讨论:程翔
本条目必须遵守维基百科生者传记方针。缺乏来源或来源不可靠的负面内容必须立即移除,尤其是可能造成当事人名誉损害的内容。在移除这些资料时不受到回退不过三原则的规范。 如果您是本条目的主角,请参见关于您本人的条目及自传。如发现条目主角编辑条目时,请参见处理条目主角所作的编辑。 |
本条目与高风险主题在世人物传记相关,故适用高风险主题流程及相关规范。持续或严重抵触维基百科五大支柱或方针指引的编者可被管理员封锁或实施编辑限制。用户在编辑本页面前应先参阅高风险主题相关规范。 |
本条目页属于下列维基专题范畴: | |||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
此条目已经由新闻、媒体机构作为内容来源所引用。引用这篇条目的文章是: 于2006年9月3日所发表的《网开一面:维基百科上的“程翔”(首段)》,出自明报。 请同时到Wikipedia:新闻报导引用维基百科的内容处加入有关资料。(为免自我提及,本模板仅限于放在条目讨论页的页顶。) |
Untitled
[编辑]The following sentence may violate the NPOV principle:
程翔一直被认为是一名非常亲中的民族主义者,并支持两岸统一。
There are controversy regarding the terms 亲中 and 民族主义. 亲中 is ambiguous as it may mean "pro-People's Republic of China" or "pro-Republic of China", while non-Chinese background readers may not understand.
Not all readers of Chinese-language wikipedia are ethnic Chinese.
Remember that Chinese politics articles are very sensitive so edit them after you have read the talk page thoroughly.
The term 罗生门 is difficult and ambiguous for non-Chinese native speakers, so it is better not to use it in wikipedia. Chinese-language wikipedia is not for native Chinese speakers only, and the needs of non-native Chinese speakers needs to be taken into account.
The sentence "程翔是香港居民,持有英国海外护照,并且是新加坡永久居民。" may be misleading. 英国海外护照 may mean 'British Overseas Citizen'(BOC) or 'British National (Overseas)' (BN(O)) passports, while BN(O) and BOC are different kinds of United Kingdom passports.en:British nationality law The sentence also overlooked the fact that Mr.Ching entered mainland China on his home return permit.en:Home Return Permit This indicates that the PRC Govt regards as a PRC Citizen. He is not solely British.
Moreover, many statements in the essay here are not supported by credible sources.
219.78.109.252 16:50 2005年7月24日 (UTC)
罗生门是什么意思?
[编辑]我看了罗生门这个条目,似乎有不了了之的意思,不知道对不对?我建议换掉这个词,太有地方特色,不是普遍用语。瀑布汗 瀑布屋 18:15 2005年7月24日 (UTC)
- "罗生门"现改为消岐义页,请参看。--Whoevert 23:28 2005年12月26日 (UTC)
'亲中的《文汇报》' - it is not necessary to describe the newspaper as 'pro-Beijing' in this way. I suggest the phrase 亲中的 should be deleted. If readers are interested in information regarding the newspaper they should read the article 文汇报. 219.79.66.28 05:26 2005年7月30日 (UTC)
文汇报 already idenitfied as a pro-Beijing newspaper in Hong Kong.Even without that,their comments have shown their pro-Beijing view.