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. |
Hong Kong Black Police was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 19 January 2020 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Police misconduct allegations during the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
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. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
After this article was split from the
2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests article, some of the
named references are no longer linked to the source information. Affected references show up as a "Cite error" instead of a citation in the References section. To fix this, we'll need to find the source information from all of the original citations before the split (
Special:Permalink/912297542) and populate them into this article. —
Newslinger
talk
07:11, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
@ OceanHok: Several comments:
It is my impression that throughout a vast majority of the protests to date, police have very consistently not displayed any form of identifying information, as prescribed by law.
Currently, the
Lack of identification section only gives a couple of examples. It would be good to find some sources that can further explain this trend, and how prevalent it is.
65.60.163.223 (
talk)
04:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Can we at least get a better one? Volunteer Marek 00:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Seriously, likening the situation in Hong Kong to the Rwandan genocide is tacky, inappropriate and WP:UNDUE - anybody who is claiming that the situation is comparable to a genocide is expressing a WP:FRINGE opinion. As such it doesn't merit inclusion here. Simonm223 ( talk) 13:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Believe there has been two shots fired (one with intent to kill) either today or yesterday. One was shot in the hand, other was shot towards the heart without warning (this has gained more fame). Wondering if anybody has added these. Sometaintedlove ( talk) 21:08, 1 October 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.
This article overlaps significantly with a large section of Controversies of the Hong Kong Police Force. I suggest a merge from this article to the general one to consolidate the overlapping focus and repeated material across the two articles. — MarkH21 ( talk) 07:49, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
The role of the police in the situation is notable, but the "Allegations of ..." is effectively a disorganized list with weak selection criteria. Based on the way that the article is introduced and its title, the article is a list of any allegation ever reported by RS, rather than a comprehensive coverage and prose description of the role of the HK police in the protests. This does not do the topic justice and lends itself to a bit of a mess when it comes to article readability.
I am suggesting moving the article to Hong Kong Police Force misconduct during the 2019 Hong Kong protests and refocusing the existing content. — MarkH21 ( talk) 06:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I’ve added a POV tag, since there are potential issues with maintaining a neutral point of view. Many of the allegations are made in WP voice and are exclusively sourced to the same few (disputably partisan) sources such as the Hong Kong Free Press. Having a breadth of reliable sources on allegations before using WP voice would alleviate this concern. — MarkH21 ( talk) 15:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
It seems like anytime any outlet has repeated any accusation, no matter how vague or minor about a police officer, it's been put in this article. I've removed some of the most WP:CRUFT like pieces here. But consider this: there are accusations against the Hong Kong Police force that actually are quite serious, and if they are found to be true would demonstrate systemic problems with the force.
But some of these are getting drowned out by saying things like police were "grinning" or affixed a strap to the front of their baton. This stuff seems like irrelevant (in the former) and fishing (in the latter) and neither forward the Wikipedia objective of neutrally discussing some very troubling accusations. In fact they make the article look like amateur hour. This also goes for things like proposing police arresting people in a mall constitutes break and entry on the part of the cops just because the mall owners didn't call them. Let's please try to restrict this article to what is WP:DUE per WP:10YT and similar guidance. If your goal is to present a clear, neutral and truthful perspective on possible instances of police misconduct during these protests, doing so will be to your advantage. Simonm223 ( talk) 18:22, 1 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)
At some stage the "has been", "has decided", etc, will need to be switched to plain past tense. Tony (talk) 05:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
It was only today that I became aware of an edit made only a minute after my last edit, on 1 May (I don't know if the rapid succession of the edits was a random incidence). It removed words containing "allege" throughout the article (it seems), the sort of thing that could easily be done in an automated process, though I don't say that this was the source.
I wish to advise of this incident because I think that, with an article nominated for deletion, it is extra critical that such sharpening of language is not advised unless supported by references; and because I think the page ought to be watched more closely to detect such issues more quickly in the future. -- CRau080 ( talk) 22:19, 5 May 2020 (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) 01:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
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. |
Hong Kong Black Police was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 19 January 2020 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Police misconduct allegations during the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
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. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
After this article was split from the
2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests article, some of the
named references are no longer linked to the source information. Affected references show up as a "Cite error" instead of a citation in the References section. To fix this, we'll need to find the source information from all of the original citations before the split (
Special:Permalink/912297542) and populate them into this article. —
Newslinger
talk
07:11, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
@ OceanHok: Several comments:
It is my impression that throughout a vast majority of the protests to date, police have very consistently not displayed any form of identifying information, as prescribed by law.
Currently, the
Lack of identification section only gives a couple of examples. It would be good to find some sources that can further explain this trend, and how prevalent it is.
65.60.163.223 (
talk)
04:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Can we at least get a better one? Volunteer Marek 00:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Seriously, likening the situation in Hong Kong to the Rwandan genocide is tacky, inappropriate and WP:UNDUE - anybody who is claiming that the situation is comparable to a genocide is expressing a WP:FRINGE opinion. As such it doesn't merit inclusion here. Simonm223 ( talk) 13:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Believe there has been two shots fired (one with intent to kill) either today or yesterday. One was shot in the hand, other was shot towards the heart without warning (this has gained more fame). Wondering if anybody has added these. Sometaintedlove ( talk) 21:08, 1 October 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.
This article overlaps significantly with a large section of Controversies of the Hong Kong Police Force. I suggest a merge from this article to the general one to consolidate the overlapping focus and repeated material across the two articles. — MarkH21 ( talk) 07:49, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
The role of the police in the situation is notable, but the "Allegations of ..." is effectively a disorganized list with weak selection criteria. Based on the way that the article is introduced and its title, the article is a list of any allegation ever reported by RS, rather than a comprehensive coverage and prose description of the role of the HK police in the protests. This does not do the topic justice and lends itself to a bit of a mess when it comes to article readability.
I am suggesting moving the article to Hong Kong Police Force misconduct during the 2019 Hong Kong protests and refocusing the existing content. — MarkH21 ( talk) 06:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I’ve added a POV tag, since there are potential issues with maintaining a neutral point of view. Many of the allegations are made in WP voice and are exclusively sourced to the same few (disputably partisan) sources such as the Hong Kong Free Press. Having a breadth of reliable sources on allegations before using WP voice would alleviate this concern. — MarkH21 ( talk) 15:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
It seems like anytime any outlet has repeated any accusation, no matter how vague or minor about a police officer, it's been put in this article. I've removed some of the most WP:CRUFT like pieces here. But consider this: there are accusations against the Hong Kong Police force that actually are quite serious, and if they are found to be true would demonstrate systemic problems with the force.
But some of these are getting drowned out by saying things like police were "grinning" or affixed a strap to the front of their baton. This stuff seems like irrelevant (in the former) and fishing (in the latter) and neither forward the Wikipedia objective of neutrally discussing some very troubling accusations. In fact they make the article look like amateur hour. This also goes for things like proposing police arresting people in a mall constitutes break and entry on the part of the cops just because the mall owners didn't call them. Let's please try to restrict this article to what is WP:DUE per WP:10YT and similar guidance. If your goal is to present a clear, neutral and truthful perspective on possible instances of police misconduct during these protests, doing so will be to your advantage. Simonm223 ( talk) 18:22, 1 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)
At some stage the "has been", "has decided", etc, will need to be switched to plain past tense. Tony (talk) 05:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
It was only today that I became aware of an edit made only a minute after my last edit, on 1 May (I don't know if the rapid succession of the edits was a random incidence). It removed words containing "allege" throughout the article (it seems), the sort of thing that could easily be done in an automated process, though I don't say that this was the source.
I wish to advise of this incident because I think that, with an article nominated for deletion, it is extra critical that such sharpening of language is not advised unless supported by references; and because I think the page ought to be watched more closely to detect such issues more quickly in the future. -- CRau080 ( talk) 22:19, 5 May 2020 (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) 01:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)