This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
This
edit request to
2019 Hong Kong protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
That riots happened is beyond dispute. This page is being hijacked by people promoting thier pro-protester agenda and hiding facts on purpose. I propose the following changes to be made:
- the word 'riot', riots, rioters included everywhere whwre protesters are mentioned
- the damage caused by rioters included
- bombs discovered and likned to rioters included
- the reaction of Singapore PM included
- support by taiwan and the us mentioned 183.182.115.2 ( talk) 06:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
They have been provided on this very same talk page and promptly ignored. Please see the archives. Anyone reading major news sources knows everything listed above is true. Even well referenced, similar edits have been undone in SECONDS by bots or bot-like human beings.
IF I provide sources (again) from BBC, SCMP and ABC, will you accept those and update the article accordingly?
You know what? Here are some sources for you:
Without any effort, here are a few reliable sources. First, the ABC/BBC calling these riots.
ABC: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-01/violence-flares-hong-kong-after-china-70-anniversary-parade/11565024 Hong Kong police shoot teenage protester as riots wrack city on China's National Day
BBC: Hong Kong: Transport paralysed in clampdown on rioters https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-49944441 Title:
Hong Kong: Protesters return after Friday rioting https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-china-49944445/hong-kong-protesters-return-after-friday-rioting Title:
Hong Kong protest march descends into violence https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-49949548 Quote: "The weekend saw riots over the mask ban"
Then some random links. Some others may include policeman's throat being slashed, etc. I am just too lazy to find all those. let's start with the below:
Local businesses are being targeted and ransacked by protesters either for being from mainland China https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-49983767
Protesters beating other civilians and allegedly making death threats http://www.thestandard.com.hk/section-news.php?id=212525&sid=11&sid=11
Subway stations repeatedly vandalized https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3032094/severely-vandalised-mong-kok-and-kwun-tong-stations-among
General widespread vandalism happening all the time https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=OIqx3YIHntc
Homemade bomb used for the first time during Hong Kong protests: Police
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asia/hong-kong-protests-police-homemade-bomb-mong-kok-11998870
Finally, the UN definition of terrorism and terrorists: The UN act also categorises terrorism as actions or threats intended to compel the government or an international organisation, or to intimidate the public, and made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.
A “terrorist” is defined as a person who commits, or attempts to commit a terrorist act.
Source: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-and-crime/article/3031895/we-cannot-tell-world-hong-kong-grooms-local-terrorists — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.5.158.152 ( talk) 12:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Nothing in this world is "universally" agreed upon. What has been happening in HK meets the definition of rioting, and certain acts that of terrorism as well - this is according to all major English dictionaries. This should be more than enough.
This article should not be based on your opinion or that of the group you represent, rather plain facts. That is it. Rioting is rioting, terrorism is terrorism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.5.158.152 ( talk) 16:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
the word 'riot', riots, rioters included everywhere whwre protesters are mentioned; the damage caused by rioters included
bombs discovered and likned to rioters included
the reaction of Singapore PM included
Great, so we agree on the rioting part, finally. Obviously there were peaceful marches, but almost always they ended up in rioting and burning down of stations, shops, etc. Policemen were brutalized at the airport and set on fire elsewhere. The list is just too long. Some of these acts would fall under the category 'terrorism' - for the definition, please see the link above. By no means do I claim all protestors would fit the bill, but again, read the definition... I am sure you are very well aware of the facts.
As for not trusting the police, that is the opinion of some people, but certainly not the entire population. There have been sizable rallies supporting the government, and so far there have been no evidence to show any set-up or the like. Think of the eye-girl. Any proof? Last I checked she was fighting NOT to release her records. It is possible she was hit by a so-called 'protester' instead of the police. Or the case of Simon Cheung, although that's partially mainland related. Contrary to this, when I refer to riots and potential acts of terrorism, those are all documented. Please think of the attack on the through train... or throwing objects on railway tracks. Or of the paralyzing the airport. Destroying key infrastructure, etc. All in the name of political goals... this meets the criteria outlined above.
If you are suggesting that the bomb incident(s) were fabricated, that is a very serious allegation that you should perhaps report to the appropriate place. You cannot base the article on your opinion or allegations. HK is divided and this article is very one-sided, often distorting the truth and further 'adding oil' between the two camps. It also gives a false image of what is really happening.
As for the international section: again, one sided. The Singapore PM is an important regional figure who made an input that is relevant and should be included. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
139.5.158.152 (
talk)
16:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Great, so before we completely deviate from the original objective, let me respond to your survey claim, which, as expected is completely useless in judging the general opinion of the population. It was conducted on-site, meaning they asked protestors and rioters of their opinion and not the ordinary HK resident (as you implied).
Here is a quote: "As of August 4, the team has conducted a total of 12 onsite surveys, with a total sample size of 6,688 respondents."
It is the same as if you went into an STD clinic and projected the test results to the entire population. It is simply not representative. It can be accessed here: https://sites.google.com/view/antielabsurvey-eng
I ask someone not involved to make the appropriate changes originally requested, keeping the quoted sources and additional information in mind. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.5.158.152 ( talk) 17:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
With the requested sources provided, still waiting for any changes to be implemented. Is anyone even surprised? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.5.158.152 ( talk) 18:16, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
It should be unacceptable to use double standards when it comes to such a sensitive and politically charged topic. In a below discussion you are fine with leaving mere rumors untouched (inviting editors to find "reliable sources"), yet are unwilling to make changes that reflect reality and are supported by countless very reliable sources.
Therefore I still propose the following changes to be made:
- all instances of rioting listed, broken down by day and location. The list is very long indeed, but reliable sources are plenty. I suggest the use of SCMP and the use of a dictionary for the definition of what constitutes rioting
- the damage caused by rioters included (economic damage estimates as well)
- bombs discovered and linked or possibly linked to rioters/terrorists included
- any other acts that by definition may be classified as terrorism listed, as per UN and dictionary definitions
- the reaction of Singapore PM included - a very influential and regional leader
- support by taiwan and the us mentioned
And finally: the title of the article should also be changed. Precedent dictates this, see the article on the 2019 Indonesian protests and riots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.5.158.152 ( talk) 18:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Reliable sources have been provided by multiple people, yet they are being ignored - while mere urban legends are included. Anyone who follows the news knows that the above listed items, without exception, have been confirmed true and correct and are also well documented. They are also very much relevant and precedent from other articles would dictate that they be included.
This page is beyond controversial and manipulative. At this point I am not even hoping for any changes that reflect reality as I have lost all trust in Wikipedia.
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Eggishorn
(talk)
(contrib)
09:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC)The infobox claiming that there have been at least 10 suicides seems to be WP:SYNTH. One source seems to list 9 suicides, but the details are spare and the source is dubious – discuss at best. I'm still discomfited with any explicit claim that something that can be as multifaceted as suicide should be linked causally to a political movement in an infobox. Simonm223 ( talk) 11:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%99%B3%E5%BD%A5%E9%9C%96%E6%AD%BB%E4%BA%A1%E4%BA%8B%E4%BB%B6 /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources
Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.
Junyan Qu ( talk) 11:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junyan Qu ( talk • contribs) 06:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
from the article "which include investigation into alleged police misconduct and resumption of democratic reforms that were promised in the Sino-British Joint Declaration"
Thank you for editing previously to change "promised in Basic Law". However changing to Sino-British Joint Declaration is just jumping from one incorrect information to another. The Joint Declaration did NOT promise any form of democratic reforms. In fact the declaration did NOT mention any democracy, democratic or suffrage. It does mention election three times, while none of those were related to universal suffrage or democratic reforms. Hong Kong is now operating exactly the same as the document declared since 01/07/1997.
Sino-British Joint Declaration 3.4 The chief executive will be appointed by the Central People's Government on the basis of the results of elections or consultations to be held locally.
Annex I The government and legislature of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be composed of local inhabitants. The chief executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be selected by election or through consultations held locally and be appointed by the Central People's Government. Principal officials (equivalent to Secretaries) shall be nominated by the chief executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and appointed by the Central People's Government. The legislature of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be constituted by elections.
References: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Sino-British_Joint_Declaration
https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%201399/v1399.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junyan Qu ( talk • contribs) 02:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Sino-British_Joint_Declaration
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Basic_Law_of_the_Hong_Kong_Special_Administrative_Region — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junyan Qu ( talk • contribs) 05:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2019 Hong Kong protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please change ((Independent)) to ((The Independent))
I think the (All suicides) tag next to deaths should say that this is disputed by various groups with significant evidence that there has been foul play by various groups in Hong Kong which have led to some non-natural deaths.
examples: Chan Yin-lam https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/education/article/3033257/15-year-old-hong-kong-girl-found-dead-sea-had-walked https://www.hongkongfp.com/2019/10/16/protesters-demand-cctv-footage-tiu-keng-leng-school-following-death-15-year-old-student/
Alleged Protestor Death https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/10/hong-kong-authorities-deny-protester-death-claims-after-police-raid https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3026439/hong-kong-protests-officials-attempt-sixth-time-debunk
[Anonymous, 8 Nov 2019, 3:39pm] Someone should add the new death in the carpark: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3036833/hong-kong-student-who-suffered-severe-brain-injury-after — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.64.143.13 ( talk) 07:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Theprussian ( talk) 11:08, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
@
Simonm223: I don't see any "consensus" here for your version, and I fail to see how a figure
WP:SYNTHed from a disparate bunch of news articles regarding individual suicides is better than a Guardian article which states that Since June, protesters have tracked at least nine cases of suicides that appear to be directly linked to the demonstrations.
feminist (
talk)
14:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
It appears the lede does not comply with lede length rules. See MOS:LEADLENGTH. Thanks Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 04:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
There seems to be a edit war regarding the inclusion of US into the infobox under support. United States Congress passed a bill "in support of Hong Kong protesters" [1], this was the direct statement of the bill. Yet users @ Nice4What: and @ Citobun: have removed the US from support saying this is symbolic and not a real support. Here is my argument, if this is not a real support then how come you didn't remove China from support? China did not provide any real support to the Hong Kong Gov neither as far as I know, only verbally supported. Exactly like the US congress did. I'll be waiting for your arguments, meanwhile I reverted back to the old state and it should remain per the sources until a conclusion is reached on its removal. KasimMejia ( talk) 10:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 5 demands. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 00:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 13:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 07:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
the article cited did not accuse police of blocking paramedics from delivering Chow to the hospital. the rumored accusation from the actual article itself include: 1. "that Chow was fleeing from police tear gas" 2. "that Chow was fleeing from officers chasing after him" 3. "pointing guns and batons at people on the scene as Chow was undergoing emergency treatment" 4. "that police had pushed Chow and he fell" and... 5. "blocking ambulance access to Chow" - should not to be confused with blocking the ambulance carrying Chow from going to the hospital - as the current article could mislead someone into believing. I also suggest that we either include all these rumors or include none. It is not our business to conduct OR. "all rumors" refers to ones that the police had responded to - obviously they were widely spread and therefore the police directly answered them during the press. it is also neutral. as we are not picking sides. it is also factual that these are indeed widely spread rumors that had gain public attention. It should also be noted that during the early days, the most widely spread rumors were built on the theory that he had direct contact with police. The ambulance theory was only popularized after Link REIT (owner of the car park) publicly released the video footages. And therefore, by only reporting the rumors about ambulance, we are actively engaging in OR by filtering which rumors is the leading theory on this week's social media. Therefore, either we stick to only the known facts, or we report all leading rumors and let the readers decide for themselves. 192.0.235.66 ( talk) 11:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
The question of violence is crucial in this affair. People are basing their opinions on random videos of violence. This article badly needs a better answer to the question of *who* is committing the violence. A body count, basically, of the injuries and worse committed by each side. Rollo ( talk) 14:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
While I am fully aware that all the "floating corpse" cases and police beating people to death were WP:RUMOR, they do have an impact on the protests. The protests that followed both incidents is mainly driven by protesters' intention to know the truth (thus all the demands to have both MTR/HKDI to release the CCTV footage), instead of merely condemning police brutality or stuff like that. I will say that a whole page dedicated to it is WP:UNDUE but I believed that a very slight mention is justified. OceanHok ( talk) 15:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
First war in history fought entirely within one city by an incompetent police force who believe themselves to be the stars of an action movie on one hand and a bunch of crazed disorganized arsonists on the other and zero actual armies. Simonm223 ( talk) 19:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
here is something in london with an RS https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/11/china-condemns-attack-hong-kong-justice-secretary-london-191115025641028.html seems related Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 07:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
There is a noticeboard discussion on the reliability of Hong Kong Free Press, especially with regard to its reporting on the 2019 Hong Kong protests. If you are interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Is the Hong Kong Free Press a reliable source?. — Newslinger talk 11:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Under the "Objectives" heading, there are 2 instances of misspelling.
Comparison of changes:
Initially, protesters solely demanded the withdrawal of the extradition bill. Following an escalation in the severity of policing tactics against demonstrators on 12 June and the bill's suspension on 15 June, the objective of the protesters has been to achieve the following five demands:[61]
Complete withdrawal of the extradition bill from the legislative process: Although the Chief Executive announced indefinite suspension of the bill on 15 June, reading on it may be quickly resumed. The bill was "pending resumption of second reading" in the Legislative Council. The bill was formally withdrawn on 23 October.[62] Retraction of the "riot" ̶c̶h̶a̶r̶a̶c̶t̶e̶r̶i̶s̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ characterization: The government originally ̶c̶h̶a̶r̶a̶c̶t̶e̶r̶i̶s̶e̶d̶ characterized the 12 June protest as "riots". Later the description was amended to say there were "some" protesters who rioted. However, protesters...
MBabcock87 ( talk) 17:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Why's it necessary to identify the hospital where some people have died? It seems to be recentism and violate WP:NOTNEWS. -- Ohc ¡digame! 13:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
70 year old man argued with protesters that then threw bricks at him, hit his head and knocked him out, life threatening injury, it is now confirmed he is dead. [1] 77.216.111.51 ( talk) 23:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
References
The article current reported the death of a black-clothed man in Tsuen Wan on November 13th. However, why is this reported in this article? The news source did not report the man was engaging in protest nor was there any police presence. The police classified the death as "not suspicious". Given the relationship to protest is not being alleged by the source reference, the inclusion of his death here would constitute WP:OR. If anyone believe the death is related, please provide WP:RS or WP:PRIMARY, such as a police announcement or witness claims or assertions from his family etc.
Also, Apple Daily ( https://hk.news.appledaily.com/local/realtime/article/20191113/60264041) claims that there was indeed a witness who saw the man falling while driving in the area. However, it is not clear if she saw the man jump off the building or she merely saw the body after it had fallen to the ground. But, aside from the article title is called "War against Brutality: Black-clothed youth....", there is no actual mention that the death is in any way related to protest. (I am not sure if Apple Daily is considered RS, as the reporting here really seem like fake news - appears to accuse police brutality in the article caption but not actually saying it in the article?????? The man is later reported to be 30 yr old, so the reporting of "youth" in the title seem somewhat... bad journalism)
Anyways, I think the death should be excluded until an actual RS makes direct assertion that it is related. 192.0.235.66 ( talk) 04:14, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Protip: If a newspaper says, "appears to be," "looks like," "could be," or any other similar conditional construction, it's an opinion and should be excluded. Simonm223 ( talk) 20:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
References
https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3038096/hong-kong-officer-shot-arrow-police-deploy-water-cannons — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.0.235.66 ( talk) 09:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
This
edit request to
2019 Hong Kong protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
That riots happened is beyond dispute. This page is being hijacked by people promoting thier pro-protester agenda and hiding facts on purpose. I propose the following changes to be made:
- the word 'riot', riots, rioters included everywhere whwre protesters are mentioned
- the damage caused by rioters included
- bombs discovered and likned to rioters included
- the reaction of Singapore PM included
- support by taiwan and the us mentioned 183.182.115.2 ( talk) 06:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
They have been provided on this very same talk page and promptly ignored. Please see the archives. Anyone reading major news sources knows everything listed above is true. Even well referenced, similar edits have been undone in SECONDS by bots or bot-like human beings.
IF I provide sources (again) from BBC, SCMP and ABC, will you accept those and update the article accordingly?
You know what? Here are some sources for you:
Without any effort, here are a few reliable sources. First, the ABC/BBC calling these riots.
ABC: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-01/violence-flares-hong-kong-after-china-70-anniversary-parade/11565024 Hong Kong police shoot teenage protester as riots wrack city on China's National Day
BBC: Hong Kong: Transport paralysed in clampdown on rioters https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-49944441 Title:
Hong Kong: Protesters return after Friday rioting https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-china-49944445/hong-kong-protesters-return-after-friday-rioting Title:
Hong Kong protest march descends into violence https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-49949548 Quote: "The weekend saw riots over the mask ban"
Then some random links. Some others may include policeman's throat being slashed, etc. I am just too lazy to find all those. let's start with the below:
Local businesses are being targeted and ransacked by protesters either for being from mainland China https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-49983767
Protesters beating other civilians and allegedly making death threats http://www.thestandard.com.hk/section-news.php?id=212525&sid=11&sid=11
Subway stations repeatedly vandalized https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3032094/severely-vandalised-mong-kok-and-kwun-tong-stations-among
General widespread vandalism happening all the time https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=OIqx3YIHntc
Homemade bomb used for the first time during Hong Kong protests: Police
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asia/hong-kong-protests-police-homemade-bomb-mong-kok-11998870
Finally, the UN definition of terrorism and terrorists: The UN act also categorises terrorism as actions or threats intended to compel the government or an international organisation, or to intimidate the public, and made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.
A “terrorist” is defined as a person who commits, or attempts to commit a terrorist act.
Source: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-and-crime/article/3031895/we-cannot-tell-world-hong-kong-grooms-local-terrorists — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.5.158.152 ( talk) 12:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Nothing in this world is "universally" agreed upon. What has been happening in HK meets the definition of rioting, and certain acts that of terrorism as well - this is according to all major English dictionaries. This should be more than enough.
This article should not be based on your opinion or that of the group you represent, rather plain facts. That is it. Rioting is rioting, terrorism is terrorism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.5.158.152 ( talk) 16:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
the word 'riot', riots, rioters included everywhere whwre protesters are mentioned; the damage caused by rioters included
bombs discovered and likned to rioters included
the reaction of Singapore PM included
Great, so we agree on the rioting part, finally. Obviously there were peaceful marches, but almost always they ended up in rioting and burning down of stations, shops, etc. Policemen were brutalized at the airport and set on fire elsewhere. The list is just too long. Some of these acts would fall under the category 'terrorism' - for the definition, please see the link above. By no means do I claim all protestors would fit the bill, but again, read the definition... I am sure you are very well aware of the facts.
As for not trusting the police, that is the opinion of some people, but certainly not the entire population. There have been sizable rallies supporting the government, and so far there have been no evidence to show any set-up or the like. Think of the eye-girl. Any proof? Last I checked she was fighting NOT to release her records. It is possible she was hit by a so-called 'protester' instead of the police. Or the case of Simon Cheung, although that's partially mainland related. Contrary to this, when I refer to riots and potential acts of terrorism, those are all documented. Please think of the attack on the through train... or throwing objects on railway tracks. Or of the paralyzing the airport. Destroying key infrastructure, etc. All in the name of political goals... this meets the criteria outlined above.
If you are suggesting that the bomb incident(s) were fabricated, that is a very serious allegation that you should perhaps report to the appropriate place. You cannot base the article on your opinion or allegations. HK is divided and this article is very one-sided, often distorting the truth and further 'adding oil' between the two camps. It also gives a false image of what is really happening.
As for the international section: again, one sided. The Singapore PM is an important regional figure who made an input that is relevant and should be included. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
139.5.158.152 (
talk)
16:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Great, so before we completely deviate from the original objective, let me respond to your survey claim, which, as expected is completely useless in judging the general opinion of the population. It was conducted on-site, meaning they asked protestors and rioters of their opinion and not the ordinary HK resident (as you implied).
Here is a quote: "As of August 4, the team has conducted a total of 12 onsite surveys, with a total sample size of 6,688 respondents."
It is the same as if you went into an STD clinic and projected the test results to the entire population. It is simply not representative. It can be accessed here: https://sites.google.com/view/antielabsurvey-eng
I ask someone not involved to make the appropriate changes originally requested, keeping the quoted sources and additional information in mind. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.5.158.152 ( talk) 17:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
With the requested sources provided, still waiting for any changes to be implemented. Is anyone even surprised? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.5.158.152 ( talk) 18:16, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
It should be unacceptable to use double standards when it comes to such a sensitive and politically charged topic. In a below discussion you are fine with leaving mere rumors untouched (inviting editors to find "reliable sources"), yet are unwilling to make changes that reflect reality and are supported by countless very reliable sources.
Therefore I still propose the following changes to be made:
- all instances of rioting listed, broken down by day and location. The list is very long indeed, but reliable sources are plenty. I suggest the use of SCMP and the use of a dictionary for the definition of what constitutes rioting
- the damage caused by rioters included (economic damage estimates as well)
- bombs discovered and linked or possibly linked to rioters/terrorists included
- any other acts that by definition may be classified as terrorism listed, as per UN and dictionary definitions
- the reaction of Singapore PM included - a very influential and regional leader
- support by taiwan and the us mentioned
And finally: the title of the article should also be changed. Precedent dictates this, see the article on the 2019 Indonesian protests and riots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.5.158.152 ( talk) 18:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Reliable sources have been provided by multiple people, yet they are being ignored - while mere urban legends are included. Anyone who follows the news knows that the above listed items, without exception, have been confirmed true and correct and are also well documented. They are also very much relevant and precedent from other articles would dictate that they be included.
This page is beyond controversial and manipulative. At this point I am not even hoping for any changes that reflect reality as I have lost all trust in Wikipedia.
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Eggishorn
(talk)
(contrib)
09:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC)The infobox claiming that there have been at least 10 suicides seems to be WP:SYNTH. One source seems to list 9 suicides, but the details are spare and the source is dubious – discuss at best. I'm still discomfited with any explicit claim that something that can be as multifaceted as suicide should be linked causally to a political movement in an infobox. Simonm223 ( talk) 11:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%99%B3%E5%BD%A5%E9%9C%96%E6%AD%BB%E4%BA%A1%E4%BA%8B%E4%BB%B6 /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources
Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.
Junyan Qu ( talk) 11:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junyan Qu ( talk • contribs) 06:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
from the article "which include investigation into alleged police misconduct and resumption of democratic reforms that were promised in the Sino-British Joint Declaration"
Thank you for editing previously to change "promised in Basic Law". However changing to Sino-British Joint Declaration is just jumping from one incorrect information to another. The Joint Declaration did NOT promise any form of democratic reforms. In fact the declaration did NOT mention any democracy, democratic or suffrage. It does mention election three times, while none of those were related to universal suffrage or democratic reforms. Hong Kong is now operating exactly the same as the document declared since 01/07/1997.
Sino-British Joint Declaration 3.4 The chief executive will be appointed by the Central People's Government on the basis of the results of elections or consultations to be held locally.
Annex I The government and legislature of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be composed of local inhabitants. The chief executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be selected by election or through consultations held locally and be appointed by the Central People's Government. Principal officials (equivalent to Secretaries) shall be nominated by the chief executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and appointed by the Central People's Government. The legislature of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be constituted by elections.
References: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Sino-British_Joint_Declaration
https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%201399/v1399.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junyan Qu ( talk • contribs) 02:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Sino-British_Joint_Declaration
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Basic_Law_of_the_Hong_Kong_Special_Administrative_Region — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junyan Qu ( talk • contribs) 05:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
2019 Hong Kong protests has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please change ((Independent)) to ((The Independent))
I think the (All suicides) tag next to deaths should say that this is disputed by various groups with significant evidence that there has been foul play by various groups in Hong Kong which have led to some non-natural deaths.
examples: Chan Yin-lam https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/education/article/3033257/15-year-old-hong-kong-girl-found-dead-sea-had-walked https://www.hongkongfp.com/2019/10/16/protesters-demand-cctv-footage-tiu-keng-leng-school-following-death-15-year-old-student/
Alleged Protestor Death https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/10/hong-kong-authorities-deny-protester-death-claims-after-police-raid https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3026439/hong-kong-protests-officials-attempt-sixth-time-debunk
[Anonymous, 8 Nov 2019, 3:39pm] Someone should add the new death in the carpark: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3036833/hong-kong-student-who-suffered-severe-brain-injury-after — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.64.143.13 ( talk) 07:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Theprussian ( talk) 11:08, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
@
Simonm223: I don't see any "consensus" here for your version, and I fail to see how a figure
WP:SYNTHed from a disparate bunch of news articles regarding individual suicides is better than a Guardian article which states that Since June, protesters have tracked at least nine cases of suicides that appear to be directly linked to the demonstrations.
feminist (
talk)
14:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
It appears the lede does not comply with lede length rules. See MOS:LEADLENGTH. Thanks Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 04:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
There seems to be a edit war regarding the inclusion of US into the infobox under support. United States Congress passed a bill "in support of Hong Kong protesters" [1], this was the direct statement of the bill. Yet users @ Nice4What: and @ Citobun: have removed the US from support saying this is symbolic and not a real support. Here is my argument, if this is not a real support then how come you didn't remove China from support? China did not provide any real support to the Hong Kong Gov neither as far as I know, only verbally supported. Exactly like the US congress did. I'll be waiting for your arguments, meanwhile I reverted back to the old state and it should remain per the sources until a conclusion is reached on its removal. KasimMejia ( talk) 10:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 5 demands. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 00:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 13:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 07:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
the article cited did not accuse police of blocking paramedics from delivering Chow to the hospital. the rumored accusation from the actual article itself include: 1. "that Chow was fleeing from police tear gas" 2. "that Chow was fleeing from officers chasing after him" 3. "pointing guns and batons at people on the scene as Chow was undergoing emergency treatment" 4. "that police had pushed Chow and he fell" and... 5. "blocking ambulance access to Chow" - should not to be confused with blocking the ambulance carrying Chow from going to the hospital - as the current article could mislead someone into believing. I also suggest that we either include all these rumors or include none. It is not our business to conduct OR. "all rumors" refers to ones that the police had responded to - obviously they were widely spread and therefore the police directly answered them during the press. it is also neutral. as we are not picking sides. it is also factual that these are indeed widely spread rumors that had gain public attention. It should also be noted that during the early days, the most widely spread rumors were built on the theory that he had direct contact with police. The ambulance theory was only popularized after Link REIT (owner of the car park) publicly released the video footages. And therefore, by only reporting the rumors about ambulance, we are actively engaging in OR by filtering which rumors is the leading theory on this week's social media. Therefore, either we stick to only the known facts, or we report all leading rumors and let the readers decide for themselves. 192.0.235.66 ( talk) 11:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
The question of violence is crucial in this affair. People are basing their opinions on random videos of violence. This article badly needs a better answer to the question of *who* is committing the violence. A body count, basically, of the injuries and worse committed by each side. Rollo ( talk) 14:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
While I am fully aware that all the "floating corpse" cases and police beating people to death were WP:RUMOR, they do have an impact on the protests. The protests that followed both incidents is mainly driven by protesters' intention to know the truth (thus all the demands to have both MTR/HKDI to release the CCTV footage), instead of merely condemning police brutality or stuff like that. I will say that a whole page dedicated to it is WP:UNDUE but I believed that a very slight mention is justified. OceanHok ( talk) 15:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
First war in history fought entirely within one city by an incompetent police force who believe themselves to be the stars of an action movie on one hand and a bunch of crazed disorganized arsonists on the other and zero actual armies. Simonm223 ( talk) 19:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
here is something in london with an RS https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/11/china-condemns-attack-hong-kong-justice-secretary-london-191115025641028.html seems related Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 07:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
There is a noticeboard discussion on the reliability of Hong Kong Free Press, especially with regard to its reporting on the 2019 Hong Kong protests. If you are interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Is the Hong Kong Free Press a reliable source?. — Newslinger talk 11:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Under the "Objectives" heading, there are 2 instances of misspelling.
Comparison of changes:
Initially, protesters solely demanded the withdrawal of the extradition bill. Following an escalation in the severity of policing tactics against demonstrators on 12 June and the bill's suspension on 15 June, the objective of the protesters has been to achieve the following five demands:[61]
Complete withdrawal of the extradition bill from the legislative process: Although the Chief Executive announced indefinite suspension of the bill on 15 June, reading on it may be quickly resumed. The bill was "pending resumption of second reading" in the Legislative Council. The bill was formally withdrawn on 23 October.[62] Retraction of the "riot" ̶c̶h̶a̶r̶a̶c̶t̶e̶r̶i̶s̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ characterization: The government originally ̶c̶h̶a̶r̶a̶c̶t̶e̶r̶i̶s̶e̶d̶ characterized the 12 June protest as "riots". Later the description was amended to say there were "some" protesters who rioted. However, protesters...
MBabcock87 ( talk) 17:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Why's it necessary to identify the hospital where some people have died? It seems to be recentism and violate WP:NOTNEWS. -- Ohc ¡digame! 13:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
70 year old man argued with protesters that then threw bricks at him, hit his head and knocked him out, life threatening injury, it is now confirmed he is dead. [1] 77.216.111.51 ( talk) 23:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
References
The article current reported the death of a black-clothed man in Tsuen Wan on November 13th. However, why is this reported in this article? The news source did not report the man was engaging in protest nor was there any police presence. The police classified the death as "not suspicious". Given the relationship to protest is not being alleged by the source reference, the inclusion of his death here would constitute WP:OR. If anyone believe the death is related, please provide WP:RS or WP:PRIMARY, such as a police announcement or witness claims or assertions from his family etc.
Also, Apple Daily ( https://hk.news.appledaily.com/local/realtime/article/20191113/60264041) claims that there was indeed a witness who saw the man falling while driving in the area. However, it is not clear if she saw the man jump off the building or she merely saw the body after it had fallen to the ground. But, aside from the article title is called "War against Brutality: Black-clothed youth....", there is no actual mention that the death is in any way related to protest. (I am not sure if Apple Daily is considered RS, as the reporting here really seem like fake news - appears to accuse police brutality in the article caption but not actually saying it in the article?????? The man is later reported to be 30 yr old, so the reporting of "youth" in the title seem somewhat... bad journalism)
Anyways, I think the death should be excluded until an actual RS makes direct assertion that it is related. 192.0.235.66 ( talk) 04:14, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Protip: If a newspaper says, "appears to be," "looks like," "could be," or any other similar conditional construction, it's an opinion and should be excluded. Simonm223 ( talk) 20:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
References
https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3038096/hong-kong-officer-shot-arrow-police-deploy-water-cannons — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.0.235.66 ( talk) 09:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)