Talk:ECFA Debate

The grammar and translation...

The article is riddled with grammar errors, not with insignificant ones but with major ones that render the text incomprehensible. There are also translation issues - in a political sphere where a single word can make a great difference between two parties, the personal English translations of whoever first posted or edited the page is not of sound quality. Clygeric (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

dude, learn some english

as said —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.39.149.198 (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Baww. U Mad? :( -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 16:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

A general copyedit and some changes

Because the prose in this article was decidedly non-idiomatic, I took it upon myself to correct the more egregious grammatical errors (but I'd like to take the opportunity to point out to those critical of the original author's English that he likely writes better English than you ever will Chinese, so kindly be more forgiving of his mistakes).

While doing this I decided to remove his personal translation of 雙英會 (which he called "two-elites debate") and replace it with the more direct "Meeting of the two Yings". I did this for a couple of reasons. One is that "Elite" has a possibly pejorative connotation in English that 英 does not have in Chinese (if anything, the similar sounds between 雙英 and 雙贏 give it a positive sound to my ear, but I'm not going to add that interpretation to the article unless we have a source commenting on the similarity). I also find "Elite" to be a strange word to translate 英 as (I'd have said hero or something) but at any rate the character isn't used much in isolation in modern Mandarin so ...

Anyway, since 會 means meeting rather than specifically debate I also changed that. (Addendum: I actually realized just now that 雙英辯 is an equally common way of referring to this debate, so if someone wants to say Debate instead of Meeting go for it.)

I made one NPOV change, too: I changed

After the debate, media opinion polls show Ma was more favorable than Tsai in the debate, but the majority who answered the poll had a partial understanding of the whole ECFA issue.

to

After the debate, media opinion polls rated Ma more favorably than Tsai.

because the former is editorializing (it would be like saying "Americans overwhelmingly supported the Iraq war but they didn't know what they were talking about") even if it happens to possibly be true. I think we need a source for the opinion polls assertion anyway (I don't feel like looking for one) so maybe I'll add a citation needed tag to it.

Oh, and I also added in pinyin for the Chinese. I realize that Taiwanese people don't like pinyin and all that, but no one who actually speaks Chinese looks at romanization anyway because it's so hard to read, and whatever the political views vis-a-vis pinyin on Taiwan it is the standard romanization of Mandarin everywhere else in the world. I don't think we should subject our readers to a subtly different system (i.e. tongyong pinyin) just to prove a political point.209.165.164.90 (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ECFA Debate. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100429003731/http://udn.com/NEWS/NATIONAL/NAT2/5559471.shtml to http://udn.com/NEWS/NATIONAL/NAT2/5559471.shtml

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) 14:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)