Talk:2012 Hong Kong Chief Executive election

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Return permit

Democratic party members not being given home entry permits. A couple of questions - I'm not sure if all democratic party members are not allowed the permits, or only some. Also,I don't think there is an official reason why those like Ho are not given a permit (even though everyone knows why). And, as Ho is not going to win, the fact that he cannot go to Mainland China is not really relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.177.38.242 (talk • contribs)

You count the number of times Donald Tsang has had to enter the mainland for paperwork, signings, visits etc. Many many times. It is not possible to be chief exec, while limited to just the SAR territories. Benjwong (talk) 03:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recently deleted content

So editor Ohconfucius and HKfuture has deleted the following content multiple times regarding candidate Yu Wing-yin.

"He is known for supporting the crackdown actions of the Communist government during the 1989 Tiananmen Square Protests, and said it was too bad they didn't have water cannons and plastic bullets."[1]

This is relevant to this election because it shows where a non-party candidate takes stands. I am tempted to put this back, but will discuss here first. Benjwong (talk) 02:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not just me and Hkfuture (talk · contribs) who see it as a coatrack. It was previously removed by RTBED (talk · contribs). Having said that, the two preceding named editors may be socks, but that's another matter.

    Yu Wing-yin is not even a candidate, but somebody who announced that he was seeking nominations. He has such a cameo role in this play, and zero support from EC members, that I would have few hesitations in removing everything except his name as a passing mention. So far, I have refrained. We don't talk about any of the candidates stances or policy issues here in the article (maybe we should); in the absence, I feel that talking about his stance on June 4 is over the top to the extreme. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The media presented this election mostly as a 2 horse race. That doesn't mean you have to do the same on wiki. You can present 10 candidates to be all equal whether they have EC support or not. And an over-the-top extreme view is exactly where the candidate stand. It makes it even more reasonable to present it. Benjwong (talk) 04:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean that it's not a two-horse race? Although one's gone lame since they were under starters orders. ;-) Yu is not a candidate, he never was – not even an "also ran"--Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It comes down to whether the statement have any purpose if he is not going to win anyways. In that case probably not. I just feel it is important to see how even non-party candidates can have these types of views. Benjwong (talk) 04:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What you have left is nothing but a name. It says nothing about the candidate who otherwise will never be notable enough for a full article. But a few sentences of comments won't hurt. Benjwong (talk) 05:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably you're referring to this. Well, there's not even a source to get any decent information from. The part I deleted said he didn’t know any one of them personally – that just about covers 66 percent of the population; even Regina Ip couldn't get 150 signatures. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a good idea if you were consistent with your edits. If Yu Wing-yin supports running citizens over with tanks is deleted. The entire section Alleged protocol breach should also be deleted. They are about the same thing. If anything there is more evidence Yu support these types of actions recently. Where as the claims about Leung is still not final. Benjwong (talk) 05:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"They are about the same thing" How so? I'm afraid I don't see the industrial logic. It would be great if you would elaborate for my enlightenment. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind. I thought the alleged protocol section was going to somehow continue to CY being a communist. Looks like they are split up now. Benjwong (talk) 05:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We could put the info related to Yu siding with the tanks running over people into Leung's section. And make that section generic, and not pertain to just Leung. Even Regina Ip have said HK has no riot police. All these could be dealt with in one section. Benjwong (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yu supporting massacre, Leung being a communist, and Ip saying HK has no riot police... all in one section? Could that also include the quarrel between Roger Chan and a young man? You know, a CE (if elected) insulting a citizen's mother must stir controversy.--Jabo-er (talk) 01:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok we don't have to put them in one section. Just don't delete. I completely understand by mainland standard these are not very controversial. But we are going by HK standard in these articles as part of WP:HK. Benjwong (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "余永賢選特首指六四處理果斷". Am730.com.hk. Archived from the original on 20 February 2012. Retrieved 8 February 2012.

Home return permits

I don't see how this is a controversy linked to this election. I don't find it remotely controversial, and I fail to see how it's relevant. Removed accordingly. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 16:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. This is 100% relevant. Albert Ho who had his return permit taken away was one of the major topics of the debate. This also got one of the bigger reactions from the crowd. Compared to other controversies, when the election is over, this issue will still carry on. This also ultimately affect every citizen who have had their permit taken away. Benjwong (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The section has 2 cited sources. One stated the CCP would not appoint a person without an HRP to be a principal official, another one stated Tang promised to persuade the CCP to issue an HRP to any person without one. IMHO, both are not sufficient to tell how controversial it is. By the way, I think Li Ka-shing gaffe is even less controversial than HRP issue. Did the HRP issue and LKS's slip of the tongue cause any "prolonged public dispute or debate" (definition of controversy)? --Jabo-er (talk) 01:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you just don't see the controversy. If Tang won, and Albert Ho still can't get their permit back. That would be a false promise. To take away a citizen's permit, and then re-use it to bribe/blackmail the same victim again is a very dirty communist tactic. Tang did it with a friendly smile. Possibly this is the last time this kind of bribe is put on public display, so nobody else is getting their permits back. Tang possibly lost Beijing's support in the end because he was very willing to help a Democrat member like Ho. And after Leung won, in his speech he said he wants to work with everyone, including Albert Ho like a fellow HK citizen, not some party opposition. But does he realize he is holding the poor guy's permit as hostage every day? Even more controversial is who is losing their permit next. Like I mentioned earlier, this one is carrying over. Lee Cheuk-yan even announced the "Hong Kong White Terror" era already yesterday. Benjwong (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I remain slightly concerned that certain aspects such as the HRP are either unnecessary or overplayed in the article because I suspect there may be errant views as to what constitutes relevance. I couldn't make head nor tail of the KS Li gaffe, or whether it is sufficiently germane, but I left it in pending further research. I suspect, though, that there will be cries of censorship if I attempted to remove it. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And the Li Ka-shing issue is even more complicated/controversial. It is presented by the general media as a slip of the tongue. So we present it in wiki according to general sources the same way. But there is no way someone like him doesn't know typical citizen don't get 1-person-1-vote. So why did Li pretend to be politics-unaware? He moved an insane amount of money out of HK to Singapore. If you are keeping track of which communist semi-capitalist team is winning like a basketball game. Team Wen is definitely winning. They are shooting 3 pointers from half court. Benjwong (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Team Jiang Zemin

Jiang Mianheng
Bo Xilai
Lai Changxing
Tang Hsiang Chien
Henry Tang
Li Ka shing

Team Wen Jiabao

Hu Jintao
Xi Jinping
Li Keqiang
Leung Chun-ying
Cheng Yu-tung (switched team)
Henry Cheng (switched team)
  • To me, CY Leung is an orthodox socialist, and may try working himself into the mould of Lee Kuan Yew. In line with Florence Leung's assertions, Albert Cheng implied in his last article that Leung was a sleeper Commie plant and that Tang and the tycoons never knew they were being played. That explains just why the DAB were so happy to back him and give him an entry ticket and the final block vote – they are all orthodox CPC, IMHO. CY's not actually a "reformist" unless you happen to be a fat cat, as it's expected CY might make the tycoons work a bit harder to keep earning their pots of money. But I feel that we are digressing by its inclusion. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Percent of ballots cast

News sources such as The Standard and Bloomberg calculate that Leung got 61 percent of ballots cast, which should be based on the total number of votes (1,132). However the infobox states Leung got 57.4%, which may be based on 1,200 seats in the Election Committee. Besides there are actually 1,193 members, the percent of ballots cast should be based on the total number of votes rather than the total number of eligible voters. And I also doubt that 57.4% has any reliable source to support and may be original research. I raised the same concern on the Chinese Wikipedia as well. --Quest for Truth (talk) 11:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Blank votes and abstentions are important in this context. There is enough in the body of the article, but the infobox, where nulls are not listed, and percentages quoted on a "standard understanding" are potentially misleading. But you're right, it ought not to be based on 1200, because there are 7 vacant seats on the EC. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • FYI, actually there are no vacant seats. The total number of members on EC is 1,193 because some belong in one or more subsectors.—Chris!c/t 03:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • ASAIK, there are two vacant seats and five members (何鍾泰、黃國健、葉國謙、劉柔芬、劉健儀) belong to both of the "National People's Congress" sector and the "Legislative Council" sector.--Quest for Truth (talk) 14:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also Lau Wong-fat (劉皇發) belong to both the "Heung Yee Kuk" sector and the "Legislative Council" sector.—Chris!c/t 20:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • The information of the Election Committee is so poorly documented that it is very difficult to know how many and who belong to more than one subsector.--Quest for Truth (talk) 10:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The blank votes and abstentions should be presented in a separate table, perhaps a table showing the statistics of the results, rather than making up a miscalculated figure. --Quest for Truth (talk) 14:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Polling table

I can't quite decode what the colour coding in the polling table relates to. I think an explanation is required. Perhaps a legend could be added? --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the first-placed candidate is highlighted, and "no preference" is also highlighted if it is higher than the first-placed candidate. Nevertheless the choice of colour is really arbitrary as those "independent" candidates cannot be associated to any colour. --Quest for Truth (talk) 14:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 41 external links on Hong Kong Chief Executive election, 2012. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:2012_Hong_Kong_Chief_Executive_election"