A news item involving 2019 Hong Kong extradition bill was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 10 June 2019. |
This article is written in Hong Kong English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, travelled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
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 B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
I'd like to query the removal of the section entitled "Colonial-era officials". I think breaking it up makes it clearer. Can anyone tell me in what way is it unsuitable? -- Ohc ¡digame! 14:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Having read the article and looked at many source documents, it seems to me that there may be substantial amounts of close paraphrasing in the article. I would invite all editors to examine the article and remove any such instances that may have been copied from the news articles without sufficient attention. -- Ohc ¡digame! 07:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello all. I feel like there will be more developments on the protests against the bill, especially the 11/6 and 12/6 protests. As it will become very lengthy, should the protest content be moved to a new article? – Wefk423 ( talk) 13:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
The description of number of protesters (hundreds of and thousands of) retrieved from Washington Post may be misleading, especially when it was posted on the main page. I think a specific number, such as "1.03 million (claimed by the Civil Human Rights Front) or 240,000 (claimed by the police)" retrieved from NPR may be better. -- BrandNew Jim Zhang (talk) 13:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
The two numbers are both correct. the lower figure is the peak number of the crowd. given that it was an all day protest, most people did not stay for the entire day but participated for part of the time. a crowd of 240 000 people is a significant number of people from a crowd control perspective which is why the police gave that number. over a million attended the protests but not for the entire day. There have been misconceptions created in the western media that the Hong Kong authorities under counted the number. 49.198.7.235 ( talk) 02:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Could a legally trained person please try and either reduce the legal jargon, or explain it better? It would be helpful to have the bullet points include whether people are opposed to them, or not, and why exactly. The whole issue is generally clear, but the details are murky to innocent bystanders. 72.141.106.240 ( talk) 18:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I commented out the long description in the infobox with edit summary "far too long for an infobox" but it was reverted by Lmmnhn without explanation. Therefore I am initiating discussion here. In my view, the infobox is for a short summary and essential data, and this huge description does not belong there. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 21:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 00:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: move to 2019 Hong Kong extradition bill. There is clear consensus for a move, and weak consensus for "2019 Hong Kong extradition bill" rather than the originally proposed "Hong Kong extradition bill 2019". ( closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 ( talk) 19:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 → Hong Kong extradition bill 2019 – excessive and unused official name Viztor ( talk) 18:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that.— Nizolan (talk) 14:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Prefer titles that reflect the name commonly used in reliable sources.--- Coffeeand crumbs 15:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Null result on a text search for "Assange" gives a good idea. The people who brought to the world "rendition" of political opponents for torture and murder and who want to extradite Assange to terrorise all who would speak of their deeds, and who can order rent-a-crowd in Hong Kong against extradition of common criminals, would have no difficulty spamming Wikipedia with thousands of pages like this. Is it because they are desperate that they go overboard and lose credibility by their absurd abuses? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.166.16.4 ( talk) 15:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
-- Xavdeman ( talk) 00:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
The status is listed as “halted”. Carrie Lam has said that the bill is “dead”, but has not withdrawn it. [1] Should the status bar reflect the political status of the bill (which is ambiguous anyway) or its legal status? My understanding is that there is no timeframe for a second reading but that the government could give notice at any point for one. [2] I think that “second reading indefinitely suspended” or “notice of second reading withdrawn by government” would be more accurate. Docentation ( talk) 10:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
References
Hello all. The Demonstrations sections of this article only includes 4 events out of the many major protests. Since it doesn't seem to be updated and detailed enough, I was wondering if we should clear them all and simply replace it with a main template linking to the main protest article? – Wefk423 ( talk) 17:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
See https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/hongkong-protests-extradition-narrative/ for excellent content in this matter. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 15:00, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 14:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
The initial paragraph above the infobox is a bit long and therefore difficult to read; and I do not have the knowledge of the subject matter to change it. Could someone who does have the sufficient knowledge maybe cut down the first paragraph a bit? AquariusMallard ( talk) 13:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
A news item involving 2019 Hong Kong extradition bill was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 10 June 2019. |
This article is written in Hong Kong English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, travelled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
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 B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
I'd like to query the removal of the section entitled "Colonial-era officials". I think breaking it up makes it clearer. Can anyone tell me in what way is it unsuitable? -- Ohc ¡digame! 14:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Having read the article and looked at many source documents, it seems to me that there may be substantial amounts of close paraphrasing in the article. I would invite all editors to examine the article and remove any such instances that may have been copied from the news articles without sufficient attention. -- Ohc ¡digame! 07:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello all. I feel like there will be more developments on the protests against the bill, especially the 11/6 and 12/6 protests. As it will become very lengthy, should the protest content be moved to a new article? – Wefk423 ( talk) 13:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
The description of number of protesters (hundreds of and thousands of) retrieved from Washington Post may be misleading, especially when it was posted on the main page. I think a specific number, such as "1.03 million (claimed by the Civil Human Rights Front) or 240,000 (claimed by the police)" retrieved from NPR may be better. -- BrandNew Jim Zhang (talk) 13:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
The two numbers are both correct. the lower figure is the peak number of the crowd. given that it was an all day protest, most people did not stay for the entire day but participated for part of the time. a crowd of 240 000 people is a significant number of people from a crowd control perspective which is why the police gave that number. over a million attended the protests but not for the entire day. There have been misconceptions created in the western media that the Hong Kong authorities under counted the number. 49.198.7.235 ( talk) 02:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Could a legally trained person please try and either reduce the legal jargon, or explain it better? It would be helpful to have the bullet points include whether people are opposed to them, or not, and why exactly. The whole issue is generally clear, but the details are murky to innocent bystanders. 72.141.106.240 ( talk) 18:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I commented out the long description in the infobox with edit summary "far too long for an infobox" but it was reverted by Lmmnhn without explanation. Therefore I am initiating discussion here. In my view, the infobox is for a short summary and essential data, and this huge description does not belong there. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 21:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 00:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: move to 2019 Hong Kong extradition bill. There is clear consensus for a move, and weak consensus for "2019 Hong Kong extradition bill" rather than the originally proposed "Hong Kong extradition bill 2019". ( closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 ( talk) 19:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 → Hong Kong extradition bill 2019 – excessive and unused official name Viztor ( talk) 18:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that.— Nizolan (talk) 14:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Prefer titles that reflect the name commonly used in reliable sources.--- Coffeeand crumbs 15:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Null result on a text search for "Assange" gives a good idea. The people who brought to the world "rendition" of political opponents for torture and murder and who want to extradite Assange to terrorise all who would speak of their deeds, and who can order rent-a-crowd in Hong Kong against extradition of common criminals, would have no difficulty spamming Wikipedia with thousands of pages like this. Is it because they are desperate that they go overboard and lose credibility by their absurd abuses? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.166.16.4 ( talk) 15:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
-- Xavdeman ( talk) 00:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
The status is listed as “halted”. Carrie Lam has said that the bill is “dead”, but has not withdrawn it. [1] Should the status bar reflect the political status of the bill (which is ambiguous anyway) or its legal status? My understanding is that there is no timeframe for a second reading but that the government could give notice at any point for one. [2] I think that “second reading indefinitely suspended” or “notice of second reading withdrawn by government” would be more accurate. Docentation ( talk) 10:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
References
Hello all. The Demonstrations sections of this article only includes 4 events out of the many major protests. Since it doesn't seem to be updated and detailed enough, I was wondering if we should clear them all and simply replace it with a main template linking to the main protest article? – Wefk423 ( talk) 17:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
See https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/hongkong-protests-extradition-narrative/ for excellent content in this matter. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 15:00, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 14:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
The initial paragraph above the infobox is a bit long and therefore difficult to read; and I do not have the knowledge of the subject matter to change it. Could someone who does have the sufficient knowledge maybe cut down the first paragraph a bit? AquariusMallard ( talk) 13:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)