order of the British Empire who enjoy the privilege to be called a Sir. We may commit the problem of one-sided bias if we remove the British title from the lead as we only think for Tsang but not considering the British monorch who conferred the title.--Clithering (talk) 12:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Besides, I've just reread what Tsang said in 2005 when he talked with the media about his knighthood. The following was what he actually said, "As the Chief Secretary of HKSAR, I only imprint post-nominal letter GBM on my name card. I don't show my British title and titles of honorary degrees on it. I've accepted the knighthood. I've said thank you and I shall keep it". From his statement, we only know that he does not show his British title on his name card in the capacity as the CS. That's all. He never says that he would not use the British title in other occassions or in other capacity. He also never formally or informally requests the media or the general public not to refer to him with the British title ever in whatsoever occassions. In this regard, those who suggested that "Tsang does not want other to relate him with his British title" is complete invention and sophistry. Coupling with the risk of committing self-censorship as suggested by others earlier, we have strong justification to retain the British title, at least in the lead of the entry. --Clithering (talk) 12:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I find your means to "strike a reasonable balance" to be a very arbitrary and whimsical. Do you have a reliable source on the quote above?  As is evident even from the statement you have quoted above, Tsang has agreed simply to use the postnom after his name without the title "Sir".  On Wikipedia, we are not obliged to maintain "the dignity of HM" however we do have an obligation to respect the personal preferences of the subjects of our biographies as to how they wish to use their name.  The only invention I see above is the fecund application of arbitrary standards to determine a supposed balance. As this link to the Reuters article goes to prove, neither does Donald Tsang intend to use the title, nor has Clithering, in his unsubstantiated screed above, bothered reading previous discussions before jumping in to start an edit war. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 13:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Nick, is "he does not use the title" equals to "he does not want to be known with his title"? My souce, Ming Pao of 13 March 2005, says that he dont use his title "on the name card" in the capacity as "CS" only. Should it be interpreted abitrarily and dogmatically as "he does not use his title" or "he does not want to be known with his title" in whatsoever occassions? The Reuter source you've provided should have equal weight with other sources. My source, Who's Who, refers him as "Sir Donald Tsang". And in practice, biographical data of a entry in Who's Who are provided by the biographee himself.--Clithering (talk) 13:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * What is the justification to remove one's British title when he himself has never explicitly or expressedly requested for? Such a move in my personal opinion is unconventional, in contravention of our established Wikipedia guidelines, and to some extent, impolite and disrespectful to the biographee and the authority who confers the title.--Clithering (talk) 13:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Even when one has requested for not to be known with his title, we need to be careful to handle such cases. I believe that by narrating his request as a fact in the content of the biographical entry should be enough in many cases. In the case of Donald Tsang, Tam Dalyell and David Steel are examples to follow.--Clithering (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You have continued to ignore my requests to review the discussions above. You have raised the same points which have been raised above and refuted.  And therefore, I have to continue raising the same points over and over again, which is a waste of my time.  Can you please present links to your sources here - Who's Who and Ming Pao?  This will help uninvolved third party users to judge the sources on their merits rather than simply believing your words.  As I have previously stated, renouncing an honor bestowed by the British Royalty is neither a simple matter nor a joke.  Donald Tsang is (i) no longer a British citizen and therefore cannot be said to be closely connected to Great Britain anymore and (ii) he has never used either the title or the postnom by himself is enough evidence that he does not wish to use it.  In this context, we simply have to follow practice rather than putting up an onerous requirement for the subject to make an embarrassing statement renouncing the British honor.  I don't think anyone here has any objection to mentioning the knighthood within the body text of the article, however to use the title before his name is inappropriate as it goes against the spirit of WP:BLP. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 13:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * These sources are basically printed materials. Online access is restricted. Does we count only online sources? For online sources, many Wikipedians who have joined this discussion has provided links to prove the usage of "Sir Donald Tsang" in the Internet already. You should not have overlooked them. (See, , , , ). When sources conflicting to each others, which one should we belive in?--Clithering (talk) 13:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * An ordinary knight who is no longer a British citizen [or national] "cannot be said to be closely connected to Great Britain anymore" - in what way, in what sense and in what context? Who says this? Any sources? Are you the one who have the power to judge?--Clithering (talk) 14:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with the assumption that "he does not use it" equals to "he does not wish to be known with it". For reasons, please see what I and others have repeated above. --Clithering (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:WELLKNOWN, part of the WP:BLP oft-quoted to justify removing the snippet from the lead, says: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." So it seems that even if Donald doesn't like the title, of which there is no proof that he doesn't, it's not grounds for censoring it from the lead. Au contraire, the guideline says. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 14:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)