Jump to content

Talk:Donald Tsang

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives (Index)

New discussion: "Sir"

[edit]

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]

Where is this assertion about his not being British coming from? Hong Kong permanent residents born before 1997 were mostly "British nationals (overseas)", and he does not need to renounce that in order to take up any positions in the government. In fact, ever if he had British citizenship, he still would not need to renounce that as China had chosen not to recognize British citizenships acquired under the scheme in the early 90s. Most people do not renounce the British national overseas nationality, so does Nearly Headless Nick has any evidence at all that: 1. he renounced his British nationality; and 2. he had British citizenship (most Hongkongers do not), and had renounced it? Your comments just made you sound like you are not really as informed as you are. Much like how you suggested that the use of the title was to make him sound not Hongkongese. The use of the title might contribute to making him sound less Chinese, but nobody thinks it would make him sound like Hongkongese, only that he's *privileged* and is an establishment elite. There would not be any issue of Sir Donald suing Wikipedia or any writer or editor for having "sir" or "KBE" near his name, for the simple fact that he had never renounced it. I'm not certain why some people here are acting as if there will be any actual problem with having them as parts of his name. At the very least, there should be something added after his name that says "also known as Sir Donald Tsang" since he's literally also known as that. Would you not at least agree with that?User talk:Clh_hilary —Preceding undated comment added 19:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment: The Use of the title of "Sir"

[edit]
The text should not include the "Sir". Both sides make good points. On the one hand, we have a guideline for British titles that say the sir should be included. On the other hand, we have the fact that Mr. Tsang does not himself use the title and evidence that he prefers not to. However, given that the Sir is not actually a part of his name (unlike the "Piyush" in the Bobby Jindal example) but rather is something that designates an honor, the possible blp issue is more important than the guideline. The fact that he was so honored is clearly indicated in the body of the article so the fact itself is not hidden. Note that this only applies to the use of the title itself in the lead, there is no reason (at least none given in the arguments) why the lead cannot include a statement saying that he was knighted. --regentspark (comment) 19:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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:

Support to the use of the Title(s)

[edit]
  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]
  • Please add your opinion and sign with four tildes (~~~~)
  • Support use of title as common sense -- how many people refer to themselves as Sir or Dame? This conversation was hijacked, I believe, by republicans (and I don't mean the political party of Donald Trump, who for some bizarre reason has been mentioned in other editors' rationales). I will, however, not re-add to lede until consensus is established.However I am restoring [[:Category:Knights Commander of the Order of the British Empire]] which should never have been removed as the honor has not been stripped, which shows either ulterior motivation or ignorance of the Honors System. Once the honor has been bestowed it remains bestowed until it is annulled or stripped and properly gazetted. What about Sir Dickson Poon? Or Dr Dame Rosanna Wong Yick-ming??
    I really, as a US citizen, should not be knowing more about this than Brits and other citizens of Commonwealth countries. See here. Quis separabit? 02:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition to the use of the Title(s)

[edit]
  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 [1], while his official government bio does not use it either [2]. 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. The preference of the individual must be taken into account in case of BLP. This is not a contentious issue, Donald Tsang has not used the title since the handover. This commentary by Boson on WT:MOSBIO pretty much sums up my opinion. Theo10011 (talk) 16:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I think we should take the personal preference of the individual into account. There is evidence that he has not used the title since he was knighted and that establishes a precedent. Also the sources mentioned above (including Reuters and Economist list) say that he does not use the title. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Prefer to put "Sir" and "KBE" in the infobox in small-print instead (in line with WP:Common name), because he is indeed eligible to the title, but neither he nor the media commonly refers to him as Sir. Deryck C. 21:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Having a British substantive knighthood or a British baronetcy ≠ an absolute right to the title of "Sir". No right is absolute. He is no longer either a British citizen, a person with a British passport, a citizen of the Commonwealth or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland (British Nationality Acts 1948 and 1981). Legally-speaking, technically, he might still be a knight, but protocol, set by precedence set in the Republic of Ireland, and in the independent nations from the British Empire, within or without, inside or outside of the Commonwealth, especially in post-independence India, dictates that as so long as he lives in Hong Kong or in China, the title of "Sir", and ALL of his other British Honours, SHOULD be dropped from his name (even if he were to request otherwise (asked/requested not to)). He has no right to use them any more, even if he wanted to. [He does not even have a British passport, or a passport from the Commonwealth!] (with his name printed upon it, together with the title of "Sir") ([The British Consul and Consulate General, or the British Government, or the (Buckingham) Palace (i.e., the Queen), however, is of course never going to say this to him, or to the People of Hong Kong, or the Hong Kong Chinese, not only partly out of respect to him, but also for political reasons.]) Equally, and interestingly, British citizens are also not allowed to have or to use European titles (on their British certificates and passports, etc.). See the example of the uncle of the Prince Philip, Louis Mountbatten. Even the Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, the then "Prince Philip, Prince of Greece and Denmark", had to renounce (give up) his Danish and Greek titles, even his title of "Prince", before marrying, in order to marry, the then Princess Elizabeth; and even Canadians are also not usually allowed to have (or to keep) British knighthoods or peerages either; see the Nickle Resolution. Any-one who "supported" this strange notion should probably go and learn more about British history, and also a little Irish, Canadian and modern Indian history. — KC9TV 09:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please add your opinion and sign with four tildes (~~~~)

Extended discussion

[edit]

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 – [3], [4], [5].
  • 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." – [6].
  • 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:

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. 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 [7], [8] & [9]). 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 [10], [11] & [12]) 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]
I agree with The dog2 to a great extent. This is one of the areas where Wikipedia policy breaks down: Sir Donald himself is ambivalent as to whether he should be called "Sir", therefore BLP guidelines have no effect on this issue. However, the fact that he made clear he accepted the KBE means that the we should mention his "Sir" title somewhere in the article. Since the media generally doesn't use "Sir" to refer to him, my suggestion would be to move "Sir" and "KBE" from lead sentence to infobox. Deryck C. 20:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break, 14 June

[edit]
Oppose. Having a British substantive knighthood or a British baronetcy ≠ an absolute right to the title of "Sir". No right is absolute. He is no longer either a British citizen, a person with a British passport, a citizen of the Commonwealth or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland (British Nationality Acts 1948 and 1981). Legally-speaking, technically, he might still be a knight, but protocol, set by precedence set in the Republic of Ireland, and in the independent nations from the British Empire, within or without, inside or outside of the Commonwealth, especially in post-independence India, dictates that as so long as he lives in Hong Kong or in China, the title of "Sir", and ALL of his other British Honours, SHOULD be dropped from his name (even if he were to request otherwise (asked/requested not to)). He has no right to use them any more, even if he wanted to. [He does not even have a British passport, or a passport from the Commonwealth!] (with his name printed upon it, together with the title of "Sir") ([The British Consul and Consulate General, or the British Government, or the (Buckingham) Palace (i.e., the Queen), however, is of course never going to say this to him, or to the People of Hong Kong, or the Hong Kong Chinese, not only partly out of respect to him, but also for political reasons.]) Equally, and interestingly, British citizens are also not allowed to have or to use European titles (on their British certificates and passports, etc.). See the example of the uncle of the Prince Philip, Louis Mountbatten. Even the Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, the then "Prince Philip, Prince of Greece and Denmark", had to renounce (give up) his Danish and Greek titles, even his title of "Prince", before marrying, in order to marry, the then Princess Elizabeth; and even Canadians are also not usually allowed to have (or to keep) British knighthoods or peerages either; see the Nickle Resolution. Any-one who "supported" this strange notion should probably go and learn more about British history, and also a little Irish, Canadian and modern Indian history. — KC9TV 09:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yea I was gonna raise the point that Hong Kong ID cards and passports do not include any honorific titles, therefore the "rule of full-name" has no effect here. However, I disagree with you otherwise: Donald Tsang is still entitled to "Sir" if he wants to resume it, per the analyses above. Deryck C. 13:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the title from the article page pending resolution of this dispute. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 22:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do NOT use British knighthoods and other British Honours for political purposes, in order to bash Mr. Tsang upon his head, or just for his simple embarrassment. This is a misuse of Wikipedia for political aims, and even a personal disrespect to the Queen and her native Realm. I think that it would be disingenuous, if not to actually tell an untruth, for the first three who support this motion, to attempt to claim or to deny that there were not a political motive behind this.
  • It is understood, as least in the United Kingdom (but perhaps not in Hong Kong), that a British knighthood and other British Honours, which are after all given by Her Majesty and by the Grace and the Authority of the same, who is after all, by the Grace of, and anointed by, God (Dei Gratia), Queen, whose person is sacred, under Her Majesty's (God-given) Royal Prerogative, cannot just be given up by its subject and recipient, a mere subject or a mere foreigner. A person is NOT free to just return his British Honours to the Palace (or to the Home Secretary or the Home Office, the proper channels), or to a British Ambassador or Consul, or to otherwise give them up by a simple declaration, with or with an oath, a solicitor, a commissioner for oaths, a notary public or an officer of a court of law. An Honour can only be taken away by Her Majesty's person (by the Queen herself, although not necessarily, or usually, in person), by [Her Majesty's] Order in the (Her Majesty's) Privy Council, or by an Act of Parliament. That should NOT mean, however, that a person should be forced to be called a "Sir", instead of "Mister", against his will, until he dies. According to the Common Law, a person should, except when the law provides otherwise, be able to choose whatever name that he elects, and wishes to be known by, including his titles. We do not, for example, force a married woman to take up the title of "Missus", or "Mrs.", do we?
  • Even if Michael Grant Gregovich Ignatieff, or his father, George Pavlovich Ignatieff, had not renounced their claims to the Imperial and Tsarist Russian title of "Count", which and indeed they did not, but as either British subjects or Canadian citizens, we do NOT refer to the either of them as a "Count", as reflected upon their respective articles in the various versions of Wikipedia. (Such titles are in fact still recognised by the Palace, and by the British and the Canadian Governments, without Russian approval, except those held or claimed by British or Canadian citizens.)
Actually this is not a valid comparison. The official Count title was abolished in 1998, when the holder was still Pavel Ignatieff, whom Wikipedia does refer to as Count Pavel Ignatiev even though he survived another 27 years after being demoted. George Ignatieff and Michael Ignatieff, on the other hand, never officially became the count and therefore are not referred to as counts. Donald Tsang's case is, therefore, in line with Pavel Ignatieff, because he officially accepted and held the honour, but subsequently changed nationality. Deryck C. 09:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

It seems that you are confusing country-specific protocol with an universal right. The title comes from a British honor - only the United Kingdom's recognition of his title is sufficient and relevant for us to state that he is entitled to the title. It is common practice for countries to disregard foreign honors bestowed on their nationals - this does not mean that all honors and titles can only be applied to nationals of the issuing country. No one here is suggesting that Tsang must use his title. He is merely entitled to it. --Jiang (talk) 22:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And yet there is a reliable source which says that he prefers to be called "Mr Tsang" – [13]. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 23:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We are not disputing Tsang's personal preferences here. 99801155KC9TV is disputing whether he is entitled (or as he terms it has an "absolute right to") the title "Sir."--Jiang (talk) 23:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, so we agree on the fact that Donald Tsang prefers not to use the title? KC9TV asserts that Donald Tsang is not entitled to use the title, while you think he is. The British government is clearly of the opinion that he is entitled to the title, as per sources discussed above. What would provide us more clarity in this case is the status of PRC/HKSAR law on foreign titles. For instance, Indian nationals cannot accept and/or use foreign titles as per federal law, hence there can be no entitlement in that scenario. HKSAR is not a member of the Commonwealth realm anymore, and must comply with its own laws or PRC law where applicable. Relevant questions: (i) Can HKSAR/PRC citizens accept and use foreign titles? (ii) Can HKSAR/PRC officials accept and use foreign titles? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 23:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can look up Hong Kong laws at http://www.hklii.hk/eng/ A quick search reveals no regulation on point. The relevance is merely in the use of titles instead of the acceptance of titles since Tsang was knighted under British rule. Indian nationals who were knighted before independence were entitled to use their titles for life. Regulations in multiple countries, as far as I have encounter them, concern merely acceptance of titles instead of the use of titles after acceptance.
I don't know whether Tsang prefers to not use the title or merely refrains from doing so as a matter of protocol.--Jiang (talk) 06:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since we are venturing into speculation rather than fact, I think it would be safe to assume that since Tsang has happily held his position as the Chief Executive of Hong Kong for the past few years, he intends to follow HKSAR protocol rather than use the title. Since HKSAR is officially a part of China, and its people PRC citizens, I think PRC law should be applicable in the matters of citizenship. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 06:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Nationality Law of the People's Republic of China is silent on this matter.--Jiang (talk) 07:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Chinese citizens are supposedly forbidden from holding another nationality (but in the case of Hong Kong this is intentionally unenforced except for senior government ministers), so it is safe to say Tsang is only Chinese by nationality... at least until next month. I think UK convention is that only HM subjects are allowed to use Sir titles but I'm not sure how this works out here. Deryck C. 22:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not something that is "unintentionally unenforced". The right of Chinese nationals resident in Hong Kong to exercise a foreign nationality concurrently with Chinese nationality is authorized by the NPCSC's interpretation of the Nationality Law: "Chinese nationals of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region with right of abode in foreign countries may, for the purpose of travelling to other countries and territories, use the relevant documents issued by the foreign governments." Senior officers of the HKSAR government are forbidden to hold the "right of abode in any foreign country". This is stated in the Basic Law.
Tsang did not apply to become a BNO, as his post-1997 positions did not allow, so he does not hold any non-Chinese nationality. None of this is relevant here. He was a British subject at the time his knighthood was confirmed, so he was registered as a "ordinary knight". We've already provided numerous sources verifying this. Anson Chan in contrast is not entitled to the title "dame" because she received her DBE after the handover - she too did not register as a BNO in order to keep her position as Chief Secretary after the handover.--Jiang (talk) 23:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Being permitted to use travel documents issued by other countries is not the equivalent of being in a position to accept the nationality of another country. There are a handful of countries in the world which issue passports to non-citizen investors. The relevant facts here are (i) Tsang does not use the title, and has a preference against it (Economist), (ii) Tsang is PRC national and (iii) is serving as the Chief Executive of HKSAR and so cannot lawfully hold any titles according to official protocol. Tsang has not publicly renounced the title but he has consciously kept his official positions within the government of HKSAR. He has also stated a preference to be referred to with only his name, though he says that he will use the postnom on his business card (as established above). — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 08:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A majority of Hong Kongers do concurrently hold some sort of other passport in addition to the HKSAR passport, most commonly the British National (Overseas) passport via registration prior to the handover but also passports Canadian and Australia due to migration, as legal nationals of a foreign country; they do not merely hold these passports as "non-citizen investors." The wording "travel document" in the NPCSC interpretations is a term of art, used in order to avoid directly contradicting the the Nationality Law's regulations of dual nationality. But this is not relevant here, nor is the fact that Tsang is a PRC national. That does not establish anything of relevance.

There is no Hong Kong law prohibiting either ordinary PRC nationals nor the Chief Executive from either accepting or holding any titles. Protocol may dictate that Tsang does not use a non-Hong Kong title in official capacity, but protocol does not dictate whether he holds a particular title. His business card does not include any non-Hong Kong postnominals - this is an expression of protocol, not of right. The issue we are supposed to be discussing here (which we were doing until KC9TV derailed us with some unsubstantiated claims), is how we want to display this right (coupled with usage) in the article, not whether he has this right in the first place. --Jiang (talk) 09:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that PRC/HKSAR law stands silent either through the Constitution or statute regarding the use of titles by their citizenry, it is true that the UK government says he is entitled to the title. The fact, however, is that he has a preference against using the title - the Economist asserts that in absolute terms, not with qualifications. Whether he is simply following HKSAR protocol is immaterial, the fact is that he has not used it post-handover, does not use it currently and has stated in clear terms that he will not use the title. The general practice on Wikipedia as illuminated by Boson on WT:MOSBIO : "For persons whose notability (since being awarded their KBE) are mainly notable in a non-Commonwealth jurisdiction/culture, we should follow the conventions of the appropriate location, with the conventions of England taking second place", "We should take the preference of the person concerned into account" and "We should take into account that acceptance of awards or use of titles might be illegal or otherwise frowned upon in certain places and that our use of such honorifics might imply such use", should be taken into due consideration. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 10:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We haven't been able to separate official preference from personal preference against use of the title. We are sure of an official preference against the title, but have no evidence of a personal preference. In fact, the excerpt from Ming Pao above focuses on Tsang's position as the impetus behind not using the title, implying that he has no personal opposition to having the title imposed on him. To determine Tsang's personal preference, we will need to wait until he steps down next month to see whether he decides to use it in personal capacity such as on a yet non-existent personal website.
Applying Boson's criteria, British honors continue to be used in Hong Kong, but inconsistently. This is contrasted with American usage, which does not use post-nominals except in certain (i.e. medical and scientific) academic settings for academic degrees and personal memberships. But Hong Kong more or less continues to follow British conventions - as long as it's not from the government, British honors do appear on a regular basis, so there is no "local" conventions, so to speak, preventing us from putting British honors next to the name of a Hong Konger. Whether the "Sir" appears on a regular basis depends on the individual - more often for Gordon Wu than for Li Ka-shing, for example. In contrast, it would be strange for us to be putting KBE after Bill Gates's name - Americans just don't do that.--Jiang (talk) 06:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification on RfC close

[edit]

Jiang has asked me to clarify my close above. On rereading the discussion, my conclusion is that the RfC only addressed whether or not Tsang should be titled "Sir" and that the RfC concluded that he should not, primarily because of blp issues. However, the discussion is inconclusive as to whether a mention of the fact that he is entitled to be styled "Sir Donald Tsang" is due in lead. I assume that such a discussion would revolve around WP:WEIGHT rather than blp issues if the text clearly indicates that he prefers not to use the title but that's another discussion. --regentspark (comment) 19:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. Hongkongers are British nationals overseas. Sir Donald wouldn't have to renounce that, and most people do not renounce it. 2. Hongkongers were not British citizens prior to the handover. It would thus not make sense to say "no longer" if he never was one. 3. If he acquired British citizenship prior to the handover, we still don't know if he had renounced it. He wouldn't need to since China does not require people acquiring it in the early 90s to do that.

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

What may actually be an interesting discussion is whether he is Japanese by virtual of having been born under Japanese sovereignty. User talk:Clh_hilary —Preceding undated comment added 20:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is his nationality actually?

[edit]

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

When I was living at Hong Kong, Hong Kong was a part of the UK, so that Hongkongers' nationalities were British. However, as you all know, Hong Kong is under the Red China since 1997. So that what is the nationality of Hong Konger? Still British or now Red China? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IamZainal (talk • contribs) 12:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Let's say you were born in Hong Kong in 1990, and you have done nothing whatsoever about your nationality (other than registering as a British national overseas). Then now, IF you are ethnically Han Chinese (including Cantonese), you would be a Chinese citizen + a British national overseas. You would be entitled to a British national overseas passport, for British consular support outside of China, Hong Kong, and Macau, to join the British military (but not the Chinese ones, as Hongkongers are not allowed to join the Chinese military regardless of nationality) if one has been living in the UK for 5 years or more, as well as to vote in all UK elections if one is living in the UK (not entitled to absentee voting, but in practice they may not ban it). BNOs can also queue the UK/EU queue at UK airports but one must fill in the declaration form normally filled by non-EU nationals. BNOs have no citizenship rights in the European Union, but from personal experience, EU officers have no idea and they'd let BNOs in without even opening the passport.

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

In short, Hongkongers are technically dual nationals (actually, with also the meaningless nationality of the Republic of China (Taiwan) unless they have renounced either. So, Sir Donald is most likely still British, and possibly never have been a British citizen. User talk:Clh_hilary —Preceding undated comment added 19:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Donald Tsang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Donald Tsang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image

[edit]

In October, 61.238.15.124 replaced the infobox image File:Donald Tsang WEF.jpg with File:Donald_Tsang_on_Paterson_St_cropped.jpg of Tsang at the World Economic Forum in 2012. Underbar dk reverted the change because the image is blurry. 61.238.15.124 then replaced the original image with File:Donald Tsang WEF Unbiased.jpg. After Donald_Tsang_WEF_Unbiased.jpg was removed from Commons due to a non-free license and removed from the Donald Tsang page by a bot, 61.238.15.124 replaced it with File:Don&Selina.jpg of Tsang and his wife at a premiere, later in the day switching it to File:Don&Selina 220.jpg, the same image but with Tsang's wife cropped out. Clithering changed the image back to the original. Nevermind3017's first contribution to Wikipedia was undoing Clithering's reversion and noting that their edits had been reverted three times.

In November, Clithering again reverted Nevermind3017's change, due to image quality. Nevermind3017 changed the image back to Don&Selina 220.jpg, adding that the image is sharper, more formal, more suitable for BLP and faster to load. Citobun reverted this change, saying that the image is poorer in quality. Nevermind3017 switched it back, clarifying that they meant sharper than the previous image they had uploaded. None of the other options I could find in Commons are of good quality.

In January, Lmmnhn changed the image back to the original along with making some other edits to the page. Nevermind3017 reverted this. In March, Lmmnhn changes it back along with other edits, again with no explanation. Kirbanzo reverts three of Lmmnhn's edits. Lmmnhn reverts the reversion, noting the lower quality of the image and requesting Kirbanzo stop undoing edits without explanation. Nevermind3017 has now reverted the image back to Don&Selina 220.jpg.

Donald Tsang WEF.jpg
Don&Selina.jpg
Don&Selina 220.jpg

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

Don&Selina 220.jpg is undeniably blurry. It does seem preferable to use a picture with a smiling face like this has. Donald Tsang WEF.jpg is a better photograph, but Tsang's face looks a bit concerned rather than neutral or smiling. I'd say this image also has the advantage of being more indicative of his political career than the premiere image. In short, I prefer the original.—A L T E R C A R I  ✍ 10:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. I prefer File:Donald Tsang WEF.jpg as it is a much better quality photograph at a much higher resolution. File:Don&Selina 220.jpg is poor quality (blurry, noisy) and of a tiny resolution. Citobun (talk) 02:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I agree. --Clithering (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll prefer the WEF one since it would be the best one in terms of quality. Kirbanzo (talk) 16:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment 2020: Usage of "Sir" title

[edit]

Hi, I feel that it's not fair to disallow the use of Sir for Donald Tsang. While I noted that there has been a lengthy RfC debate on whether to include the use of "Sir" for Donald Tsang in 2012, arguments had been premised on interpretations of existing Wiki policies and guidelines - which can go both ways.

If "Donald Tsang" article is not to allow the use of "Sir" title, how about the case of other HK personalities, such as Chung Sze-yuen and Kan Yuet-keung? The "Sir" honorific is used at the very start of the article. Please, this an obvious of double-standard enforcement of Wiki policy and guidelines, and I think it deserves to be relooked. Mr Tan (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Tsang&oldid=1263013214"