Biography: Politics and Government B‑class

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.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the politics and government work group. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Hong Kong B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hong Kong, a project to coordinate efforts in improving all Hong Kong-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Hong Kong-related articles, you are invited to join this project.Hong KongWikipedia:WikiProject Hong KongTemplate:WikiProject Hong KongHong Kong B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Hong Kong To-do: Attention needed (60) ...needing expert attention (4) • ...without infoboxes (29) Collaboration needed Improvement needed GA-Class articles (60) • B-Class articles (308) Cleanup needed C-Class articles (1,099) Image needed (348) Destub needed Start-Class articles (5,605) • Stub-Class articles (6,680) Deorphan needed ...orphans Page creation needed Requested articles Miscellaneous tasks ...maintain popularity • ...assess the un-Class (365) • ...assess the un-Importance (1,374)

I removed the quotations around the word "interpretation" under the section "Acting Chief Executive." An interpretation by the Standing Committee of the NPC is an interpretation, and by putting it in quotation the editor is passing value judgment on it, indicating that it really isn't an interpretation but something else. That violates wikipedia's policy of neutrality, so unless someone could provide citation to it, no quotation mark should be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hker1997 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"On 25 March 2007, Tsang was re-elected as Chief Executive in a contested small-circle election arranged by Communist Party of China for the post for a second and final term, from 2007 to 2012."

I don't understand why some of these things get written in. It's not even factually correct to begin with. The 3rd CE isn't Tsang's second term, but it's actually his first, because the previous term (2002-07) belonged to Tung and Tsang was simply finishing that term. So constitutionally speaking, Tsang can have another term from 2012-17.

I don't dispute the fact that all CE elections are "small-circle" election, but is it encyclopedic to say it as such in this setting? This is often a problem I have with some of the articles about HK.

I'm simply going to start a "Criticism" section at the CE article to deal with some of these issues.Bourquie (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well spotted! Ohconfucius (talk) 02:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did he study at Harvard????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.198.101.70 (talk) 04:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is he entitled to the title of 'sir'? I remember the media in 1997 did have that label under his name. Did he lose it after the handover? --Jiang

Some press from the UK are still using the prenominal title. — Instantnood 10:47 Mar 3 2005 (UTC)

When he got it, HK was still part of Britain, so it wasnt honorary. But now he's no longer a british citizen. does he lose the title? i think so... --Jiang 22:17, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't know. But the UK press are calling him in this way. — Instantnood 10:46 Mar 4 2005 (UTC)

BBC does not, at least--Jiang 10:32, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 Mr Tsang served under several British governors and was made a
Knight of the British Empire just before the handover, although
he does not use the title.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4335331.stm

Ming Pao News (2005-03-13) quotes Donald Tsang as saying that he himself only uses the GBM title on his name cards:

   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。

At the very least, this means he doesn't put Sir in front of his name himself. -- KittySaturn 02:43, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

Actually can non-British citizens use Sir as a title? — Instantnood 08:17, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, sort of. "Sir" title can only be used for persons in countries which recognizes the Queen as the head of state. (i.e. thus, Canada, New Zealand and I think Australia citizens can use Sir as titie too) SYSS Mouse 18:33, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Correct, however by convention Canadian citizens are no longer bestowed such honours (at the request of the Canadian government).BaseTurnComplete 20:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A substantive knighthood is not lost if the holder subsequently ceases to be a British national. JAJ 19:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article on declined British honours says that he is still a knight eligible to use the title Sir, he just opts not to use it. That would be consistent with the above.BaseTurnComplete 20:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following comment by 71.0.234.71 [1] was removed from the article:

He is also known as the Asian Neville Chamberlain. Why? Here is his 
quote regarding Tiannenmen Square.

"I had shared Hong Kong people's passion and impetus when the June 
4 incident happened. But after 16 years, I've seen our country's 
impressive economic and social development," Tsang said. "My feelings 
have become calmer."

Tsang is truly the most co-opted, dishonorable politician on the Asian 
continent. We wish he had a backbone. 

Some rewriting would be necessary. — Instantnood 09:59, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Basically he is a good bloke but don't expect him to perform magic. After all he was just a high school graduate and worked his way to the top by hard-working.

Besides Pinyin, someone should input the Jyutping since this is an article about a Hong Kong politician. --WongFeiHung 14:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the comment "renounced British citizenship" to "lost British nationality". People in Hong Kong automatically lost British nationality (British Dependent Territories citizenship) on 1 July 1997. There was the option to register as a British National (Overseas) but this was voluntary. See British nationality law and Hong Kong The only way Mr Tsang would hhave had British citizenship is through specific links to the UK itself, or if he acquired it through the British Nationality Selection Scheme. JAJ 18:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is already out of date Donald Tsang has been reelected as Chief Executive in 2007. 218.191.232.236 16:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel there is a clutter of boxes on the right side. Is there any way the content of thr cv infobox can be merged with the {{Infobox Officeholder}}? As most of the cv info is already in prose, I am sorely tempted to just delete it. Ohconfucius 15:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a reliable source on whether or not he is actually allowed the title of "Sir"? The source we have right now ([2]) says that the UK government has no policy on him using the title, which would seem to imply that he can still use it. But that source is also not very informative. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The knighthood is not honorary [and this is the correct British spelling]. What source do we need? See [3] [4] [5] [6] for media usage.

If we take out the "Sir" we also take out KBE - those go together and neither appears on his website. The opening should reflect proper usage (usually we put the full and complete name here), and the should reflect official usage ("the honourable" does not belong in the opening per policy)--Jiang (talk) 07:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ohconfucius believes that he can't use the title because he is no longer a British subject.[7] Actually I don't much care if the opening contains "Sir". But I thought since he himself does not use it as a title, maybe we should not have it in the opening. I would prefer we keep it in the infobox though.

Another thing that I want to bring up is the use of the <English name> <Romanised Chinese name> format for his name ("Donald Tsang Yam-Kuen"). Even his official English biography with the HK government refers to him only as "Donald Tsang" or "Mr. Donald Tsang".[8] I propose we do the same in the article, maybe with the exception of the infobox. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The convention seems to be to list the full and complete name (regardless of common usage) in the lead section while leaving styles and more common usage in the infobox. see Tony Blair

I'm sure Yam-Kuen is part of his legal name.--Jiang (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Not a big deal. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Only the two highest ranks entail admission into knighthood, an honour allowing the recipient to use the title 'Sir' (male) or 'Dame' (female) before their name, so long as that person is a national of a realm where the Queen is Head of State. If not, the recipient may use the honour as post-nominals but not the title before their name" This comes from Order of the British Empire and I believe is correct. Some could point to the ambiguity, as it is done in the article, that he was beknighted whilst still a British subject, but the fact is HM the Queen is no longer Head of State for Hong Kong. Furthermore, it has been pointed out in Parliamentary questions there may not be an impediment for him to use it, Donald himself does not use the title "Sir". So we should take out the "Sir", but the KBE can stay. The ambiguity in the article (ie that he is entitled to use it for life) is unsourced, and for the moment I am removing it as original research, pending references. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the media links above. There is no ambiguity here. What he uses on a daily basis is not relevant - Jimmy Carter does not go by James Earl Carter.--Jiang (talk) 05:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some links to the article that clearly demonstrate this. It cannot be implied otherwise.--Jiang (talk) 05:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE!! Show me the guideline which says that, and I'll leave it alone. Ohconfucius (talk) 21:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is the text you deleted original research and why are you deleting it? Please justify all deletions.

We have templates to tag such things, if you want to make a claim and justify it: Template:Original research, Template:Or#Logic_for_usage. But given the articles I've linked from reputable sources and my deletion of the claim that the media has stopped using the title since 2000, I don't see how any OR remains.--Jiang (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a major issue with your assertion. Ohconfucius (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What assertion? Please be more specific on what exactly is incongruent with the sources.--Jiang (talk) 22:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion which is used as the subheading here, which you wrote as an edit summary. Ohconfucius (talk) 22:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is irrelevant as there is no original research in the article, as no justification has been made that original research exists. So what specifically is not supported by the sources?--Jiang (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion "it should not be deleted even if it is OR" is bullshit. Ohconfucius (talk) 22:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and nominate Template:Original research and Template:Or for deletion then since if any OR should be deleted on sight, then there is absolutely no use for those templates. And do you have evidence of original research or are we blowing hot air?--Jiang (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be rational. I am not suggesting anything of that sort. You are the one who made that assertion in the first place. Instead you could jolly well have said "this is not original research" in the edit summary, and there would be no stupid argument. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, can we at least agree that he is entitled to use "Sir" if he so choose to use it? Let's be clear on that first. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i don't believe there is even an entitlement to it since Chinese citizens does not have such titles. We could call each other 'Sir' if we want to but it carry no official weight. so there should not be a 'Sir' there, as we don't see any reference to non UK knighting being addressed in such way, why should he be? it would be totally inconsistance and illogical. Akinkhoo (talk) 12:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Tsang was knighted when he was still a British subject. This alone already allows him to use "Sir" for life. Although he later lost his British nationality, this absolutely does not affect or change the title conferred on him.

Other notable examples include Sir Sze-yuen Chung[9], Sir David Li[10], Sir TL Yang and etc. Both Sir Sze-yuen and Sir David were knighted when they still hold British nationality, but what they lost when they became members of the HKSAR Executive Council are their British nationalities, and not the right to use "Sir".

Sir TL Yang gave up his British citizenship in 1996 when he wanted to contest in the CE election. He even wrote a personal letter to HM the Queen at that time, declaring that he decided to give up his knighthood. Sir TL later lost to Tung Chee-Hwa in the election and was appointed a memeber of the HKSAR Executive Council. He eventually stepped down from the Council and wrote a letter to the Queen wanting to restore his knighthood. The tale ends here but actually, all these that he had done was totally unnecessary. That's because the title conferred is for life, his knighthood cannot cease to be existed by writing to the Queen.

And so far, the only way to lost the entitlement is to commit a criminal offence (e.g. fraud, murder, high treason and etc.). By committing a criminal offence, knighthood and any kinds of titles can be stripped off.

Actually, not only Hong Kong, in many former British colonies like Fiji and etc., people still retain both their titles and knighthoods after independence. It is entirely normal and we should not be confused by personal preference. --Clithering (talk) 14:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved some content from the Daniel Heung article which I believe is relevant to Tsang's biography. However, I do have some misgivings about the positioning of the material, because Heung is not exactly a white sheep, and could taint Tsang's biography. Having said that, in reality, Tsang was tainted by association in HK, and his role in the scandal was indeed questioned. I would welcome any suggestions how we would deal with it. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tsang has made several obviously pro-Beijing comments that received widespread controversy in Hong Kong. The most recent one deals with Tinanamen Square in 1989 - where he said it was insignificant compared to China's economic power. I was wondering if maybe these controversial comments deserve a place in the article?Colipon+(T) 04:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I was just yesterday looking for that quote, but could not find it in the Standard (although there was an article about the walkout). AFAIR, there was an almost identical statement from Beijing, which if juxtaposed would indicate he was regurgitating the party line. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reuters BBC Chinese Best I could find so far. Colipon+(T) 18:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think time is nearly ripe to spin off part of this article into Donald Tsang as Chief Executive of Hong Kong. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 10:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

why not include the little 2007 controversy regarding his comments characterising the Cultural Revolution as an extreme form of democracy? the Chinese Wikipedia has information on the controversy. Mathpianist93 (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China (the Basic Law of the HKSAR) stated clearly that the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) must be a citizen of the People's Republic of China without the right of abode outside the territory of the People's Republic of China.

Tsang could call himself 'Sir Donald Tsang' before Hong Kong's transfer of sovereignty because he was definitely a British national.

After the transfer of sovereignty of Hong Kong, Tsang served the HKSAR government as the Financial Secretary and Chief Secretary for Administration before becoming the Chief Executive; he must have renounced his non-People's Republic of China naionalitiy (nationalities) (if any) because the Basic Law of the HKSAR forbids top officials and the Chief Executive of the HKSAR to have the right of abode in any non-People's Republic of China territory. So, theoratically speaking, he would no longer be entitled to the title of 'Sir' because he would no longer be a Commonwealth Citizen in this case. However, it is still possible for Tsang to remain entitled to use the title 'Sir' while serving the HKSAR government.

If Tsang is a British National (Overseas) which is a British national status not recognised by the People's Republic of China, he could become the Chief Executive of Hong Kong without renouncing such status, since he is solely a citizen of the People's Republic of China to to the People's Republic of China and, technically speaking, having this nationality does not violate the regulations for HKSAR Chief Executve candidate stated in the Basic Law of the HKSAR. As the status of British National (Overseas) is just unilaterally unrecognised by the People's Republic of China, this status remains a British national status as it always does and Tsang will be entitled to the title 'Sir' because of this British nationality.

As Tsang has never told the public what nationality (nationalities) he has, we can hardly decide whether he can be 'Sir Donald Tsang'.

Douglas the Comeback Kid (talk) 07:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC) Douglas the Comeback Kid[reply]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglas the Comeback Kid (talk • contribs) 21:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] 

Please refer to the referenced discussion above. The title is not lost upon lost of British nationality; what matters is that he held British nationality when the honor was conferred, indicating that his honor is substantive and not honorary. Unless you can find sources indicating this, and contradicting the reliable sources cited above, your assertions are original research.--Jiang (talk) 06:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that

"tsang's level of fluency is mediocre" ,and cites an article from the standard that says that "Commentators said Tsang's failure could be attributed to a lack of eye contact, an over-reliance on a "cheat sheet" and a mediocre command of Chinese combined with poor debating skills." http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?we_cat=11&art_id=99533&sid=28627281&con_type=3&d_str=20100618&fc=7

In other words, it is saying that he doesn't have a good command of the language. Command of a language is nothing to do with fluency, many people are fluent speakers of their native language, but lack what could be called a "good command of the language", i.e, possibly not being able to articulate themselves well, or not being a good public speaker etc. To suggest that Tsang managed to work in the Hong Kong civil service without fluency of cantonese is ridiculous, and furthermore, although I believe Tsang is an exceptional speaker of English, and fluent, I would still never call into question the fluency of someone in their native language without citing proper references. Therefore, I'm editing this line Guitar3000 (talk) 05:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC) I removed the section on language ability completely, suggest to put something better in here than the last oneGuitar3000 (talk) 05:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. Wikipedia takes biographies of living people 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. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 06:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 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."

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 with whether he is entitled to the title. --Jiang (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To add, in case you haven't noticed or read it, please refer to footnote 1 for the references. And these articles: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/88326.stm, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/492366.stm. Tsang in fact was regularly referred to as "Sir Donald" until he was elevated from Financial Secretary to Chief Secretary. The Economist style guide states: "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.--Jiang (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 Hillary Rodham Clinton (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 Bill Gates 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 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. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 03:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#First mention 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 Bill Gates 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 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 makes no such qualification 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 Wikipedia has not used "Sir" or "Dame" in bolded text at first mention?

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, then he would taken affirmative steps to renounce it or demand that it be revoked. He didn't even do what Sir TL 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 backed up by reliable sources for it to stay.--Jiang (talk) 04:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 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 neutral: 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 hasn't renounced it. It should certainly be mentioned prominently, and shouldn't be buried away in the third paragraph of the second section. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 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 in Wikipedia, 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).--Jiang (talk) 04:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 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 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 Hillary Rodham Clinton is a good precedent to prove that Wikipedia editors are expected to be sensitive towards the subjects of their articles. If required, I am happy to escalate this to WP:BLPN. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Please respond to the points I made at 04:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC). Please cite directly to Biographies of living persons 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 — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." 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.
• Hillary Rodham Clinton begins with Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (her full official name) and not Hillary Clinton or Hillary Rodham Clinton (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 Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies, we must list his legal name and title at the first mention in bolded text. This is not negotiable.
• Snoop Dogg 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. Metta World Peace, 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.
• 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 sources.--Jiang (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That is an interesting interpretation of WP:BLP. The use of the title or the post-nom is not an "accusation" or an "allegation". 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 Wikipedia 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.
• 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 Rodham Clinton is an appropriate reference in this particular case because it is evidence of Wikipedia 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.
• 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 to the United Kingdom to continue using these honours.

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. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 05:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 Conrad Moffat Black, Baron Black of Crossharbour for example. He is known primarily as "Conrad Black" in the media 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 Hillary Rodham Clinton article? What is "Earl" doing in the Jimmy Carter article? or "Jefferson" in the Bill Clinton 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 in Hong Kong does not include the title, which leads to the next point - The issue here is whether there is any precedent on Wikipedia 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 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? --Jiang (talk) 05:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 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".

Can you please refer me to the articles of the Indians who still have the titles in their article even after renouncing them? See John Lennon, for example, his biography no longer carries the title. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 07:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 Hillary Clinton 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."

John Lennon does not carry the title because he was never knighted. Paul McCartney was not knighted until 1997, 17 years after John Lennon's death. For the Indians, see Declining a British honour#Renouncing an honour. In Tsang's case, he has done nothing to repudiate his British honor so I'm not convinced we should exclude it. --Jiang (talk) 07:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have initiated a discussion on the BLP noticeboard (see this). Please feel free to briefly expand your arguments separately in a comment. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 05:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) calls for including it in the bolded text in this article. Perhaps this issue should be raised there instead.--Jiang (talk) 05:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to discussions that have happened here, on the BLP noticeboard (see this) and on the Manual of Style biographies talk page (see this), 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 (open this link (PDF)) to view HKSAR protocol. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 04:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the official protocol released by the government of HKSAR, Donald Tsang does not use the British Honour along with his name, and hence I have reverted the edit by OhConfucius. Please see WP:POSTNOM, which states: "Post-nominal 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. Honors issued by other entities may be mentioned in the article, but should generally be omitted from the lead." Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 07:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed, "Post-nominal 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." is crystal clear – Tsang has been closely associated with a colonial administration, so it is quite proper to include it. Interpreting WP:BLP in such a way so as to uninvent a British honour bestowed by HM on a civil servant to the crown on the grounds of alleged disparagement of the subject is, OTOH, improper. It may or may not be the case that "Sir" is/has been used to disparage, but I'm pretty certain that neither Chris Patten nor HM had that intent; quite the contrary, is my guess. Nobody reading the article in its current state will consider it disparagement. If you wish to "prove" that this has been used to disparage, you might just wish to include a sentence to that effect although it would be highly debatable whether same is anything more than trivia. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, there is no consensus to remove "Sir" and "KBE" as asserted. I'd like to continue the discussion and form a Wikipedia-wide standard at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies since the MoS as worded fails to cover situations like these. Second, there is absolutely no reason to keep KBE as post-nominals but remove "Sir" as the title as this would perpetuate the misconception (held by various people on this talk page) that as a former British subject, Tsang is only entitled to the post-nominal but not the title. To keep one but delete the other would be patently misleading, and far worse than deleting both.--Jiang (talk) 08:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree with this back-door way of reintegrating the "Sir". There are individuals who have been bestowed the knighthood but are not allowed to use "Sir" as a title because they are American (or another nationality), so it would seem legitimate to use one without the other. However, the use of "Sir" seems primarily to be what is causing the most disagreement, plus the fact that he is hardly ever so referred to in Hong Kong, I would accept that this be dropped from the lead, but I still believe the KBE postnominal should stay. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever a source lists out "KBE" it will invariably include "Sir". Example. No source will leave out the "Sir" and include the "KBE". Plenty of sources leave out both, but my rationale for leaving it in is that the bolded leading sentence is meant to reflect full and complete names and titles and not common usage. By leaving "KBE" but excluding "Sir", this article will send the wrong impression that his KBE is honorary and that he is not entitled to the title. How is this not the case? There are certainly cases where one is entitled to use KBE but not Sir, that is, where the KBE is honorary, but this is certainly not the case. Given the number of people confused by this fact on this talk page alone, we should not post anything that could be interpreted in this direction.--Jiang (talk) 09:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you insist on the 'all or nothing' approach, I think it makes more sense to remove them both. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why? If we're going to do it here, we might as well edit the MoS to justify it elsewhere.--Jiang (talk) 09:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The case is so rare that it isn't even a style issue but a local one. I think we can easily leave the MOS as 'the rule', and this case as 'the very rare exception'. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rare in what sense? --Jiang (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have initiated another thread on WP:BLPN since Jiang does not believe that consensus has been formed over the issue even after multiple users have expressed their opinion on the subject. This type of attitude is frankly unproductive and unbecoming of an administrator. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 15:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will file a RFC on this issue and promise to respect the decision made through community. I'm happy to discuss this with you as MoS issue, but you keep bringing up BLP as if this is something factually dubious and lacking in reliable sources.--Jiang (talk) 16:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Till then let us agree to keep the title as well as the postnom away from the lead? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead and remove it if you want. I'm not going to edit war like its 2004. (the glorious days before 3RR existed, when we spent our Friday nights engaging in epic revert wars over insignificant things like this across several pages and hours at a time. we had so much adrenaline going then. oh those were so fun!) --Jiang (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now please go ahead and file the RfC when you find time to address this trivial issue so that we do not have to waste further time. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 10:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not HK Government's Wikipedia. Tsang's knighthood is substantive and he has never renounced his knighthood. Removing his title and the post-nominal letter "KBE" is a total disregard of the fact. By selectively showing GBM only is sheer bias. --Clithering (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just have a look at Who's Who and World Who's Who online. Both sources refer him as "TSANG, Sir Donald Yam-kuen". And I maintain my belief that Who's Who is one of the authorities on the use of British titles and post-nominal letters. --Clithering (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we leave out "Sir" from the lead of Donald Tsang's entry, we should also leave out "Dame" from the lead of Elizabeth Taylor's entry, who is commonly referred as "Elizabeth Taylor" without the title and post nominal letter DBE. --Clithering (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, many people who are invested members of British knighthoods or orders of chivalry seldom use their titles and/or post nominal letters in public. One of the many notable examples is former MP, Tam Dalyell, who is a baronet but chooses not to be called "Sir Tam Dalyell, Bt" but simply "Tam Dalyell". In his case, his article title is "Tam Dalyell" instead of "Sir Tam Dalyell, 11th Baronet", which should be the conventional way of naming in wikipedia. But his full title is retained in the lead of his article. My own view is that the same arrangement should apply to Donald Tsang's article or else it is an intentional covering up of basic facts and information. --Clithering (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly recommend that you review the discussions above and on the biographies of living people noticeboard (please see BLP noticeboard discussion). The burden of proof is on the user including the material to prove its appropriateness and consistency with WP:BLP. Wikipedia will not disappear in a day, so I invite you to review the discussions. If you still have objections to the changes made to the article, you are free to initiate an RfC. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 19:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "The burden of proof is on the user including the material to prove its appropriateness and consistency with WP:BLP." That's already been done. That Tsang is entitled to the title "Sir" is corroborated by multiple reliable sources and is referenced in the article. This is a style dispute, not a BLP dispute.--Jiang (talk) 01:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jiang, what is the status of the RfC you were planning for dispute resolution on this? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 03:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The knighthood is fact, thus there is no "burden of proof" required; all similar bios of individuals granted knighthoods make use of these postnominals. Whether the title 'Sir' or the postnominals are "actively used" is a red herring. You seem to be the only one arguing that it's "inappropriate" because "some people use it in a derogatory manner", yet the 'proof' is thin on that front. It's now time to put KBE back where it belongs. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not sideline the issue which I have raised previously – here and on the BLP noticeboard. The knighthood is a "fact", however that the subject no longer uses the title is an overriding fact which goes on to prove that it is highly inappropriate for Wikipedia users to determine whether or not his British title should be displayed along with his name in a biographical article. Once again, I refer you to the BLP noticeboard discussion which I have linked above. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 03:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While we respect how one is commonly called by using the commonly known name as article name, it is wikipedia's practice to put his full name, including full british title and post-nominaal letters at the lead of the article (see Tam Dalyell, David Steel and many other British peers who do not wish to be known by their peerages). If this principle is not followed, the whole MoS should be rewritten so that we can move Edward VIII to Edward, Duke of Windsor.

This is neither Donald Tsang nor HK Government's wikipedia. HK government has an internal circular regulating the use of titles and post-nominal letters. The circular prohibits all government officials, not only Sir Donald Tsang, from using british titles and post-nominal letters out of political reasons. I dont see why HK government policy, which is a political decision, should be extended to here in Wikipedia.

Tsang's own personal preference may be influenced by the policy of HK government. And I wonder why his own preference should have overriding value in a case where so many people know he is a British knight. In many authoritative sources, like Who's Who that I've mentioned, he is referred to as "Sir Donald Tsang" and it is not uncommon to find the usage of "Sir Donald Tsang" in various publications and websites as well. (see [11]). Wikipedia is everyone's wikipedia. We should not cater the personal choice of Sir Donald while disregarding the facts that he is a British knight whose British title has been generally referred to in the public. So why should we treat his case differently?

Last but not least, someone has suggested that "British government does not have a policy on [the use of British title] concerning Donald Tsang". This may be true, but does the British government have a policy on others? There may be a policy on royal family members and public office holders. But I doubt if there is a "policy" on Tom Jones or Helen Mirren. My answer is that it's protocal that matters, not policy. --110.4.27.76 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

• I agree that it's "highly inappropriate for Wikipedia users to determine whether or not his British title should be displayed along with his name in a biographical article", but it's highly inappropriate for Wikipedia users to choose to ignore his British title in the first formal introduction of the subject. The IP user above makes very cogent argument that HK Govt has policy not to use these titles, and for good reason, which means Tsang doesn't use the style himself. I'm sure that if push came to shove, Tsang would have happily given up his knighthood to become CE in the same way he would have renounced (or not claimed) his BNO, but that question has never arisen. It's totally within our norms to display the postnominals in the first sentence, and not to do for the grounds argued by Headless Nick amounts to pre-emptive self-censorship, which could be used to de-emphasise any other piece of notable information that the subject does not like even though it may fulfil the letter and spirit of WP:BLP and would otherwise be worthy of mention in compliance with WP:LEAD. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning to submit a RFC, but it helps to wait a couple days so that we are on the same page with regards to policy before we do that. Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington, if you think WP:BLP applies, then quote it. I am utterly unconvinced that WP:BLP is relevant here. Note that Wikipedia:BLP#Public figures 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." I agree that exclusion amounts to pre-emptive self-censorship. We don't even have evidence to support that the subject dislikes mention of his knighthood, but even if we did, this would be a notable, relevant, and well-documented piece of information on a public figure that cannot be excluded simply based on the subject's whims and preferences.--Jiang (talk) 06:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The information clearly belongs. We all seem to be in agreement. What NMP disagrees with is that it belongs in the lead. However, according to WP:MOSINTRO, one could legitimately expect the information in question to be there. I'd go further to say that readers would be astonished to read about it in the body of the article and would question its exclusion from the introduction. The inclusion of same is made more clear and more specific in WP:OPENPARAGRAPH, which states:

The opening paragraph should have:

1. Name(s) and title(s), if any (see, for instance, also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility));
2. Dates of birth and death, if known (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Dates of birth and death);
3. Context (location, nationality, or ethnicity);
   1. In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable.
   2. Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability.
4. The notable actions or roles the person played;
5. Why the person is significant.

To summarise, there are no grounds for excluding it under WP:BLP; it is indicated in WP:LEAD and WP:MOSINTRO, and it is strongly suggested in WP:OPENPARAGRAPH that this ought to be included. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree with what Ohconfucius and Jiang have said. What we need to do is to strike a reasonable balance among Tsang's preference, general usage among public, and also the dignity of HM, who is the "fount of honour". So to adopt "Donald Tsang" for the article name, "Hon. Donald Tsang, GBM" for the infobox and "Sir Donald Tsang Yam-kuen GBM, KBE" for the lead is the most satisfying arrangement for all which does not violate any Wikipedia guidelines as well. In fact, Tsang has never renounced his knighthood. HM has not forfeited his knighthood. And When Tsang received his substantive knighthood, he must have realized that he has become an "ordinary member" of the Order of the British Empire who enjoy the privilege to be called a Sir. We may commit the problem of one-sided bias if we remove the British title from the lead as we only think for Tsang but not considering the British monorch who conferred the title.--Clithering (talk) 12:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, I've just reread what Tsang said in 2005 when he talked with the media about his knighthood. The following was what he actually said, "As the Chief Secretary of HKSAR, I only imprint post-nominal letter GBM on my name card. I don't show my British title and titles of honorary degrees on it. I've accepted the knighthood. I've said thank you and I shall keep it". From his statement, we only know that he does not show his British title on his name card in the capacity as the CS. That's all. He never says that he would not use the British title in other occassions or in other capacity. He also never formally or informally requests the media or the general public not to refer to him with the British title ever in whatsoever occassions. In this regard, those who suggested that "Tsang does not want other to relate him with his British title" is complete invention and sophistry. Coupling with the risk of committing self-censorship as suggested by others earlier, we have strong justification to retain the British title, at least in the lead of the entry. --Clithering (talk) 12:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find your means to "strike a reasonable balance" to be a very arbitrary and whimsical. Do you have a reliable source on the quote above? As is evident even from the statement you have quoted above, Tsang has agreed simply to use the postnom after his name without the title "Sir". On Wikipedia, we are not obliged to maintain "the dignity of HM" however we do have an obligation to respect the personal preferences of the subjects of our biographies as to how they wish to use their name. The only invention I see above is the fecund application of arbitrary standards to determine a supposed balance. As this link to the Reuters article goes to prove, neither does Donald Tsang intend to use the title, nor has Clithering, in his unsubstantiated screed above, bothered reading previous discussions before jumping in to start an edit war. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 13:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, is "he does not use the title" equals to "he does not want to be known with his title"? My souce, Ming Pao of 13 March 2005, says that he dont use his title "on the name card" in the capacity as "CS" only. Should it be interpreted abitrarily and dogmatically as "he does not use his title" or "he does not want to be known with his title" in whatsoever occassions? The Reuter source you've provided should have equal weight with other sources. My source, Who's Who, refers him as "Sir Donald Tsang". And in practice, biographical data of a entry in Who's Who are provided by the biographee himself.--Clithering (talk) 13:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the justification to remove one's British title when he himself has never explicitly or expressedly requested for? Such a move in my personal opinion is unconventional, in contravention of our established Wikipedia guidelines, and to some extent, impolite and disrespectful to the biographee and the authority who confers the title.--Clithering (talk) 13:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even when one has requested for not to be known with his title, we need to be careful to handle such cases. I believe that by narrating his request as a fact in the content of the biographical entry should be enough in many cases. In the case of Donald Tsang, Tam Dalyell and David Steel are examples to follow.--Clithering (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have continued to ignore my requests to review the discussions above. You have raised the same points which have been raised above and refuted. And therefore, I have to continue raising the same points over and over again, which is a waste of my time. Can you please present links to your sources here - Who's Who and Ming Pao? This will help uninvolved third party users to judge the sources on their merits rather than simply believing your words. As I have previously stated, renouncing an honor 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. In this context, we simply have to follow practice rather than putting up an onerous requirement for the subject to make an embarrassing statement renouncing the British honor. I don't think anyone here has any objection to mentioning the knighthood within the body text of the article, however to use the title before his name is inappropriate as it goes against the spirit of WP:BLP. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 13:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are basically printed materials. Online access is restricted. Does we count only online sources? For online sources, many Wikipedians who have joined this discussion has provided links to prove the usage of "Sir Donald Tsang" in the Internet already. You should not have overlooked them. (See [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]). When sources conflicting to each others, which one should we belive in?--Clithering (talk) 13:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An ordinary knight who is no longer a British citizen [or national] "cannot be said to be closely connected to Great Britain anymore" - in what way, in what sense and in what context? Who says this? Any sources? Are you the one who have the power to judge?--Clithering (talk) 14:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with the assumption that "he does not use it" equals to "he does not wish to be known with it". For reasons, please see what I and others have repeated above. --Clithering (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WELLKNOWN, part of the WP:BLP oft-quoted to justify removing the snippet from the lead, says: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. 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." So it seems that even if Donald doesn't like the title, of which there is no proof that he doesn't, it's not grounds for censoring it from the lead. Au contraire, the guideline says. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An image used in this article, File:Sir Donald Tsang.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests May 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Sir Donald Tsang.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington originally filed this RFC. I have moved his summary of the dispute below, 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"? --Jiang (talk) 12:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions are available here:

• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Donald Tsang (permalink)
• Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive149#Donald Tsang
• Wikipedia_talk:MOSBIO#Exceptions to honorific titles (permalink)
• Talk:Donald Tsang#New discussion: "Sir"
• Talk:Donald Tsang#KBE

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

1. Support per arguments given ad nauseum above, including this one and this one in particular. Let's be clear that this is not a BLP violation, for now it's been proven false. 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 lead section per WP:WELLKNOWN. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 11:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support 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 WP:LEAD, WP:MOSINTRO, WP:OPENPARAGRAPH. 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 Wikipedia conventions: see Tam Dalyell (a baronet), Ferdinand Mount (a baronet), John Standing (a baronet), Peter Ramsbotham (a viscount), Michael Ancram (a marquess) and David Steel (a life peer) as people with titles who do not regularly use them.--Jiang (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support vide the above discussion and discussion in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. --Clithering (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support. 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. The dog2 (talk) 06:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support Noting that the rationales not to include mention include a claim that it is a foreign honour (though clearly he did not consider it a "foreign honour" at the time he accepted it), that the UK does not require 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 willingly accepted the honour, which is, as far as I can tell, key. He was allowed by practice to use the title, and did so. Collect (talk) 11:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support Common names are useful for article titles but full names including titles should be mentioned within the context of the lead. Ayzmo (talk) 01:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. 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. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 10:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. 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 [17], while his official government bio does not use it either [18]. Does WP:COMMONNAME 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 Bob Geldorf 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. EricSerge (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. 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 WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Kondi (talk) 10:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Please add your opinion and sign with four tildes (~~~~)

The text below is a summary of the dispute originally posted above as the statement of the issue by User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington. 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.--Jiang (talk) 12:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 against the use of this prefix have stated thus:

• Donald Tsang and the Government of Hong Kong have consistently used his official name as "Donald Tsang" without including the British honor – [19], [20], [21].
• The British Government does not have a policy on Donald Tsang's use of the title. In a UK parliamentary hearing, MP Ian Pearson 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." – [22].
• 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 Yam-kuen."
• There are multiple reliable recent mainstream sources which simply refer to him without including the British honor.
• Wikipedia has a history of respecting the personal preferences of subjects of biographical articles as to how they wish to use their names.

Those for the use of this prefix have stated thus:

• There are multiple reliable mainstream sources which refer to him as "Sir Donald" or "Sir Donald Tsang".
• The subject of the article has not formally renounced the title.
• We are required to state the full official name of the subject.

Previous discussions are available here:

• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Donald Tsang (permalink)
• Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive149#Donald Tsang
• Wikipedia_talk:MOSBIO#Exceptions to honorific titles (permalink)
• Talk:Donald Tsang#New discussion: "Sir"
• Talk:Donald Tsang#KBE

Please add additional comments below. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 10:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 "Wikipedia has a history 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. Yang Ti-liang), so again it should come down to evidence that Tsang has explicitly repudiated his knighthood for this to be a convincing situation.--Jiang (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 Reuters report, "Tsang does not use his [British] title." The Economist Style Guide observes that "some people choose not to use their titles, so Sir Donald Tsang, for instance, prefers to be just Mr Tsang." — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 13:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"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 Wikipedia articles.--Jiang (talk) 13:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My translation of an extract on page A1 ofMing Pao 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 appropriate, as the Chief Secretary of HKSAR, to show only the title of the Grand Bauhinia Medal on his name card."--Clithering (talk) 14:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this online somewhere? If not, can you provide a scan?--Jiang (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

明報A01（2005-03-13）上月底知董請辭未講會否參選：「...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--Clithering (talk) 14:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 months.--Jiang (talk) 02:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following is a summary for the use of prefix:-

1. 1. It is the established practice in Wikipedia 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 the same as long as he does not renounce his knighthood or his knighthood is not stripped off by the British crown. (See The London Gazette of 14 June 1997 announcing the award of ordinary KBE to Tsang and Image showing Tsang receiving the accolade from Prince Charles)
   2. 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 Tam Dalyell (a baronet), Ferdinand Mount (a baronet), John Standing (a baronet), Peter Ramsbotham (a viscount), Michael Ancram (a marquess) and David Steel (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 Edward VIII 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;
   3. 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 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 Wikipedia as Wikipedia is not an extension of HK government.
   4. 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 page A1 of Ming Pao 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”.
   5. The use of “Sir Donald Tsang” has not been uncommon in various publications and on the internet. (See [23], [24] & [25]). In publications which are authoritative in the use of British titles such as Who’s Who and Whitaker's Almanack, the title “Sir” and post-nominal letter “KBE” are used in Tsang’s entry.
   6. 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 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 Wikipedia. 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.
   7. 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 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".
   8. 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;
   9. 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 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.
   10. A number of Wikipedia guidelines support the use of "Sir" in the lead of Tsang's biopgraphical entries. (i) Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies 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 with the complete version". (ii) Wikipedia:BLP#Public figures 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) WP:OPENPARAGRAPH states that "The opening paragraph should have: (1) Name(s) and title(s), if any (see, for instance, also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility))"

You are welcome to post more arguments for the use of title above. Please add other comments below. --Clithering (talk) 17:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@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. WP:COMMONNAME does not apply since that is Wikipedia policy on article titles, not article text. WP:MOSINTRO and WP:OPENPARAGRAPH applies. The only reason we are having this RFC is because WP:MOSINTRO and WP:OPENPARAGRAPH are part of the Manual of Style, and not Wikipedia policy, so there is editor discretion in applying them.--Jiang (talk) 22:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia to include the post-nominals while excluding the title. If KBE is included, then so will "Sir"; if "Sir" is excluded, so will "KBE". "Mr Donald Tsang, KBE" returns zero results while "Sir Donald Tsang, KBE" returns 276. Compare the Burke's Peerage entry for Colin Powell, an honorary knight, and Donald Tsang, a substantive knight.--Jiang (talk) 02:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 Donald Tsang, KBE shows 613 results. Kondi (talk) 11:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But almost all the results point to [Sir "Donald Tsang, KBE"]. --Clithering (talk) 12:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@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 William Jefferson Clinton as "Bill Clinton" - does that mean that "William Jefferson" should not appear in the lede of that article? How is this case different? --Jiang (talk) 10:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 Economist mention that he does not use the title (positive assertion). — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The issue here is that we have clear guidelines at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Honorific titles. 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.--Jiang (talk) 11:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 12:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 [26], [27] & [28]) 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 Wikipedia biographical entry.--Clithering (talk) 14:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

：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. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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, 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. The dog2 (talk) 13:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]