Talk:程翔

页面内容不支持其他语言。
维基百科,自由的百科全书
          本条目页属于下列维基专题范畴:
传记专题 (获评未知重要度
这个條目属于传记专题的一部分,用于整理和撰写维基百科中的人物条目。欢迎任何感兴趣的参与者加入这个专题参与讨论
 未评级未评  根据专题质量评级标准,本条目页尚未接受评级。
 未知  根据专题重要度评级标准,本條目尚未接受评级。


Untitled[编辑]

The following sentence may violate the NPOV principle:

程翔一直被认为是一名非常亲中的民族主义者,并支持两岸统一。

There are controversy regarding the terms 亲中 and 民族主义. 亲中 is ambiguous as it may mean "pro-People's Republic of China" or "pro-Republic of China", while non-Chinese background readers may not understand.

Not all readers of Chinese-language wikipedia are ethnic Chinese.

Remember that Chinese politics articles are very sensitive so edit them after you have read the talk page thoroughly.

The term 羅生門 is difficult and ambiguous for non-Chinese native speakers, so it is better not to use it in wikipedia. Chinese-language wikipedia is not for native Chinese speakers only, and the needs of non-native Chinese speakers needs to be taken into account.

The sentence "程翔是香港居民,持有英国海外护照,并且是新加坡永久居民。" may be misleading. 英国海外护照 may mean 'British Overseas Citizen'(BOC) or 'British National (Overseas)' (BN(O)) passports, while BN(O) and BOC are different kinds of United Kingdom passports.en:British nationality law The sentence also overlooked the fact that Mr.Ching entered mainland China on his home return permit.en:Home Return Permit This indicates that the PRC Govt regards as a PRC Citizen. He is not solely British.

Moreover, many statements in the essay here are not supported by credible sources.

219.78.109.252 16:50 2005年7月24日 (UTC)

請自己酌情修改。--wooddoo 羊踏菜園 17:39 2005年7月24日 (UTC)

罗生门是什么意思?[编辑]

我看了罗生门这个条目,似乎有不了了之的意思,不知道对不对?我建议换掉这个词,太有地方特色,不是普遍用语。瀑布汗 瀑布屋 18:15 2005年7月24日 (UTC)

"羅生門"現改為消岐義頁,請參看。--Whoevert 23:28 2005年12月26日 (UTC)

'亲中的《文汇报》' - it is not necessary to describe the newspaper as 'pro-Beijing' in this way. I suggest the phrase 亲中的 should be deleted. If readers are interested in information regarding the newspaper they should read the article 文汇报. 219.79.66.28 05:26 2005年7月30日 (UTC)

文汇报 already idenitfied as a pro-Beijing newspaper in Hong Kong.Even without that,their comments have shown their pro-Beijing view.