|
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)
|
