Jump to content

Talk:Andrew Li

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

Living person

[edit]

Pursuant to the Wikipedia's policy on biography of living persons I have removed parts of this biopiece that impugn Andrew Li's integrity, impartiality, and honesty as a judge without citation. The author of those parts claimed, without support, that they are quoting from the South China Morning Post. However, as participants of civilized discussions would immediately recognize, simply saying that your source is from the South China Morning Post without giving us the date and page number is not a citation. Hker1997 (talk) 05:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mys 721tx

[edit]

Today, Mys 721tx had removed my discussion on the Chinese version of Andrew Li without citation of reason. I then re-post my discussion. Mys 721tx then removed my discussion again and prohibited my edition for a week. It is very uncivil and shows that the editing quality and manner are very poor. You should tell the poster why in the first place and discuss the removal.Pedia2007z (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Below is the content of my discussion on opposition against Craddocktm's edition:-

(1)李國能於2008年獲頌大紫荊勳章；香港特別行政區政府對其有以下評價：「李國能首席法官在公共服務方面表現卓著，尤其對成功實施「一國兩制」概念下的新憲制，貢獻良多。他出任香港司法機構終審法院首席法官超過十年，在維護法治精神及保護司法公正方面擔當重要角色。他積極與內地司法部門建立良好關係，加強雙方對內地及本港不同司法體制的互相了解，成績超卓。」

(2)香港大學比較法與公法研究中心主任楊艾文表示，李國能為香港司法界訂定不少重要標准，從對憲法條文的詮釋、法庭的服務水平以至人事任命等，都有重要影響，為司法機構建構了良好發展基礎，影響深遠。

(3)律政司長黃仁龍表示，李國能帶領香港司法機構秉行公義和維護法治，對成功落實一國兩制的貢獻最為超著，對其貢獻致以最高敬意。又指出香港終審法院在普通法世界被視為司法獨立及卓越水平的典範，李國能居功至偉；在李國能的啟迪和領導下，香港司法機構自香港回歸以來一直都能吸引精英加入。

(4)在李國能的退休告別儀式上，大律師公會主席高浩文引述另一名首席法官曾以氧氣比喻法治，「氧氣充足時，人們渾然不覺，但缺乏時才覺最重要」，並說在李任內，香港人都能夠「呼吸順暢」。

(5)李國能首徒余若薇則形容李是工作狂，回歸初期四處為法官職位張羅人才，由其推薦上任的法官，至今從未出現大過失；行政方面，也知人善任，將法官管理得頭頭是道。

(6)此外，港大民調的數據，指李國能於2010年2月的支持度大幅上升7.1分至68.1分，創出有關調查的最高紀錄。


以上六點都是沒有記事、純粹的擦鞋語:

第(1)點，"表現卓著"、"頁獻良多"、"維護法治"中，李國能究竟幹了什麼?從維權人士的新聞中，巿民都清楚知道內地是怎樣審案，李國能有什麼貢獻?

第(2)點，"重要標准"、"重要影響"、"發展基礎"等，李國能究竟幹了什麼?

第(3)點，"貢獻最為超著"、"居功至偉"、"啟迪和領導下"等，李國能究竟幹了什麼?

第(4)點，"香港人都能夠「呼吸順暢」"，李國能究竟幹了什麼?

第(5)點，"張羅人才"、 "知人善任"、"管理得頭頭是道"等，李國能究竟幹了什麼?

第(6)點，"港大民調"，3、4、5、6、7、8月又怎樣?

以上都是Craddocktm在刪掉本人的編輯後加上的，很明顯這是鬥氣的無聊行為。只會使人覺得某人受指使，濫用維基給人面上貼金，又或是Craddocktm就是李國能，濫用維基百科來自吹自擂。

反觀西方世界，則是文明得多。

從英國首席法官的版面 http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Nicholas_Phillips,_Baron_Phillips_of_Worth_Matravers 可以看到，根本沒有拍馬屁的說話，更不會有什麼"評價"。美國首席法官的版面 http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/John_G._Roberts 也沒有擦鞋的評價,只附帶他的法律觀點。法官的職能是審案，能夠影響巿民的只有解釋法律。

Craddocktm的反應，可以從有關李國能的YouTube影片簡介中，得到解釋:

"很多人都比面權貴，以"司法獨立"自欺，不願對付濫權者，讓濫權者得以"司法獨立"之名欺人，一直濫權、腐敗、虛偽下去，就連香港律師會及大律師公會都袖手旁觀。包致金姪女案一再證明，西方的司法獨立，被固有虛偽劣根性的華人社群扭曲濫用，皆因奉迎權貴、假公濟私乃常態，以致濫權無度的事一再發生。警方、律政司、法庭都鬆手,繼而自欺欺人一番，差之毫釐、謬以千里，法制蕩然無存。"

Cradddocktm的行為只是一般華人的常態。他口中嚷着他的行為沒有受限制，然而人貴自重。

I cited what exists to criticize Craddocktm's edition. Pedia2007z (talk) 16:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you stop making disruptive editting?
  1. This page is for discussion for the improvement of the English version of the Wikipedia.
  2. WP:BLPSTYLE states clearly: "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone."
  3. The Youtube video is not a "revelation" of Li's misconduct, it's MERE ACCUSATION.
  4. Per the reasoning in WP:OSE, "the nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist; because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article." Using the same logic, that there is no commentary on the performance of other chief justices in other Wikipedia pages does not mean no commentary should be added. It can mean that nobody has added it yet.Craddocktm (talk) 16:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My discussion can be used to compare the Chinese and the English version of any Wiki pages. Adopting a principle from a much wider world can upgrade the quality of edition of a particular community using a particular language. I noticed that the version edited by Craddocktm was far from satisfactory and would like to invite other editors from a wider world to discuss the matter. My criticism is harsh on Craddocktm but people from Chinese communities have the same problem. They are inherently ready to give "face" to bigwigs. Craddocktm's flattering citation are empty in contents. No particular incident was cited to substantiate them. They are simply groundless. They are flattering, not praises. Even if there were incidents to support them, such flattering remarks were out of proportion in the wiki page and would cause readers to doubt the purpose of the existence of such a page.

P.S. Slight amendment was made in the Chinese paragraph above.Pedia2007z (talk) 10:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can always cite your own standards and your own perspectives; but this is Wikipedia and we play by Wikipedia's rules, not your rules. The policy guidelines say clearly it is okay to cite praises in biographies in living persons. No reasonable editor would allow your personal agenda to trump over Wikipedia policies.
At any rate, the matter is closed, since the edits are already "dead" and no longer "alive". There is nothing to be discussed. Stop misusing this page. I will ask for comments from administrators if this misuse goes on any longer.Craddocktm (talk) 12:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Andrew Li. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 06:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Andrew Li. 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) 09:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Andrew Li. 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) 03:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andrew_Li&oldid=1202565870"