Jump to content

Talk:Maggie Cheung

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

Birth name

[edit]

Is Maggie born Margret Cheung? That's what I heard from a video clip from Miss Hong Kong beauty pageant contest. Doc spacey 18:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well she is from Hong Kong so it is likely she was born Cheung Man-yuk. But Maggie is short for Margaret. Does it matter much? Maggie is the name she performs under. Please sign your comments with four tildas (~). Lao Wai 10:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that the legal names of a lot of American actors on Wikipedia were noted, so I thought if someone knows Miss Cheung's legal name, it would be another good piece of information for the article. But no, it does not matter. What does? By the way, why did you say "she is from Hong Kong so it is likely she was born Cheung Man-yuk"? Did you mean people from Hong Kong do not born with an English first name? It's not very unusual really, so you never know. Doc spacey 18:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jyutping

[edit]

The "Jyutping" transcription in the sidebar is actually Yale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.191.214.93 (talk) 12:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maggie Cheung. 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) 08:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maggie Cheung. 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) 16:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rumored affair?

[edit]

Should we remove the part about her supposedly having an affair with Tony Leung? There doesn't seem to be anything to substantiate it, and since it's only a rumor, it doesn't seem to belong in what is supposed to be a factual article. UncattyValley2000 (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I noticed an effort to gatekeep the personal life section of this page and would like to gather more opinions. There was a recent BLPN discussion initiated by Ravensfire, who opposed the inclusion of Cheung’s public relationships but abandoned the discussion after I replied. I waited until the discussion was archived and understood their silence in the discussion they had requested as tacit acknowledgment before making today's edit, only to face another opposition from Notwally, who, despite not participating in the previous discussion, insisted on opening one more discussion over the same issue.

The inclusion of public relationships—verifiable, sourceable, and widely reported, as opposed to unsubstantiated gossip like those involving Tony Leung—is consistent with her Chinese page and most celebrity pages, including the most comparable pages for China's Four Dan Actresses. This consistency should suffice to show a long-established, sitewide consensus regarding the parameters of personal life on Wikipedia. Unless a special case is made for this page, the unique requirement and further censorship are unwarranted.

Furthermore, as I mentioned in the earlier discussion, it is simply incorrect to claim Maggie Cheung’s personal life is an unconstructive or irrelevant addition, as some users, especially fans, tend to believe. Her love life, even romantic rumors, is essential to both her identity and public image, from her life decisions to leave Hong Kong and showbiz, the enduring appeal of her works like In the Mood for Love, and the cultural imagination surrounding Hong Kong cinema. To say the least, dismissing them shows a lack of insight into her and pop culture in general.

If you have more opinions, especially on why we shouldn't include her public relationships on Wikipedia, please share. I also hope Notwally, who relentlessly opposed the inclusion of her relationships, will be good enough to elaborate their reasons this time. Enrico Chou (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You added a large amount of content with almost no inline citations and including lines such as Yau‘s ex-girlfriend publicly accused Cheung of “stealing her boyfriend.” and Hank shared their love letters to a tabloid magazine and According to actress Luo Pei-ying, Cheung had a secret wedding with Sung in Mexico. This type of tabloid reporting is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, and the sourcing is not adequate for a WP:BLP with those types of contentious claims. You are also repeatedly removing the sourced sentence: In 2020, the Singaporean publication Today wrote that Cheung had no plans to return to acting, instead devoting her time to fashion, music, and producing and editing films. Without a consensus supporting your proposed changes, you should not be restoring it to the article. – notwally (talk) 19:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please present new arguments beyond the citation issues, which have already been addressed and listed at the end of the section. These citation concerns can be easily resolved and do not justify wholesale deletion, which comes across as thinly veiled censorship. More importantly, please avoid misinterpreting WP:BLP. The policy explicitly applies to “[c]ontentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced,” requiring both conditions to be met. In this case, the claims are neither unsourced nor poorly sourced. Instead, they're fully consistent with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV with in-text attributions of the biased statements and perspectives, which have long been adequate for Wikipedia, unlike what Notwally tried to incorrectly suggest (See the comparable Chinese pages for Cheung's contemporary HK actresses such as Carina Lau and Rosamund Kwan, including much longer accounts of their affairs). The events are factual (and widely reported), and perspectives from the parties involved—rather than external speculation—should not be considered contentious, except perhaps by overly zealous fans who are not suited for Wikipedia. By the same standard, a fan-like narrative that excludes all other perspectives should also be considered contentious, which WP:BLP defines as including materials "negative, positive, neutral, or simply questionable." Wikipedia’s readers deserve an objective, comprehensive and uncensored account rather than a one-sided story.
Additionally, the term “tabloid reporting” is meaningless for the purposes of Wikipedia guidelines and your argument. Dismissing sources such as China News Service, China Central Television, and Global People magazine (affiliated with People’s Daily) as “tabloid” reflects a lack of media literacy, which is only confirmed by your insistence on retaining non-exclusive, ninth-hand, generic, and obvious content from a free magazine. The differences in readership, influence, and authority between these sources are many orders of magnitude. Moreover, the free magazine itself explicitly states that its information derives from “an old interview of hers resurfaced on the internet,” conducted “four years ago.” This renders the attribution and timeline inaccurate. Given her nearly two-decade hiatus, the inclusion of such content is also too obvious to be necessary. Enrico Chou (talk) 21:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am still waiting for notwally to contribute to the discussion they themselves insisted on having. Otherwise, their refusal to discuss can no longer be mistaken for a lack of consensus, since this is already the second discussion specifically accommodating notwally, who did not engage in the first. Notwally’s perfunctory input so far, along with their premature abandonment of the discussion, reveals not a genuine concern for the quality of Wikipedia, but rather a thinly veiled effort to censor content according to their personal preferences. Enrico Chou (talk) 06:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned specific information I believed was inappropriate for an encyclopedia, which also was not supported with high quality sourcing. Further, as per WP:ONUS, the burden is on you to get consensus for inclusion, especially when more than one editor has reverted your changes. – notwally (talk) 07:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A refusal to directly answer is equivalent to a refusal to discuss, and I have more than fulfilled my "burden" by initiating the discussion twice, even urging your engagement, which has been perfunctory, tardy, and evasive at best. I specifically addressed each of your points, while you refused and were likely unable to do so in your reply. For one, even basic media literacy should suffice to differentiate which is of higher "quality": a free online Singapore magazine citing unsourced Chinese social media posts or China Central Television. Your definition of quality is subjective, arbitrary, and self-defeating. Enrico Chou (talk) 08:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maggie_Cheung&oldid=1267706623"