Talk:Chen Shui-bian: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:51, 19 August 2006

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

"Taiwanese return home to vote: 1,500 from Bay Area expected to help decide island's future". San Francisco Chronicle. March 19, 2004.

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 (館前路) → Fu-ch'ien Road (府前路) → Chieh-shou Road (介壽路) → Ketagalan Avenue (凱達格蘭大道).

Despite the article's informal tone and bias, I believe the names are correct. Although it seems to have missed Chiang Kai-shek Street (?蔣介石路?) 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)[reply]

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. --Jia ng 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. --Jia ng 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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? --70.231.252.118 06:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 86: / Line 86: @@
 == 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.
+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?
+Hello? Neutral point of view?! anyone? --[[User:70.231.252.118|70.231.252.118]] 06:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)