![]() |
Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
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 List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Material from 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests was split to International reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests on 2019-08-24. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests. |
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
Would it be beneficial to list out the reactions from various businesses? 71.211.175.77 ( talk) 22:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
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. —Â
NewslingerÂ
talk
07:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Starting this discussion here and will link from the main page. But as I've asserted previously, it's deeply POV to treat Chinese government reactions as "international" in this context. Simonm223 ( talk) 12:16, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved. ( non-admin closure)  samee  converse 18:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Newslinger:, @ Jax 0677:, User talk:65.60.163.223, @ Wefk423:: Per the above, I propose renaming this article. It's the easiest way to solve the "pov" problem and would also allow us to add information about what hong kong government reaction, which we don't even get in the main article. We can divide the section up into "Domestic" (this would include the stuff we have right now about the "Chinese government and media") and "International" (the stuff from the article we currently have would fall under there) Comments from any of you are welcomed. Flaughtin ( talk) 21:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
International reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong protests → Reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong protests – This article currently mentions the Chinese government's response to the protests. Considering the sovereignty dispute that is central to the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests, the proposed title is a more neutral title than the current one. This is the easiest solution to implement, and it sidesteps the sovereignty issue entirely. Converting this discussion into a requested move to get input from more editors. — Newslinger talk 02:45, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
I found (and renamed) this page on the New Pages Feed, and I think its content should be merged here, assuming that it is in fact renamed merely "Reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests". If it is then subsequently split up I have no opinion as to where this content should go. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 19:45, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
"attacking pro-Hong Kong solidarity protests in New Zealand and defending violent opposition against these protests" in reaction of New Zealand.
I believed it is not suitable. First, Chinese government and anti-protest figure also claimed they are pro-Hong Kong. Second, "violent" is better used when actions (military, police) had done by Chinese government. Mariogoods ( talk) 11:51, 9 September 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) 12:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
There is no consensus for a split of Reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong protests to new articles titled International reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong protests, Domestic reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong protests, Chinese government and media reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong protests and Worldwide solidarity protests related to the 2019 Hong Kong protests.
Support split - Article is over 100 kB, and should be split to new articles entitled International reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong protests, Domestic reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong protests, Chinese government and media reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong protests and Worldwide solidarity protests related to the 2019 Hong Kong protests. Thoughts? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 16:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Simonm223:, I have seen that you have made serveal editing which removed many contents. I believed that we should gain consequence first since the protests are occuring and some contents are important to mention. Mariogoods ( talk) 22:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
OceanHok I didn't revert your second edit because I thought your arguments merited discussion there at least. However, from my perspective, the July 15 statement from Lam does not represent any significant turning point on the evolution of her position on the issue. On July 9 she said "the bill was dead" and started facing criticism for vagueness. That she said vague things and faced criticism on July 15 is literally repetition. As such, I don't think that it contributes anything to a public understanding of this event. Simonm223 ( talk) 11:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Is there a consensus on the number of these that should be included in here and up to when (if at all)? Seems like the past weekend of worldwide protests specifically mentioned in solidarity with Hong Kong would be worth mentioning - I saw SBS News in Australia linking those to the weekend of protests in Hong Kong. Yny501 ( talk) 04:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
I think these two incidents should be split off into own article and the corresponding info from respective article merged into it since it does not fall into government reaction. SYSS Mouse ( talk) 01:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
This entry is entirely biased. There is no portray of the violent riots, including the use of Molotov cocktails, melee weapons such as metal pipes. There is no mention of the bullying and beating of anybody who holds a different political view by the rioters. There is no mention of the mass deletion of accounts on Twitter, Facebook or even Youtube who are sympathetic to the HKSAR and Chinese governments.
Magnetic Flux ( talk) 15:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@ Mariogoods: I don’t see Lam mentioned in any of the three articles: SCMP, Reuters , Guardian.
There are some mentions about lawmakers condemning them for not having been asked by the government and not asking the government, with counter-reactions. This could be added, but would have to be attributed to them, and would have to include the counter-reactions (e.g. SCMP’s mention of counter-reactions). That seems a bit undue WP:PROMINENCE for the incident right now. — MarkH21 ( talk) 23:54, 17 November 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.
I propose that the section Domestic responses be split into a separate page called Domestic reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong protests. The section is large enough to make its own page. RealFakeKim ( talk) 12:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Length alone does not justify divisionby WP:SPLIT. Most “reactions†articles also do not split domestic and international reactions. This split seems entirely unnecessary. — MarkH21 talk 19:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
This article has a very detailed illustration of the movement. According to Wikipedia notice, this article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. I think to simply list out various countries’ responses do not help illustration the movement itself, please consider splitting content into sub-articles, condensing it, or adding subheadings. Moreover, the movement has its unique historical background and it would be helpful to add it so that people can better understand. Lastly, since this is a political topic that may be edited several times by the supporters from multiple parties, it is essential to keep it in a neutral perspective. Many sources that the article cited is from the media and obvious has its own bias or support towards a specific party or authority. The picture in the article is political-biased and should not be used (the black and white pic) Ziyuanying ( talk) 02:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
The article is incredibly informative and explains the Hong Kong protests very well. The following sentence from the "Allegation of foreign interference" section should be altered: "The meeting came after German Chancellor Angela Merkel's trip to the PRC, where she said that the rights and freedoms of people in Hong Kong "must be guaranteed" and to whom Wong had written an open letter seeking her backing for the protests." The subject of second clause of the sentence is unclear. This should be broken up into two sentences. The first sentence ending with "guaranteed." The second sentence stating, "Additionally, Wong wrote an open letter to Chancellor Merkel seeking her backing for the protests." The following sentence from the "Customs Changes" section should also be altered because the sentence structure is grammatically incorrect: "Chinese government has required goods mailed from Mainland China to Hong Kong to be investigated while goods which are believed as related to the protests are forbidden to mailing." It should read, "Hong Kong government has required goods shipped from Mainland China to be investigated, and goods related to the protests are forbidden from being mailed at all." The message is clear throughout the article, but it would be easier to understand if the sections were edited for conciseness and proper grammar. Bribrisweet ( talk) 21:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
I think the article is written in a neutral tone, and lays out, in detail, the vastly different responses from a variety of political parties. I felt that the Government section (under Government but before pro-government parties) could be broken down into several sub categories, for example, by timeline of events. Additionally, for the sake of understanding the context behind China's pressure in Hong Kong, it may be beneficial to provide context as to how Hong Kong's government officials formally report to Beijing. It would also be beneficial to explain the "one country, two systems" policy, in which Hong Kong would lose its full autonomy 50 years after 1997. This would provide context to the anger of the Hong Kong people and the adamancy of the Chinese government. Cathymeng123 ( talk) 00:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
International reactions to the protests seem to be split across a number of pages, with apparently no consistency of what content should go where.
For example, the first article contains info on how the UK said they would open up a path for BNO nationals, a statement which is notable but is in direct response to the National Security Bill itself. That article isn't updated with the progress of that info, and how the right was actually granted, but the next 2 articles are. It seems like the bulk of the UK response has been collated on the 3rd page, although some info is scattered across the other pages. In contrast, the US response is mostly collated on this page and the 2nd page, with little mention on the 3rd page, where the UK response is listed. There's a significant bulk of reaction on the first page with no organisation.
This is a mess that lacks consistency, and if I'm looking for info on the UK response I had to scour through 4 pages to find where the bulk is, plus find some additions from the others. Same for the US one, except it's on a different page. These pages do not interlink to each other, for the most part, which makes it even harder to find.
Specifically, per WP:MERGEREASON, I believe reasons of duplicate and overlap apply here.
I'm proposing portions of these - specifically, the international response of countries who have done more than express their discontent, such as the Five Eyes countries - be merged in some form and, for the most part, be collated on the same page. ProcrasinatingReader ( talk) 19:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@ ProcrasinatingReader: Kingsif ( talk) 02:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Regarding this WP:POINT removal:
toughest sanction yet imposed on Chinain relation to Hong Kong ( Axios), thus assessment of U.S. media coverage is inherently WP:DUE.
"Waterboarding Is Not Torture": Torture is what "left-wingers associate with anything that makes an accused terrorist uncomfortable".
 – Goss 2009
AIM rejects the scientific consensus on climate change
 – Goss 2009
It is apparent that he [Barack Obama] is a member of an international socialist movement
 – Goss 2009
Subsection split off 23:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
The source is marginally reliable (i.e. neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable), and may be usable depending on contextper WP:MREL. Here, I think that its inclusion is fine, given that the text uses WP:INTEXT attribution. Accuracy in Media is a separate source whose reliability has to be assessed separately. Its reliability and merit for inclusion is not based on the false equivalence of "if that progressive watchdog is included then this conservative watchdog must be included". — MarkH21 talk 12:08, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact( WP:RSEDITORIAL), with exceptions if the author is a subject-matter expert (which does not appear to be the case here). Just reporting that an opinion piece says something isn’t WP:DUE, unless the opinion piece is from a subject-matter expert or more broadly reported by other RSes. — MarkH21 talk 18:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
[[User talk:MarkH21]]
, that doesn't properly send a ping. Use either [[User:MarkH21]]
, {{u|MarkH21}}
, or {{ping|MarkH21}}
instead. As for FAIR report and the Reuters opinion article:
All or nothingWP:INCIVIL snipes at the end are becoming disruptive. CaradhrasAiguo ( leave language) 16:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
You're bringing up several different points here. So one by one:
media watchdogor
media critique organization, such as this academic book, this academic journal article, this academic encyclopedia by SAGE, this academic encyclopedia by Routledge, Encyclopaedia Britannica, the aforementioned CNBC article, and the aformentioned HKFP article. Several RSes go further in their analysis of FAIR (emphasis mine):
FAIR's source studies have consistently shown that mainstream media heavily favor corporate and government elites and marginalize minority, female, public interest, and dissenting viewpoints. [...] FAIR [has] an important place to keep watch over the watchers.
— Anderson, Gary; Herr, Kathryn (2007). Encyclopedia of Activism and Social Justice. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781412956215. ISBN 978-1-4129-1812-1.
FAIR dedicates itself to researching and exposing the exclusion of viewpoints and distortions in the mainstream press. To this end, the organization conducts extensive research focused on the output of the media and publishes its findings in several forums.
—  Ness, Immanuel (2015). Encyclopedia of Interest Groups and Lobbyists in the United States (1 ed.). Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781315704739. ISBN 978-1-315-70473-9.
Over the past 20 years, the media advocacy group, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), has issued a series of studies criticizing the PBS NewsHour for having an "establishment bias" and a lack of diversity in news sourcing. However, the perception of FAIR as a liberal advocacy group, and various methodological ambiguities, establish the need for an independent cross-verification of their research findings. A partial replication and a comparative analysis with the alternative independent newscast, Democracy Now!, confirm and validate many of FAIR's claims regarding the narrow sourcing practices of the PBS NewsHour.
— Scott, David; Chanslor, Mike; Dixon, Jennifer (2010). "FAIR and the PBS NewsHour: Assessing Diversity and Elitism in News Sourcing". Communication Quarterly. 58 (3): 319–340. doi: 10.1080/01463373.2010.503165. ISSN 0146-3373.
a media critique organization based in New York, a
US media watch group, or that "Several Chinese media reports and Carrie Lam have pointed to this specific FAIR report. They do not support the claim within the FAIR report, but they establish verifiable facts about the report.
As of right now, CaradhrasAiguo and I found this FAIR report to represent a significant viewpoint that has reported by independent RSes, and there is evidence towards its reliability in general from other RSes. If you still disagree for whatever reason, you can bring up an RfC for example to bring in external editors to build broader consensus about FAIR's inclusion in this article or perhaps a new RSN RfC about FAIR (since this is becoming quite general beyond the scope of this article alone). — MarkH21 talk 06:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
FAIR is a (partisan) reliable and significant source when it comes to reports on journalistic practicesso I explained RS aspects of FAIR.You are making a false equivalence between
no consensus over its reliabilityand
a source of dubious reliability. There is a distinction between these. Something can be
marginally reliable (i.e. neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable), and may be usable depending on context( WP:MREL) as FAIR is classified in RSP, without being
questionable in most cases( WP:GUNREL) which is closer to how most people would interpret the word
dubious. I never claimed that FAIR is categorically generally reliable. We're talking about a limited context concerning reports about journalistic biases in the United States.Re WP:WEIGHT, the FAIR report was cited by Chinese media and Carrie Lam (as noted by the CNBC & HKFP articles), The Star (Malaysia) in this article, and this article in Chile Today. The viewpoint from these sources and others (e.g. this article from Asia Times, this article in the Journal of the European Institute for Communication and Culture, this article in the academic journal Educational Philosophy and Theory, this article from USC Annenberg Media, this interview with USC Professor Stanley Rosen) that there is media bias in US media reports (or more broadly Western media reports) of the HK protests does not contradict the RS reports about media bias in Chinese media reports. It's not a fringe viewpoint that there is bias in both media.Do you mean an RfC on this specific inclusion of the FAIR report? — MarkH21 talk 22:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Opening a separate subsection for the column from Accuracy in Media, since it is separate from the discussion about FAIR above. The AIM column was mentioned in this article as:
The politically conservative media watchdog Accuracy In Media said that overall, the mainstream media had done an adequate job in describing the Hong Kong protests, pointing to the fact that the media had noted the aggressive tactics employed by both Hong Kong’s police force and the protesters. Some examples that the watchdog used as evidence of the adequacy of the media representation included CNN's reporting of the Death of Luo Changqing and NBC's reporting of the siege of the Hong Kong Polytechnic University. [1]
This isn't even a report from AIM, it's from their staff column. Even non-column reports from AIM may not be reliable for statements of fact (which CaradhrasAiguo raised above), but an AIM column is probably not RS. Yes, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, but there are serious concerns about the reliability of the column itself. I also haven't found any RS mentions of this report. — MarkH21 talk 16:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
That's what the guideline for reliable source says. Does Spencer Irvine's column have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Is Spencer Irvine a reliable author? There's no evidence for that.A source's citation mode does not establish reliability. There are awful unreliable sources that cite things properly. Anybody can write a garbage blog and cite thing. — MarkH21 talk 22:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC)Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors.
References
User:MarkH21 These two reverts of yours ( [1] and [2]) are nonsensical: you removal of the Reuters opinion piece (which doesn't violate WP:RSEDITORIAL) violates NPOV and your removal of the RSF descriptor violates INTEXT (it doesnt matter how well-known you you think RSF is). Explain or I will revert back . Flaughtin ( talk) 05:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.}} and this particular author is not demonstrably a subject-matter expert. It would not be WP:DUE to just include the opinion of that particular journalist, when there are no RSes to support the inclusion of the opinion of that particular journalist.The second is explained in the edit-summary. WP:INTEXT talks about attributing the statement to RSF, not describing in greater details what RSF is. It's unnecessary / undue WP:PROMINENCE to describe every in-text attributed source. It's as unnecessary as it would be to write
German public international broadcaster funded by the German federal tax budgetnext to the intext attribution & wikilink for Deutsche Welle that's in the same section. — MarkH21 talk 06:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. The point is that there is no evidence that Pete Sweeney is a recognized expert (one avenue to demonstrating reliability and reflecting a significant viewpoint), nor other evidence that this is a WP:DUE opinion. There are all kinds of published opinions from journalists. Just because a journalist has published their opinion does not mean that it should be included ( WP:ONUS and WP:UNDUE).
The article's intro says nothing about the bill and the first para of the article body starts with:
What bill?
Please expand the article's intro so that it makes clear which bill is being talked about.
Thanks Misha Wolf ( talk) 12:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() |
Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
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 List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Material from 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests was split to International reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests on 2019-08-24. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests. |
![]() |
|
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
Would it be beneficial to list out the reactions from various businesses? 71.211.175.77 ( talk) 22:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
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. —Â
NewslingerÂ
talk
07:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Starting this discussion here and will link from the main page. But as I've asserted previously, it's deeply POV to treat Chinese government reactions as "international" in this context. Simonm223 ( talk) 12:16, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved. ( non-admin closure)  samee  converse 18:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Newslinger:, @ Jax 0677:, User talk:65.60.163.223, @ Wefk423:: Per the above, I propose renaming this article. It's the easiest way to solve the "pov" problem and would also allow us to add information about what hong kong government reaction, which we don't even get in the main article. We can divide the section up into "Domestic" (this would include the stuff we have right now about the "Chinese government and media") and "International" (the stuff from the article we currently have would fall under there) Comments from any of you are welcomed. Flaughtin ( talk) 21:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
International reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong protests → Reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong protests – This article currently mentions the Chinese government's response to the protests. Considering the sovereignty dispute that is central to the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests, the proposed title is a more neutral title than the current one. This is the easiest solution to implement, and it sidesteps the sovereignty issue entirely. Converting this discussion into a requested move to get input from more editors. — Newslinger talk 02:45, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
I found (and renamed) this page on the New Pages Feed, and I think its content should be merged here, assuming that it is in fact renamed merely "Reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests". If it is then subsequently split up I have no opinion as to where this content should go. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 19:45, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
"attacking pro-Hong Kong solidarity protests in New Zealand and defending violent opposition against these protests" in reaction of New Zealand.
I believed it is not suitable. First, Chinese government and anti-protest figure also claimed they are pro-Hong Kong. Second, "violent" is better used when actions (military, police) had done by Chinese government. Mariogoods ( talk) 11:51, 9 September 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) 12:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
There is no consensus for a split of Reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong protests to new articles titled International reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong protests, Domestic reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong protests, Chinese government and media reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong protests and Worldwide solidarity protests related to the 2019 Hong Kong protests.
Support split - Article is over 100 kB, and should be split to new articles entitled International reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong protests, Domestic reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong protests, Chinese government and media reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong protests and Worldwide solidarity protests related to the 2019 Hong Kong protests. Thoughts? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 16:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Simonm223:, I have seen that you have made serveal editing which removed many contents. I believed that we should gain consequence first since the protests are occuring and some contents are important to mention. Mariogoods ( talk) 22:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
OceanHok I didn't revert your second edit because I thought your arguments merited discussion there at least. However, from my perspective, the July 15 statement from Lam does not represent any significant turning point on the evolution of her position on the issue. On July 9 she said "the bill was dead" and started facing criticism for vagueness. That she said vague things and faced criticism on July 15 is literally repetition. As such, I don't think that it contributes anything to a public understanding of this event. Simonm223 ( talk) 11:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Is there a consensus on the number of these that should be included in here and up to when (if at all)? Seems like the past weekend of worldwide protests specifically mentioned in solidarity with Hong Kong would be worth mentioning - I saw SBS News in Australia linking those to the weekend of protests in Hong Kong. Yny501 ( talk) 04:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
I think these two incidents should be split off into own article and the corresponding info from respective article merged into it since it does not fall into government reaction. SYSS Mouse ( talk) 01:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
This entry is entirely biased. There is no portray of the violent riots, including the use of Molotov cocktails, melee weapons such as metal pipes. There is no mention of the bullying and beating of anybody who holds a different political view by the rioters. There is no mention of the mass deletion of accounts on Twitter, Facebook or even Youtube who are sympathetic to the HKSAR and Chinese governments.
Magnetic Flux ( talk) 15:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@ Mariogoods: I don’t see Lam mentioned in any of the three articles: SCMP, Reuters , Guardian.
There are some mentions about lawmakers condemning them for not having been asked by the government and not asking the government, with counter-reactions. This could be added, but would have to be attributed to them, and would have to include the counter-reactions (e.g. SCMP’s mention of counter-reactions). That seems a bit undue WP:PROMINENCE for the incident right now. — MarkH21 ( talk) 23:54, 17 November 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.
I propose that the section Domestic responses be split into a separate page called Domestic reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong protests. The section is large enough to make its own page. RealFakeKim ( talk) 12:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Length alone does not justify divisionby WP:SPLIT. Most “reactions†articles also do not split domestic and international reactions. This split seems entirely unnecessary. — MarkH21 talk 19:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
This article has a very detailed illustration of the movement. According to Wikipedia notice, this article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. I think to simply list out various countries’ responses do not help illustration the movement itself, please consider splitting content into sub-articles, condensing it, or adding subheadings. Moreover, the movement has its unique historical background and it would be helpful to add it so that people can better understand. Lastly, since this is a political topic that may be edited several times by the supporters from multiple parties, it is essential to keep it in a neutral perspective. Many sources that the article cited is from the media and obvious has its own bias or support towards a specific party or authority. The picture in the article is political-biased and should not be used (the black and white pic) Ziyuanying ( talk) 02:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
The article is incredibly informative and explains the Hong Kong protests very well. The following sentence from the "Allegation of foreign interference" section should be altered: "The meeting came after German Chancellor Angela Merkel's trip to the PRC, where she said that the rights and freedoms of people in Hong Kong "must be guaranteed" and to whom Wong had written an open letter seeking her backing for the protests." The subject of second clause of the sentence is unclear. This should be broken up into two sentences. The first sentence ending with "guaranteed." The second sentence stating, "Additionally, Wong wrote an open letter to Chancellor Merkel seeking her backing for the protests." The following sentence from the "Customs Changes" section should also be altered because the sentence structure is grammatically incorrect: "Chinese government has required goods mailed from Mainland China to Hong Kong to be investigated while goods which are believed as related to the protests are forbidden to mailing." It should read, "Hong Kong government has required goods shipped from Mainland China to be investigated, and goods related to the protests are forbidden from being mailed at all." The message is clear throughout the article, but it would be easier to understand if the sections were edited for conciseness and proper grammar. Bribrisweet ( talk) 21:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
I think the article is written in a neutral tone, and lays out, in detail, the vastly different responses from a variety of political parties. I felt that the Government section (under Government but before pro-government parties) could be broken down into several sub categories, for example, by timeline of events. Additionally, for the sake of understanding the context behind China's pressure in Hong Kong, it may be beneficial to provide context as to how Hong Kong's government officials formally report to Beijing. It would also be beneficial to explain the "one country, two systems" policy, in which Hong Kong would lose its full autonomy 50 years after 1997. This would provide context to the anger of the Hong Kong people and the adamancy of the Chinese government. Cathymeng123 ( talk) 00:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
International reactions to the protests seem to be split across a number of pages, with apparently no consistency of what content should go where.
For example, the first article contains info on how the UK said they would open up a path for BNO nationals, a statement which is notable but is in direct response to the National Security Bill itself. That article isn't updated with the progress of that info, and how the right was actually granted, but the next 2 articles are. It seems like the bulk of the UK response has been collated on the 3rd page, although some info is scattered across the other pages. In contrast, the US response is mostly collated on this page and the 2nd page, with little mention on the 3rd page, where the UK response is listed. There's a significant bulk of reaction on the first page with no organisation.
This is a mess that lacks consistency, and if I'm looking for info on the UK response I had to scour through 4 pages to find where the bulk is, plus find some additions from the others. Same for the US one, except it's on a different page. These pages do not interlink to each other, for the most part, which makes it even harder to find.
Specifically, per WP:MERGEREASON, I believe reasons of duplicate and overlap apply here.
I'm proposing portions of these - specifically, the international response of countries who have done more than express their discontent, such as the Five Eyes countries - be merged in some form and, for the most part, be collated on the same page. ProcrasinatingReader ( talk) 19:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@ ProcrasinatingReader: Kingsif ( talk) 02:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Regarding this WP:POINT removal:
toughest sanction yet imposed on Chinain relation to Hong Kong ( Axios), thus assessment of U.S. media coverage is inherently WP:DUE.
"Waterboarding Is Not Torture": Torture is what "left-wingers associate with anything that makes an accused terrorist uncomfortable".
 – Goss 2009
AIM rejects the scientific consensus on climate change
 – Goss 2009
It is apparent that he [Barack Obama] is a member of an international socialist movement
 – Goss 2009
Subsection split off 23:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
The source is marginally reliable (i.e. neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable), and may be usable depending on contextper WP:MREL. Here, I think that its inclusion is fine, given that the text uses WP:INTEXT attribution. Accuracy in Media is a separate source whose reliability has to be assessed separately. Its reliability and merit for inclusion is not based on the false equivalence of "if that progressive watchdog is included then this conservative watchdog must be included". — MarkH21 talk 12:08, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact( WP:RSEDITORIAL), with exceptions if the author is a subject-matter expert (which does not appear to be the case here). Just reporting that an opinion piece says something isn’t WP:DUE, unless the opinion piece is from a subject-matter expert or more broadly reported by other RSes. — MarkH21 talk 18:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
[[User talk:MarkH21]]
, that doesn't properly send a ping. Use either [[User:MarkH21]]
, {{u|MarkH21}}
, or {{ping|MarkH21}}
instead. As for FAIR report and the Reuters opinion article:
All or nothingWP:INCIVIL snipes at the end are becoming disruptive. CaradhrasAiguo ( leave language) 16:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
You're bringing up several different points here. So one by one:
media watchdogor
media critique organization, such as this academic book, this academic journal article, this academic encyclopedia by SAGE, this academic encyclopedia by Routledge, Encyclopaedia Britannica, the aforementioned CNBC article, and the aformentioned HKFP article. Several RSes go further in their analysis of FAIR (emphasis mine):
FAIR's source studies have consistently shown that mainstream media heavily favor corporate and government elites and marginalize minority, female, public interest, and dissenting viewpoints. [...] FAIR [has] an important place to keep watch over the watchers.
— Anderson, Gary; Herr, Kathryn (2007). Encyclopedia of Activism and Social Justice. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781412956215. ISBN 978-1-4129-1812-1.
FAIR dedicates itself to researching and exposing the exclusion of viewpoints and distortions in the mainstream press. To this end, the organization conducts extensive research focused on the output of the media and publishes its findings in several forums.
—  Ness, Immanuel (2015). Encyclopedia of Interest Groups and Lobbyists in the United States (1 ed.). Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781315704739. ISBN 978-1-315-70473-9.
Over the past 20 years, the media advocacy group, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), has issued a series of studies criticizing the PBS NewsHour for having an "establishment bias" and a lack of diversity in news sourcing. However, the perception of FAIR as a liberal advocacy group, and various methodological ambiguities, establish the need for an independent cross-verification of their research findings. A partial replication and a comparative analysis with the alternative independent newscast, Democracy Now!, confirm and validate many of FAIR's claims regarding the narrow sourcing practices of the PBS NewsHour.
— Scott, David; Chanslor, Mike; Dixon, Jennifer (2010). "FAIR and the PBS NewsHour: Assessing Diversity and Elitism in News Sourcing". Communication Quarterly. 58 (3): 319–340. doi: 10.1080/01463373.2010.503165. ISSN 0146-3373.
a media critique organization based in New York, a
US media watch group, or that "Several Chinese media reports and Carrie Lam have pointed to this specific FAIR report. They do not support the claim within the FAIR report, but they establish verifiable facts about the report.
As of right now, CaradhrasAiguo and I found this FAIR report to represent a significant viewpoint that has reported by independent RSes, and there is evidence towards its reliability in general from other RSes. If you still disagree for whatever reason, you can bring up an RfC for example to bring in external editors to build broader consensus about FAIR's inclusion in this article or perhaps a new RSN RfC about FAIR (since this is becoming quite general beyond the scope of this article alone). — MarkH21 talk 06:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
FAIR is a (partisan) reliable and significant source when it comes to reports on journalistic practicesso I explained RS aspects of FAIR.You are making a false equivalence between
no consensus over its reliabilityand
a source of dubious reliability. There is a distinction between these. Something can be
marginally reliable (i.e. neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable), and may be usable depending on context( WP:MREL) as FAIR is classified in RSP, without being
questionable in most cases( WP:GUNREL) which is closer to how most people would interpret the word
dubious. I never claimed that FAIR is categorically generally reliable. We're talking about a limited context concerning reports about journalistic biases in the United States.Re WP:WEIGHT, the FAIR report was cited by Chinese media and Carrie Lam (as noted by the CNBC & HKFP articles), The Star (Malaysia) in this article, and this article in Chile Today. The viewpoint from these sources and others (e.g. this article from Asia Times, this article in the Journal of the European Institute for Communication and Culture, this article in the academic journal Educational Philosophy and Theory, this article from USC Annenberg Media, this interview with USC Professor Stanley Rosen) that there is media bias in US media reports (or more broadly Western media reports) of the HK protests does not contradict the RS reports about media bias in Chinese media reports. It's not a fringe viewpoint that there is bias in both media.Do you mean an RfC on this specific inclusion of the FAIR report? — MarkH21 talk 22:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Opening a separate subsection for the column from Accuracy in Media, since it is separate from the discussion about FAIR above. The AIM column was mentioned in this article as:
The politically conservative media watchdog Accuracy In Media said that overall, the mainstream media had done an adequate job in describing the Hong Kong protests, pointing to the fact that the media had noted the aggressive tactics employed by both Hong Kong’s police force and the protesters. Some examples that the watchdog used as evidence of the adequacy of the media representation included CNN's reporting of the Death of Luo Changqing and NBC's reporting of the siege of the Hong Kong Polytechnic University. [1]
This isn't even a report from AIM, it's from their staff column. Even non-column reports from AIM may not be reliable for statements of fact (which CaradhrasAiguo raised above), but an AIM column is probably not RS. Yes, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, but there are serious concerns about the reliability of the column itself. I also haven't found any RS mentions of this report. — MarkH21 talk 16:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
That's what the guideline for reliable source says. Does Spencer Irvine's column have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Is Spencer Irvine a reliable author? There's no evidence for that.A source's citation mode does not establish reliability. There are awful unreliable sources that cite things properly. Anybody can write a garbage blog and cite thing. — MarkH21 talk 22:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC)Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors.
References
User:MarkH21 These two reverts of yours ( [1] and [2]) are nonsensical: you removal of the Reuters opinion piece (which doesn't violate WP:RSEDITORIAL) violates NPOV and your removal of the RSF descriptor violates INTEXT (it doesnt matter how well-known you you think RSF is). Explain or I will revert back . Flaughtin ( talk) 05:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.}} and this particular author is not demonstrably a subject-matter expert. It would not be WP:DUE to just include the opinion of that particular journalist, when there are no RSes to support the inclusion of the opinion of that particular journalist.The second is explained in the edit-summary. WP:INTEXT talks about attributing the statement to RSF, not describing in greater details what RSF is. It's unnecessary / undue WP:PROMINENCE to describe every in-text attributed source. It's as unnecessary as it would be to write
German public international broadcaster funded by the German federal tax budgetnext to the intext attribution & wikilink for Deutsche Welle that's in the same section. — MarkH21 talk 06:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. The point is that there is no evidence that Pete Sweeney is a recognized expert (one avenue to demonstrating reliability and reflecting a significant viewpoint), nor other evidence that this is a WP:DUE opinion. There are all kinds of published opinions from journalists. Just because a journalist has published their opinion does not mean that it should be included ( WP:ONUS and WP:UNDUE).
The article's intro says nothing about the bill and the first para of the article body starts with:
What bill?
Please expand the article's intro so that it makes clear which bill is being talked about.
Thanks Misha Wolf ( talk) 12:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)