Talk:Ma Ying-jeou

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Politics and Government (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (marked as High-importance).
WikiProject Taiwan (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taiwan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Allegations of homosexuality[edit]

Why has no one added anything about his alleged homosexual affair with DJ Chocolate? BlueJames19 (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

What? And bottom of the WP:TALK page, please. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 04:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Unsurprisingly, none of these sources are reliable. Laurent (talk) 09:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


Can someone add more details about Ma's family. Ma has 2 daugthers and their names are Lesley W. Ma (Ma Wei-chung, 馬唯中) and Kelly Ma (Ma Yuan-chung, 馬元中). They are twins. Reference: Rambowikinator (talk) 13:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)rambowikinator


Can someone use a better picture than that? I mean he's suppose to be known for his charm and good looks, and the best picture you can find is THAT? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) .

A couple constraints we have is that it has to be an image that is not copyrighted and should be relatively recent. --Nlu (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
changed image--Jiang 10:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

This is the greatest picture of all time. 17:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC) (talk) 23:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC) I fail to see the relevance of how good looking or charming a president needs to be to fulfill his duties. I remember young voters claiming that they would vote for Ma simply based on his looks. A president's ability to govern, to uphold the right morals, to do what is best for his country outweighs any fantasy on how charming he may look. So, as long as it is a clear picture of him, it is a sufficiently accurate representation in my opinion. And being a pro green individual, i frankly couldn't care less for how he looks. His provocation with regards to the prosecution of the former president is sickening and hypocritical in consideration that he is alleged to have embezzled an even greater sum of funds and should face heftier corruption charges but has been able to avoid it all due to the gross majority of KMT seating in the justice systems of taiwan. And to think someone wants to talk about good looks...pathetic. (talk) 23:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Unification views[edit]

This paragraph is weird: "In a December 2005 Newsweek International interview when asked about unification, Ma stated that "for our party, the eventual goal is reunification, but we don't have a timetable," explaining that he meant it was a choice for Taiwan but a choice for the Chinese KMT." Shouldn't it be something like unification is KMT's goal and not a "choice", but a choice for Taiwan in general? This just doesn't look right to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 08:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

- There is a division in Taiwan with pro-unification, pro-status quo and pro-Taiwan independence groups. It is difficult to convince one or the other to accept different political ideologies and concepts because these three views are conflicted with each other in nature with the attention on sovereignty.

KMT's choices to the One China issue are two; one is ROC and another one is that China would be unified as a whole in the long-term future. What Ma said in the interview is the second choice that China would be unified as a whole in the long-term future.

Recent editing/reversions[edit]

I am fairly new to Wikipedia, but this article appears to be already subject to a fairly heated dispute. Is there a way to get some kind of talk going here? I think that some compromise can be reached. 13:49, 20 Jul 2005 (UTC)

NPOV of criticism section[edit]

The section on "Political Ideology" is not npov. Far from an overview of all his political positions, it just gives a one-sided account on how he has opposed democratization. It is also ungrammatical. --Jiang 05:49, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That section were merely stating truth which tell reader about his political ideology. For me, these are NPOV. I was there sitting in front of TV and convinced by Ma that indirect presidential election is better than direct one. If you say that is POV. It is your POV. For me, that is truth that I experienced. To stand on a neutralized point, I believe the response from Ma's campaign was included already. If you have refutal evidence, please present it. Otherwise, the paragraph stands. If you have any opinion on the grammer, please fix it as well.Mababa 06:03, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If you do not agree on the title of "political ideology" but also can not disagree with the sentence, please make suggestions for a new title.06:08, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

One-sided truth can still be truth. The text makes it seem that supporting indirect presidential elections makes him anti-democratic or that in opposing modifying Article 100 he supports martial law. "insisted" is also the wrong word to use. The first sentence of the paragraph is the topic sentence that all other sentences are based on. I also don't see how "not allowing the ROC national flag to be flown along with a PRC flag during a cross-strait soccer match" has to do with his political ideology. There is only speak of criticism. Where is the support? --Jiang 06:44, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sure, the first sentence of the paragraph is the topic sentence. However, the following sentences were not base on the first one. Contrarily, I would rather say the first sentence was the conclusion people usually will draw from the following sentence. These are his own records. The sentence did not say that he was anti-democracy. It only says that he holds opposite position in major democratization event. If you want to make modifications or change the tone, please do whatever you want. But leave his record for the public to review.Mababa 07:01, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Holding "opposite position in major democratization event" implies he is against democracy. I'm not disputing the factual accuracy here. I'm disputing the neutrality. It is not neutral just to criticize the guy. --Jiang 09:59, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If you think criticizing is not neutral, then is praising neutral? Ma has already recieved the praising that he deserved in other paragraphs, didn' he? What would you say if we come up something that make these fact laudable? Something like "Ma's proposal of indirect election would cut down the cost of election process" ? Or you can add more things praising his contribution to the society into the paragraph. I would not against anything that you put into the paragraph as long as you keep the record intact.

This is not something people make up. This is part of the common history of the Taiwan. I believe there is nothing wrong to mark these events and it is not shameful to present one's public service record. Sometimes fact are the only neutral thing. Again, please remove any non-neutral or even denigrating components there if there is any. If anything you think is other than neutral, please remove it and keep the factual description there. Do whatever you think to be appropriate. Remove the "opposite position in major democratization event" sentence, too. Let the readers draw their own conclusion. If you can find update about Ma's position on these accounts, please add them onto the page as well. Let's have the neutral factual sentences and have records tell the only neutral truth. Mababa 18:35, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm saying that reports of (not assertions of) criticisms should be balanced with reports of (not assertions of) support. We should not praise anything here. We only report other people's criticisms or praise. I don't see how the rest of the article is "praise". Even if so, creating a section of pure criticism is not how we should be solving npov. Again, I'm not saying there's false info. It's just not balanced. --Jiang 19:23, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There is a huge gap of understanding here. Whereas I believe these descriptions are "reports of fact" which contains no denegrading stuff nor praising things, you think the facts can be divided into "criticisms" and "supports". I am not sure where is the standard. I also do not understand how to change the paragraph to match your criteria. To me, this is merely a section of simple neutral description. As I said earlier, if you can find the "supporting" material, please put them on and make them neutral in your way. Again, please do whatever you want if you insist this is a dispute of neutrality. Modify them to make them neutral. If you think these report are something made up and should be taken away from public eyes, then take them away if you believe it to be appropriate. Hopefully other people can also give us some advice in this matter. If you merely want to point out your objection, perhaps we should leave the sign of NPOV dispute there as it is on the page.Mababa 20:43, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi Jiang, with your auspision, I intend to remove the NPOV sign on the article since I did not hear back from you. Looking forward to your response.Mababa 04:58, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

They may be statements of fact, but I still say they're rather one sided. Let me try to clarify. Wouldn't focusing everything on "standing at the opposite side during Taiwan democratization" be one sided because it is assumed "Taiwan democratization" is a good thing and Ma shouldn't stand against it? In another instance, did Ma have a choice of whether to display the ROC flag in the stadium? Also, with the first sentence, saying Ma opposed the referendum implies Ma was standing against its democratic aspect, which was not the case. --Jiang 03:52, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I tried to incorporate most of the content into the body of the article because a section based solely on criticism, worded as it was, was highly biased. I assumed opposition to the anti-subversion law was during his tenure as justice minister? if not, when?

I left out the following: "He spoke against direct presidential popular vote and insisted on indirect election. Ma also opposed the supreme court's opinion which held custody decision made by prosecuters as unlawful and in breach of human rights. "

I can't find evidence of the first sentence online. Please verify it. The second sentence is too vague and I have no idea what it refers to. Which supreme ct opinion? on what specific court case? when did this happen? why was ma opposed to it? --Jiang 15:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Drinking incident[edit]

Is his drinking incident even mentionable for an encyclopedia article? BlueShirts 18:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

At the time it seemed notable -- and it helped to counteract what some other editors perceived as a pro-Ma bias in the article. (To tell the truth, I myself think that the article stands a little too pro-Ma.) As time went by and nothing else developed from that incident (i.e., it now appears clear that Ma does not have a drinking problem -- although that incident raised a possible inference at the time), maybe it is no longer notable. Thoughts, folks? --Nlu (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know, but I think this is rather minor and should be deleted. I mean, he has other similar stuff like when he yelled at reporters during the KMT chairman election. These incidents have some small effect undermining his clean image, but I think they're not long-lasting or even significant by tabloid standards. BlueShirts 20:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not believe that it should be included. If nobody objects, I'm gonna go ahead and delete the section. I don't know why this was even entered. Almost all public figures have these little incidents, and you do not see it on their articles on wikipedia. Therefore, to remain as an encyclopaedia, I do believe that the drinking part should be deleted. --Big Wang 06:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

This drinking incident has its meaning, if you dare to explore it.

(1) It is well known Ma like to talk about high moral standard in front of media but when comes to his own business, both in his city and private, this high standard most of time, does not apply.

(2) Mr. Ma as mayor of Taipei had explicitly DEMANDED all staffs of Taipei city DO NOT drink during business hours including lunch time but it looks like Mr. Ma is NOT include when comes to this incident.

So, should this incident be considered just one time deal? Well, people will have their own judgment.--[[User:] 13:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

This is so typical. The pro Ma folk want the article to look clean and any negativity seems unnecessary. If it happened and was not a fictional entry then what exactly is the problem. It happened, its a fact, so there's no harm in mentioning it and if it does tarnish his image for the Ma lovers out there then live with it, maybe he shouldn't have done it in the first place. After all, politics is a bit of a show and is about a persons public image representing his sound morality or character. Reading through all this, its all erase this, don't say that because it makes him sound anti democratic, well if he is then whats the problem. Its almost like the homosexuality issue! Don't put it in, it sounds scandalous...well, if it had been a proven matter, heck, slap it right on in! Its like saying whether a person is male or female shouldn't be mentioned because it might create sexual discrimination. If it is it is, go on right it all down...whats with all the taboo with some people! (talk) 23:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


Does Ma have a doctorate, i.e., a Doctor of Laws or Doctor of Philosophy degree? If not, it is incorrect to refer to him as "Dr. Ma" - an SJD alone does not confer the "Doctor" salutation (otherwise every lawyer in America would be "Doctor" So-and-so). But he may have an actual doctorate... Anyone know for sure?

an SJD degree does indeed confer the honorific of doctor. the vast majority of lawyers in America only have a JD, not a SJD. An SJD is intended for academics.--Jiang 07:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Five Do´s[edit]

This expression is spelled in 2 different ways in the text, and is not explained. Could we be told what the Five Do´s are? Adam 09:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I meant to get to this sometime: His "five do's" are "to accept the consensus of 1992," "to reach an agreement on peace for 30 to 50 years with China," "to promote all-round economic and trade exchanges," "to end a zero sum game in international politics" and "to enhance cultural interchange.", "The five points of the initiative are: To resume negotiations between Taiwan and China based on the so-called "1992 consensus" (agreeing to disagree about the definition of "one China"); to reach a peace accord with confidence building measures; to facilitate economic exchanges with the aim of eventually establishing a common market; to work with China to boost Taiwan's presence in international bodies and to expand educational and cultural exchanges."--Jiang 09:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. On the spelling of this, the strictly correct form would be Five Dos. If "Do" is an English noun then its plural should be "Dos." I agree this doesn´t look very elegant. Five Does, however, must be wrong - it means five female deer. That leaves Five Do´s, which is probably the least bad alternative, although using an apostrophe before the plural s is usually to be deplored. You will be interested to know, Jiang, that I am currently at the China Democracy Conference in Berlin, and just heard Wei Jingsheng speak (not very well). Adam 15:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Lead section POV[edit]

The following text in the lead section is not NPOV for obvious reasons:

Often well-known for his vows and efforts against so-called "black gold politicians" in his capacity of Minister of Justice in the early 1990s, Ma staged quite a Théâtre de l'absurde as the Chairman of Kuomintang in lending his charisma to back controversial candidates in local elections, most of whom now prosecuted or even sentenced with charges of corruption or vote buying. However, passion of Pan-Blue supporters never waned for these observed insconsistencies, and some even identify themselves as "Fans of Ma".

First, please do not insert French into an English language encyclopedia. Théâtre de l'absurde is not commonly used in English, and is incomprehensible for most readers. Second, pointing out that Ma has campaigned for less than admirable politicians is an aspect of his chairmanship that is much too detailed to be in the lead section. It belongs in the chairmanship section, but the lead section is for general material. Third, claiming that campaigning for certain candidates in light of a clean personal reputation is "absurd" and constitutes "inconsistencies" are inherently conclusions based on personal opinion. Wikipedia rules do not permit editorializing. Fourth, although it can be stated than Ma retains high popularity ratings in general, the juxtaposition of them as "passionate" and Ma as someone who is "inconsistent" is POV: the sentence makes it seem that there is a sole indicator to be used to judge Ma (his consistency) and that his supporters don't care about these "inconsistencies". Fifth, the claim that a specific phrase "Fans of Ma" is used by Ma Ying-jeou supporters seems to be made up.

We are here to provide material in both a neutral and accurate manner. Please do not spice it up. This is not the place to do it.--Jiang 01:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


Anyone knows why those "mishaps" listed at this section are all broken? In the mean time, the incident of Ho-ping hospital during SARS out-break is not just a mishap, in my honest opinion. A book which dedicated to remember this SARS event in Taiwan could be found at this URL[1], if you can read chinese. The author of this book was a NYU Ph.D. candidate at that time and was helping experts from CDC sent to Taiwan for this out-break. Whoever would like to categorize and downplay this Ho-ping hospital incident during SARS period as "mishap" better finish this book first. --[[User:] 19:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I would recommend changing 'mishaps' to 'incidents,' seeing as mishaps may allude to bad luck instead of failed policies and general negligence.


Ma is fluent in Mandarin Chinese and speaks fluent English. 
Ma also speaks Taiwanese and French.

isnt this POV?

Uh, how so? Either he does or he doesn't. There's no value judgement here; it's simply a list of the languages he is capable of speaking.

Spy for KMT at Harvard?[edit]

Ummm, no offence but where did this random piece of information come from? Is it just a rumour or is it seriously substantiated. Additionally what would the KMT spy on Harvard for? There are obvious NPOV problems with this 17:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I have removed it as unsourced negative info per WP:BLP. Thank you for bringing this to our attention! Kusma (討論) 18:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I use Google try to find some information on this issue, and here's some in Chinese:
Maybe it's just a rumor, but it's been reported by the media. According to the story, Ma acted as a KMT spy to see what Taiwanese students do in the campus and report their possible political activities which might against the KMT ruling power in Taiwan, but I do not know it's true or not. Does NPOV mean to include all points about the article? --H.T. Chien (Discuss|Contributions) 04:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
This says that the matter was a misunderstanding, so probably not worth reporting in this article. I can't find a proof for Cohen's confirmation of that right now, though (and would need a dictionary to read all those articles in Chinese). With the amount of smear attacks going on in Taiwanese politics, it is probably not worth mentioning every rumored affair in every Taiwanese politician's biography (is there a politician where you can't write a "rumors of corruption" section?) Kusma (討論) 09:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Do we not know anything about Ma Ying-jeou here? Ma has long been accused of being a student spy at Harvard by the democracy side, at least as far back as 1989, when Winston Dang published that, without using his name, in the introduction to "Taiwangate", a compilation on student spying in the US. These accusations have resurfaced with the election. Since that has been a claim long reported about Ma, especially within pro-democracy circles, it should be included here, along with Ma's disclaimer and the current lawsuit 09:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Michael Turton
Disagree,the "Harvard Spy event" is not cited by reputable source nor massively reported(In contrast,"Special funds scandal" is massively reported by many international media).Putting it into Wikipedia may break the "Undue Weight" rule of NPOV guideline.Secondly,if we put every accusation from every source about a politician into Wikipedia,Wikipedia will become unreadable.d8888(Discuss)

Possibly hypocrisy[edit]

"Some commentators have criticized Ma because when President Chen Shui Bian's wife was indicted by prosecutors (President Chen was not indicted due to his presidential immunity) Ma continuously demanded for the President to step down. However, when Ma himself was indicted, he immediately declared his candidacy for the presidency. Moreover, some found it hypocritical that KMT is considering ending the party rule barring members from running if charged with crimes beause Ma himself was the main advocate for the rule he became the chairman of the KMT in order to give a sense of his advocacy for clean government."

This should be present at a forum for discussion, not necessarily appearing on an encyclopedic source. Huangj2 22:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Special Funds Abuse Case References[edit]

For some reason, Vic has been deleting unsourced statements from the article instead of marking them as uncited. Here are a couple of English articles for reference on Ma's previous positions: - Ma's initial position was the money was separate. It has since been found (and he has admitted) that the funds were directly transferred into his personal accounts, parts of which were also then transferred to his wife's personal account. Ma now admits it and claims the special funds are simply a part of his salary.

This is inaccurate.As mentioned in the judgement( ).Ma said that "He used all of special funds on public" and "If Special Funds is public fund,then .....",but he never said Special Funds is public fund.The usage of "Special funds" is "Reimburse on recepit",which means you spend money first,and then tell government how much you have spent,and then the government will give you money.Since you have already spent the money already,so when government gives you the money("Reimbursement"),you are of course allowed to use them wherever you like.

- Ma later claimed that he used all funds on 公務 and 公益, which means they were for official uses and public good (charitable donations). The funds have been found to not have been used in this matter (what was donated were leftover campaign contributions). This also differs from his current position which is that the funds are no different from his salary.

If there are other people who read Chinese, please help in correcting these deletions. It is so common in the media, but non-Chinese readers may be suspicious. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 10:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Technically, I can read Chinese news, but since I've been in U.S. for a long while I do not check on it too much. Per WP:BLP, controversial informations against the person of the article should be deleted on sight (as quoted by Jimbo Wales) unless it can be properly sourced. So by not doing researches and deleting the information I would hold part of the responsibility. However, I just want to stress the importance of citing source(s) that support the newly-added negative claims. That's all.
What I still don't understand, however, is the deletion of other reliable sources from sites like and, as the last revert by User: indicated. Specifically, one sentence says: "The resignation was subsequently rejected by the party's central standing committee." However, the title in the source I included next to it indicates clearly that "KMT rejects, then accepts chairman's resignation". Hence the change in that information is only to make the logic clear throughout the paragraph, as it later mentions: "... At a press conference following his resignation and indictment..." which would somewhat contradict the original sentence about the "subsequently rejected" resignation. Please also note that KMT amended the clause after the initial rejection and before the acceptance of Ma's resignation, so the last sentence was brought up into the middle of the paragraph. Besides, the revert also isolated a link between two paragraphs and made the article one bit less encyclopedic. I will still make some adjustment on the last revert, however I will not mess with the now-sourced information. Vic226 18:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
After the 1st and 2nd edit: I'm not trying to be anti-climatic here, but the links you provided above have problems on the dates when they were published. It also makes me notice that this problem has been going on for some months.
  1. The second one is dated way back: August 3. I'm not even sure how to explain this one, as it's published about six-and-half months before the embezzlement we are debating about. I don't believe there's such thing as crystal ball predictions in news, so the link might not as well fit into the information itself. I still left it there, however, but someone has to find a proper source that is also dated around February 14. Only one puzzle piece would fit into another.
  2. The first one is dated November 24, which would fit a little better if we rearrange the information to its chronological order. I would go on and make this change for now, so bear with me if I also got the information even more confused. Vic226 19:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I've rearranged the two links you have provided above as well as the information they are referring to by chronological orders. Those confusions over Ma's use of government funds didn't happen this year but last year. Vic226 21:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Ma's own statement about how he said Special Fund is only for public/official use (before he changed position later to "Special Fund is salary") should be included, because this is one of the major reasons prosecutor decided to indicted. And it is also one of the reasons why his image was so damaged.

I think the scandal of 三中 should be included.-- 14:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

WP Bio Rating[edit]

I have rated the article as B class. The main thing that needs improved is the large number of 'red' links. GDon4t0 14:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

"So-Called" in lead section[edit]

I've never read about Ma Ying-jeou previously, and I was immediately struck with a bad impression from those two words detailing his "good looks". It has an inherent bias and leads the reader to believe that these "good looks" are a purely artificial construct of some unreliable source. I recommend changing it if there are others who concur. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blaiseball (talkcontribs) 23:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

First sentence of the paragraph[edit]

"Ma was born in the xxx hospital in Hong Kong, China"

At that time, Crown Colony of Hong Kong belongs to the United Kingdom, not China —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This whole paragraph has Citation Needed written ALL over it.[edit]

"During his tenure as Minister of Justice, Ma was seen as cracking down on "black gold politics", especially in his own party and the ROC government.[citation needed] (The result was, etc.) His high level of education [cn] and his perceived good looks have made him one of Taiwan's most popular (or wealthy, cn) politicians, and he retains a following from citizens, particularly among women [cn], those who identify themselves as Chinese nationals [cn] or otherwise support unification with China [cn], and business interests [cn].

Is there any way that WikiScanner can monitor this page as it's being edited? I'll be seriously angry if I find out that Wikipedia is being used as an international propaganda machine for Taiwanese citizens who could be motivated to return to Taiwan to vote. Eventually, this thread will be locked, as the political race on Taiwan heats up. Many props to all of the above contributors and comments on this informative "back channel communique." Haha peace out. --Torchpratt 12:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

A paragraph

Very slanted article[edit]

This article is extremely biased, likely due to the influence of prominent anti-KMT (Ma's party) bloggers such as Michael Turton ( and Taiwan Matters (

Actually after reading Michael's blog, I think he has a very good grasp of the political situation in Taiwan. It is remarkable that a foreigner like him has such intimate knowledge of Taiwan.

Nearly every single positive aspect of this presidential candidate is qualified, while unsubstantiated rumors about him are included without suitable disclaimer.

I disagree. It may seem out of the world to you, but I'd say about 80% of what is deemed overly negative is the truth. The other 20% might just be tabloid material. When you read about Taiwan, you have to remember that until about 20 years ago Taiwan was under an authoritarian government that maintained an iron grip over the local media. It's tentacle like influences are still evident today. Ma is really just a well packaged front-man for that dead regime desperately trying to resurrect itself. Gather more primary source information before you make a judgment because the secondary sources are filtered through the KMT's blue lenses. In my judgment, this article is too nice to Ma and parrots the former KMT propaganda machine's view of him, so it is slanted indeed...just not in the direction that you think it is.

In the third paragraph:

During his tenure as Minister of Justice, Ma was seen as cracking down on "black gold politics", especially in his own party and the ROC government.[citation needed] His high level of education and his perceived good looks have made him one of Taiwan's most popular politicians, and he retains a following from citizens, particularly among women, those who identify themselves as Chinese nationals or otherwise support unification with China, and business interests.

In the personal background section an unsubstantiated claim of spying:

He has been accused of spying on other Taiwanese students on behalf of the then-authoritarian government in Taiwan while at NYU and Harvard, but Ma has denied these charges.

This is a serious allegation, and it lacks any evidence or citation., the article reports that Ma has been accused of being a student spy and says that Ma denies the charges. Is it true that members of the democracy movement say that Ma spied on them? Yes, that's been in print since at least 1989. Does Ma deny these charges? Also true. No one has accused anyone of anything. The article reports two facts, the fact of the accusations, and the fact of the denial. It is well known that students on KMT scholarships, like Ma, routinely reported on their fellow students for the party during the authoritarian period. Winston Dang(Chen), who now holds high position in the government here, has said that Ma was identified as a student spy by his advisor, Jerome Cohen. Ma himself has virtually admitted this by saying that because of the scholarship, he had to "give back."

Sadly, your man served the authoritarian state when he could have been working for freedom. Unfortunately for him, that lack of moral courage that has so colored Ma's long career as the scion of the security state cannot be omitted from an article such as this. It is crucial to an understanding of who Ma Ying-jeou is.

To add to Michael's comment, contrast Ma's actions and writings during the 1970's with let's say Annette Lu (who was also at Harvard at the time) and it will become abundantly clear who was working for freedom and who was not. Annette Lu was thrown in jail in Taiwan for participating in prod-democracy activities after only 1 or 2 years at Harvard. Ma on the other hand was writing essay arguing the necessity of martial law and the evils of Taiwanese independence. A quick Google search will turn up a lot of material.

As for Ma being "good looking" are you seriously suggesting that looks are not a matter of perception? Thanks for mentioning my blog, BTW 09:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Michael Turton

Mayorship, 6th paragraph:

His initiatives in administering the city of Taipei include changing the transliterations of street names and the Taipei Rapid Transit System's line and station names into Hanyu Pinyin, the spelling compatible with mainland China, as opposed to the Taiwanese-developed Tongyong Pinyin.

Hanyu Pinyin is the internationally accepted standard for romanizing Mandarin. It isn't just "compatible with China". It's the UN standard and even an ISO standard. Also, representing Tongyong Pinyin as simply as "Taiwanese" is misleading. Very, very few Taiwanese are familiar with the system, it was changed multiple times during Ma's term, and it is entirely the tool of the opposing political party.

This entire article is ridiculous in its negative-bias. This is a presidential candidate, and the article was clearly written by people with an intense dislike for him. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a tool for shaping political debate. 17:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Brian


Looks like there are more scandals for Ma...[2]. Can someone please update the article?--Jerrch 02:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Lead section[edit]

Please note that Ma still has one more trial to go, so to say he was found "not guilty" in the lead section is misleading as it implies he has gone through the whole process. If the third trial goes his way then it should read that he was acquitted. John Smith's (talk) 18:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

National Taiwan University alumni[edit]

Dear Moderator,

Would you mind adding the following line in Ma's article: ?

Thank you in advance. :-)

Green Card Issue[edit]

Can someone add the green card controversy which has popped up? It is verified that Ma had a green card and that it is currently a big controversy in Taiwan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShihRyanJ (talkcontribs) 01:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I added some info on it.--Jerrch 21:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Ma denied having one and publicly expressed that no members of his family had one.[1]

The sentence doesn't match the article which was confused. Ma denied having a US passport.

Roadrunner (talk) 13:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it does match the article. Here's an exact quote: Earlier yesterday, Ma had publicly denied having a green card, saying that "no members of his family possessed one."--Jerrch 20:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Is Ma Ying Jeou a Lawyer?[edit]

As far as I know, Mr. Ma is NOT a lawyer. He went to a law school in Taiwan, and he obtain other degrees by studying abroad. However, he has never passed any bar exams. He did not pass the Taiwanese Bar Exam, nor did he pass any other. Therefore, he's NOT a lawyer. Please make the appropriate correction. His profession is NOT a lawyer although he is a politician. (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

He is not a lawyer because he hasn't passed the bar exam.--Jerrch 01:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
One needs not be a practising lawyer to be a lawyer. -- (talk) 09:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia whether or not you need to be practicing of have passed the bar exam to be called a lawyer depends on the country. Since President Ma has his degree from the United States, it makes sense to use the U.S. standards (Taiwanese standards would be better if they existed, but English is not the language of Taiwan). In the U.S., "the term generally refers to attorneys who may practice law." You can only practice law if you've passed the bar exam, so it would be inaccurate to describe President Ma as a lawyer. We could say he was "trained as a lawyer" or that he "has a Law degree" (presuming he has one).Readin (talk) 18:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
No, he went to Havard Law School for his Law Degree. Kuomingtang or some other party SUPPORTED him to go there. Prowikipedians (talk) 12:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
"Lawyer" is ambigious, though some jurisdictions have rules about calling yourself one. Better to just note his degrees, then add that he has not passed any bar exam. --Dawud —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


His religion has been changed a couple times in the last 24 hrs. Does anyone actually have a fact on that? Alexwoods (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The source says that Ma only VISITED temples; but did not clearly say if he belonged to a specific religious group. From what I have seen, Ma might be secular. But then again, we can leave the religion part blank too =) Iamwisesun (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Which source? I haven't found anything by Googling. Alexwoods (talk) 15:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I added back "religion = baptized Roman Catholic whilst young in Taipei; not practising [3]" which was deleted earlier for no good reason. It is well-sourced and not controversial. – Kaihsu (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to comment it out. The source you cited stated in Chinese, "Some local parishioners state [that Ma was baptized as a child]," which hardly seems reliable. The article itself does not claim that Ma is/was Catholic. --Nlu (talk) 05:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

There is this press release circulating on the net:






Also, this page mentions: ‘習賢德教授說,馬英九是在1982,4~5參加革命實踐研究院講習班第24期」集訓。他在自述中說,年幼時曾受洗為天主教徒,但長大後涉獵自由主義書籍,對宗教信仰改成兼容並蓄而不偏廢的態度。’ It is nearly impossible to verify these comments without directly contacting Ma’s staff. – Kaihsu (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is biased for the DPP[edit]

This article was obviously written by people who really hate Ma. There is too much exaggerated information on scandals and what not. Even though Ma was cleared two times by the courts. And he was chosen as President of the Republic of China. There is way too much negative data about him and some of it is pure BS and imagination too. Beautiful Formosa (talk) 04:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The very reason he won the election means that his actions should get special mention. Lots of politicians have detailed discussions of corruption allegations.
Also it doesn't help if you're not specific. Refer to actual text and suggest improvements. John Smith's (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Need an exact quote for Taiwan being a sovereign country[edit]

Taiwan a "sovereign country" [2]

Need an exact quote for this. In these sorts of theological debates, it matters very much if he mentioned the "Republic of China" somewhere in the sentence. The statements "Taiwan is sovereign" and "Taiwan is a sovereign country" are very different if you are familiar with the debate.

Roadrunner (talk) 19:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hongkong/British Hongkong[edit]

When he was born, Hongkong was a British colony, shouldn't it be British Hong Kong? I made the edit a couple of times and got reverted. Why shouldn't it be British Hongkong? Speedboy Salesman (talk) 12:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It should be Hong Kong, British Empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Which may go on to explain his name as in HK Cantonese his name is homophonic to "Ma, dog of the English". (talk) 13:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Chinese Navy[edit]

Was Ma in the ROC navy? I have seen pictures of him in uniform. maybe it should be mentioned if he was in the navy? (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

He was in the Marine Corp as Lieutenant and later promoted to Major as reserved officer. (talk) 00:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

5 Do's and 5 No's[edit]

Under the View on Taiwan independence section of this article, there were mentioned of 5Do's and 5 No's. What were they? Could someone who knows the details please expand them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyl (talkcontribs) 18:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


Looking at today's edit history, it looks like we need to protect this from anonymous IP edits! HkCaGu (talk) 05:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't202.132.6.251 (talk) 00:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Now that the semi-protection is in force, we can finally clean any unreverted vandalism up. HkCaGu (talk) 16:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Move proposal.[edit]

Why is this page not "Ying-jeou Ma?" According to Wikipedia guidelines, Chinese/Taiwanese names have to be named by the order of the last name, first name. Prowikipedians (talk) 05:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

We're there already, last name then first name! HkCaGu (talk) 05:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Does it matter which way HE signs his name? I think we should follow that...which would mean following the traditional Chinese word-order. --Dawud —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent rallies against Ma Ying Jeou, and other bias[edit]

I noticed that for other Taiwanese politicians, major rallies made the news and in fact a lot of minor and major incidents are showed. But its a total clean slate for Ma. The recent news hasn't been up there, such as changing the 633 point or that 300,000 - 40,000 (depending on media, both should be cited) have protested against his policies in Taipei. A lot of emphasis over the dramatic drop of the stock market and the economic growth stall. Why is this major news excluded and not mentioned? -- (talk) 05:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't heard of any big protests about Ma's policies yet. The most, of course comes from the DPP, which is of no surprise since they're still pissed that they lost the election. Hey, if you want to add stuff about these protests, go ahead, no one's to stop you, but don't say that people are being biased. It takes time for stuff on Wikipedia to get updated. Usually it's only behind by a few days, atmost-a month. The recent news is not on there because nobody placed it up on there, not that it's not allowed. There's a difference Liu Tao (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
It's been all over the news with no shortage of photographic proof (see Flickr, etc). It should definitely be mentioned (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with 19:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes it should be mentioned. It is something that happened.--pyl (talk) 05:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Possible Defamatory Statement?[edit]

Ma's last name is common among the Hui people, Chinese descendants from Muslim, Arab, or Persian merchants.

Someone inserted this statement even though its relevance is hard to establish. Apparently, the statement is true so I am wondering if this is just a veiled attempt to make a defamatory statement. Needless to say, I have removed the statement in the meantime. (talk) 04:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Is Ma descended from the Hui people? If he's not then the statement is clearly irrelevant. If he is descended from Hui people, then it's a tougher question. I don't think there is anything defamatory about being descended from Muslim, Arab or Persian merchants. But is it interesting, noteworthy or important? Readin (talk) 04:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
'Ma' means 'horse' in Chinese, a surname common along with horseback nomads who assimilated into the Chinese society, so it might be possible that he is a descendant from those you speak of. But even if he is, it doesn't really matter, because those people assimilated a long time ago, generally speaking before or during the Han dynasty, (circa. 200 BC - 200 AD), so by now, it doesn't really matter who his ancestors were. Also, there's a chance that Ma is not even a descendent of these people, since the last name is very popular among the Chinese. Based on statistics, it's the 14th most Chinese common last name. As far as I know, I don't think Ma is Muslim, but I do know that he was born in Hong Kong and moved to Taiwan at the age of 1. Liu Tao (talk) 18:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree. This comment should (if at all) appear in a "Ma" article, not on the "Ma Ying-Jeou" article. I merely edited the poor writing that the contributor wrote with and I appreciate that this sentence was taken out. It is unencyclopedic material, at least, with regards to Ma Ying-Jeou. Clygeric (talk) 04:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
There is no reason whatsoever to suppose that Ma is a Hui. By way of analogy, there are many Jews named Goldsmith, but are we going to note this on every article about somebody named Goldsmith, regardless of whether they are Jewish? Remove. --Dawud —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Ma's merger policy[edit]

Pyl reverted information about most Taiwanese preferring to maintain the status quo. As an explanation he wrote, the extra info can also be misleading as that is a Pan-green POV; saying "majority.." can suggest majority agree with their POV, but recent polls show govt has major support for their mainland policy. Earlier, in another revision, he wrote copyedit, npov "something most Taiwanese don't want" can give an impression that most Taiwanese want independence, but in fact, most Taiwanese prefer status quo

I agreed with his removing "something most Taiwanese don't want" isn't the best wording. Better would be to say directly what most Taiwanese do what, which is as he said, to maintain the status quo. But in reverting this, he renounced his claim that most Taiwanese prefer status quo.

Polls have long suggested - I know most editors are aware of them so I won't spend time looking them up right now, that Taiwanese prefer to maintain the status quo rather than either of the more extreme options of merging with China or declaring independence in spite of Chinese threats.

The argument that "but recent polls show govt has major support for their mainland policy" does not change this long-standing poll data. Ma claimed during his campaign that he would safeguard ROC sovereignty. He claims that his moves to be more friendly for China are for the purpose of economic prosperity and lessening of tensions. Unless we have poll data that shows most Taiwanese believe him to be lying and that they now support his policies because they agree with pan-green accusations that Ma is trying to merge, how can we use the statement that most Taiwanese support his mainland policy to mean anything more than most Taiwanese supporting his attempts to lessen tensions and help the economy? There is no evidence anything has changed from the long record of polls saying most Taiwanese support the status quo. Readin (talk) 04:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand the possible misunderstanding that's why I added more clarifying info in the edit summary. That info added by User: JoshuaKuo was a purely Green's POV, while other POVs aren't added. For example, the government's POV is that what they are doing is not merging Taiwan with mainland China. They are just normalising the relations so that the Taiwanese can do things in mainland China which they already have been able to do in other countries.
I am sorry that I might have misled you to think that the Taiwanese have departed from preferring the status quo. There haven't been any polls conducted since the TVBS one in June to suggest that they have. But all recent polls show a majority support for what the government is doing in relation to mainland China (which suggest to me that they don't interpret what the government is doing according to the Pan-Green's POV). I understand that we aren't allowed to make interpretative claims in the main text so I didn't added that claim.
I think this is a relatively small issue so I don't particularly wish to add all the figures to the main text unless a balance of POV is required. If you are curious about the results, I can you can find them on the websites of Mainland Affairs Council, Apple Daily and the Global Views magazine. They might be in Chinese only though.
If the clarifying info is added, it can suggest most Taiwanese support the Pan-Green's POV, which is not the case. Then we will have to add the government's POV and the poll figures to balance the POV. I don't think this is worth it myself.--pyl (talk) 04:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
While reading the China Post, I came across an article reporting the survey results by Global Views magazine which I mentioned above. So I changed the main text and included the survey results as well as the figures by the mainland affairs council. I think the figures are sufficient so I didn't bother looking for the figures by Apple daily. But I remember them being similar to the other two cited. I also rewords the criticisms so the main text now reflects the actual wording used by the pan green coalition.
I hope this would resolve the concerns shown by the recent edits of various editors.--pyl (talk) 10:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

newspaper funding[edit]

If we are to examine newspaper funding and ownership, we should do so for all the significant news sources in Taiwan. Also, the fact that a newspaper is funded a particular way may lead to accusations of bias, but that does not always translate to inaccuracy. A newspaper can be very biased and at the same time be very accurate. Readin (talk) 01:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the time right now. But according to the rules, it is up to the person who wishes to assert statements on Wikipeida to prove that the relevant sources are reliable and unbiased. I dispute the sources. Please provide the relevant independent evidence. You may wish to ask for independent advice on the relevant boards.
Please do not assert the statements until the evidence is provided.--pyl (talk) 01:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
If that is the way it is to be. I also do not have time to research the ownership of every newspaper. Readin (talk) 02:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
We still have a lot of work to do. It will take a lot of time to remove every citation that comes from a source somehow linked to one party or the other, which as stated on your initial edit is the reason you say Taipei Times is unreliable. Readin (talk) 02:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I've put a query about this on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard Readin (talk) 02:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

"[W]e" don't "still have a lot of work to do". I am not the person doing the massive deletion when you decided to have issues with things that weren't disputed previously so you feel you can "get even". I am just watching you venting your anger by deleting stuff or making smart arse comments like you usually did when things don't go your way. I can only overlook it and "play dumb" that many times. You could have just simply posted a query on the board like a reasonable person would have done. If you read our discussions properly, China Post is actually American, reflecting the interest of your country, not of the KMT. The bit about needing to provide evidence for independent sources is in the verification part of the rules. I don't have time to quote it now. It was quoted for your benefit in talk: Republic of China previously.--pyl (talk) 04:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Part of NPOV is applying neutral standards. If we are to suddenly apply a harsh standard of proof for one source's reliability because it has a particular POV, then we need to apply similar standards to other sources with different POVs. I'm asking on the noticeboard about what standard of proof we should use. Readin (talk) 04:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
There are numerous issues in asserting those statement. I told you I didn't have the time to tell you the relevant issues in detail so I just picked the most obvious one. I still don't have the time to give you an extensive list, but I will just start with the more obvious stuff.
1. It is against the NPOV rule
  • by quoting a statement issued by a group of "experts" from a DPP funded newspaper always expressing the DPP's POV.
  • by "condemning" a democratic country of "serious violation of the rule of law and human rights abuse" is a pretty serious allegation and a big claim.
  • the "experts" appear to have pro-independence POV; did you check their credentials? The Australian "expert" wrote extensive papers on Taiwan's "nation building".
2. It is against the reliable sources rule
  • They are opinions of "experts".
  • Taipei Times is not a reliable source in this case.
  • According to WP:REDFLAG, "[e]xceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources", by the reasons I stated above, this is an exceptional claim and the quality of the sources is highly dubious.
According to WP:BURDEN, you need to establish that the sources are reliable. I don't believe I am applying a harsher standard in this case. It is common knowledge in Taiwan that Liberty Times/Taipei Times are highly biased newspapers. It is similar to Central Daily News which is run by the KMT, or Xinhua for the CPC. Taipei Times/Liberty Times/Central Daily News/Xinhua are generally fine for fact reporting, but they should be avoided for opinion pieces or for reporting opinions of others.--pyl (talk) 07:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
The statement did not condemn a serious violation of the rule of law and human rights abuse. It said that some experts had done so. Perhaps I should have been more specific in saying who the experts were (although the name and a basic piece of information about each is available at the source). I did look over the qualifications. Some were pretty lame while a few were useful. One of them is a former chairman of AIT.
Recently there have been allegations that the Ma administration is using the police and judiciary for political purposes. When the DPP is the only one making the allegations, of course they are questionable. However the open letter is from people who are not part of the DPP with some knowledge of the situation and with reputations to protect. This makes the allegations something to be taken more seriously.
You are right that any newspaper should be avoided for opinion pieces. However in reporting the opinions of others, when the exact words of the others are printed in full, the newspaper should be considered reliable. I think what you are really trying to argue is whether the opinions are notable, whether the former head of AIT notable and sufficiently objective that his statements on this matter should be considered when weighed together with the other signers of various notability and knowledge. Readin (talk) 07:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I do also have issues with the nobility of the opinions, but that's another issue. At this stage, I am saying Taipei Times fails to be a reliable source in this situation and I think we should sort this out first at the reliability sources board before pursing other issues such as NPOV and nobility.--pyl (talk) 04:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the disputed section, per opinions of the administrator Metropolitan90 on the reliable sources board, as follows:-

I am not saying, "Don't use the Taipei Times, it's biased and unreliable." I am saying, "If you use the Taipei Times, also use a pro-KMT paper for balance. And if you use the Taipei Times, use the original articles that reported on the detentions, not just a later article about foreign reaction."

In other words, if a pro-KMT paper on this subject is not used for balance, don't use Taipei Times. If a balancing source from a pro-KMT source is added, then we can discuss nobility and NPOV balancing.--pyl (talk) 01:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Tsai Ing-wen[edit]

"it suggested that 26% of the respondents were satisfied with the DPP Chairwoman Tsai Ing-wen's handling of the crowds in the series of protests, while 53% of the respondents were unsatisfied."

Why is this here? This article is about Ma Yin-jeou, not Tsai Ing-wen. Readin (talk) 01:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It is in the same poll to show the support base of both Ma Ying-Yeou and Tsai Ing-wen after the same event. This event has taken too much space in Ma Ying-jeou's page, and it is only partly related to Ma Ying-jeou. There are quotes from Tsai Ing-wen as well as loose quotes from newspapers in this article. They should be condensed or moved to cross-strait relations.--pyl (talk) 01:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I moved the materials to cross-strait relations and added the condensed materials as well as the reactions and news for the series of protests.--pyl (talk) 02:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

ostrich putting its head in the sand[edit]

@user Pyl, you can remove all the unfavorable remarks from international press, and keep Ma Ying-jeou squeaky clean, but it would not make any different in real life when KMT and Ma Ying-jeou are facing increasing revolts from the opposition. Unless Ma has decided to turn back the clock and start Martial Law.Arilang1234 (talk) 08:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

@user Pyl, my apology to you, because I did not know you have move the press reports to Cross-Strait relations. However, many remarks were directed at 'Mr.Ma', or 'you', not 'Mr. President'. May be from now on we should start addressing Ma as 'you'? Or may be rename this article Ma Ying-jeou as you?Arilang1234 (talk) 09:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The issue of Chen not calling Ma as president is condensed and addressed in this article. Please check it.--pyl (talk) 09:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Display of ROC national flag?[edit]

Many TV reports and internet blogs mentioned that the display of national flag was stopped by Taipei police. Shouldn't this fact be mentioned here? After all, Ma Ying-jeou is the president of the ROC, or is he?Arilang1234 (talk) 10:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss this issue in cross-strait relations. I don't think we should talk about the protests in detail in Ma Ying-jeou as this is not the proper article for that.--pyl (talk) 10:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

@Pyl,I did go and have a look, it is as quiet as here. I think my observation "ostrich putting its head in the sand" is correct, editors here all seem to 顧左右而言他(translation:look other ways and talk something else.) Are missiles really that scary?Arilang1234 (talk) 10:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if missiles are relevant to editing articles on Wikipedia. Please remember Wikipedia is not a soapbox.--pyl (talk) 11:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about the 'missiles' remark, but the 'national flag' is certainly a relevant issue here. My question remains, this is THE Ma Ying-jeou main page on wikipedia, and Ma is the president of the Republic of China. If we do not talk about ROC national flag here, I wonder where else we can talk? I propose the KMT flag to be put on Ma Ying-jeou, and requesting consensus:
The Kuomingdang flag

Arilang1234 (talk) 12:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Flag of the Republic of China is the place.--pyl (talk) 11:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying Ma Ying-jeou do not deserve the Flag of the Republic of China, or the other way around? Or KMT and ROC are having a new flag? Or from now on they would just hang a piece of cloths(may be white?) on the flag pole just to look good? This is wikipedia and the whole world is looking, a nation with no flag? A president with no flag and was happy to be addressed as "you". Is this an April fool joke? May be it is worth an entry at Guinness World Records?Arilang1234 (talk) 11:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
How apt is it to discuss this issue with sarcasm? Please try (at least try) to be fair and balanced, not attack-dog 100% or stalwart lackey 100%. If there are newsworthy (and encyclopedic, but NOT trivial) stories about Ma Ying-Jeou, please post them neutrally with its citations from neutral sources.Clygeric (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Requesting consensus for adding National Flag on Ma Ying-jeou[edit]

The Flag of the Republic of China

Discussion will be on for 3 days, 9 Nov, 10 Nov, and 11 Nov 2008. I hope by then a consensus would be reached.Arilang1234 (talk) 12:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

  • If you're able to find a neutral source which reported on any activity by the government on curbing its own national flag (not talk or rumors, but actual action), then certainly write neutrally about it and cite it. There were no actions in curbing the displays of flags or emblems during the Chen Yunlin visit, and Ma even defended this via his interview with Zhong-Tian News. But, however, like I said, if there are credible sources regarding the actual actions of removing or curbing the displays of flags or emblems, do write neutrally about it. But I believe there are no sources (as there were no actual occurrences of curbing of the display of national insignia), so I would say, no. Clygeric (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  • By Jonathan Adams Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
from the November 5, 2008 edition,
Is this report good enough?Arilang1234 (talk) 01:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
The keywords being "For many pro-independence Taiwanese"? This is a biased POV.--pyl (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
  • No to this poll as well as all your polls on this subject in other articles. The flag is irrelevant and Wikipedia is not a soapbox.--pyl (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Asia Times Online


Living in a vacuum may be another option?

Please be civil. Calling people "living in a vacuum", "ostrich putting its head in the sand" or "顧左右而言他(translation:look other ways and talk something else.)" is considered to be personal attacks.--pyl (talk) 02:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I offer my kowtows to user Pyl if my remarks had cause bruises on his sensitivity.Arilang1234 (talk) 03:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with user "pyl" - Wikipedia is not a soapbox and rumors are not encyclopedic. There have been no active efforts in curbing any national insignia or emblem. We all have our own heated passions and they belong outside encyclopedic sources. We have all been civil here, and hopefully there need not be anymore rumor-based "news". Clygeric (talk) 03:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

How did Ma pass his Harvard Thesis?[edit]

Recent developments have shown Ma's old thesis to be highly suspect and has brought up the suspicion that he only passed because he had high ties. His thesis has over 1,000 errors, misattributed or missing words, and other defects. See for yourself: Pictures here: and here: . Gosh I wish I had the same sort of pass for my thesis. Of course the Presidential office has released a statement saying that he got his degree and made an academic contribution so nothing else should matter. A) We should put this in as it has already become major news in Taiwan, B) we should make clear that Ma did not pass the bar exam both in the USA and in Taiwan, which he claims he did but there is zero records of. -- (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Per (A), the thesis is Harvard-caliber, Harvard-certified, Harvard-granted -- whether you personally agree with Harvard's granting of this degree is irrelevant. The word and confidence of Harvard's doctoral committees trumps the independent auditing and opinion of a retired Taiwanese teacher. Per (B), Ma has never claimed to have passed a bar exam and is not a licensed attorney anywhere - please provide credible evidence when you make such charges. Please refrain from any snarks on Wikipedia; this is a source for encyclopaedic material, not an open forum for bashing a political leader.Clygeric (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

they probably gave him a diploma if he promised that in the future he would destabilise mainland China, and serve the western financial oligarchs


I reverted a change that would have given Ma's current claims about Ma's birthplace the weight of fact. Ma has made separate claims on separate occassions. We have no reliable source to show for which is correct. The ROC president's office at this point in time reflects Ma's current claims - which is to be expected given that Ma is currently the president of the ROC. But that doesn't make his claims more believable than his earlier claim. Both the press release from the ROC president's office and the statement on the birth certificate come from the same original source - Ma himself. Given that same source, and that both were made in official capacities, neither is more authoritative than the other. In this case, both dates should be given along with the circumstance in which they were stated. I believe Ma has stuck with the Hong Kong location longer, and has stated it more often, than the mainland China location, so I think it makes sense to mention the Hong Kong location first with the other location being just something that needs to be noted. Readin (talk) 03:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how to best phrase it, but the claim of "PRC citizenship" is ridiculous--as ridiculous as the U.S. green card controversy. Most everyone on Taiwan is PRC citizen anyway according to Nationality Law of the People's Republic of China, and both PRC and ROC citizenships are meaningless when you consider those don't mean a lot in terms of residency and eligibility. A more valid point would be that Ma may have been too "patriotic" to consider HK a "legitimate" British territory that he described his birth place as part of Xin'an/Bao'an County of Guangdong, hence "Shengchun" (Shenzhen). An issue that doesn't affect his eligibility to hold office should not be overblown as the DPP wanted to. HkCaGu (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the PRC citizenship things is not worth noting. Readin (talk) 13:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

See, I think it is worth noting. It builds a bridge between America and Taiwan, and shows that no matter how different our two cultures, people are amazingly ignorant everywhere. -- (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Quba Osman

Please reference Nationality Law of the Republic of China & Nationality Law of the People's Republic of China. He is currently a ROC citizen, not a PRC citizen, and the PRC will never issue him one since he holds ROC citizenship, as the currentl law read. However Ma was feeling at the moment his daughter was born should not effect where he was born when signing a legal document. Additionally, check the Chinese language version, it even mentions this because there is evidence. When I first posted this, it was indicated there. The reference showed a copy of the birth certificate in question.
It's you who hadn't read the contents. PRC citizenship and ROC citizenship are almost a complete overlap. All Taiwanese are considered by PRC to be its citizens. (And most rights in the PRC are not based on citizenship alone.) HkCaGu (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the current way is best: the officially-listed birthplace, and then a separate section with the MA. birth certificate. Whether or not we agree or disagree, he is OFFICIALLY born in HK (via official info from the President's Office), but there exists a document that has his writing "Shenchin" as a birthplace. Both are now listed, one official; the other, controversial but not in official data. I think this shall suffice and we can avoid exaggerating a tempest in a teapot. Clygeric (talk) 22:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Another thing I must point out is that the "Examiner" is a freelance writing site and not a media source. When we refer to it, let us refer to the documents, etc, rather than the content of the writings from the site. It is a site with independent writers (ie. like "Associate Content" and unlike "Associated Press") Thanks for everyone's professionalism. Clygeric (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
You all-caps "OFFICIAL" like it is the final word. Remember, "OFFICIAL" is not synonym for NPOV, nor is it even a synonmyn for TRUE. But anyway, in this case we have two competing official documents, both authorized by Ma himself, making two separate apparently contradictory claims. Readin (talk) 13:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello. Yes, I understand it's not NPOV - apologies if my writing betrayed what I meant.

Ma has never responded directly to Chai Trong-rong's documents. Whether or not Chai's obtaining of the documents (via his daughter) is legal is yet unknown (and irrelevant). There's also no authenticity of this (ie, we can't really say both data - "official" and the one from Chai's documents - are authorized by Ma (yet). The Hospital has a museum, and even it has Ma's birth listed in its historical notables. Ma has his birth certificate, too; his passport also lists his birth as HK. In gathering data for a person, Ma is born in Hong Kong (ie. we can pull up any news article link that writes anything along the lines of "the Hong Kong-born Ma..." and cite it, too, for wiki. I'll re-emphasize again that the "Examiner" is a free-lance writing website, and not a news/media source; perhaps we can use this story instead ([4]) from the Taipei Times? Again, in this one, as in the Liberty Times, it states that Ma has already shown his birth certificate to the public already. Thanks. Clygeric (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

being born in the mainland does not mean he is a PRC citizen. many taiwanese are born in the mainland but do not poses prc citizenship. in fact, those who have left the mainland often cannot get their citizenship back. i know many people who were born in the mainland who are unable to get prc citizenship. prc citizenship is very strict with people who leave the mainland for long periods of time. it's not like in western countries where you get the citizenship for life, no matter where you go. even though the mainland considers taiwan part of China, they are very strict about who gets the prc citizenship. if you look at the taiwan compatriot pass, there are a lot of limitations on it, and taiwanese are treated as virtual foreigners, having to check in with the police and so forth. if you compare the taiwan compatriot pass and the hong kong return home permit, you can see that the hong kong return permit have much more freedoms than the taiwan compatriot pass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A9ds8fyu8s (talkcontribs) 16:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


Typhoon Morakot[edit]

Can someone please add a new section about Ma's handling of the 2009 Typhoon Morakot . —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed tag[edit]

A "citation needed" tag has been added after the word "current" in the opening sentence of this article, and edit-warred over. What is a citation needed for? There are plenty of citations already in the article to confirm that Ma is the current president, and there is no requirement to provide citations in the lead section of articles when the information is cited in the article body. I'm reverting again, because the editor adding this tag has broken the WP:BRD cycle by re-reverting rather than opening a discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The tag was actually for the "sixth" part and a discussion about it has been started there. The numbering of the presidents of the ROC looks like WP:OR to me (unless I'm missing something) so that's why I was requesting a source. Laurent (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, now I understand. It's just a pity that you chose to edit war rather than discuss the issue. I've added a source from the ROC government news agency to show that Ma is officially recognised as the sixth president. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The article cited is an anomaly. Mistakes commonly seep into news articles. Can you find a second one? ROC presidents are simply not numbered a such; Ma is always cited as the 12-term president both by the Taiwanese media and the ROC government. We are doing readers a disservice by calling him the 6th president when this convention is used only by the uninformed.--Jiang (talk) 01:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's another offical news agency source. Phil Bridger (talk) 01:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

That's the same article. Everything in the first article is copied verbatim into the second. Compare [5] with [6]. If we want to compare sources, there is so much more supporting "12th term president" than "6th president".--Jiang (talk) 02:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I woul support using '12th term president' over '6th president'. In Chinese, the counting is done based on the number of terms, not the number of Presidents. We say 'Ma is the 12th term president of the Republic of China', nobody says 'Ma is the 6th President of the Republic of China'. Don't get it wrong, that's just how we count OUR presidents. If we're counting American presidents, we do it the American way, by the number of Presidents (eg. Obama is the 44th President of the United States). Liu Tao (talk) 03:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree we should write "12th term president" as it seems to be the official way and possibly the most common way to count ROC presidents. This page in English on uses the same numbering system. Laurent (talk) 14:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


Ma's credential of handling economic affairs for Taiwan[edit]

Law education is not enough to understand economic governance in the given jurisdiction for career politicians like Mr. Ma I am afraid. See Economic capabilities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

PRC vs Mainland China[edit]

There appears to be an ongoing edit war between GotR and an IP editor over the use of "PRC" vs "mainland China". Both are useful terms but they are not completely equivalent. The PRC is the national government, i.e. the state, that contains mainland China, Hong Kong, and Macau. When talking about moves aimed at annexing Taiwan, it is the PRC, not mainland China, that is making these moves. But when talk about tourists coming to Taiwan who had formerly been unable to enter, we're talking only about mainland Chinese, not about people from all parts of the PRC (I'm pretty sure people from Hong Kong had long been able to visit Taiwan).

I haven't reviewed every single usage of the terms in the article, but appears to me that GotR's usages are more correct.

I'm not sure I understand the edit war over "Hunan" vs "Hunan Province". It doesn't seem like a big deal. On one hand "Hunan" is the name of the article so it should be fine. On the other handnative English reader unfamiliar with Taiwan and China might assume Hunan is a city or county in Taiwan, so appending "province" might help if the reader knows that China is divided into provinces. Either way is good and probably not worth fighting over. Readin (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S. the edit notes about whether the PRC owns/administers/whatever Taiwan don't make sense. They don't seem related at all to the edits being made. Readin (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
1) You are completely correct (as often you are) with regards to when to use PRC and when to use Mainland; as always, in this Cross-Strait context, we should avoid the charged, unqualified term China. 2) I too could care less which way the Province tag goes for Hunan, although (albeit fake) Hunan-themed restaurants and dishes are ubiquitous at least here in the U.S., so I doubt Hunan (and Sichuan for that matter) is as obscure as you may make it out to be. 3) Please keep in mind this hopping IP has been harassing me at every turn, following my edits within 24 hours they are made, and was actually range-blocked for 2 weeks for this sort of disruption. Now (s)he has, perhaps only after being reminded of the potential for a re-block, resorted to writing "PRC" in place, instead. I cannot make any Taiwan-related edits (even to DAB pages) without acknowledging that this edit warrior is on my trail, waiting to Wiki-assassinate me some day. However, I apologise for my blanket-reverting here and will be more cautious in large articles such as this. GotR Talk 18:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The investments and transportation etc. mentioned in the article excludes Hong Kong and Macau, but includes the Hainan island. So both terms, PRC and Mainland China, are not completely accurate in the article. I also think that Hunan or Hunan province is not so important. However, the main problem is the usage of the term "mainland China". GotR often contrasts Taiwan with mainland China in his edits, implying that both Taiwan and the PRC are part of China, which is not NPOV. I used to change those usages to the common name "China", but GotR says that it is not NPOV as well, as it implies that Taiwan is not part of China. So I have ceased doing that and change it into the PRC instead as a more neutral version. Futhermore, GotR sometimes makes POV edits such as [7] this one, in order to "annihilate Taiwan independence", according to his edit summary. (talk) 05:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Hainan is politically a part of mainland China, and geographic comparisons only matter in the context of explicit references to Hainanese, which there are none here. Anyone who claims the term mainland is not neutral shows where (s)he comes from, and here, you have further proved yourself by perpetually (until some point last week) forcing the "Taiwan is most certainly not part of China" POV down readers' throats. You have ceased doing that precisely because you know it will lead to another block—be grateful of my mercy (by not yet reporting you to ANI) here; do not pretend otherwise. GotR Talk 06:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

You claiming that Hainan is politically a part of mainland China again proves your POV about "Taiwan is part of China", otherwise there is no "non-mainland China". This is also a reason why the term "mainland China" is not neutral. Hongkong and Macao does not count because "Mainland China" is used before they are returned to the PRC. I admit that some of my edits were not neutral (until some point last week), but probably you are not less POV pushing than me, forcing "Taiwan is most certainly part of China" down readers' throats. Actually I haven't been really blocked before, as you see the diversity of my IPs is much wider than, so it is not the reason. (talk) 07:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice try at a comeback when you have no real case for one. In every context (i.e. this one) except for Hainan, Mainland China is defined as the 22 provinces+5 autonomous regions+4 direct-controlled municipalities; anything else is strictly original research, and that is what you are spectacularly displaying here, redefining terms to suit one's own political needs. If you continue tracking my edits, as numerous as they are, outside of switching the more concise "mainland" to "PRC" on DAB pages (which I can tolerate for now), you will likely be re-blocked, this time for at least a month, and I may even convince a few to shore up all of your IP ranges. I don't need to deny my views on Cross-Strait Relations, and you sound as if I am. GotR Talk 07:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's see the Oxford dictionary. Definition of mainland(noun):a large continuous extent of land that includes the greater part of a country or territory, as opposed to offshore islands and detached territories. So in the case of "mainland China", where is "the smaller part of the country"? Where are the "offshore islands and detached territories"? (talk) 09:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

If you're asking whether the term "mainland China" is open to the possibility of there being an "island China", then yes, it is. Taiwan is referred to as "island China" and its governing regime as "China" in quite a few English-language books and monographs, especially before desinicizing Hokkien chauvinists rewrote Taiwanese history textbooks in the 1990s to deny remembrance of the island's Chinese heritage. However, such an argument is immaterial original research, since regardless of the implications, "mainland China" is the accepted, common, and neutral (because of its ambiguity) term. Shrigley (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
What was being done in the 1990s, as I understand it, was an attempt to undo the denial of memory perpetrated by the Chinese that arrived in the 1940s and 1950s. Yes, Taiwan has Chinese heritage. It also has native heritage (both from aboriginal tribes and from the actions of Han people living in Taiwan). It also had Japanese influences. It has its own history of colonization by Dutch, Spanish, Chinese and Japanese which is quite different from what happened in China. Yet people who grew up prior to the 1990s may know very little about these because those memories were denied by the KMT. When I was in Taiwan my primary contact was useless as a tour guide because she knew almost nothing of Taiwan's history. In school she was forced to memorize all of China's dynasties (most of which had never even heard of her homeland), but she couldn't tell me anything about the Spanish fort a few miles from her house. In most old cities, street names offer tantalizing clues about the history. Knowing that Chinese characters carry clear meanings (unlike old names in English that are often based on foreign names or that have changed so much over time as to be unrecognizable), I was looking forward to learning street and place names and learning what they meant and where they came from. Instead I quickly realized that nearly everything had been renamed after 1945. The 1990s was an attempt to restore some of the heritage that was stolen. Readin (talk) 04:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that "mainland China" implies there being an "island China", but not open to the possibility that "Taiwan is not part of China", making it not neutral. I disagree about your argument on rewriting history, but it does not change the fact that if Taiwan is part of China is a disputed question. Using "PRC" avoids this kind of disputes, and allows more ambiguity. This is not original research since the the Oxford dictionary is a reliable source. (talk) 03:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Despite the New Territories (I believe that's what the Kowloon side is called) being on the same land as mainland China, they are generally not considered part of "mainland China". A Hong Kongese visiting "mainland China" is not going to Kowloon. When Hong Kongese talk about the differences between the people of Hong Kong and the people of mainland China, they don't mean to exclude Hainan when they say "mainland China". Regardless of the definition of "mainland", the meaning of "mainland China" is pretty clear in English. It means the territories ruled by the PRC with the exception of Hong Kong SAR and Macau SAR.
I'm not a big fan of using the term "mainland China" either. I think simply saying "China" should work most of the time since Taiwan is clearly not part of China. However there is a NPOV issue. There are plenty of arguably reliable sources making the absurd claim that Taiwan is part of China, and even more absurdly that it is part of the PRC. I have given it some hard thinking in the past and just haven't been able to come up with a more neutral term. If we just say "mainland", we imply that China is somehow obviously the main part of whatever country Taiwan is in (i.e. that Taiwan is part of China). If we just say "China" then we imply that Taiwan is not part of China (and there are otherwise reliable sources that say it is part of China). I agree that the term "mainland China" has a slight bias in favor of the annexationists, but I just can't think of a better term. I'm not sure if you noticed, but just as GotR found all uses of just "China" and changed them to "mainland China", I found all usages of just "mainland" and changed them to "mainland China". That's how we try to keep NPOV. Readin (talk) 03:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for Comments[edit]

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Ma Ying-jeou. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)