This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2019 Yuen Long attack 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 |
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
![]() | 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. |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on July 21, 2023. |
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 ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
![]() | 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 |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
I'm not seeing sources that describe this using the words "terrorist" or "terrorism". For example: NYTimes " mob attack", BBC: " armed mob violence". South China Morning Post has used the word in the sense of " he the chaos and terror", " unleashed terror/terrorising protesters", but not "terrorist" or "terrorism". Although there are reports that " one lawmaker calls incident 'terrorism'", I don't see sources, in their own voice, calling it "terrorism" or a "terrorist attack". Are there any sources, perhaps non-English sources, that describe the attack, in their own voice, as terrorism? – Leviv ich 00:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
The attack has fulfilled all the descriptions of terror attack. So the term terror attack must be included in the description part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pascotam ( talk • contribs) 2019-07-23T09:41:29 (UTC)
@Matthew. I have attached 2 Chinese sources which clearly stated the term „terror attack/terrorism“ have been used. And apart from the written sources, there are YouTube records of the Pro-democracy lawmakers which also used the term „terror attack“ extensively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pascotam ( talk • contribs) 10:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Remove Yuen Long attack for now - no reliable source has characterized it as "terrorist attack" so farat List of terrorist incidents in July 2019.
There are clearly mixed opinions regarding this and I see nothing authoritative either here or in the main article, just various people's opinions.~
@ David Kwan 4:, i took the liberty to merge the discussion thread. As seen in a SCMP article on 23 July (today), the news reporter using the wording "attack", without terror/terrorist. This is not the place for propaganda war in wikipedia. Matthew hk ( talk) 15:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Apple Daily have begun to use the headline "Yuen Long Terrorist Attack" for all articles associated with the incident.--
Patma20 (
talk)
09:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
There are now many English sources describing the events as terrorism. The Civil Human Rights Front is calling it terrorism in their open letter to 61 countries, not to mentioned individual lawmakers making such a reference. Max Chung, the organizer of the 727 Reclaim Yuen Long protest, is calling the upcoming protest as a condemnation of a "terror attack". There are numerous Chinese media calling it as a terrorist attack - and not by a misinterpretation. comment addeby --
Patma20 (
talk)
06:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC) Patma20 —
Patma20 (
talk •
contribs) is a confirmed
sock puppet of
Pascotam (
talk •
contribs).
Apple Daily and the Standnews have all began to refer the attacks as Terrorist Attacks, perhaps due to their further analysis of what happened and the international standards of terrorism. Given the foreign media is unlikely to revisit an old story, and the other mainstream media being pro-establishment entities, this should be enough to label the incidents properly to reflect the seriousness of the event. The Chinese version of this page also labelled it as a terrorist attack, there is a lot more online media in Chinese language labelling the event as terrorism, the English version should reflect for consistency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.64.243.40 ( talk) 2019-07-26T08:37:56 (UTC) — 45.64.243.40 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
元朗襲擊(lit. Yuen Long attack) in
熱門話題(lit. hot topic), but not [Yuen Long] terrorist attack [元朗] 恐怖襲擊. Also, even 2 newspapers did change the wording. There are many other major newspaper in Hong Kong. Matthew hk ( talk) 09:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
立場報道), still used
元朗襲擊wording . See this news article on 26 July. Matthew hk ( talk) 09:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I saw that somebody pinged me. I made the revert very shortly after the incident itself when the reliable sources haven't started calling it a terrorist attack yet. I'd say circumstances have changed and I don't feel strongly either way. I won't object if somebody readded this attack to the list of terrorist attacks. Deryckchan ( talk) 16:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3019574/hong-kong-police-deny-accusation-they-colluded-thugs-who — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
David Kwan 4 (
talk •
contribs)
14:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC) —
David Kwan 4 (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Al Jazeera used the term “masked mob”, BBC used “(armed) mob violence” and France 24 used “mob attack” to describe the incidence.
The term “violence” cannot show the seriousness of the incidence.
I suggest using the BBC term in the title. Namely “Yuen Long (armed) mob violence”. I strongly believe the word “mob” has to be included. Pascotam ( talk) 12:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC) — Pascotam ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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) 06:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
So far there has been no confirmed number of the attackers. Apple Daily mentioned it as many as 1000. But as few as 100 is definitely unbelievable. Pascotam ( talk) 10:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I think currently it is safe to use the word “hundreds” to describe the number of attackers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pascotam ( talk • contribs) 12:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FYI, lede is to summarize the main paragraphs of the article. It is not suitable to put info and fact in lede but absent in the main paragraphs . Currently, the lede failed to summarize the article , as well as the claim of "terror attack" may worth to move to a separate section, which may be named as "Public Response". Matthew hk ( talk) 12:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
According NOW the tv channel, quoting victim, the incident already happened in Yuen Long outside the train station before 10:00pm, thus the location and time in the infobox may need to change. Also, more citation is needed. Matthew hk ( talk) 14:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
their posts here can be struck through. Doug Weller talk 19:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I changed "Suspected" collusion to "Alleged" collusion. I think our job is to report this as allegations, not suspicions. Magnabonzo ( talk) 19:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I noticed that no one talked about the fact the Junius Ho's grave was destroyed by protesters. Can anyone add the fact? [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bohaska ( talk • contribs) 2019-07-26T09:58:47 (UTC) — Bohaska ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
網上昨就事件有不同傳言流傳,內容涉及指控不同派別的人破壞墳墓", as well as
暫未有人被捕, without really suggesting any group including the protesters did it. Matthew hk ( talk) 10:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
References
The result of the move request was: page moved. El_C 18:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC) El_C 18:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
2019 Yuen Long violence →
2019 Yuen Long attack – Per
WP:COMMONNAME and
WP:SPECIFIC. The current title, "... violence", is kind of ambiguous; there might be various 'violence' in Yuen Long, but we should be specific with this major incident. It was in fact an attack. Multiple media outlet also used "attack" too. Cheers.
Wefk423 (
talk)
11:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Yuen Long attack,
a violent attack, NYT on 25 July use
Mob Violence,
...Yuen Long, where thugs believed to be connected with organized crime groups attacked people in and around a train station, The strait stimes on 25 July used
last weekend's attacks, HKFP on 25 July used
violent mob attacks, RTHK on 26 July used
The protest march was planned over an attack by a group of armed men on MTR passengers, SCMP on 24 July used
Victims of the attack at Yuen Long MTR station. Matthew hk ( talk) 13:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject.. The minimum entry requirement was the candidate of the RM proposal, is appeared in the reliable source or at least by context. Matthew hk ( talk) 18:45, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.For example, many article title of football related article are not meant to those completely not understand football. Also, "political attack" is an accusation that violate NPOV, as there is no one to declare their aim or from police investigation, and please read all the wording of newspapers. Matthew hk ( talk) 19:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Here is a look at the history of the triads and their past political violence in Hong Kong.and under sub-section "What is their history of political violence?"
"The attack in Yuen Long was meant to frighten people from attending protests, Professor Lo [盧鐵榮] said", without a firm accusation wording of Yuen Long attack is a new chapter of political violence in Hong Kong by the journalist view. Matthew hk on public computer ( talk) 04:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I had deleted the reaction of Ireland as self revert. As the primary source stated "updated on 16 July", it seem the warning was issued on 16 July 2019, instead of after 21 July. This rumour of cause-and-effect was started in internet forum. Despite it was reported by newspaper The Standard on 24 July, the news reporter did not have a firm wording on cause-and-effect, thus may be too bold to say the Yuen Long attack was the cause of the travel warning, instead of the protests (and police violence) in general. Matthew hk on public computer ( talk) 03:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
It seem it was also reported by UDN, using the article from Central News Agency. But CNA seem quoting TVB, which obviously not a reliable source for this protests. (even the junior staff protest the editorial decision of the senior staff of TVB). Thus, i doubt their ability of fact check and the adjustment of travel warning was happened after 21/7 mob attack. Matthew hk on public computer ( talk) 05:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I've removed the para about Junius Ho from the lede on the basis that it violates WP:GOSSIP. Simply put - a photograph of a person standing next to an anonymous man in a white t-shirt and he-said /she-said about whether He thought this person was one of THOSE white shirts or just a constituent he was greeting as a politician have no place in an encyclopedia. If he is charged, or censured, or faces some sort of career consequence as a result of this, it would likely be due, but still probably not in the lede of the article about the brawl. Simonm223 ( talk) 12:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Several people had fixed the infobox wording again and again, 65.60.163.223 , @ User3204:, please familiar yourself before adding suspects and accusation to infobox ( I mean this, this, this and this) . Please read also the edit summary.
we don't name suspects in the infobox per Consensus( Special:Diff/907529934)
-- Matthew hk ( talk) 07:54, 1 August 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.. Matthew hk ( talk) 08:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Groups of BLPs are still BLPs. Simonm223 ( talk) 00:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
We don't exclude a reliable source just based on its POV. If you accept NYT is reliable, so is China Daily. Just like Ming Pao. Or SCMP. Simonm223 ( talk) 01:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
NYT article is reporting the OPINION of Dr. Lo. Those opinion may notable enough to be summarised in the "reaction" section of this article, as well as the fact that some of the arrested suspect has triad background, should belongs somewhere in the mainbody. However, the full detail are not suitable to put in infobox. We did not put the full list of the suspected true identity of Jack the Ripper in the infobox. Matthew hk on public computer ( talk) 04:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
In zh-wiki there is literally an essay zh:维基百科:是英文维基说的!. It means we don't really care the practice of other wiki, each local wiki had its own binding policy.Matthew hk on public computer ( talk) 04:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Many is too vague - be specific, who are accusing the police according to the reliable sources you cite? Simonm223 ( talk) 11:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
The distinguishing feature of the Yuen Long attacks was the violence perpetrated by thugs associated with local triad groups in New Territories, an area in Hong Kong that borders the city of Shenzhen in mainland China. Triad gangs in New Territories have long had a reputation of being rather close to the mainland authorities. Hiring of thugs or gangsters to beat up protestors and to carry out challenging day-to-day policies are a common phenomenon in mainland China. These thugs are commonly hired by local governments to do dirty jobs that the authorities cannot legitimately send the police to carry out, according to academic research by Lynette Ong, a professor of political science at the University of Toronto (footnote 1). Thugs or gangsters provide local governments with "plausible deniability" and a "veneer of legitimacy" (footnote 2). To be sure, credible evidence suggests thugs were similarly to beat up protestors in Hong Kong during the Occupy Central Movement in 2014 (footnote 3).
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Onglynette ( talk • contribs) 20:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC) — Onglynette ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 00:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
The currently article falsely accuses Junius Ho of being involved in the attack. The accusations are not supported by the actual source articles.
This is the supporting reference currently in the article: https://hk.news.appledaily.com/local/realtime/article/20190722/59848508
The actual article states: 網上流傳一段短片,立法會議員何君堯與大批白衣人握手,更舉拇指及鼓掌稱讚,有白衣人向何君堯稱「你哋係我嘅英雄」。網上亦流傳何君堯與元朗白衣人的合照,元朗有建築物外牆亦出現「聲討禍港泛民議員」的標貼。何在facebook回應指,自己當時只是「晚飯後路過」,因很多市民「很認同我為港敢言發聲支持警察維持治安,要求跟我拍照,我亦樂於接受」,辯稱與「白衣人打黑衣人事件」絕對沒有任何關係。
Translation to English: A video circulating online shows, LegCo member Junius Ho shake hands with white-clothed man (or men), showing thumbs up to indicate support, with the white-clothed man saying "you people are my hero(es)". Social media also circulated Junius Ho in picture with white-clothed man, with the signage "Legislative Member Voicing Criticism of Rioter Who Bring Vileness to Hong Kong" appearing on the wall of building in Yuen Long. Ho responded on facebook, he was "on the way back after dinner", because many citizen "strongly agreed with my courage to speak up for Hong Kong, support of police, support public order, they asked to take photo with me, I gladly accepted", and claimed to have no relation whatsoever with the "White-clothed men attack black-clothed men incident".
(note: the commas in the English translation are in the exact same spot in the Chinese text, therefore it may not be grammatically correct)
The source article from Apply Daily reports the allegation the white-clothed attackers may be members of organized crime. However the article did not accuse Junis being involved in the attack, nor did the article identify the white-clothed man beside Junis was a member of organized crime, or a member who took part in the attack.
I also checked the article from HKFP (in the wiki article), there was no claim made by HKFP that the man who stood by Junius was a member of the white-clothed attackers. Therefore, the wiki article statement "At least one of the white-clothed men who shook hands with Ho has been shown to have been inside Yuen Long Station during the attacks." is completely false.
(aside: This is why I think HKFP has sloppy journalism, they appear to be suggesting the attack and the Junius photo are related, but they are not actually making that assertion in their writing. They also provided no picture showing any similarity between the attackers and the man who stood next to Junius. Nor did they assert the men look the same anywhere in the article. HKFP also never bothered to interview Junius for comment on the incident when reporting him on the incident.)
Anyways, please delete these unsourced allegations. 192.0.235.66 (talk) 01:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.0.235.66 ( talk)
The current article needs some updating based on the latest reports by the IPCC. Has anyone else read it who would like to collaborate with me regarding future edits about the incident? Thomaslam1990 ( talk) 11:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Let's refer to the HK law Cap.575 United Nations (Anti-Terrorism Measures) Ordinance. Section 2 of the law stated the below:
terrorist act means the use or threat of action where
(I)the action is carried out with the intention of, or the threat is made with the intention of using action that would have the effect of
(A)causing serious violence against a person; (B)causing serious damage to property; (C)endangering a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action; (D)creating a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public; (E)seriously interfering with or seriously disrupting an electronic system; or (F)seriously interfering with or seriously disrupting an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private; and
(II)the use or threat is
(A)intended to compel the Government or an international organization or to intimidate the public or a section of the public; and (B)made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause;
My point of view is
1) In 721 incident, are the violence serious? (comparing with firearm shots, bombing, car crashing etc.) Obviously not. It was just some physical fighting between two violent groups. 2) do the mobs conduct the violence to advance any political, religious or ideological cause? No. It was just a clash of two groups who hold different views on the hong kong riot.
As the elements of "effect" and "intent" were both absent in the 721 incident, I cannot see how the incident fit the definition of terrorism or terrorist act. The terrorism-related categories at the bottom of the page should be removed. They are totally misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandy221 ( talk • contribs) 06:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
https://www.facebook.com/truthhkcom/videos/759183001517489/?vh=e&extid=nreAASq0E5YQMEjG
Please watch the above video and you would see how it resulted in the violent scene. Please note how the black clan provoked the white ones by throwing hard objects and using the fire hose. Mandy221 ( talk) 13:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
If you define 721 incident as terrorism, would you name the shooting against george floyd as a terrorist incident as well? Mandy221 ( talk) 13:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
You are welcome to name any publication(s) released by any government/think-tank/CT expert that name 721 incident as a terrorist incident, IF YOU CAN FIND ANY Mandy221 ( talk) 14:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
If you refer to the US Country Report on Terrorism ( https://www.state.gov/reports/country-reports-on-terrorism-2019/) published in June 2020 (almost a year after 721 incident), the section of Hong Kong DID NOT name 721 incident as a terrorist attack, can you explain why? Mandy221 ( talk) 14:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Please make your judgement objectively by referring to the facts but not merely by your biased perceptions. Mandy221 ( talk) 14:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Your videos are totally irrelevant to the discussion as I cannot see how they explain that 721 was a terrorist incident. Also, please note that RTHK has been known for producing biased shows relating to the protests in Hong Kong. Below is one of the examples: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/society/article/3085122/hong-kong-public-broadcaster-apologises-police-over
You are supposed to address my questions: Could you name any publication(s) released by any government/think-tank/CT expert that name 721 incident as a terrorist incident? Mandy221 ( talk) 22:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Citobun, please show some respect. You are welcome to rebut me by giving evidence but not merely by making allegation against me. Mandy221 ( talk) 12:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
moreover, is “indiscriminate” a common element to define terrorist incident? i cannot see this in any international definition. Mandy221 ( talk) 12:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Please remember, I am not meaning the white clan’s actions were right, yes, they were illegal, but that was definitely NOT terrorist incident. Please dont try to exaggerate the incident for whatever purpose. Mandy221 ( talk) 12:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Posted today on the BBC news site. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2019 Yuen Long attack 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 |
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
![]() | 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. |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on July 21, 2023. |
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 ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
![]() | 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 |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
I'm not seeing sources that describe this using the words "terrorist" or "terrorism". For example: NYTimes " mob attack", BBC: " armed mob violence". South China Morning Post has used the word in the sense of " he the chaos and terror", " unleashed terror/terrorising protesters", but not "terrorist" or "terrorism". Although there are reports that " one lawmaker calls incident 'terrorism'", I don't see sources, in their own voice, calling it "terrorism" or a "terrorist attack". Are there any sources, perhaps non-English sources, that describe the attack, in their own voice, as terrorism? – Leviv ich 00:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
The attack has fulfilled all the descriptions of terror attack. So the term terror attack must be included in the description part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pascotam ( talk • contribs) 2019-07-23T09:41:29 (UTC)
@Matthew. I have attached 2 Chinese sources which clearly stated the term „terror attack/terrorism“ have been used. And apart from the written sources, there are YouTube records of the Pro-democracy lawmakers which also used the term „terror attack“ extensively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pascotam ( talk • contribs) 10:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Remove Yuen Long attack for now - no reliable source has characterized it as "terrorist attack" so farat List of terrorist incidents in July 2019.
There are clearly mixed opinions regarding this and I see nothing authoritative either here or in the main article, just various people's opinions.~
@ David Kwan 4:, i took the liberty to merge the discussion thread. As seen in a SCMP article on 23 July (today), the news reporter using the wording "attack", without terror/terrorist. This is not the place for propaganda war in wikipedia. Matthew hk ( talk) 15:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Apple Daily have begun to use the headline "Yuen Long Terrorist Attack" for all articles associated with the incident.--
Patma20 (
talk)
09:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
There are now many English sources describing the events as terrorism. The Civil Human Rights Front is calling it terrorism in their open letter to 61 countries, not to mentioned individual lawmakers making such a reference. Max Chung, the organizer of the 727 Reclaim Yuen Long protest, is calling the upcoming protest as a condemnation of a "terror attack". There are numerous Chinese media calling it as a terrorist attack - and not by a misinterpretation. comment addeby --
Patma20 (
talk)
06:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC) Patma20 —
Patma20 (
talk •
contribs) is a confirmed
sock puppet of
Pascotam (
talk •
contribs).
Apple Daily and the Standnews have all began to refer the attacks as Terrorist Attacks, perhaps due to their further analysis of what happened and the international standards of terrorism. Given the foreign media is unlikely to revisit an old story, and the other mainstream media being pro-establishment entities, this should be enough to label the incidents properly to reflect the seriousness of the event. The Chinese version of this page also labelled it as a terrorist attack, there is a lot more online media in Chinese language labelling the event as terrorism, the English version should reflect for consistency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.64.243.40 ( talk) 2019-07-26T08:37:56 (UTC) — 45.64.243.40 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
元朗襲擊(lit. Yuen Long attack) in
熱門話題(lit. hot topic), but not [Yuen Long] terrorist attack [元朗] 恐怖襲擊. Also, even 2 newspapers did change the wording. There are many other major newspaper in Hong Kong. Matthew hk ( talk) 09:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
立場報道), still used
元朗襲擊wording . See this news article on 26 July. Matthew hk ( talk) 09:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I saw that somebody pinged me. I made the revert very shortly after the incident itself when the reliable sources haven't started calling it a terrorist attack yet. I'd say circumstances have changed and I don't feel strongly either way. I won't object if somebody readded this attack to the list of terrorist attacks. Deryckchan ( talk) 16:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3019574/hong-kong-police-deny-accusation-they-colluded-thugs-who — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
David Kwan 4 (
talk •
contribs)
14:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC) —
David Kwan 4 (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Al Jazeera used the term “masked mob”, BBC used “(armed) mob violence” and France 24 used “mob attack” to describe the incidence.
The term “violence” cannot show the seriousness of the incidence.
I suggest using the BBC term in the title. Namely “Yuen Long (armed) mob violence”. I strongly believe the word “mob” has to be included. Pascotam ( talk) 12:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC) — Pascotam ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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) 06:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
So far there has been no confirmed number of the attackers. Apple Daily mentioned it as many as 1000. But as few as 100 is definitely unbelievable. Pascotam ( talk) 10:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I think currently it is safe to use the word “hundreds” to describe the number of attackers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pascotam ( talk • contribs) 12:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FYI, lede is to summarize the main paragraphs of the article. It is not suitable to put info and fact in lede but absent in the main paragraphs . Currently, the lede failed to summarize the article , as well as the claim of "terror attack" may worth to move to a separate section, which may be named as "Public Response". Matthew hk ( talk) 12:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
According NOW the tv channel, quoting victim, the incident already happened in Yuen Long outside the train station before 10:00pm, thus the location and time in the infobox may need to change. Also, more citation is needed. Matthew hk ( talk) 14:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
their posts here can be struck through. Doug Weller talk 19:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I changed "Suspected" collusion to "Alleged" collusion. I think our job is to report this as allegations, not suspicions. Magnabonzo ( talk) 19:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I noticed that no one talked about the fact the Junius Ho's grave was destroyed by protesters. Can anyone add the fact? [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bohaska ( talk • contribs) 2019-07-26T09:58:47 (UTC) — Bohaska ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
網上昨就事件有不同傳言流傳,內容涉及指控不同派別的人破壞墳墓", as well as
暫未有人被捕, without really suggesting any group including the protesters did it. Matthew hk ( talk) 10:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
References
The result of the move request was: page moved. El_C 18:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC) El_C 18:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
2019 Yuen Long violence →
2019 Yuen Long attack – Per
WP:COMMONNAME and
WP:SPECIFIC. The current title, "... violence", is kind of ambiguous; there might be various 'violence' in Yuen Long, but we should be specific with this major incident. It was in fact an attack. Multiple media outlet also used "attack" too. Cheers.
Wefk423 (
talk)
11:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Yuen Long attack,
a violent attack, NYT on 25 July use
Mob Violence,
...Yuen Long, where thugs believed to be connected with organized crime groups attacked people in and around a train station, The strait stimes on 25 July used
last weekend's attacks, HKFP on 25 July used
violent mob attacks, RTHK on 26 July used
The protest march was planned over an attack by a group of armed men on MTR passengers, SCMP on 24 July used
Victims of the attack at Yuen Long MTR station. Matthew hk ( talk) 13:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject.. The minimum entry requirement was the candidate of the RM proposal, is appeared in the reliable source or at least by context. Matthew hk ( talk) 18:45, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.For example, many article title of football related article are not meant to those completely not understand football. Also, "political attack" is an accusation that violate NPOV, as there is no one to declare their aim or from police investigation, and please read all the wording of newspapers. Matthew hk ( talk) 19:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Here is a look at the history of the triads and their past political violence in Hong Kong.and under sub-section "What is their history of political violence?"
"The attack in Yuen Long was meant to frighten people from attending protests, Professor Lo [盧鐵榮] said", without a firm accusation wording of Yuen Long attack is a new chapter of political violence in Hong Kong by the journalist view. Matthew hk on public computer ( talk) 04:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I had deleted the reaction of Ireland as self revert. As the primary source stated "updated on 16 July", it seem the warning was issued on 16 July 2019, instead of after 21 July. This rumour of cause-and-effect was started in internet forum. Despite it was reported by newspaper The Standard on 24 July, the news reporter did not have a firm wording on cause-and-effect, thus may be too bold to say the Yuen Long attack was the cause of the travel warning, instead of the protests (and police violence) in general. Matthew hk on public computer ( talk) 03:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
It seem it was also reported by UDN, using the article from Central News Agency. But CNA seem quoting TVB, which obviously not a reliable source for this protests. (even the junior staff protest the editorial decision of the senior staff of TVB). Thus, i doubt their ability of fact check and the adjustment of travel warning was happened after 21/7 mob attack. Matthew hk on public computer ( talk) 05:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I've removed the para about Junius Ho from the lede on the basis that it violates WP:GOSSIP. Simply put - a photograph of a person standing next to an anonymous man in a white t-shirt and he-said /she-said about whether He thought this person was one of THOSE white shirts or just a constituent he was greeting as a politician have no place in an encyclopedia. If he is charged, or censured, or faces some sort of career consequence as a result of this, it would likely be due, but still probably not in the lede of the article about the brawl. Simonm223 ( talk) 12:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Several people had fixed the infobox wording again and again, 65.60.163.223 , @ User3204:, please familiar yourself before adding suspects and accusation to infobox ( I mean this, this, this and this) . Please read also the edit summary.
we don't name suspects in the infobox per Consensus( Special:Diff/907529934)
-- Matthew hk ( talk) 07:54, 1 August 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.. Matthew hk ( talk) 08:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Groups of BLPs are still BLPs. Simonm223 ( talk) 00:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
We don't exclude a reliable source just based on its POV. If you accept NYT is reliable, so is China Daily. Just like Ming Pao. Or SCMP. Simonm223 ( talk) 01:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
NYT article is reporting the OPINION of Dr. Lo. Those opinion may notable enough to be summarised in the "reaction" section of this article, as well as the fact that some of the arrested suspect has triad background, should belongs somewhere in the mainbody. However, the full detail are not suitable to put in infobox. We did not put the full list of the suspected true identity of Jack the Ripper in the infobox. Matthew hk on public computer ( talk) 04:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
In zh-wiki there is literally an essay zh:维基百科:是英文维基说的!. It means we don't really care the practice of other wiki, each local wiki had its own binding policy.Matthew hk on public computer ( talk) 04:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Many is too vague - be specific, who are accusing the police according to the reliable sources you cite? Simonm223 ( talk) 11:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
The distinguishing feature of the Yuen Long attacks was the violence perpetrated by thugs associated with local triad groups in New Territories, an area in Hong Kong that borders the city of Shenzhen in mainland China. Triad gangs in New Territories have long had a reputation of being rather close to the mainland authorities. Hiring of thugs or gangsters to beat up protestors and to carry out challenging day-to-day policies are a common phenomenon in mainland China. These thugs are commonly hired by local governments to do dirty jobs that the authorities cannot legitimately send the police to carry out, according to academic research by Lynette Ong, a professor of political science at the University of Toronto (footnote 1). Thugs or gangsters provide local governments with "plausible deniability" and a "veneer of legitimacy" (footnote 2). To be sure, credible evidence suggests thugs were similarly to beat up protestors in Hong Kong during the Occupy Central Movement in 2014 (footnote 3).
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Onglynette ( talk • contribs) 20:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC) — Onglynette ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 00:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
The currently article falsely accuses Junius Ho of being involved in the attack. The accusations are not supported by the actual source articles.
This is the supporting reference currently in the article: https://hk.news.appledaily.com/local/realtime/article/20190722/59848508
The actual article states: 網上流傳一段短片,立法會議員何君堯與大批白衣人握手,更舉拇指及鼓掌稱讚,有白衣人向何君堯稱「你哋係我嘅英雄」。網上亦流傳何君堯與元朗白衣人的合照,元朗有建築物外牆亦出現「聲討禍港泛民議員」的標貼。何在facebook回應指,自己當時只是「晚飯後路過」,因很多市民「很認同我為港敢言發聲支持警察維持治安,要求跟我拍照,我亦樂於接受」,辯稱與「白衣人打黑衣人事件」絕對沒有任何關係。
Translation to English: A video circulating online shows, LegCo member Junius Ho shake hands with white-clothed man (or men), showing thumbs up to indicate support, with the white-clothed man saying "you people are my hero(es)". Social media also circulated Junius Ho in picture with white-clothed man, with the signage "Legislative Member Voicing Criticism of Rioter Who Bring Vileness to Hong Kong" appearing on the wall of building in Yuen Long. Ho responded on facebook, he was "on the way back after dinner", because many citizen "strongly agreed with my courage to speak up for Hong Kong, support of police, support public order, they asked to take photo with me, I gladly accepted", and claimed to have no relation whatsoever with the "White-clothed men attack black-clothed men incident".
(note: the commas in the English translation are in the exact same spot in the Chinese text, therefore it may not be grammatically correct)
The source article from Apply Daily reports the allegation the white-clothed attackers may be members of organized crime. However the article did not accuse Junis being involved in the attack, nor did the article identify the white-clothed man beside Junis was a member of organized crime, or a member who took part in the attack.
I also checked the article from HKFP (in the wiki article), there was no claim made by HKFP that the man who stood by Junius was a member of the white-clothed attackers. Therefore, the wiki article statement "At least one of the white-clothed men who shook hands with Ho has been shown to have been inside Yuen Long Station during the attacks." is completely false.
(aside: This is why I think HKFP has sloppy journalism, they appear to be suggesting the attack and the Junius photo are related, but they are not actually making that assertion in their writing. They also provided no picture showing any similarity between the attackers and the man who stood next to Junius. Nor did they assert the men look the same anywhere in the article. HKFP also never bothered to interview Junius for comment on the incident when reporting him on the incident.)
Anyways, please delete these unsourced allegations. 192.0.235.66 (talk) 01:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.0.235.66 ( talk)
The current article needs some updating based on the latest reports by the IPCC. Has anyone else read it who would like to collaborate with me regarding future edits about the incident? Thomaslam1990 ( talk) 11:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Let's refer to the HK law Cap.575 United Nations (Anti-Terrorism Measures) Ordinance. Section 2 of the law stated the below:
terrorist act means the use or threat of action where
(I)the action is carried out with the intention of, or the threat is made with the intention of using action that would have the effect of
(A)causing serious violence against a person; (B)causing serious damage to property; (C)endangering a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action; (D)creating a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public; (E)seriously interfering with or seriously disrupting an electronic system; or (F)seriously interfering with or seriously disrupting an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private; and
(II)the use or threat is
(A)intended to compel the Government or an international organization or to intimidate the public or a section of the public; and (B)made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause;
My point of view is
1) In 721 incident, are the violence serious? (comparing with firearm shots, bombing, car crashing etc.) Obviously not. It was just some physical fighting between two violent groups. 2) do the mobs conduct the violence to advance any political, religious or ideological cause? No. It was just a clash of two groups who hold different views on the hong kong riot.
As the elements of "effect" and "intent" were both absent in the 721 incident, I cannot see how the incident fit the definition of terrorism or terrorist act. The terrorism-related categories at the bottom of the page should be removed. They are totally misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandy221 ( talk • contribs) 06:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
https://www.facebook.com/truthhkcom/videos/759183001517489/?vh=e&extid=nreAASq0E5YQMEjG
Please watch the above video and you would see how it resulted in the violent scene. Please note how the black clan provoked the white ones by throwing hard objects and using the fire hose. Mandy221 ( talk) 13:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
If you define 721 incident as terrorism, would you name the shooting against george floyd as a terrorist incident as well? Mandy221 ( talk) 13:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
You are welcome to name any publication(s) released by any government/think-tank/CT expert that name 721 incident as a terrorist incident, IF YOU CAN FIND ANY Mandy221 ( talk) 14:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
If you refer to the US Country Report on Terrorism ( https://www.state.gov/reports/country-reports-on-terrorism-2019/) published in June 2020 (almost a year after 721 incident), the section of Hong Kong DID NOT name 721 incident as a terrorist attack, can you explain why? Mandy221 ( talk) 14:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Please make your judgement objectively by referring to the facts but not merely by your biased perceptions. Mandy221 ( talk) 14:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Your videos are totally irrelevant to the discussion as I cannot see how they explain that 721 was a terrorist incident. Also, please note that RTHK has been known for producing biased shows relating to the protests in Hong Kong. Below is one of the examples: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/society/article/3085122/hong-kong-public-broadcaster-apologises-police-over
You are supposed to address my questions: Could you name any publication(s) released by any government/think-tank/CT expert that name 721 incident as a terrorist incident? Mandy221 ( talk) 22:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Citobun, please show some respect. You are welcome to rebut me by giving evidence but not merely by making allegation against me. Mandy221 ( talk) 12:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
moreover, is “indiscriminate” a common element to define terrorist incident? i cannot see this in any international definition. Mandy221 ( talk) 12:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Please remember, I am not meaning the white clan’s actions were right, yes, they were illegal, but that was definitely NOT terrorist incident. Please dont try to exaggerate the incident for whatever purpose. Mandy221 ( talk) 12:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Posted today on the BBC news site. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC)