This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2016 Mong Kok civil unrest article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This line in particular stuck out to me in the article's intro (emphasis mine):
The incident was described as an escalation from the government's crackdown on street hawkers during the Chinese New Year holidays. It was actually a well organized premeditated assault on the police to advance the agenda of a new political organization that was formed since the 2014 protest.
This hardly seems in line with the NPOV guidelines of Wikipedia and strikes a remarkably partisan tone for what is an ongoing event. I suggest it be revised and those who are following the ongoing unrest closely add more context and information in line with Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. Nivenus ( talk) 01:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Following on from my comment on ANI, I've spent some time restructuring the arrests section, particularly the paragraph concerning Lam's arrest. As it stands now, it retains all the detail from before I started copy editing. I'm of two minds concerning the size of the paragraph. There is scope for some of the text to be pared down. I would be inclined to remove the quote by the group as it doesn't really add much to the section. As there will obviously be some dissenting opinions, I won't be doing anything precipitous, but instead would like to hear the opinions of others. Blackmane ( talk) 15:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Grammar and citations in the Hawkers crackdown needs to be fixed, Ohconfucius. Thank you! Lmmnhn ( talk) 04:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
There's always crackdown on illegal hawkers as well as illegal car parking in the streets since the British rule. It's rather silly to sensationalise the "hawkers crackdown" issue by bringing up some old news in Kweilin Street in 2014. STSC ( talk) 19:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I think riot is a better title, as this was a riot- there was violence. The government also said it was a riot. TheCoffeeAddict talk| contribs 03:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Many major errors exist in the presentation of information, including structuring of the information presented and the tone in which the article is written. Below listed are some major examples
1) In the introductory paragraph
Batons, pepper spray, unnecessary force and suspected torture were used by the police and two warning shots, which is not allowed in Police Force Ordinance[12] were fired into the air, while protesters threw glass bottles, bricks, flower pots and trash bins toward the police and set fires in the streets.
The determination of whether the use of force is unnecessary is at best an unsubstantiated opinion, and contributes nothing to the introduction of the article. Moreover, this detail, along with the violation of the cited police ordinance, should be placed further down in the "Course of Events" section of the article.
2)
The relationship between the Hong Kong Police Force, often referred to as "Asia's finest" in the past,
The qualification after the comma is unnecessary. Even if it was to be included, this requires citation.
3)
in the case of Chu, the police refused to prosecute.
i) Decision of prosecution in common law jurisdictions does not lie with Police Forces or other Law Enforcement agencies, but with the Prosecutions Division of the respective Justice departments. ii) The internal investigation by the police into Chu's action has already resulted in him being charged and the case has now been heard and Chu sentenced.
4)
Sociology lecturer and activist Lau Siu-lai, wishing to provoke public debate over the hawker issue, acted in deliberate defiance of the FEHD and was arrested.[27][28] Originally wishing just to enjoy the ambience of the street market, Lau was arrested when she began to help sell grilled cuttlefish in defiance of the FEHD officers and her arrest was ordered by the senior officer present.
Sentence does not make sense in terms of order of events. Did she wish to provoke public debate by helping a hawker to sell cuttlefish? Or did she sell cuttlefish herself? Is that act in defiance of the directions of the FEHD? What was she charged with upon arrest? Does the FEHD have arresting powers? Besides these details which are missing, a citation is needed for the above.
5)
At around 2 am, two warning shots were fired into the air on Argyle Street by a team of traffic officers which had become surrounded by protesters and who were being pelted with pallets and rocks
The event is poorly described. The entire team fired two shot? Why were they surrounded?
The events portrayed in the following video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqSotqe6dTc) and other media outlets indicate that one traffic police officer, while attending to events not relating to the riot, was injured and laid unconscious. Rioters continued to advance on the injured officer, which prompted his colleagues to approach in order to protect the injured. One of the officers on the scene drew his firearm and fired two warning shots into the air. (this is also where the line about breaching the Use of Force guidelines should go)
6)
Their alleged offences include participating in unlawful assembly, attacking police officers, refusing to be arrested, obstructing police and carrying weapons
The offences should be cited directly in accordance to common law and not paraphrased (e.g. Assaulting a Police Officer, Resisting Arrest, Obstruction of Justice, Possession of Offensive weapons). These are charges upon which the Police has the right to arrest the person accused. The tone of this is more suited to an op-ed piece rather than an encyclopedic entry.
Furthermore, the tone of the article (in the use of language and order of information) is overtly partial, and is not conducive to presenting a factual entry for the event. Many grammatical errors are also present, which I am currently in the process of correcting. Can followers of this section please provide some opinions and suggestions pertaining to the correction of the aforementioned issues? — Preceding unsigned comment added by M049980 ( talk • contribs) 08:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2016 Mong Kok civil unrest article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This line in particular stuck out to me in the article's intro (emphasis mine):
The incident was described as an escalation from the government's crackdown on street hawkers during the Chinese New Year holidays. It was actually a well organized premeditated assault on the police to advance the agenda of a new political organization that was formed since the 2014 protest.
This hardly seems in line with the NPOV guidelines of Wikipedia and strikes a remarkably partisan tone for what is an ongoing event. I suggest it be revised and those who are following the ongoing unrest closely add more context and information in line with Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. Nivenus ( talk) 01:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Following on from my comment on ANI, I've spent some time restructuring the arrests section, particularly the paragraph concerning Lam's arrest. As it stands now, it retains all the detail from before I started copy editing. I'm of two minds concerning the size of the paragraph. There is scope for some of the text to be pared down. I would be inclined to remove the quote by the group as it doesn't really add much to the section. As there will obviously be some dissenting opinions, I won't be doing anything precipitous, but instead would like to hear the opinions of others. Blackmane ( talk) 15:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Grammar and citations in the Hawkers crackdown needs to be fixed, Ohconfucius. Thank you! Lmmnhn ( talk) 04:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
There's always crackdown on illegal hawkers as well as illegal car parking in the streets since the British rule. It's rather silly to sensationalise the "hawkers crackdown" issue by bringing up some old news in Kweilin Street in 2014. STSC ( talk) 19:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I think riot is a better title, as this was a riot- there was violence. The government also said it was a riot. TheCoffeeAddict talk| contribs 03:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Many major errors exist in the presentation of information, including structuring of the information presented and the tone in which the article is written. Below listed are some major examples
1) In the introductory paragraph
Batons, pepper spray, unnecessary force and suspected torture were used by the police and two warning shots, which is not allowed in Police Force Ordinance[12] were fired into the air, while protesters threw glass bottles, bricks, flower pots and trash bins toward the police and set fires in the streets.
The determination of whether the use of force is unnecessary is at best an unsubstantiated opinion, and contributes nothing to the introduction of the article. Moreover, this detail, along with the violation of the cited police ordinance, should be placed further down in the "Course of Events" section of the article.
2)
The relationship between the Hong Kong Police Force, often referred to as "Asia's finest" in the past,
The qualification after the comma is unnecessary. Even if it was to be included, this requires citation.
3)
in the case of Chu, the police refused to prosecute.
i) Decision of prosecution in common law jurisdictions does not lie with Police Forces or other Law Enforcement agencies, but with the Prosecutions Division of the respective Justice departments. ii) The internal investigation by the police into Chu's action has already resulted in him being charged and the case has now been heard and Chu sentenced.
4)
Sociology lecturer and activist Lau Siu-lai, wishing to provoke public debate over the hawker issue, acted in deliberate defiance of the FEHD and was arrested.[27][28] Originally wishing just to enjoy the ambience of the street market, Lau was arrested when she began to help sell grilled cuttlefish in defiance of the FEHD officers and her arrest was ordered by the senior officer present.
Sentence does not make sense in terms of order of events. Did she wish to provoke public debate by helping a hawker to sell cuttlefish? Or did she sell cuttlefish herself? Is that act in defiance of the directions of the FEHD? What was she charged with upon arrest? Does the FEHD have arresting powers? Besides these details which are missing, a citation is needed for the above.
5)
At around 2 am, two warning shots were fired into the air on Argyle Street by a team of traffic officers which had become surrounded by protesters and who were being pelted with pallets and rocks
The event is poorly described. The entire team fired two shot? Why were they surrounded?
The events portrayed in the following video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqSotqe6dTc) and other media outlets indicate that one traffic police officer, while attending to events not relating to the riot, was injured and laid unconscious. Rioters continued to advance on the injured officer, which prompted his colleagues to approach in order to protect the injured. One of the officers on the scene drew his firearm and fired two warning shots into the air. (this is also where the line about breaching the Use of Force guidelines should go)
6)
Their alleged offences include participating in unlawful assembly, attacking police officers, refusing to be arrested, obstructing police and carrying weapons
The offences should be cited directly in accordance to common law and not paraphrased (e.g. Assaulting a Police Officer, Resisting Arrest, Obstruction of Justice, Possession of Offensive weapons). These are charges upon which the Police has the right to arrest the person accused. The tone of this is more suited to an op-ed piece rather than an encyclopedic entry.
Furthermore, the tone of the article (in the use of language and order of information) is overtly partial, and is not conducive to presenting a factual entry for the event. Many grammatical errors are also present, which I am currently in the process of correcting. Can followers of this section please provide some opinions and suggestions pertaining to the correction of the aforementioned issues? — Preceding unsigned comment added by M049980 ( talk • contribs) 08:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)