Talk:Anson Chan/Archive 1

message: WangFeiHung's attack on Anson Chan belong in a criticism and controversies section.  I moved them to such a section only for the user to revert my edit.  I am not entering an edit war - but would like other editors to take a look.
For example:
*"dictatorial colonial rule" -- that doesn't seem vey NPOV to me at all
*"criticism of Chan by pro-Chinese figures" -- pro-Chinese, or pro-Beijing?  Chan is Chinese herself!
*""Iron Lady" Chan, deputy under Tung and the last uneleted and London appointed British Governor"  -- spelling mistake aside, both the British and PRC administration do not let people elect their own leaders...
*"But she never spoke out against the British occupation of Hong Kong and its dictatorial colonial rule where the local citizens could not elect the governor, hold high paying top government jobs, and were forced to pay high taxes to London. Her views now fit more with the pro-British and pro-colonial crowd in Hong Kong." -- unsourced and unjustified (comment added by Arbiteroftruth: Hong Kong never paid a dime to London or Beijing. Hong Kong tax dollars stays in Hong Kong. Always have been)
I think WFH's edits are entirely laughable and requires a look.
--mintchocicecream 06:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Master Hung Fei Hung
That statement only proves your extreme leftist bias. Your Maoist tendencies are products of propaganda, not facts. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a North Korean propaganda website. Please stop your POV edits. I will, once again, emphasize that I will revert all of your edits, HFH and associates, regardless of whether it is fact or propaganda. Arbiteroftruth 02:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  I am happy if the information was verified and sourced.  However, the edits were unsourced and despite repeatedly asking the WangFeiHung (and variants) to source his edits, this wasn't fixed.  Thus, I felt it clearly falls under unsourced criticism and was appropriately removed.  --mintchocicecream 07:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV dispute

message: Please see BLP. Criticism of living people in the bios should be handled sensitively. Also it is better if it woven into the text rather than in a separate section. The communist and non or anti-communist views on these matters are all valid and should be included (se NPOV), provided they are verified. It is not the wiki editor's job to reach a synthesised position of truth: that is original research. It is the editor's job to show the different positions on the truth adopted by relevant parties. Obviously the Communist view is an important one and highly relevant, so should be represented. Against this should be set other views. The reader will then have a balanced overview on the issues, and be able to make up their own mind. It is not the editor's job to judge whether e.g. a politician's views are NPOV. That is a common mistaken interpretation of NPOV. It is the wiki editor's job to take a NPOV and properly represent leading participants in an event, even if those participants appear to have POV agendas. Tyrenius 00:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  I am happy if the information was verified and sourced.  However, the edits were unsourced and despite repeatedly asking the WangFeiHung (and variants) to source his edits, this wasn't fixed.  Thus, I felt it clearly falls under unsourced criticism and was appropriately removed.  --mintchocicecream 07:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification

message: A complaint has been made about the nature of disputes on this article. This warning does not imply any particular blame, but is a reminder of proper conduct.
Personal attacks are unacceptable. A personal attack is saying something negative about another person. See NPA if you want further clarification. If you find yourself writing the word "you", be very careful what you follow it up with. Deal with facts and issues, not someone's personal motivations. Remember to assume good faith.
Continued insertion into the article, or arguing on the talk page, of statements or opinions without verification will be regarded as disruption. Non-negotiable policies are VERIFY, NPOV and NOR. Read them and stick to them.
If there are suspected sockpuppets, then study SOCK and take the appropriate steps. Do not make accusations directly to or about the individual on your, their or the article talk page. Collect hard evidence. You may wish to report on Suspected sock puppets.
If you experience a problem or think another editor is violating policy, report it to me with the diff. To record a diff, find the edit in the edit history and copy the URL at the top of the page with a square bracket either end. To get this, cite this: 
Violation after this warning is likely to result in an immediate block.
Tyrenius 23:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''User disputes - warning!'''

message: Is Anson Chan still a British citizen or BNO passport holder? BN(O) 10:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: nationality

message: there are tons of grammatical mistakes in there. plus, the trivia stuff aren't really that trivial.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larryau (talk • contribs) 12:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  poorly written