Talk:2012 Hong Kong Chief Executive election

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)

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."

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)