Talk:Donald Tsang - Knowledge

1778:

of respecting the personal preferences of subjects of biographical articles as to how they wish to use their names" - but I don't know of a single example where we have altered the bolded text to take into account personal preferences. The bolded text has always reflected the full official name and title of the subject of the article. As such, I don't really see the validity of any of the "against" points in your post, nor do I see the relevance of your second bullet point. A valid "against" argument would be those who have renounced or repudiated their titles should not have the title reflected as part of their official name. Here, we would need to see how Tsang has explicitly rejected his title - the Hong Kong Government doesn't recognize British honors for anyone, not just Tsang, so pointing to the website is not enough. Another valid argument would be that Tsang's connection to the United Kingdom is now too attenuated for the "Sir" to have any significance. Current guidelines says to exclude British post-nominals for non-British subjects. The situation here is a bit trickier as we are dealing with a substantive knighthood held by a former British subject instead of an honorary knighthood bestowed on a foreign citizen. We've kept the "Sir" for other Hong Kong knights (e.g.

1110:

would not need to renounce that as China had chosen not to recognize British citizenships acquired under the scheme in the early 90s. Most people do not renounce the British national overseas nationality, so does Nearly Headless Nick has any evidence at all that: 1. he renounced his British nationality; and 2. he had British citizenship (most Hongkongers do not), and had renounced it? Your comments just made you sound like you are not really as informed as you are. Much like how you suggested that the use of the title was to make him sound not Hongkongese. The use of the title might contribute to making him sound less Chinese, but nobody thinks it would make him sound like Hongkongese, only that he's *privileged* and is an establishment elite. There would not be any issue of Sir Donald suing Knowledge or any writer or editor for having "sir" or "KBE" near his name, for the simple fact that he had never renounced it. I'm not certain why some people here are acting as if there will be any actual problem with having them as parts of his name. At the very least, there should be something added after his name that says "also known as Sir Donald Tsang" since he's literally also known as that. Would you not at least agree with that?

899:". The subject did not commit a crime that they wish to hide from the world. The simple fact is that this is not how they have used their name, ever. I am simply saying that as a former British national, they are not closely affiliated with the United Kingdom anymore. "It is common (in fact standard) for non-British governments to avoid listing British honors in their official publications, and for non-British politicians to avoid use of their British honors." – Absolutely, many foreign nationals may not wish to renounce the honors conferred upon them by foreign governments but at the same time they may not wish to use them regularly. That does not mean that Knowledge editors will determine how their name appears in their biography articles. The subject has consistently used "Donald Tsang" as their proper and complete name, rather than "Sir Donald Tsang" and to that effect we must ensure that we are sensitive enough to respect their choice with regard to how they wish to use their name, rather than force a title upon them which they don't wish to use. In many cases, the governments may not permit their subjects/citizens to legally use titles accorded to them by foreign governments. 2022:

called "negative effect" argument, then how much information do we need to "cover up"/"relocate" in order to "please" the biographee or to have the article be rewritten in a degree or in a manner the bopgraphee likes or endorses? Is it our duty to portray someone in a way he/she likes in the article? What we should bear in mind instead is to be politically netural, upholding objectivity in writing wikipedia biographical articles. As long as the facts exist, it would be "self-deceiving" to eliminate the "negative effect" by moving the title to somewhere else. If we treat Tsang's article differently from others regarding British titles, we will create a feeling to our readers that we are intentionally hiding something out of political reasons. So why dont we be straight-forward and be in-line with our existing established practice? As Ohconfucius points out, "the bestowal of the knighthood is a highly notable fact that, by not having it in the lead, the readers would be astonished".

2280:

additional clause permitting a substantive knight to use the title “Sir” only if he has close ties with the United Kingdom? The fact is that Tsang is not only a “member” of the British Empire but a substantive “knight commander” of the British Empire. He was invested a substantive instead of honorary knight because of his close relationship with the UK. To treat him different by not to use “Sir” at the lead is to negate and deny these important facts. So as long as his name is not crossed out from the order’s register, his ties with the United Kingdom remains. Not to mention his nearly 30 years of service in the British colonial government of Hong Kong, after 1997 we see that Tsang has kept his ties with the UK in both the official and private spheres of his life. In his official capacity, he has met successive Prime Ministers including Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron (see

3032:

be entitled to a British national overseas passport, for British consular support outside of China, Hong Kong, and Macau, to join the British military (but not the Chinese ones, as Hongkongers are not allowed to join the Chinese military regardless of nationality) if one has been living in the UK for 5 years or more, as well as to vote in all UK elections if one is living in the UK (not entitled to absentee voting, but in practice they may not ban it). BNOs can also queue the UK/EU queue at UK airports but one must fill in the declaration form normally filled by non-EU nationals. BNOs have no citizenship rights in the European Union, but from personal experience, EU officers have no idea and they'd let BNOs in without even opening the passport.

1831:"Does not use" and "does not with to be known by" are two separate matters. We can't use evidence of the former to prove the latter. It would be great if someone here could pull up direct quotations on what Tsang has said regarding his title. With this evidence, we would need to make a judgment call - at what degree of repudiation do we need for us to exclude the title from the lead sentence? Simply not using the title should not be enough, as the examples I've linked to above show many instances of people who intentionally do not use their titles but still have the titles appearing in the bolded text in the lead sentence of their Knowledge articles.-- 2018:

but we still put their full names down in their biographical entries. The reasons is because this – to put down the full name, full post-nominal letters, full peerages and full title, is what we usually do in the opening paragraph of an entry in Knowledge. We have already used the more commonly known “Donald Tsang” in Tsang’s article name and info box, so using “Sir Donald Tsang Yam-keun” at the lead does not hinder readers from knowing the fact the “Donald Tsang” is the name that Tsang is more commonly known. To treat Tsang’s article differently from others may be an act of self-censorship.

2079:@EricSerge: Please refer to the existing discussions, as your questions have already been addressed and are not part of the dispute. Tsang is entitled to "Sir" because he was knighted when still a Commonwealth citizen; it does not matter that he later ceased to be a Commonwealth citizen as the title is held for life. That he is entitled to "Sir" is not subject to dispute here as this is corroborated by multiple reliable sources. We are not listing "KBE" as post-nominals without the "Sir" as that would perpetuate a misconception that he is not entitled to "Sir" when he is. 2847:: "For persons whose notability (since being awarded their KBE) are mainly notable in a non-Commonwealth jurisdiction/culture, we should follow the conventions of the appropriate location, with the conventions of England taking second place", "We should take the preference of the person concerned into account" and "We should take into account that acceptance of awards or use of titles might be illegal or otherwise frowned upon in certain places and that our use of such honorifics might imply such use", should be taken into due consideration. — 73: 245: 224: 2289:) and other British officials in numerous occasions. It can be said that the British Prime Ministers meet Tsang more frequently than they meet the President of PRC. In his private life, Tsang has retained his personal friendships with many of his British friends and former colleagues, including Sir David Ford, Lord Howe of Aberavon and so on. All in all, I find it awkward to suddenly invent a criteria that one need to have close ties in order to be addressed with British title in the lead of Knowledge biographical entry.-- 2337:

he does not style himself with the title, it does not imply that he is rejecting the title. Even if he has stated that he does not intend to use the title, it does not amount to him refusing the title. In fact, based on the source stated somewhere above, he has accepted his knighthood and intends to keep it, but just chooses not to print his title on his business card. As such, the title "Sir" is still valid, and definitely should be shown somewhere in the article, whether it is in the lead paragraph or the infobox.

1135:

the Sir is not actually a part of his name (unlike the "Piyush" in the Bobby Jindal example) but rather is something that designates an honor, the possible blp issue is more important than the guideline. The fact that he was so honored is clearly indicated in the body of the article so the fact itself is not hidden. Note that this only applies to the use of the title itself in the lead, there is no reason (at least none given in the arguments) why the lead cannot include a statement saying that he was knighted. --

979:

Donald Tsang, and he is free to either use the title or not. This is an entitlement, or a privilege that the subject of this article may or may not choose to use. He clearly does not. The point you raise in the first paragraph of your response is an irrelevant argument. The question in principle that has arisen is how do these individuals use their names? Hillary Clinton's legal name is "Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton" and similarly Donald Tsang's legal name is "Donald Tsang" not "Sir Donald Tsang".

963:

independence all have "Sir" in their biographies. The Hong Kong people who were knighted before 1997 similarly have all have "Sir" in their biographies. We would have to make an exception to the convention here. The problem is, anyone who is entitled to "Sir" by definition has a closer connection to the United Kingdom than someone who is not; that is, that person had to have been at the time the honor was conferred a subject of the British monarch. Why do we list "Sir" but not "Mister" in articles? --

2783:

the title, and has a preference against it (Economist), (ii) Tsang is PRC national and (iii) is serving as the Chief Executive of HKSAR and so cannot lawfully hold any titles according to official protocol. Tsang has not publicly renounced the title but he has consciously kept his official positions within the government of HKSAR. He has also stated a preference to be referred to with only his name, though he says that he will use the postnom on his business card (as established above). —

2661:

provide us more clarity in this case is the status of PRC/HKSAR law on foreign titles. For instance, Indian nationals cannot accept and/or use foreign titles as per federal law, hence there can be no entitlement in that scenario. HKSAR is not a member of the Commonwealth realm anymore, and must comply with its own laws or PRC law where applicable. Relevant questions: (i) Can HKSAR/PRC citizens accept and use foreign titles? (ii) Can HKSAR/PRC officials accept and use foreign titles? —

192: 1346:. He has yet to renounce his knighthood, and while he does not actively use it, the fact remains that he is still entitled to style himself "Sir". Because he was a British subject at the point of time when he was knighted, his knighthood is not honorary. While the title "Sir" should not appear in the page title as he's not commonly known by it, it definitely should be in the lead section until such a time comes when he decides to officially renounce his knighthood. 553: 255: 506: 130: 106: 3576: 903:

Rodham Clinton is an appropriate reference in this particular case because it is evidence of Knowledge using some common sense to use a name for her article which she uses while conducting her business. The subject of the article uses "Donald Tsang" only when they conduct their regular business, and not "Sir Donald Tsang". If it were a matter of law, then we would be using only their legal name in the article as per Hong Kong law.

64: 3586: 2557:, whom Knowledge does refer to as Count Pavel Ignatiev even though he survived another 27 years after being demoted. George Ignatieff and Michael Ignatieff, on the other hand, never officially became the count and therefore are not referred to as counts. Donald Tsang's case is, therefore, in line with Pavel Ignatieff, because he officially accepted and held the honour, but subsequently changed nationality. 1986:

appointed to serve in various public bodies, such as judges from other common law jurisdictions, are permitted to use British titles without post-nominal letters if they so wish. It appears that Tsang has simply followed prevailing policy of the HK government. But the manual of style of the HK government should not be adopted or followed by Knowledge as Knowledge is not an extension of HK government.

1284:. That the media or government does not use the title on a regular basis is not a valid consideration in determining official names and titles in the bolded first sentence; it is only a valid concern for the title of the article and subsequent mentions of the subject after the first sentence of the article. Inclusion of the title "Sir" is consistent with existing Knowledge conventions: see 716:

letters (honorific suffixes), other than those denoting academic degrees, should be included when they are issued by a country or widely recognizable organization with which the subject has been closely associated." Bill Gates is not "closely associated" with the United Kingdom. You may want to argue that this is similarly no longer the case for Donald Tsang, but the Manual of Style

754:: being awarded a knighthood is IMHO important enough to warrant a mention in the lead, even if it's just to display the "KBE", "Bt." or whatever the underlying honour is, with or without a footnote, in the same way as "GBS". It's argued that "Sir Donald" is sometimes used to disparage, but that is surely irrelevant. We should place greater importance on the fact that Tsang 140: 2827:

business card does not include any non-Hong Kong postnominals - this is an expression of protocol, not of right. The issue we are supposed to be discussing here (which we were doing until KC9TV derailed us with some unsubstantiated claims), is how we want to display this right (coupled with usage) in the article, not whether he has this right in the first place. --

2756:: "Chinese nationals of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region with right of abode in foreign countries may, for the purpose of travelling to other countries and territories, use the relevant documents issued by the foreign governments." Senior officers of the HKSAR government are forbidden to hold the "right of abode in any foreign country". This is stated 2004: 1998: 2871:

or less continues to follow British conventions - as long as it's not from the government, British honors do appear on a regular basis, so there is no "local" conventions, so to speak, preventing us from putting British honors next to the name of a Hong Konger. Whether the "Sir" appears on a regular basis depends on the individual - more often for

2001: 797:

bestowed by the British Royalty is neither a simple matter nor a joke. Donald Tsang is (i) no longer a British citizen and therefore cannot be said to be closely connected to Great Britain anymore and (ii) he has never used either the title or the postnom by himself is enough evidence that he does not wish to use it. I think the article on

2029:

quote is that the British government certainly does not have a policy on Donald Tsang. But it equally does not have a policy on other individuals such as (Sir) Tom Jones and (Dame) Helen Mirren (Royal family members and British public office holders may be an exception). So there is no point to argue in this discussion using that quote.

2974:. The fact that he was knighted is significant and it receives sufficient coverage in the lead section. In case the material is reintroduced in the body text, it should accurately represent the sources it claims to represent and devoid of any personal interpretations or deductions of an individual editor on the subject (please see 2843:

in absolute terms, not with qualifications. Whether he is simply following HKSAR protocol is immaterial, the fact is that he has not used it post-handover, does not use it currently and has stated in clear terms that he will not use the title. The general practice on Knowledge as illuminated by Boson on

3031:

Let's say you were born in Hong Kong in 1990, and you have done nothing whatsoever about your nationality (other than registering as a British national overseas). Then now, IF you are ethnically Han Chinese (including Cantonese), you would be a Chinese citizen + a British national overseas. You would

2822:

passport via registration prior to the handover but also passports Canadian and Australia due to migration, as legal nationals of a foreign country; they do not merely hold these passports as "non-citizen investors." The wording "travel document" in the NPCSC interpretations is a term of art, used in

2782:

Being permitted to use travel documents issued by other countries is not the equivalent of being in a position to accept the nationality of another country. There are a handful of countries in the world which issue passports to non-citizen investors. The relevant facts here are (i) Tsang does not use

2738:

Chinese citizens are supposedly forbidden from holding another nationality (but in the case of Hong Kong this is intentionally unenforced except for senior government ministers), so it is safe to say Tsang is only Chinese by nationality... at least until next month. I think UK convention is that only

2402:

that as so long as he lives in Hong Kong or in China, the title of "Sir", and ALL of his other British Honours, SHOULD be dropped from his name (even if he were to request otherwise (asked/requested not to)). He has no right to use them any more, even if he wanted to. (with his name printed upon it,

2336:

Whether or not he chooses to use the title, the fact remains that the title still belongs to him. He has not renounced the title, and neither has he requested that people not refer to him with the title. While it is true that as a personal choice, and perhaps due to protocol as a government official,

2199:

The question over here is over a British title, not the full legal name of the subject which is accurately stated. You are conflating two different issues. Furthermore, you will not find sources stating that "Bill Clinton does not use his full name anymore" unlike Tsang's case where both Reuters and

2028:

Some opponents have quoted a spokesman of the British government who said that “the British government does not have a policy on Donald Tsang’s use of British title” and therefore, “it is for the individual concerned to decide whether they use or wish to be known by their title”. Our response to this

1989:

Some sources, like Reuters, have “observed” that Tsang “does not use the title”. But according to a meeting between Tsang and the media in 2005, Tsang only admitted that “he does not show his British title along with his honorary titles of doctor on his name card as the Chief Secretary of HKSAR” (See

1777:

The dispute here is not whether Tsang is entitled to the title "Sir" (he is), or whether he should be referred to as "Sir Donald" in the body of the article (he should not), but whether "Sir" should appear in the bolded text in the lead sentence of the article. You state that "Knowledge has a history

1606:

962:

does not include the title, which leads to the next point - The issue here is whether there is any precedent on Knowledge for not displaying the "Sir" title for anyone who is entitled to it. I can't find a precedent for not including it: the Indians who returned their knighthood insignia after Indian

2870:

Applying Boson's criteria, British honors continue to be used in Hong Kong, but inconsistently. This is contrasted with American usage, which does not use post-nominals except in certain (i.e. medical and scientific) academic settings for academic degrees and personal memberships. But Hong Kong more

2842:

Assuming that PRC/HKSAR law stands silent either through the Constitution or statute regarding the use of titles by their citizenry, it is true that the UK government says he is entitled to the title. The fact, however, is that he has a preference against using the title - the Economist asserts that

1934:

It is the established practice in Knowledge that full British titles with post-nominal letters are displayed at the lead of biographical articles for those who have received any order of chivalry or substantive knighthood from the British crown. Tsang is a substantive knight so he should be treated

1800:

Nowhere in my statement above do I claim that Tsang is not entitled to use the honour. Renouncing an honorific bestowed by the British crown is neither a simple matter nor a joke. That Tsang has consistently not used the honorific post-handover is an undisputed fact. This is sufficient evidence of

1109:

Where is this assertion about his not being British coming from? Hong Kong permanent residents born before 1997 were mostly "British nationals (overseas)", and he does not need to renounce that in order to take up any positions in the government. In fact, ever if he had British citizenship, he still

1006:

The Manual of Style states to include "Sir" as part of the bolded text. Unlike post-nominals, there are no qualifications to this rule. We would have to create one to exclude "Sir" here. Titles are related to but separate from legal names. My point about legal names is in response to you bringing up

978:

There is no "legal title" issue here, these are honorifics conferred by a foreign government which the subject of the article is no longer associated with. He has also consistently chosen to use simply "Donald Tsang" as his name. As evidenced above, the British government does not have a policy on

906:

I am not aware of any issues surrounding Snoop Dogg's or World Metta's use of their legal names. The issues we are primarily discussing are (i) whether we should use the British honors in this article regardless of the non-use by the subject himself, and (ii) whether the subject is closely connected

902:

Matters of law? Does Donald Tsang's Hong Kong SAR passport refer to him as "Sir Donald Tsang"? There are no legalities involved here with the use of titles. The subject is not even actively trying to revise their legal name (in case they did, we ought to respect even that). The article on Hillary

851:(her common names). I don't understand what precedent that article provides here or how it is relevant. Full official names and titles are matters of law, not personal preference. As I stated above, Tsang's personal preference only has a bearing on how we refer to him on subsequent mentions, but per 724:

What news articles use on a regular basis is relevant to deciding our article titles, but irrelevant in deciding what the full name is. For each person, there is only one full name; this is a question of accuracy and is not negotiable. If the knighthood were so bothersome to Mr Tsang as you contend,

2913:

Jiang has asked me to clarify my close above. On rereading the discussion, my conclusion is that the RfC only addressed whether or not Tsang should be titled "Sir" and that the RfC concluded that he should not, primarily because of blp issues. However, the discussion is inconclusive as to whether a

2545:

title of "Count", which and indeed they did not, but as either British subjects or Canadian citizens, we do NOT refer to the either of them as a "Count", as reflected upon their respective articles in the various versions of Knowledge. (Such titles are in fact still recognised by the Palace, and by

2497:

to just return his British Honours to the Palace (or to the Home Secretary or the Home Office, the proper channels), or to a British Ambassador or Consul, or to otherwise give them up by a simple declaration, with or with an oath, a solicitor, a commissioner for oaths, a notary public or an officer

2036:

says: "While the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, the subject's full name should be given in the lead paragraph, if known. Many cultures have a tradition of not using the full name of a person in everyday reference, but the article should start

2017:

We are not Tsang’s agent or proxy so we have no obligation to make changes to Tsang’s article following his favour or individual preference (And please keep in mind that he has not requested the general public for stop mentioning him with the title). In fact, many people do not use their full names

1985:

The Hong Kong government has an internal circular regulating the use of titles and post-nominal letters. It states that civil servants, public sector workers and principal government officials are not allowed to use British titles and post-nominal letters with their names. Peers and knights who are

1134:

The text should not include the "Sir". Both sides make good points. On the one hand, we have a guideline for British titles that say the sir should be included. On the other hand, we have the fact that Mr. Tsang does not himself use the title and evidence that he prefers not to. However, given that

777:

That the subject doesn't use "Sir", and that news media doesn't regularly use it, is just reason to avoid "Sir Donald" in subsequent mentions in this article and to avoid using "Sir Donald" in all in other articles (lists and the like). But there is one place where this title must and should appear

625:

BLP violations are statements on living persons that are not backed up by references. We have referenced the Economist and New York Times explicitly affirming that he is entitled to use the title "Sir". The references, and the quality of such references, already prove suitability for inclusion. The

2866:

above focuses on Tsang's position as the impetus behind not using the title, implying that he has no personal opposition to having the title imposed on him. To determine Tsang's personal preference, we will need to wait until he steps down next month to see whether he decides to use it in personal

2705:

Since we are venturing into speculation rather than fact, I think it would be safe to assume that since Tsang has happily held his position as the Chief Executive of Hong Kong for the past few years, he intends to follow HKSAR protocol rather than use the title. Since HKSAR is officially a part of

2609:

It seems that you are confusing country-specific protocol with an universal right. The title comes from a British honor - only the United Kingdom's recognition of his title is sufficient and relevant for us to state that he is entitled to the title. It is common practice for countries to disregard

2351:

I agree with The dog2 to a great extent. This is one of the areas where Knowledge policy breaks down: Sir Donald himself is ambivalent as to whether he should be called "Sir", therefore BLP guidelines have no effect on this issue. However, the fact that he made clear he accepted the KBE means that

2113:

Let me also add: the reasons for excluding the title "Sir" are the same as those for exluding "KBE" - you will never see "Mr Donald Tsang, KBE" anywhere, so it would be unusual (and IMO misleading, by suggesting the knighthood is honorary) for Knowledge to include the post-nominals while excluding

629:

It is common (in fact standard) for non-British governments to avoid listing British honors in their official publications, and for non-British politicians to avoid use of their British honors. Tsang similarly does not use the post-nominals "KBE". This, along with not using "Sir" has nothing to do

603:

The subject of the article does not use the title "Sir" ever since his knighthood prior to the handover in 1997. No Hong Kong government publications or mainstream media websites refer to him as such. Re-including the title is a BLP violation and should not be done until this dispute is resolved.

2252:

The Lady Gaga story is reportedly false. The issue of name and title should not be conflated. Donald Tsang does not have any close connections with the United Kingdom anymore and he has not used the the title post-handover. His full name is correctly displayed in the lead section ("Donald Tsang

2021:

Some have suggested that the use of the British title at the lead "could have some negative effect". However, there is no solid grounds supporting the argument and the accusation that the use of "Sir" could be a defamation to Tsang's reputation has been unfound either. If we are to endorse the so

2937:

1. Hongkongers are British nationals overseas. Sir Donald wouldn't have to renounce that, and most people do not renounce it. 2. Hongkongers were not British citizens prior to the handover. It would thus not make sense to say "no longer" if he never was one. 3. If he acquired British citizenship

2826:

There is no Hong Kong law prohibiting either ordinary PRC nationals nor the Chief Executive from either accepting or holding any titles. Protocol may dictate that Tsang does not use a non-Hong Kong title in official capacity, but protocol does not dictate whether he holds a particular title. His

2218:

Even if titles and names are separate issues, I fail to grasp the logical conclusion being made here - that the bolded text reflects personal or common usage. I linked the two to show that the bolded text does not reflect personal preference or common usage. Here, if common and personal usage is

715:

begins "William Henry "Bill" Gates III" not "Bill Gates". This is a simple application of the Manual of Style. The Manual of Style explicitly calls for bolding titles such as Sir along with the full name. As for the post-nominals KBE absent in Bill Gates, the Manual of Style states "Post-nominal

683:

where the postnom "KBE" is not included in the lead since he chooses not to use it. Please remember that we are an encyclopedia and in the case of biographies of living persons, we choose to be more conservative in order to not disparage the subjects of our articles, and at the same time respect

3596: 2660:

Sure, so we agree on the fact that Donald Tsang prefers not to use the title? KC9TV asserts that Donald Tsang is not entitled to use the title, while you think he is. The British government is clearly of the opinion that he is entitled to the title, as per sources discussed above. What would

2279:

Are you the one so empowered to judge one’s closeness with the United Kingdom in a way as arbitrarily as you wish? How do you quantify closeness or how do you invent a standard to judge and compare? In what context can we say someone is close to the United Kingdom? Since when there is a new and

729:

did. But this is besides the point. I do not see how BLP has been in any way violated. We only seek to remove information that could be wrong or inaccurate; we do not remove "negative" information just because the subject may not like having that information there. Such information need only be

2469:

use British knighthoods and other British Honours for political purposes, in order to bash Mr. Tsang upon his head, or just for his simple embarrassment. This is a misuse of Knowledge for political aims, and even a personal disrespect to the Queen and her native Realm. I think that it would be

1849:

dated 13 March 2005: "Concerning his knighthood, Tsang said in a meeting with the media... that he had accepted the knighthood, he had thanked for it and he would keep it. But he would not show it, together with his three honorary titles of doctor, on his name card. He thought it would be more

796:

I hope you are not serious. I don't think the subject of the article has an issue with the title itself, but the fact that he has consistently not used this title either himself or in Hong Kong government documents is enough proof that he does not want to continue using it. Renouncing an honor

2763:

Tsang did not apply to become a BNO, as his post-1997 positions did not allow, so he does not hold any non-Chinese nationality. None of this is relevant here. He was a British subject at the time his knighthood was confirmed, so he was registered as a "ordinary knight". We've already provided

1555:

I think we should take the personal preference of the individual into account. There is evidence that he has not used the title since he was knighted and that establishes a precedent. Also the sources mentioned above (including Reuters and Economist list) say that he does not use the title.

3610:

Don&Selina 220.jpg is undeniably blurry. It does seem preferable to use a picture with a smiling face like this has. Donald Tsang WEF.jpg is a better photograph, but Tsang's face looks a bit concerned rather than neutral or smiling. I'd say this image also has the advantage of being more

2941:

Ultimately, it's not a terribly exciting discussion to discuss whether he's entitled to one. He clearly is. He also almost certainly still is British, notwithstanding with the common custom that "once a subject, always a subject" (legally, very few British people are "British subjects" now).

2687:

of titles since Tsang was knighted under British rule. Indian nationals who were knighted before independence were entitled to use their titles for life. Regulations in multiple countries, as far as I have encounter them, concern merely acceptance of titles instead of the use of titles after

2428:

Yea I was gonna raise the point that Hong Kong ID cards and passports do not include any honorific titles, therefore the "rule of full-name" has no effect here. However, I disagree with you otherwise: Donald Tsang is still entitled to "Sir" if he wants to resume it, per the analyses above.

1801:

his intention to not use the honorific before his name. The fact that Tsang is still entitled to use the honorific is immaterial along with the fact that he has not renounced it since his own preference as to how his name should be used in the public sphere is apparent. According to this

2180:@Kondi - I don't get the connection between "does not use the title" and "should not be included in the lede", this conclusion being a direct contradiction of our Manual of Style. The bolded text, unlike the article title, was never meant to reflect common usage. Reliable sources refer to 2253:

Yam-kuen") despite that fact that he is more commonly known as "Donald Tsang" or "Mr. Tsang". The subject has also previously stated that he will not use the title so we should not speculate into why he's doing this and simply respect the fact that he does not intend to use the title. —

1896:

The implication from this material is that Tsang has never said he does not wish to be known by the title. He is merely not using it in his official capacity as an officer of the Hong Kong Government. It will be interesting to see what happens after he steps down as CE in a couple of

1882:：「...至於代表前朝港英身分的英國爵士勳銜，曾蔭權昨日在傳媒簡報會上說，英國政府頒勳銜給他，是肯定他在1997年前30多年從事公職，當中不涉及效忠的問題，同樣的勳銜亦曾頒發給其他國家的政要，例如李光耀，也沒有效忠的問題。他表示，爵士勳銜他已接受了，也說了多謝，會保留，但名片上不會用，正如他有3個名譽博士銜頭，名片上也沒有，只印上了大紫荊勳章，因為這較為切合他政務司長的身分。」 This is extracted from an online news archive. Access to the archive is restricted. FYI-- 1661:

There is an on-going dispute surrounding the use of the honorary prefix "Sir" to the name of the subject in the lead section of the article. This dispute has gone on for quite a while and I think it is time that we solicit wider community opinion through this RfC. Those

912:

Ultimately, the question we should ask ourselves is whether an "honor" by a foreign government so important that it should stick in a biography article even though the subject does not use it? If we are to use that definition of an "honor", then it probably isn't one. —

868:

In sum, (i) just means we should leave out the post-nominals but says nothing about the title and (ii) has no bearing on the bolded text at first mention. Whether he is entitled to the title "Sir" is not in dispute; it is supported by numerous high quality reliable

3000:

When I was living at Hong Kong, Hong Kong was a part of the UK, so that Hongkongers' nationalities were British. However, as you all know, Hong Kong is under the Red China since 1997. So that what is the nationality of Hong Konger? Still British or now Red China?

778:

in Knowledge, and that is the bolded text in the lead section of the article. To leave it out would be to perpetuate the misconception that he is not entitled to the title, which is an inaccuracy (and you know how we treat those in biographies of living persons).--

3039:

In short, Hongkongers are technically dual nationals (actually, with also the meaningless nationality of the Republic of China (Taiwan) unless they have renounced either. So, Sir Donald is most likely still British, and possibly never have been a British citizen.

1686:

stated "There is no Government Policy on the use of Donald Tsang's title, which derives from the KBE awarded to him in 1997 for his 30-year service to Hong Kong. It is for the individual concerned to decide whether they use or wish to be known by their title." –

1427:

as Sir or Dame? This conversation was hijacked, I believe, by republicans (and I don't mean the political party of Donald Trump, who for some bizarre reason has been mentioned in other editors' rationales). I will, however, not re-add to lede until consensus is

684:

their choice in terms of how their names are used. In case you were not aware (which I don't think is the case) – within the context of Hong Kong, the title has been used to disparage the subject in a way to show that he is not Chinese/Hong Kong person. —

2530:, a person should, except when the law provides otherwise, be able to choose whatever name that he elects, and wishes to be known by, including his titles. We do not, for example, force a married woman to take up the title of "Missus", or "Mrs.", do we? 2390:. He is no longer either a British citizen, a person with a British passport, a citizen of the Commonwealth or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland (British Nationality Acts 1948 and 1981). Legally-speaking, technically, he might still be a knight, but 1594:. He is no longer either a British citizen, a person with a British passport, a citizen of the Commonwealth or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland (British Nationality Acts 1948 and 1981). Legally-speaking, technically, he might still be a knight, but 3698:

for Donald Tsang. While I noted that there has been a lengthy RfC debate on whether to include the use of "Sir" for Donald Tsang in 2012, arguments had been premised on interpretations of existing Wiki policies and guidelines - which can go both ways.

674:

I disagree. There are more sources that refer to him with his proper name which is "Donald Tsang" without the titles. He has himself chosen not to use the British honor while in the office of the chief executive. Please take a look at the articles on

656:: "Note that some people choose not to use their titles, so Sir Donald Tsang, for instance, prefers to be just Mr Tsang." But our Manual of Style does not use what people "choose to be known as" in the lede - we state their full official name there.-- 3555:

reverted this change, saying that the image is poorer in quality. Nevermind3017 switched it back, clarifying that they meant sharper than the previous image they had uploaded. None of the other options I could find in Commons are of good quality.

833:." You came here claiming he was not entitled to the title as a non-British subject. That, if unsourced, would be grounds for a BLP violation, but multiple reliable sources exist confirming this. I don't see the relevance of your other assertions. 1978:(a life peer), although they does not use their British title, their full title is displayed at the lead of their respective biographical entries. If the logic of NHN's "does not use" argument is adopted, then we should rename the article of 2403:

together with the title of "Sir") () Equally, and interestingly, British citizens are also not allowed to have or to use European titles (on their British certificates and passports, etc.). See the example of the uncle of the Prince Philip,

1607:

1379:

anyone to use any title, which is of no real import here, and that WP respects the desires of subjects of BLPs (which is a very iffy claim here in the first place as we have no evidence that he renounced the honour). Tsang appears to have

626:

full official title is likewise not what news sources commonly use, so that is a non-issue. Given the availability of reliable sources affirming this fact, you will need to present evidence to the contrary in addition to "I don't think so."

3567:

reverts three of Lmmnhn's edits. Lmmnhn reverts the reversion, noting the lower quality of the image and requesting Kirbanzo stop undoing edits without explanation. Nevermind3017 has now reverted the image back to Don&Selina 220.jpg.

3550:

In November, Clithering again reverted Nevermind3017's change, due to image quality. Nevermind3017 changed the image back to Don&Selina 220.jpg, adding that the image is sharper, more formal, more suitable for BLP and faster to load.

3421: 3271: 2861:

We haven't been able to separate official preference from personal preference against use of the title. We are sure of an official preference against the title, but have no evidence of a personal preference. In fact, the excerpt from

720:

for the title. We'd only remove "KBE" after his name but include "Sir". Can you find a single article in which the subject is entitled to use "Sir" or "Dame" but that Knowledge has not used "Sir" or "Dame" in bolded text at first

2605:

99801155KC9TV, your statement that Tsang is not entitled to the title "Sir" is patently false. If you would like to challenge the reliable sources provided on this page, then please produce some reliable sources of your own.

2823:

order to avoid directly contradicting the the Nationality Law's regulations of dual nationality. But this is not relevant here, nor is the fact that Tsang is a PRC national. That does not establish anything of relevance.

936:

The legalities that come with titles is whether the person is legally entitled to use the title or not; consider "legal title" a related concept separate from "legal name" that would not be represented on passports. Take

3411: 3401: 3261: 2230:. We are allowed to deviate from it with good justification. I believe the assertion that Tsang "does not use" the title, as opposed to Tsang "rejects" or "denies" the title, is not sufficient to be good justification.-- 3381: 3035:

If you are not ethnically Chinese, there are 2 possibilities - you may acquire another citizenship, such as the Indian or the Pakistani one. Or, if you have been left stateless, you will get the British citizenship.

3391: 1271:

for arguments repeated in the linked discussion. The bolded text in the lead section is not meant to represent personal preference and common usage - it is meant to state the full official name of the person under

1245:. The title, given to a career civil servant for 30 years' loyal service to the Crown, is highly notable and although it's not 'actively used', there are no grounds for excluding the title and postominals from the 2317:：Has anybody ever seen a concert billing "Sir Elton John" or "Sir Paul McCartney" or "Rod Stewart, CBE"? Their bios are not so titled, and rightly so, but their knighthoods are mentioned in the first sentence. -- 3081: 1693:

The British title is a foreign honor and an entitlement and cannot be forced upon an individual. Neither Donald Tsang nor the HKGOV have used this title post-handover. The subject's legal name is "Donald Tsang

3251: 957:

article? The whole point I was trying to make is that the bolded text at the beginning of the article is not meant to reflect common name or personal preference. Yes, you can argue that even his official name

2751:

This is not something that is "unintentionally unenforced". The right of Chinese nationals resident in Hong Kong to exercise a foreign nationality concurrently with Chinese nationality is authorized by the

2219:

irrelevant, does a title cease to exist just because the holder stops using it? I also don't see how a "positive assertion" makes any difference, even if it were true in Bill Clinton's case - for example,

446: 2768:

in contrast is not entitled to the title "dame" because she received her DBE after the handover - she too did not register as a BNO in order to keep her position as Chief Secretary after the handover.--

1486:

Well it appears that he is named Donald Tsang, sans accolade more often than he is Sir Donald Tsang when one pokes around on Google. Some sources have been given stating that he does not use the title

1466: 3422:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130907081819/http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=30&art_id=120109&sid=35550457&con_type=1&d_str=20120227&isSearch=1&sear_year=2012

3272:

https://web.archive.org/web/20151208182721/http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=30&art_id=120195&sid=35572939&con_type=3&d_str=20120229&isSearch=1&sear_year=2012

2970:

that says that Donald Tsang is entitled to be styled as "Sir Donald Tsang". This information can be re-introduced in to be body section of this article rather than kept in the lead in accordance with

3563:

changed the image back to the original along with making some other edits to the page. Nevermind3017 reverted this. In March, Lmmnhn changes it back along with other edits, again with no explanation.

1994:

dated 13 March 2005). He did not say that he would not use the title in whatsoever occasions in future. Also, he has never expressly requires the general public not to refer him as “Sir Donald Tsang”.

1224: 2411:, the then "Prince Philip, Prince of Greece and Denmark", had to renounce (give up) his Danish and Greek titles, even his title of "Prince", before marrying, in order to marry, the then Princess 1615:, the then "Prince Philip, Prince of Greece and Denmark", had to renounce (give up) his Danish and Greek titles, even his title of "Prince", before marrying, in order to marry, the then Princess 3425: 3275: 1647:. I am moving it down here because it is too lengthy, and makes specific arguments that are in my opinion lopsided. Arguments for either side do not belong in the statement/question of issue.-- 1497:

figure in here? On a side note, since he is not a Commonwealth citizen, is he even still entitled to use Sir? I am not sure how it works for former Commonwealth citizens. I only know that

3710:? The "Sir" honorific is used at the very start of the article. Please, this an obvious of double-standard enforcement of Wiki policy and guidelines, and I think it deserves to be relooked. 1515:

High quality sources apart from HKSAR government websites assert that Donald Tsang does not use the title, so it should not be included in the lede. Most experienced users will not care if

1736: 1198: 1084: 1044: 3778: 3528: 3435: 3285: 3145: 1126: 206: 77: 3412:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110629171801/http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=30&art_id=98807&sid=28424466&con_type=1&d_str=20100531&sear_year=2010

3402:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110629171744/http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=30&art_id=98808&sid=28425298&con_type=1&d_str=20100531&sear_year=2010

3262:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110604144751/http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=30&art_id=90818&sid=26144030&con_type=1&d_str=20091119&sear_year=2009

2610:

foreign honors bestowed on their nationals - this does not mean that all honors and titles can only be applied to nationals of the issuing country. No one here is suggesting that Tsang

3382:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110629154449/http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=12&art_id=28500&sid=5998495&con_type=1&d_str=20051222&sear_year=2005

1501:

is very often wrongly called Sir Bob. Placing the KBE Post-nominals after his name in the lede and mentioning his receipt of the KBE for services etc. should be sufficient. Cheers.

2041:

states "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it". (iii)

1745: 1207: 1088: 3392:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110522081338/http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=30&art_id=67028&sid=19293866&con_type=3&d_str=20080611&sear_year

2908: 3689: 3453: 3449: 3303: 3299: 3163: 3159: 2394:

set in the Republic of Ireland, and in the independent nations from the British Empire, within or without, inside or outside of the Commonwealth, especially in post-independence

1598:

set in the Republic of Ireland, and in the independent nations from the British Empire, within or without, inside or outside of the Commonwealth, especially in post-independence

3415: 3405: 3265: 2934:

He is most definitely entitled to the title. Apart from everything mentioned above, there's also the fact that it is most likely *false* to claim that he's "no longer British".

2470:

disingenuous, if not to actually tell an untruth, for the first three who support this motion, to attempt to claim or to deny that there were not a political motive behind this.

924: 3385: 3082:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110629202318/http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?we_cat=21&art_id=106904&sid=30866093&con_type=1&d_str=20110111&fc=4

2373: 3028:

Hong Kong permanent residents can be of any nationality. I'm assuming you're not talking about the Indians or the Americans or the French or the Canadians or the Australians.

3252:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110604143231/http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?we_cat=4&art_id=91254&sid=26254076&con_type=1&d_str=20091130&fc=1

3773: 3395: 2646:

We are not disputing Tsang's personal preferences here. 99801155KC9TV is disputing whether he is entitled (or as he terms it has an "absolute right to") the title "Sir."--

1533:

The preference of the individual must be taken into account in case of BLP. This is not a contentious issue, Donald Tsang has not used the title since the handover. This

1430:

However I am restoring ] which should never have been removed as the honor has not been stripped, which shows either ulterior motivation or ignorance of the Honors System.

750:

My take is that it should be mentioned in the lead. Whilst Tsang doesn't use it on a daily basis, he hasn't renounced the title either. As it is, the article is in no way

2025:

It may not be a sufficient reason for us to stop referring him with the title even if he makes such a request. We will need further discussion if such a situation arises;

1982:

as "Edward, Duke of Windsor" and we should refrain from using "Edward VIII" from the lead because the late Duke of Windsor had no longer used that title since abdication;

608:

very seriously, so we must get the article right. The onus for proving suitability of inclusion lies on those who propose the use of this title on the biography page. —

3531:. After Donald_Tsang_WEF_Unbiased.jpg was removed from Commons due to a non-free license and removed from the Donald Tsang page by a bot, 61.238.15.124 replaced it with 3085: 564: 3255: 2419:. Any-one who "supported" this strange notion should probably go and learn more about British history, and also a little Irish, Canadian and modern Indian history. — 1726: 1638: 1623:. Any-one who "supported" this strange notion should probably go and learn more about British history, and also a little Irish, Canadian and modern Indian history. — 1326: 1188: 801:

is a good precedent to prove that Knowledge editors are expected to be sensitive towards the subjects of their articles. If required, I am happy to escalate this to

711:

states to use the subject's full official name at first mention, and that the full official name may be different from the common name used for the article title. So

2938:

prior to the handover, we still don't know if he had renounced it. He wouldn't need to since China does not require people acquiring it in the early 90s to do that.

1170:, and propose this following "simple and succinct" question (per guidelines): Should the bolded text in the first sentence of the article include the title "Sir"? -- 679:(and relevant discussions on the talk page), where the article lists her complete name even though she is better known as simply "Hillary Clinton" or the article on 1091:), the consensus is to not use the title "Sir" before the subject's name given their personal preference and several other factors. For further reference, please ( 201: 116: 861:

prefers to be known (and is known in the news) as Snoop Dogg, but his legal name is remains Calvin Cordozar Broadus, Jr. and that is how we start that article.

3808: 3101: 2983: 2852: 2788: 2711: 2666: 2637: 2595: 2446: 2258: 2205: 2145:

If I search for Steve Jobs I don't google "Mr Steve Jobs" I simply search for "Steve Jobs" and I believe most of people do the same, and well you can see that

1814: 1767: 1477: 1146: 1100: 1053: 992: 919: 811: 690: 614: 3426:

http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=30&art_id=120109&sid=35550457&con_type=1&d_str=20120227&isSearch=1&sear_year=2012

3276:

http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=30&art_id=120195&sid=35572939&con_type=3&d_str=20120229&isSearch=1&sear_year=2012

2577: 2450: 945:

and we've kept his biography at "Conrad Black", but what then do the bolded words in his biography say? Why is "Diane" in bolded font at the beginning of the

3013: 1481: 865:, on the other hand, has legally changed his name from Ronald William Artest, Jr. so we have begun the article with Metta World Peace as his full legal name. 416: 2564: 2327: 768: 3783: 3544: 3512: 2298: 362: 31:) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or 3758: 2346: 2046: 1179: 43: 311: 2721: 2352:

the we should mention his "Sir" title somewhere in the article. Since the media generally doesn't use "Sir" to refer to him, my suggestion would be to

1104: 1058: 1011:

in suggesting that personal preference and common name has any bearing on the bolded text. BTW, there's more to Tsang's legal name than "Donald Tsang."

619: 3719: 2892: 2856: 2792: 2733: 2715: 2700: 2670: 2655: 2641: 2262: 2239: 2209: 1840: 1818: 1791: 1077: 1031: 997: 878: 816: 739: 695: 665: 639: 829:

to inform me of how it is relevant. BLP states "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article —

3009: 2287: 1472:

The title should not be used since the subject himself does not use it. I have explained my rationale below in the extended discussion section. —

1064:

This is not a BLP issue as the fact that Donald Tsang is entitled to the title "Sir" is not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether application

2599: 708: 478: 3416:

http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=30&art_id=98807&sid=28424466&con_type=1&d_str=20100531&sear_year=2010

3406:

http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=30&art_id=98808&sid=28425298&con_type=1&d_str=20100531&sear_year=2010

3266:

http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=30&art_id=90818&sid=26144030&con_type=1&d_str=20091119&sear_year=2009

2227: 1730: 1670:

Donald Tsang and the Government of Hong Kong have consistently used his official name as "Donald Tsang" without including the British honor –

1242: 1192: 717: 3386:

http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=12&art_id=28500&sid=5998495&con_type=1&d_str=20051222&sear_year=2005

2914:

mention of the fact that he is entitled to be styled "Sir Donald Tsang" is due in lead. I assume that such a discussion would revolve around

1460: 470: 366: 354: 3607:

It seems like it might be more efficient to have a discussion about which image should be used than to continue the back-and-forth editing.

1688: 3733: 3520: 1771: 1700:

Knowledge has a history of respecting the personal preferences of subjects of biographical articles as to how they wish to use their names.

652:. Tsang in fact was regularly referred to as "Sir Donald" until he was elevated from Financial Secretary to Chief Secretary. The Economist 277: 48: 1627: 3748: 3396:

http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=30&art_id=67028&sid=19293866&con_type=3&d_str=20080611&sear_year

2436: 2184:

as "Bill Clinton" - does that mean that "William Jefferson" should not appear in the lede of that article? How is this case different? --

758:

renounced it. It should certainly be mentioned prominently, and shouldn't be buried away in the third paragraph of the second section. --

1782:), so again it should come down to evidence that Tsang has explicitly repudiated his knighthood for this to be a convincing situation.-- 1581: 1565: 3798: 2979: 2848: 2784: 2707: 2662: 2633: 2591: 2442: 2254: 2201: 1810: 1763: 1473: 1096: 1048: 987: 914: 806: 685: 609: 301: 2473:

It is understood, as least in the United Kingdom (but perhaps not in Hong Kong), that a British knighthood and other British Honours,

1946:

The concept of “he does not use the title” is unequal to “he does not wish to be known with the title”. In a handful of cases such as

1550: 1510: 3763: 3743: 3086:

http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?we_cat=21&art_id=106904&sid=30866093&con_type=1&d_str=20110111&fc=4

2992: 1445: 1263: 3669: 3431:

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

3281:

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

2987: 2945:

What may actually be an interesting discussion is whether he is Japanese by virtual of having been born under Japanese sovereignty.

2363: 1338: 3501: 3351: 3256:

http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?we_cat=4&art_id=91254&sid=26254076&con_type=1&d_str=20091130&fc=1

3050: 2511: 2412: 1616: 982:

Can you please refer me to the articles of the Indians who still have the titles in their article even after renouncing them? See

535: 157:, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Knowledge's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to 3683: 3547:'s first contribution to Knowledge was undoing Clithering's reversion and noting that their edits had been reverted three times. 3021: 2546:

the British and the Canadian Governments, without Russian approval, except those held or claimed by British or Canadian citizens.)

2506:

by Her Majesty's person (by the Queen herself, although not necessarily, or usually, in person), by Order in the (Her Majesty's)

1528: 1444:?? I really, as a US citizen, should not be knowing more about this than Brits and other citizens of Commonwealth countries. See 1355: 3803: 3788: 3753: 3653: 3211: 2777: 2746: 1393: 1120: 1065: 826: 787: 598: 429: 158: 23: 2172: 1906: 1891: 1873: 1859: 3091: 1809:

observes that "some people choose not to use their titles, so Sir Donald Tsang, for instance, prefers to be just Mr Tsang." —

1410: 1401:

Common names are useful for article titles but full names including titles should be mentioned within the context of the lead.

1317: 474: 433: 379: 2929: 2423: 2033: 1940: 1644: 1534: 1163: 852: 3241: 3102:

https://web.archive.org/web/20071023111919/http://www.rthk.org.hk/rthk/news/englishnews/20060820/news_20060820_56_335226.htm

2955: 2918:

rather than blp issues if the text clearly indicates that he prefers not to use the title but that's another discussion. --

1741: 1203: 1019: 972: 2408: 2158: 1802: 1674: 1612: 1488: 1158:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

391: 162: 2904:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

3793: 3768: 1935:

the same as long as he does not renounce his knighthood or his knighthood is not stripped off by the British crown. (See

408: 395: 3702:

If "Donald Tsang" article is not to allow the use of "Sir" title, how about the case of other HK personalities, such as

2415:; and even Canadians are also not usually allowed to have (or to keep) British knighthoods or peerages either; see the 1619:; and even Canadians are also not usually allowed to have (or to keep) British knighthoods or peerages either; see the 166: 336: 3356: 3216: 3111: 2836: 2623: 2069: 1850:

appropriate, as the Chief Secretary of HKSAR, to show only the title of the Grand Bauhinia Medal on his name card."--

3373: 3233: 3105: 3073: 1697:

There are multiple reliable recent mainstream sources which simply refer to him without including the British honor.

1682:

The British Government does not have a policy on Donald Tsang's use of the title. In a UK parliamentary hearing, MP

346: 341: 2691:

I don't know whether Tsang prefers to not use the title or merely refrains from doing so as a matter of protocol.--

2553:

Actually this is not a valid comparison. The official Count title was abolished in 1998, when the holder was still

1022:. In Tsang's case, he has done nothing to repudiate his British honor so I'm not convinced we should exclude it. -- 644:

To add, in case you haven't noticed or read it, please refer to footnote 1 for the references. And these articles:

331: 276:-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Hong Kong-related articles, you are invited to 1238: 1234: 3738: 3056: 3017: 268: 229: 153: 111: 3452:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

3302:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

3162:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

2193: 2139: 2108: 1656: 1068:

calls for including it in the bolded text in this article. Perhaps this issue should be raised there instead.--

942: 3628: 2967: 2590:

What does the HKSAR/PRC law saw on this? Can HKSAR/PRC citizens hold titles given by foreign authorities? —

1756: 1218: 539: 2099:

are part of the Manual of Style, and not Knowledge policy, so there is editor discretion in applying them.--

2032:

A number of Knowledge guidelines support the use of "Sir" in the lead of Tsang's biopgraphical entries. (i)

3496: 3346: 3206: 1574:), because he is indeed eligible to the title, but neither he nor the media commonly refers to him as Sir. 1384:

the honour, which is, as far as I can tell, key. He was allowed by practice to use the title, and did so.

86: 2706:

China, and its people PRC citizens, I think PRC law should be applicable in the matters of citizenship. —

2281: 2045:

states that "The opening paragraph should have: (1) Name(s) and title(s), if any (see, for instance, also

725:

then he would taken affirmative steps to renounce it or demand that it be revoked. He didn't even do what

2819: 588: 531: 3471:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

3321:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

3181:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

1712:

There are multiple reliable mainstream sources which refer to him as "Sir Donald" or "Sir Donald Tsang".

3639: 3536: 3372:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 3232:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 3072:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 1936: 558: 2060:

You are welcome to post more arguments for the use of title above. Please add other comments below. --

1997:

The use of “Sir Donald Tsang” has not been uncommon in various publications and on the internet. (See

3635: 3527:

reverted the change because the image is blurry. 61.238.15.124 then replaced the original image with

3516: 2181: 1516: 42:. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to 1643:

The text below is a summary of the dispute originally posted above as the statement of the issue by

855:, we must list his legal name and title at the first mention in bolded text. This is not negotiable. 1451: 1432:

Once the honor has been bestowed it remains bestowed until it is annulled or stripped and properly

458: 3487: 3337: 3197: 2574: 2420: 2223:

has explicitly said not to call her by her real name, but guess what we started her article with?

2096: 2088: 2042: 1624: 1281: 46:.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see 32: 3456:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

3306:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

3166:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

2284: 2119: 3532: 3472: 3369: 3322: 3182: 2814:

A majority of Hong Kongers do concurrently hold some sort of other passport in addition to the

2115: 1671: 1092: 946: 836: 798: 676: 3611:

indicative of his political career than the premiere image. In short, I prefer the original.—

3506: 3459: 3309: 3169: 2975: 2924: 2844: 2753: 2743: 2561: 2433: 2360: 2324: 2127: 2123: 1578: 1571: 1561: 1538: 1260: 1141: 765: 92: 3092:

https://web.archive.org/web/20060822095400/http://hk.news.yahoo.com:80/060809/187/1r52o.html

2757: 2038: 3665: 3479: 3329: 3189: 3136: 3046: 3041: 3005: 2961: 2951: 2946: 2294: 2168: 2080: 2065: 1887: 1855: 1494: 1334: 1116: 1111: 825:

Please respond to the points I made at 04:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC). Please cite directly to

8: 3625: 3242:

https://web.archive.org/web/20150701164520/http://www.hkilang.org/NEW_WEB/page/dictionary

1546: 1506: 1250: 726: 63: 2629:

And yet there is a reliable source which says that he prefers to be called "Mr Tsang" –

2114:

the title. If KBE is included, then so will "Sir"; if "Sir" is excluded, so will "KBE".

3679: 3438:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 3288:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 3148:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 2475:

which are after all given by Her Majesty and by the Grace and the Authority of the same

2342: 2092: 2084: 1351: 1277: 3478:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

3328:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

3188:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

2146: 1018:

was not knighted until 1997, 17 years after John Lennon's death. For the Indians, see

3649: 2534: 2482: 2441:

I have removed the title from the article page pending resolution of this dispute. —

2416: 2404: 1620: 1608: 1389: 862: 514: 2739:

HM subjects are allowed to use Sir titles but I'm not sure how this works out here.

645: 3715: 3524: 2971: 2919: 2915: 2740: 2558: 2538: 2430: 2357: 2319: 2083:

does not apply since that is Knowledge policy on article titles, not article text.

1963: 1575: 1557: 1297: 1255: 1136: 760: 260: 145: 3112:

https://web.archive.org/web/20080512015438/http://www.ceo.gov.hk/eng/biography.htm

1570:

Prefer to put "Sir" and "KBE" in the infobox in small-print instead (in line with

1241:

in particular. Let's be clear that this is not a BLP violation, for now it's been

3661: 3540: 3245: 3229: 3106:

http://www.rthk.org.hk/rthk/news/englishnews/20060820/news_20060820_56_335226.htm

3095: 3069: 2888: 2832: 2773: 2729: 2696: 2651: 2619: 2554: 2290: 2235: 2189: 2164: 2154: 2135: 2104: 2061: 1955: 1902: 1883: 1869: 1851: 1836: 1787: 1652: 1524: 1406: 1375:

consider it a "foreign honour" at the time he accepted it), that the UK does not

1330: 1313: 1289: 1175: 1073: 1027: 1008: 968: 874: 783: 735: 661: 649: 635: 39: 2997:

I was living at Hong Kong from 1967 until 1984. I'm currently living in Brunei.

2006:). In publications which are authoritative in the use of British titles such as 1937:

The London Gazette of 14 June 1997 announcing the award of ordinary KBE to Tsang

1047:). Please feel free to briefly expand your arguments separately in a comment. — 3707: 3703: 3613: 2879:, for example. In contrast, it would be strange for us to be putting KBE after 2815: 2542: 2477:, who is after all, by the Grace of, and anointed by, God (Dei Gratia), Queen, 1971: 1542: 1502: 1433: 1301: 1273: 1246: 1040: 1015: 802: 751: 244: 223: 3444:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 3294:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 3154:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 2679:

A quick search reveals no regulation on point. The relevance is merely in the

2630: 1806: 1677: 653: 571: 3727: 3675: 3564: 2507: 2338: 1959: 1779: 1347: 1293: 888: 605: 3674:

I'll prefer the WEF one since it would be the best one in terms of quality.

3644: 3552: 3365: 3225: 3065: 1737:

Knowledge:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive149#Donald Tsang

1441: 1437: 1385: 1199:

Knowledge:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive149#Donald Tsang

954: 950: 938: 530:) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other 3115: 2014:, the title “Sir” and post-nominal letter “KBE” are used in Tsang’s entry. 1491: 1083:

According to discussions that have happened here, on the BLP noticeboard (

3711: 3560: 3445: 3295: 3155: 2876: 2200:

Economist mention that he does not use the title (positive assertion). —

1979: 1975: 1947: 1683: 1498: 1305: 1285: 983: 577: 575: 552: 191: 3638:

as it is a much better quality photograph at a much higher resolution.

2884: 2880: 2828: 2769: 2765: 2725: 2692: 2647: 2615: 2527: 2231: 2185: 2150: 2131: 2100: 1898: 1865: 1832: 1783: 1648: 1520: 1402: 1309: 1171: 1069: 1023: 964: 870: 858: 779: 731: 712: 680: 657: 631: 3535:

of Tsang and his wife at a premiere, later in the day switching it to

2382:. Having a British substantive knighthood or a British baronetcy ≠ an 2872: 2220: 273: 1586:

Having a British substantive knighthood or a British baronetcy ≠ an

1308:(a life peer) as people with titles who do not regularly use them.-- 1014:

John Lennon does not carry the title because he was never knighted.

505: 3595: 3575: 1967: 1166:

originally filed this RFC. I have moved his summary of the dispute

573: 165:. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the 129: 105: 1951: 831:

even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it

1727:

Knowledge:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Donald Tsang

1715:

The subject of the article has not formally renounced the title.

1189:

Knowledge:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Donald Tsang

3585: 1718:

We are required to state the full official name of the subject.

1941:

Image showing Tsang receiving the accolade from Prince Charles

578: 38:

from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially

2395: 1599: 3121:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the

986:, for example, his biography no longer carries the title. — 3779:

Low-importance biography (politics and government) articles

2676: 2091:

applies. The only reason we are having this RFC is because

1864:

Is this online somewhere? If not, can you provide a scan?--

1490:, while his official government bio does not use it either 3642:

is poor quality (blurry, noisy) and of a tiny resolution.

3376:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

3236:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

3076:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

2514:. That should NOT mean, however, that a person should be 1423:

use of title as common sense -- how many people refer to

2966:

Pursuant to the discussion above, I have gone ahead and

2867:

capacity such as on a yet non-existent personal website.

2485:, cannot just be given up by its subject and recipient, 1634:

Please add your opinion and sign with four tildes (~~~~)

1417:

Please add your opinion and sign with four tildes (~~~~)

941:

for example. He is known primarily as "Conrad Black" in

2228:

Knowledge:Manual of Style/Biographies#Honorific titles

907:

to the United Kingdom to continue using these honours.

3694:

Hi, I feel that it's not fair to disallow the use of

2526:", against his will, until he dies. According to the 709:

Knowledge:Manual of Style (biographies)#First mention

3774:

B-Class biography (politics and government) articles

3539:, the same image but with Tsang's wife cropped out. 1751: 1742:

Wikipedia_talk:MOSBIO#Exceptions to honorific titles

1213: 1204:

Wikipedia_talk:MOSBIO#Exceptions to honorific titles

1087:) and on the Manual of Style biographies talk page ( 250: 135: 3448:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 3298:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 3158:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 2226:The issue here is that we have clear guidelines at 2122:returns 276. Compare the Burke's Peerage entry for 2047:

Knowledge:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)

1327:

Knowledge:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

891:. The use of the title or the post-nom is not an " 272:, a project to coordinate efforts in improving all 2354:move "Sir" and "KBE" from lead sentence to infobox 1127:Request for comment: The Use of the title of "Sir" 2722:Nationality Law of the People's Republic of China 646:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/88326.stm 3725: 1367:to include mention include a claim that it is a 1233:per arguments given ad nauseum above, including 939:Conrad Moffat Black, Baron Black of Crossharbour 1020:Declining a British honour#Renouncing an honour 730:backed up by reliable sources for it to stay.-- 3690:Request for Comment 2020: Usage of "Sir" title 3523:of Tsang at the World Economic Forum in 2012. 3434:This message was posted before February 2018. 3284:This message was posted before February 2018. 3246:http://www.hkilang.org/NEW_WEB/page/dictionary 3144:This message was posted before February 2018. 3096:http://hk.news.yahoo.com/060809/187/1r52o.html 2614:use his title. He is merely entitled to it. -- 650:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/492366.stm 3809:Knowledge articles that use Hong Kong English 2754:NPCSC's interpretation of the Nationality Law 1805:report, "Tsang does not use his title." The 500: 3521:File:Donald_Tsang_on_Paterson_St_cropped.jpg 1325:vide the above discussion and discussion in 630:with whether he is entitled to the title. -- 3784:Politics and government work group articles 3759:Knowledge level-5 vital articles in People 1845:My translation of an extract on page A1 of 518:, which has its own spelling conventions ( 3364:I have just modified 5 external links on 3224:I have just modified 4 external links on 3064:I have just modified 4 external links on 2883:'s name - Americans just don't do that.-- 1722:Previous discussions are available here: 1708:the use of this prefix have stated thus: 1666:the use of this prefix have stated thus: 1184:Previous discussions are available here: 1095:(PDF)) to view HKSAR protocol. Thanks. — 887:That is an interesting interpretation of 3594: 3584: 3574: 3543:changed the image back to the original. 2541:, had not renounced their claims to the 2163:But almost all the results point to . -- 1762:Please add additional comments below. — 1167: 3116:http://www.ceo.gov.hk/eng/biography.htm 1752:Talk:Donald Tsang#New discussion: "Sir" 1214:Talk:Donald Tsang#New discussion: "Sir" 1066:Knowledge:Manual of Style (biographies) 61: 3726: 202:the politics and government work group 3133:to let others know (documentation at 2034:Knowledge:Manual of Style/Biographies 1645:User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington 1467:Opposition to the use of the Title(s) 1164:User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington 1054: 1039:I have initiated a discussion on the 993: 949:article? What is "Earl" doing in the 920: 853:Knowledge:Manual of Style/Biographies 812: 691: 615: 538:, this should not be changed without 2409:the Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh 1613:the Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh 1154:The following discussion is closed. 266:This article is within the scope of 151:This article is within the scope of 57: 15: 3734:Biography articles of living people 91:It is of interest to the following 13: 3749:Knowledge vital articles in People 3529:File:Donald Tsang WEF Unbiased.jpg 2675:You can look up Hong Kong laws at 2487:a mere subject or a mere foreigner 2481:, under Her Majesty's (God-given) 1225:Support to the use of the Title(s) 190: 14: 3820: 3799:Mid-importance Hong Kong articles 3368:. Please take a moment to review 3228:. Please take a moment to review 3068:. Please take a moment to review 2993:What is his nationality actually? 2764:numerous sources verifying this. 2535:Michael Grant Gregovich Ignatieff 2498:of a court of law. An Honour can 2037:with the complete version". (ii) 843:(her full official name) and not 3764:B-Class vital articles in People 3744:Knowledge level-5 vital articles 2900:The discussion above is closed. 1541:pretty much sums up my opinion. 551: 504: 253: 243: 222: 138: 128: 104: 71: 62: 21:This article must adhere to the 1926:a summary for the use of prefix 1757:Talk:Donald Tsang/Archive 1#KBE 1219:Talk:Donald Tsang/Archive 1#KBE 953:article? or "Jefferson" in the 306:This article has been rated as 286:Knowledge:WikiProject Hong Kong 175:Knowledge:WikiProject Biography 3804:WikiProject Hong Kong articles 3789:WikiProject Biography articles 3754:B-Class level-5 vital articles 3352:19:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC) 3022:12:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC) 1442:Dr Dame Rosanna Wong Yick-ming 289:Template:WikiProject Hong Kong 178:Template:WikiProject Biography 1: 3502:04:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC) 3212:13:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC) 2386:right to the title of "Sir". 1590:right to the title of "Sir". 827:Biographies of living persons 199:This article is supported by 24:biographies of living persons 2988:05:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC) 2543:Imperial and Tsarist Russian 2039:Knowledge:BLP#Public figures 841:Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton 606:biographies of living people 163:contribute to the discussion 7: 3684:16:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC) 3640:File:Don&Selina 220.jpg 3537:File:Don&Selina 220.jpg 3515:replaced the infobox image 2968:removed the portion of text 2930:19:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC) 2820:British National (Overseas) 2724:is silent on this matter.-- 2392:protocol, set by precedence 2118:returns zero results while 1596:protocol, set by precedence 1363:Noting that the rationales 718:makes no such qualification 479:...assess the un-Importance 363:...needing expert attention 36:must be removed immediately 10: 3825: 3794:B-Class Hong Kong articles 3769:B-Class biography articles 3634:Thanks for this. I prefer 3465:(last update: 5 June 2024) 3361:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 3315:(last update: 5 June 2024) 3221:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 3175:(last update: 5 June 2024) 3061:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 3051:19:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC) 2956:20:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC) 2909:Clarification on RfC close 2539:George Pavlovich Ignatieff 2126:, an honorary knight, and 1121:19:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC) 1105:04:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC) 879:17:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC) 817:15:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC) 788:04:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC) 769:04:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC) 740:04:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC) 696:03:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC) 666:16:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC) 640:16:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC) 620:06:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC) 312:project's importance scale 3670:15:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC) 3654:02:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC) 3636:File:Donald Tsang WEF.jpg 3629:10:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC) 3517:File:Donald Tsang WEF.jpg 2893:06:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC) 2857:10:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC) 2837:09:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC) 2793:08:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC) 2778:23:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC) 2747:22:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC) 2734:07:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC) 2716:06:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC) 2701:06:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC) 2683:of titles instead of the 2671:23:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC) 2656:23:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC) 2642:23:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC) 2624:22:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC) 2600:09:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC) 2578:07:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC) 2565:09:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC) 2451:22:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC) 2437:13:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC) 2424:09:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC) 2182:William Jefferson Clinton 2130:, a substantive knight.-- 1628:09:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC) 1461:02:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC) 1147:19:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC) 1078:05:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC) 1059:05:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC) 1032:07:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC) 998:07:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC) 973:05:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC) 925:05:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC) 318: 305: 238: 198: 123: 99: 3720:16:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC) 2902:Please do not modify it. 2677:http://www.hklii.hk/eng/ 2374:Arbitrary break, 14 June 2364:20:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC) 2347:13:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC) 2328:13:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC) 2299:14:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC) 2263:12:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC) 2240:11:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC) 2210:11:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC) 2194:10:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC) 2173:12:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC) 2159:11:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC) 2140:02:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC) 2109:22:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC) 2070:17:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC) 1907:02:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC) 1892:14:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC) 1874:14:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC) 1860:14:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC) 1841:13:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC) 1819:13:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC) 1792:12:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC) 1772:10:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC) 1657:12:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC) 1582:21:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC) 1566:16:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC) 1551:16:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC) 1529:10:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC) 1511:16:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC) 1482:10:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC) 1411:01:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC) 1394:11:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC) 1356:06:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC) 1339:12:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC) 1318:12:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC) 1264:11:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC) 1180:12:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC) 1156:Please do not modify it. 3533:File:Don&Selina.jpg 3357:External links modified 3217:External links modified 3057:External links modified 2120:"Sir Donald Tsang, KBE" 1371:(though clearly he did 117:Politics and Government 3739:B-Class vital articles 3660:Thank you. I agree. -- 3600: 3599:Don&Selina 220.jpg 3590: 3580: 2479:whose person is sacred 2116:"Mr Donald Tsang, KBE" 947:Hillary Rodham Clinton 849:Hillary Rodham Clinton 837:Hillary Rodham Clinton 799:Hillary Rodham Clinton 677:Hillary Rodham Clinton 475:...assess the un-Class 471:...maintain popularity 195: 3598: 3588: 3578: 1807:Economist Style Guide 599:New discussion: "Sir" 269:WikiProject Hong Kong 194: 154:WikiProject Biography 78:level-5 vital article 3579:Donald Tsang WEF.jpg 3446:regular verification 3296:regular verification 3156:regular verification 3042:User talk:Clh_hilary 2980:Nearly Headless Nick 2947:User talk:Clh_hilary 2849:Nearly Headless Nick 2818:, most commonly the 2785:Nearly Headless Nick 2708:Nearly Headless Nick 2663:Nearly Headless Nick 2634:Nearly Headless Nick 2592:Nearly Headless Nick 2443:Nearly Headless Nick 2388:No right is absolute 2255:Nearly Headless Nick 2202:Nearly Headless Nick 1811:Nearly Headless Nick 1764:Nearly Headless Nick 1592:No right is absolute 1474:Nearly Headless Nick 1112:User talk:Clh_hilary 1097:Nearly Headless Nick 1050:Nearly Headless Nick 989:Nearly Headless Nick 916:Nearly Headless Nick 808:Nearly Headless Nick 687:Nearly Headless Nick 611:Nearly Headless Nick 536:relevant style guide 532:varieties of English 453:Page creation needed 430:Start-Class articles 374:Collaboration needed 367:...without infoboxes 3436:After February 2018 3286:After February 2018 3146:After February 2018 3125:parameter below to 2149:shows 613 results. 2012:Whitaker's Almanack 1639:Extended discussion 534:. According to the 465:Miscellaneous tasks 434:Stub-Class articles 3601: 3591: 3589:Don&Selina.jpg 3581: 3490:InternetArchiveBot 3441:InternetArchiveBot 3340:InternetArchiveBot 3291:InternetArchiveBot 3200:InternetArchiveBot 3151:InternetArchiveBot 1517:WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS 1382:willingly accepted 1157: 654:style guide states 459:Requested articles 386:Improvement needed 292:Hong Kong articles 196: 181:biography articles 87:content assessment 3618:A L T E R C A R I 3605: 3604: 3466: 3316: 3176: 3053: 3025: 3008:comment added by 2958: 2928: 2537:, or his father, 2512:Act of Parliament 2483:Royal Prerogative 2417:Nickle Resolution 2405:Louis Mountbatten 2326: 2147:Donald Tsang, KBE 1974:(a marquess) and 1924:The following is 1878:明報A01（2005-03-13） 1621:Nickle Resolution 1609:Louis Mountbatten 1436:. What about Sir 1304:(a marquess) and 1262: 1155: 1145: 1123: 863:Metta World Peace 767: 596: 595: 546: 545: 515:Hong Kong English 499: 498: 495: 494: 491: 490: 487: 486: 392:GA-Class articles 278:join this project 217: 216: 213: 212: 56: 55: 3816: 3624: 3619: 3571: 3570: 3500: 3491: 3464: 3463: 3442: 3350: 3341: 3314: 3313: 3292: 3210: 3201: 3174: 3173: 3152: 3140: 3044: 3024: 3002: 2949: 2922: 2758:in the Basic Law 2518:to be called a " 2322: 2318: 2097:WP:OPENPARAGRAPH 2089:WP:OPENPARAGRAPH 2043:WP:OPENPARAGRAPH 1964:Peter Ramsbotham 1458: 1298:Peter Ramsbotham 1282:WP:OPENPARAGRAPH 1258: 1254: 1139: 1114: 1056: 1051: 995: 990: 922: 917: 814: 809: 763: 759: 693: 688: 617: 612: 604:Knowledge takes 579: 555: 548: 547: 511:This article is 508: 501: 409:C-Class articles 396:B-Class articles 355:Attention needed 323:Hong Kong To-do: 320: 319: 294: 293: 290: 287: 284: 263: 261:Hong Kong portal 258: 257: 256: 247: 240: 239: 234: 226: 219: 218: 183: 182: 179: 176: 173: 159:join the project 148: 146:Biography portal 143: 142: 141: 132: 125: 124: 119: 108: 101: 100: 84: 75: 74: 67: 66: 58: 44:this noticeboard 16: 3824: 3823: 3819: 3818: 3817: 3815: 3814: 3813: 3724: 3723: 3692: 3617: 3612: 3509: 3494: 3489: 3457: 3450:have permission 3440: 3374:this simple FaQ 3359: 3344: 3339: 3307: 3300:have permission 3290: 3234:this simple FaQ 3219: 3204: 3199: 3167: 3160:have permission 3150: 3134: 3074:this simple FaQ 3059: 3003: 2995: 2964: 2911: 2906: 2905: 2555:Pavel Ignatieff 2522:", instead of " 2376: 2320: 1956:Ferdinand Mount 1641: 1469: 1455:Quis separabit? 1452: 1290:Ferdinand Mount 1256: 1227: 1160: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1129: 1049: 1041:BLP noticeboard 1009:Hillary Clinton 988: 915: 845:Hillary Clinton 807: 761: 686: 610: 601: 580: 574: 540:broad consensus 441:Deorphan needed 380:Recommend topic 351: 291: 288: 285: 282: 281: 259: 254: 252: 232: 180: 177: 174: 171: 170: 144: 139: 137: 114: 85:on Knowledge's 82: 72: 12: 11: 5: 3822: 3812: 3811: 3806: 3801: 3796: 3791: 3786: 3781: 3776: 3771: 3766: 3761: 3756: 3751: 3746: 3741: 3736: 3708:Kan Yuet-keung 3704:Chung Sze-yuen 3691: 3688: 3687: 3686: 3672: 3657: 3656: 3603: 3602: 3592: 3582: 3508: 3505: 3484: 3483: 3476: 3429: 3428: 3420:Added archive 3418: 3410:Added archive 3408: 3400:Added archive 3398: 3390:Added archive 3388: 3380:Added archive 3358: 3355: 3334: 3333: 3326: 3279: 3278: 3270:Added archive 3268: 3260:Added archive 3258: 3250:Added archive 3248: 3240:Added archive 3218: 3215: 3194: 3193: 3186: 3119: 3118: 3110:Added archive 3108: 3100:Added archive 3098: 3090:Added archive 3088: 3080:Added archive 3058: 3055: 3049:comment added 2994: 2991: 2976:WP:ORIGINALSYN 2963: 2960: 2954:comment added 2910: 2907: 2899: 2898: 2897: 2896: 2895: 2868: 2816:HKSAR passport 2812: 2811: 2810: 2809: 2808: 2807: 2806: 2805: 2804: 2803: 2802: 2801: 2800: 2799: 2798: 2797: 2796: 2795: 2761: 2689: 2603: 2602: 2587: 2586: 2585: 2584: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2580: 2570: 2569: 2568: 2567: 2548: 2547: 2531: 2471: 2456: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2439: 2375: 2372: 2371: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2366: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2308: 2307: 2306: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2302: 2301: 2270: 2269: 2268: 2267: 2266: 2265: 2245: 2244: 2243: 2242: 2224: 2213: 2212: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2077: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2053: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2030: 2026: 2023: 2019: 2015: 1995: 1987: 1983: 1972:Michael Ancram 1944: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1795: 1794: 1760: 1759: 1754: 1749: 1739: 1734: 1720: 1719: 1716: 1713: 1702: 1701: 1698: 1695: 1691: 1680: 1640: 1637: 1636: 1635: 1631: 1630: 1584: 1572:WP:Common name 1568: 1553: 1531: 1513: 1484: 1468: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1418: 1414: 1413: 1396: 1369:foreign honour 1358: 1341: 1320: 1302:Michael Ancram 1300:(a viscount), 1266: 1226: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1216: 1211: 1201: 1196: 1161: 1152: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1128: 1125: 1119:comment added 1093:open this link 1081: 1080: 1037: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1016:Paul McCartney 1012: 1001: 1000: 980: 934: 933: 932: 931: 930: 929: 928: 927: 910: 909: 908: 904: 900: 882: 881: 866: 856: 834: 820: 819: 791: 790: 772: 771: 747: 746: 745: 744: 743: 742: 722: 701: 700: 699: 698: 669: 668: 642: 627: 600: 597: 594: 593: 592: 591: 583: 582: 581: 576: 572: 570: 569: 556: 544: 543: 509: 497: 496: 493: 492: 489: 488: 485: 484: 483: 482: 462: 461: 450: 449: 438: 437: 413: 412: 403:Cleanup needed 400: 399: 383: 382: 371: 370: 350: 349: 344: 339: 334: 328: 325: 324: 316: 315: 308:Mid-importance 304: 298: 297: 295: 265: 264: 248: 236: 235: 233:Mid‑importance 227: 215: 214: 211: 210: 207:Low-importance 197: 187: 186: 184: 150: 149: 133: 121: 120: 109: 97: 96: 90: 68: 54: 53: 49:this help page 33:poorly sourced 19: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3821: 3810: 3807: 3805: 3802: 3800: 3797: 3795: 3792: 3790: 3787: 3785: 3782: 3780: 3777: 3775: 3772: 3770: 3767: 3765: 3762: 3760: 3757: 3755: 3752: 3750: 3747: 3745: 3742: 3740: 3737: 3735: 3732: 3731: 3729: 3722: 3721: 3717: 3713: 3709: 3705: 3700: 3697: 3685: 3681: 3677: 3673: 3671: 3667: 3663: 3659: 3658: 3655: 3651: 3647: 3646: 3641: 3637: 3633: 3632: 3631: 3630: 3627: 3623: 3622: 3621: 3620: 3608: 3597: 3593: 3587: 3583: 3577: 3573: 3572: 3569: 3566: 3562: 3557: 3554: 3548: 3546: 3545:Nevermind3017 3542: 3538: 3534: 3530: 3526: 3522: 3518: 3514: 3513:61.238.15.124 3507:Infobox image 3504: 3503: 3498: 3493: 3492: 3481: 3477: 3474: 3470: 3469: 3468: 3461: 3455: 3451: 3447: 3443: 3437: 3432: 3427: 3423: 3419: 3417: 3413: 3409: 3407: 3403: 3399: 3397: 3393: 3389: 3387: 3383: 3379: 3378: 3377: 3375: 3371: 3367: 3362: 3354: 3353: 3348: 3343: 3342: 3331: 3327: 3324: 3320: 3319: 3318: 3311: 3305: 3301: 3297: 3293: 3287: 3282: 3277: 3273: 3269: 3267: 3263: 3259: 3257: 3253: 3249: 3247: 3243: 3239: 3238: 3237: 3235: 3231: 3227: 3222: 3214: 3213: 3208: 3203: 3202: 3191: 3187: 3184: 3180: 3179: 3178: 3171: 3165: 3161: 3157: 3153: 3147: 3142: 3138: 3132: 3128: 3124: 3117: 3113: 3109: 3107: 3103: 3099: 3097: 3093: 3089: 3087: 3083: 3079: 3078: 3077: 3075: 3071: 3067: 3062: 3054: 3052: 3048: 3043: 3037: 3033: 3029: 3026: 3023: 3019: 3015: 3011: 3007: 2998: 2990: 2989: 2985: 2981: 2978:). Thanks. — 2977: 2973: 2969: 2959: 2957: 2953: 2948: 2943: 2939: 2935: 2932: 2931: 2926: 2921: 2917: 2903: 2894: 2890: 2886: 2882: 2878: 2874: 2869: 2865: 2860: 2859: 2858: 2854: 2850: 2846: 2841: 2840: 2839: 2838: 2834: 2830: 2824: 2821: 2817: 2794: 2790: 2786: 2781: 2780: 2779: 2775: 2771: 2767: 2762: 2759: 2755: 2750: 2749: 2748: 2745: 2742: 2737: 2736: 2735: 2731: 2727: 2723: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2713: 2709: 2704: 2703: 2702: 2698: 2694: 2690: 2686: 2682: 2678: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2668: 2664: 2659: 2658: 2657: 2653: 2649: 2645: 2644: 2643: 2639: 2635: 2631: 2628: 2627: 2626: 2625: 2621: 2617: 2613: 2607: 2601: 2597: 2593: 2589: 2588: 2579: 2576: 2572: 2571: 2566: 2563: 2560: 2556: 2552: 2551: 2550: 2549: 2544: 2540: 2536: 2532: 2529: 2525: 2521: 2517: 2513: 2509: 2508:Privy Council 2505: 2501: 2496: 2492: 2488: 2484: 2480: 2476: 2472: 2468: 2464: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2460: 2459: 2458: 2457: 2452: 2448: 2444: 2440: 2438: 2435: 2432: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2422: 2418: 2414: 2410: 2406: 2401: 2397: 2393: 2389: 2385: 2381: 2378: 2377: 2365: 2362: 2359: 2355: 2350: 2349: 2348: 2344: 2340: 2335: 2329: 2325: 2323: 2316: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2311: 2310: 2309: 2300: 2296: 2292: 2288: 2285: 2282: 2278: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2264: 2260: 2256: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2246: 2241: 2237: 2233: 2229: 2225: 2222: 2217: 2216: 2215: 2214: 2211: 2207: 2203: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2191: 2187: 2183: 2174: 2170: 2166: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2156: 2152: 2148: 2144: 2143: 2142: 2141: 2137: 2133: 2129: 2125: 2121: 2117: 2111: 2110: 2106: 2102: 2098: 2094: 2090: 2086: 2082: 2081:WP:COMMONNAME 2071: 2067: 2063: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2054: 2048: 2044: 2040: 2035: 2031: 2027: 2024: 2020: 2016: 2013: 2009: 2005: 2002: 1999: 1996: 1993: 1988: 1984: 1981: 1977: 1973: 1969: 1965: 1962:(a baronet), 1961: 1960:John Standing 1958:(a baronet), 1957: 1953: 1949: 1945: 1942: 1938: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1927: 1908: 1904: 1900: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1889: 1885: 1881: 1880:上月底知董請辭未講會否參選 1877: 1876: 1875: 1871: 1867: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1857: 1853: 1848: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1838: 1834: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1820: 1816: 1812: 1808: 1804: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1793: 1789: 1785: 1781: 1780:Yang Ti-liang 1776: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1769: 1765: 1758: 1755: 1753: 1750: 1747: 1743: 1740: 1738: 1735: 1732: 1728: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1717: 1714: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1707: 1699: 1696: 1692: 1689: 1685: 1681: 1678: 1675: 1672: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1665: 1659: 1658: 1654: 1650: 1646: 1633: 1632: 1629: 1626: 1622: 1618: 1614: 1610: 1605: 1601: 1597: 1593: 1589: 1585: 1583: 1580: 1577: 1573: 1569: 1567: 1563: 1559: 1554: 1552: 1548: 1544: 1540: 1536: 1532: 1530: 1526: 1522: 1518: 1514: 1512: 1508: 1504: 1500: 1496: 1495:WP:COMMONNAME 1492: 1489: 1485: 1483: 1479: 1475: 1471: 1470: 1462: 1459: 1457: 1456: 1449: 1448: 1443: 1439: 1435: 1431: 1426: 1422: 1419: 1416: 1415: 1412: 1408: 1404: 1400: 1397: 1395: 1391: 1387: 1383: 1378: 1374: 1370: 1366: 1362: 1359: 1357: 1353: 1349: 1345: 1342: 1340: 1336: 1332: 1328: 1324: 1321: 1319: 1315: 1311: 1307: 1303: 1299: 1296:(a baronet), 1295: 1294:John Standing 1292:(a baronet), 1291: 1288:(a baronet), 1287: 1283: 1279: 1275: 1270: 1267: 1265: 1261: 1259: 1252: 1248: 1244: 1240: 1236: 1232: 1229: 1228: 1220: 1217: 1215: 1212: 1209: 1205: 1202: 1200: 1197: 1194: 1190: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1182: 1181: 1177: 1173: 1169: 1165: 1159: 1148: 1143: 1138: 1124: 1122: 1118: 1113: 1107: 1106: 1102: 1098: 1094: 1090: 1086: 1079: 1075: 1071: 1067: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1057: 1052: 1046: 1042: 1033: 1029: 1025: 1021: 1017: 1013: 1010: 1005: 1004: 1003: 1002: 999: 996: 991: 985: 981: 977: 976: 975: 974: 970: 966: 961: 956: 952: 948: 944: 940: 926: 923: 918: 911: 905: 901: 898: 894: 890: 886: 885: 884: 883: 880: 876: 872: 867: 864: 860: 857: 854: 850: 846: 842: 838: 835: 832: 828: 824: 823: 822: 821: 818: 815: 810: 804: 800: 795: 794: 793: 792: 789: 785: 781: 776: 775: 774: 773: 770: 766: 764: 757: 753: 749: 748: 741: 737: 733: 728: 723: 719: 714: 710: 707: 706: 705: 704: 703: 702: 697: 694: 689: 682: 678: 673: 672: 671: 670: 667: 663: 659: 655: 651: 647: 643: 641: 637: 633: 628: 624: 623: 622: 621: 618: 613: 607: 590: 587: 586: 585: 584: 567: 566: 561: 560: 554: 550: 549: 541: 537: 533: 529: 525: 521: 517: 516: 510: 507: 503: 502: 480: 476: 472: 469: 468: 467: 466: 460: 457: 456: 455: 454: 448: 445: 444: 443: 442: 435: 431: 428: 427: 426: 425: 424:Destub needed 421: 419: 418: 410: 407: 406: 405: 404: 397: 393: 390: 389: 388: 387: 381: 378: 377: 376: 375: 368: 364: 361: 360: 359: 357: 356: 348: 345: 343: 340: 338: 335: 333: 330: 329: 327: 326: 322: 321: 317: 313: 309: 303: 300: 299: 296: 279: 275: 271: 270: 262: 251: 249: 246: 242: 241: 237: 231: 228: 225: 221: 220: 208: 205:(assessed as 204: 203: 193: 189: 188: 185: 168: 167:documentation 164: 160: 156: 155: 147: 136: 134: 131: 127: 126: 122: 118: 113: 110: 107: 103: 102: 98: 94: 88: 80: 79: 69: 65: 60: 59: 51: 50: 45: 41: 37: 34: 30: 26: 25: 20: 18: 17: 3701: 3695: 3693: 3643: 3616: 3615: 3614: 3609: 3606: 3559:In January, 3558: 3549: 3511:In October, 3510: 3488: 3485: 3460:source check 3439: 3433: 3430: 3366:Donald Tsang 3363: 3360: 3338: 3335: 3310:source check 3289: 3283: 3280: 3226:Donald Tsang 3223: 3220: 3198: 3195: 3170:source check 3149: 3143: 3130: 3126: 3122: 3120: 3066:Donald Tsang 3063: 3060: 3038: 3034: 3030: 3027: 3004:— Preceding 2999: 2996: 2965: 2962:Lede section 2944: 2940: 2936: 2933: 2912: 2901: 2863: 2825: 2813: 2684: 2680: 2611: 2608: 2604: 2523: 2519: 2515: 2503: 2499: 2494: 2490: 2486: 2478: 2474: 2466: 2399: 2391: 2387: 2383: 2379: 2353: 2179: 2128:Donald Tsang 2124:Colin Powell 2112: 2078: 2011: 2007: 1991: 1925: 1923: 1879: 1846: 1761: 1721: 1705: 1703: 1663: 1660: 1642: 1603: 1595: 1591: 1587: 1537:by Boson on 1454: 1453: 1446: 1438:Dickson Poon 1429: 1428:established. 1424: 1420: 1398: 1381: 1376: 1372: 1368: 1364: 1360: 1343: 1322: 1268: 1251:WP:WELLKNOWN 1247:lead section 1243:proven false 1230: 1183: 1162: 1153: 1108: 1082: 1038: 960:in Hong Kong 959: 955:Bill Clinton 951:Jimmy Carter 935: 896: 892: 848: 844: 840: 839:begins with 830: 805:. Thanks. — 755: 602: 563: 557: 527: 523: 519: 512: 464: 463: 452: 451: 440: 439: 423: 422: 417:Image needed 415: 414: 402: 401: 385: 384: 373: 372: 353: 352: 307: 267: 200: 152: 93:WikiProjects 76: 47: 35: 28: 22: 3525:Underbar dk 3137:Sourcecheck 3045:—Preceding 2950:—Preceding 2920:regentspark 2877:Li Ka-shing 2688:acceptance. 2510:, or by an 2489:. A person 2321:Ohconfucius 2093:WP:MOSINTRO 2085:WP:MOSINTRO 1990:page A1 of 1980:Edward VIII 1976:David Steel 1948:Tam Dalyell 1684:Ian Pearson 1558:Rsrikanth05 1499:Bob Geldorf 1306:David Steel 1286:Tam Dalyell 1278:WP:MOSINTRO 1257:Ohconfucius 1137:regentspark 1115:—Preceding 984:John Lennon 762:Ohconfucius 513:written in 3728:Categories 3662:Clithering 3541:Clithering 3497:Report bug 3347:Report bug 3207:Report bug 2881:Bill Gates 2766:Anson Chan 2685:acceptance 2528:Common Law 2504:taken away 2291:Clithering 2165:Clithering 2062:Clithering 1884:Clithering 1852:Clithering 1694:Yam-kuen." 1535:commentary 1425:themselves 1331:Clithering 897:allegation 893:accusation 869:sources.-- 859:Snoop Dogg 713:Bill Gates 681:Bill Gates 447:...orphans 432:(5,425) • 3480:this tool 3473:this tool 3330:this tool 3323:this tool 3190:this tool 3183:this tool 3010:IamZainal 2972:WP:WEIGHT 2916:WP:WEIGHT 2875:than for 2873:Gordon Wu 2845:WT:MOSBIO 2413:Elizabeth 2221:Lady Gaga 2008:Who’s Who 1897:months.-- 1746:permalink 1731:permalink 1617:Elizabeth 1543:Theo10011 1539:WT:MOSBIO 1503:EricSerge 1208:permalink 1193:permalink 943:the media 895:" or an " 528:travelled 283:Hong Kong 274:Hong Kong 230:Hong Kong 172:Biography 112:Biography 81:is rated 40:libellous 3676:Kirbanzo 3565:Kirbanzo 3486:Cheers.— 3336:Cheers.— 3196:Cheers.— 3018:contribs 3006:unsigned 2864:Ming Pao 2533:Even if 2400:dictates 2384:absolute 2339:The dog2 1992:Ming Pao 1968:viscount 1847:Ming Pao 1604:dictates 1588:absolute 1493:. Does 1434:gazetted 1348:The dog2 1239:this one 1235:this one 1089:see this 1085:see this 1045:see this 721:mention? 559:Archives 477:(390) • 3645:Citobun 3553:Citobun 3370:my edit 3230:my edit 3123:checked 3070:my edit 3047:undated 2952:undated 2925:comment 2407:. Even 1952:baronet 1803:Reuters 1664:against 1611:. Even 1421:Support 1399:Support 1386:Collect 1377:require 1361:Support 1344:Support 1323:Support 1274:WP:LEAD 1269:Support 1231:Support 1142:comment 1117:undated 803:WP:BLPN 752:neutral 524:realise 481:(1,322) 436:(6,730) 411:(1,024) 394:(60) • 337:history 310:on the 83:B-class 3712:Mr Tan 3561:Lmmnhn 3131:failed 2744:yck C. 2562:yck C. 2524:Mister 2516:forced 2465:We do 2434:yck C. 2380:Oppose 2361:yck C. 2286:& 2003:& 1704:Those 1579:yck C. 1440:? Or 889:WP:BLP 756:hasn't 727:Sir TL 520:colour 420:(348) 365:(4) • 89:scale. 3519:with 2885:Jiang 2829:Jiang 2770:Jiang 2726:Jiang 2693:Jiang 2648:Jiang 2616:Jiang 2575:KC9TV 2421:KC9TV 2396:India 2232:Jiang 2186:Jiang 2151:Kondi 2132:Jiang 2101:Jiang 1899:Jiang 1866:Jiang 1833:Jiang 1784:Jiang 1649:Jiang 1625:KC9TV 1600:India 1521:Kondi 1403:Ayzmo 1310:Jiang 1172:Jiang 1168:below 1070:Jiang 1024:Jiang 965:Jiang 871:Jiang 780:Jiang 732:Jiang 658:Jiang 632:Jiang 565:Index 398:(290) 358:(60) 347:purge 342:watch 70:This 3716:talk 3706:and 3680:talk 3666:talk 3650:talk 3127:true 3014:talk 2889:talk 2833:talk 2774:talk 2730:talk 2720:The 2697:talk 2652:talk 2632:. — 2620:talk 2612:must 2500:only 2495:free 2493:NOT 2343:talk 2295:talk 2236:talk 2190:talk 2169:talk 2155:talk 2136:talk 2105:talk 2095:and 2087:and 2066:talk 2010:and 1939:and 1903:talk 1888:talk 1870:talk 1856:talk 1837:talk 1788:talk 1653:talk 1562:talk 1547:talk 1525:talk 1507:talk 1447:here 1407:talk 1390:talk 1352:talk 1335:talk 1329:. -- 1314:talk 1253:. -- 1249:per 1237:and 1176:talk 1074:talk 1028:talk 969:talk 875:talk 784:talk 736:talk 662:talk 636:talk 369:(23) 332:edit 161:and 3696:Sir 3454:RfC 3424:to 3414:to 3404:to 3394:to 3384:to 3304:RfC 3274:to 3264:to 3254:to 3244:to 3164:RfC 3141:). 3129:or 3114:to 3104:to 3094:to 3084:to 2741:Der 2681:use 2559:Der 2520:Sir 2502:be 2467:NOT 2431:Der 2358:Der 1970:), 1966:(a 1954:), 1950:(a 1928::- 1706:for 1576:Der 1373:not 1365:not 1055:{C} 994:{C} 921:{C} 847:or 813:{C} 692:{C} 616:{C} 302:Mid 29:BLP 3730:: 3718:) 3682:) 3668:) 3652:) 3467:. 3462:}} 3458:{{ 3317:. 3312:}} 3308:{{ 3177:. 3172:}} 3168:{{ 3139:}} 3135:{{ 3020:) 3016:• 2986:} 2891:) 2855:} 2835:) 2791:} 2776:) 2732:) 2714:} 2699:) 2669:} 2654:) 2640:} 2622:) 2598:} 2573:— 2491:is 2449:} 2398:, 2356:. 2345:) 2297:) 2283:, 2261:} 2238:) 2208:} 2192:) 2171:) 2157:) 2138:) 2107:) 2068:) 2049:)" 2000:, 1905:) 1890:) 1872:) 1858:) 1839:) 1817:} 1790:) 1770:} 1676:, 1673:, 1655:) 1602:, 1564:) 1556:-- 1549:) 1527:) 1519:. 1509:) 1480:} 1450:. 1409:) 1392:) 1354:) 1337:) 1316:) 1280:, 1276:, 1178:) 1103:} 1076:) 1030:) 971:) 877:) 786:) 738:) 664:) 648:, 638:) 568:) 526:, 522:, 473:• 209:). 115:: 3714:( 3678:( 3664:( 3648:( 3626:✍ 3499:) 3495:( 3482:. 3475:. 3349:) 3345:( 3332:. 3325:. 3209:) 3205:( 3192:. 3185:. 3012:( 2984:c 2982:{ 2927:) 2923:( 2887:( 2853:c 2851:{ 2831:( 2789:c 2787:{ 2772:( 2760:. 2728:( 2712:c 2710:{ 2695:( 2667:c 2665:{ 2650:( 2638:c 2636:{ 2618:( 2596:c 2594:{ 2447:c 2445:{ 2341:( 2293:( 2259:c 2257:{ 2234:( 2206:c 2204:{ 2188:( 2167:( 2153:( 2134:( 2103:( 2064:( 1943:) 1901:( 1886:( 1868:( 1854:( 1835:( 1815:c 1813:{ 1786:( 1768:c 1766:{ 1748:) 1744:( 1733:) 1729:( 1690:. 1679:. 1651:( 1560:( 1545:( 1523:( 1505:( 1478:c 1476:{ 1405:( 1388:( 1350:( 1333:( 1312:( 1210:) 1206:( 1195:) 1191:( 1174:( 1144:) 1140:( 1101:c 1099:{ 1072:( 1043:( 1026:( 967:( 873:( 782:( 734:( 660:( 634:( 589:1 562:( 542:. 314:. 280:. 169:. 95:: 52:. 27:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.