![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | 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. |
Where did some of the readership stats in this article come from??? I would like to see an audit trail.
novacatz 10:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
To the HKU students working on the Hong Kong related articles, can any of you help with the following questions:
-- Robert Merkel 07:10 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)
To anyone, As we are doing a project on the newspaper industry in the digital era, please kindly fill in the questionnaire for me please Thank you very much. The website is http://www.my3q.com/home2/18/flora84/47337.phtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flora606250 ( talk • contribs) 12:41, 24 July 2003 (UTC)
Referring to the editorial team, the article says it's a "seasoned team of professionals" that frequently breaks news. Can it be more specific as to how many employees there are? What is the percentage of locals versus Westerners? Also, the article may consider including a few awards that the newspaper has recently won. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortechina ( talk • contribs) 11:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
South China Morning Post an English language publication. The depiction of Chinese, pinyin, IPA, and Jyutping is unnecessary and clutter. Chinese is often helpful for terms derived from Chinese, or China-centric topics often rendered exclusively in Chinese. However, in this case, the Chinese is a translation of the English, so its inclusion here is unwarranted. See Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Use_other_languages_sparingly. Readers interested in the Chinese characters should click on the Chinese version of this article. -- Jiang 08:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
--Lauren Stuchbery--
If the "Editorial" section is taken directly from a press release or blurb, it should be credited accordingly.
This Chinese name appears at the home page of its PC-version Hong Kong edition official website, so we know it does have an official Chinese name even if it is an English publication. Obonggi ( talk) 15:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
User:Zeyfah added a quote from Jack Ma which I removed from the article. I feel that the quote is non-specific to this situation, and its relevance therefore is questionable until a reliable source brings this quote into play. On a second point, if we agree to keep this quote, it should be from a reliable source that makes the connection to this acquisition/ownership. -- Ohc ¡digame! 14:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
The claim for SCMP's political alignment and the sources cited for it are ludicrous. Anyone who has casually perused the paper would know that it's hardly pro-China. Many of its articles are highly critical of China to the point of mockery. The claim of it being "anti-western/pro-China" is based exclusively on op-eds of western media, making it extremely biased and unsuitable for Wikipedia. In fact, why have an item of political alignment at all? I didn't see such an entry for several of the major American newspapers such as WSJ or NYT, so why here? Wikipedia is really not neutral.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.237.1.39 ( talk • contribs) 22:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
@ Sirlanz: Please explain how the sources do not support the claim that the stance of the newspaper is not anti-Western/pro-China when the comments which are documented in those very sources to have been made by the executive vice-chairman of the company that has purchased the newspaper reflect exactly that stance. Please also clarify what you mean when you wrote "watch this space" in you summary. Wingwraith ( talk) 21:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on South China Morning Post. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.abcbookworld.com/view_author.php?id=2010When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Multiple users (@ Wefk423: and myself) have objected to the removal of the logo by User:MarchOrDie. It isn't redundant as it isn't even the same as the masthead. Citobun ( talk) 01:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
https://www.hkcnews.com/article/34027/褚簡寧-michael_chugani-34027/ states:
WhisperToMe ( talk) 01:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Please indulge me why the New York Times is not a biased source, considering every media company in the world reflects certain political views. The BBC,CNN, even WSJ are all politically aligned with the Anglo Saxon world and are Pro-Western media. Any media outlet that holds different point of views is labeled "propaganda," and warned not to be trusted yet no one seems to notice or care about the blatant double standards. Allegations are not proof, yet you people want to add weight to that claim by placing it in the lead section. When I read it, it makes me think SCMP is propaganda outlet, which it isn't but you made it look that way. If I wanted to know more about the Palestine-Israel conflict I could pay attention to Israel media outlets, but then I would be fed pro-Israel side of things. Vice versa, if I pay attention to Palestinian media, I would be fed pro-Palestinian side of things. You don't understand that the New York Times is not invulnerable to biases too, especially when China is a threat to American military and economic supremacy? The sinophobia is clear as day.
″Since the change of ownership in 2016, it has been alleged to be on a mission to promote China's soft power abroad.[9] According to critics, it is moving away from independent journalism and pioneering a new form of "propaganda".[9]″ EndRacismNow2021 ( talk) 15:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Anyone can make up "allegations", but to give it that much weight by putting it in the lead section would undoubtedly cause serious REPUTATIONAL damage to the newspaper if that's your intended goal. Second, why are you cherry picking which sources are reliable and which are unreliable? Why is all Chinese media considered unreliable? If they cover a story talking about the suicide of Jeffrey Epstein, is it a lie because Chinese media covered it? Do you think politics bleeds into the media? Are all Israeli media outlets unreliable, because they are pro-Israeli? Do you trust the Saudi Arabian media when they say they have the best women's rights? EndRacismNow2021 ( talk) 01:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Why are you trying to avoid my question? I used those examples to try to understand your thinking. Upon inspecting your page, I see you like to share Anti-government media outlets in Hong Kong. Now I know where you politically align yourself, you're exposed. The CEO of SCMP is a Chinese American, how does that support the China propaganda narrative that you're trying to spread? EndRacismNow2021 ( talk) 08:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | 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. |
Where did some of the readership stats in this article come from??? I would like to see an audit trail.
novacatz 10:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
To the HKU students working on the Hong Kong related articles, can any of you help with the following questions:
-- Robert Merkel 07:10 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)
To anyone, As we are doing a project on the newspaper industry in the digital era, please kindly fill in the questionnaire for me please Thank you very much. The website is http://www.my3q.com/home2/18/flora84/47337.phtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flora606250 ( talk • contribs) 12:41, 24 July 2003 (UTC)
Referring to the editorial team, the article says it's a "seasoned team of professionals" that frequently breaks news. Can it be more specific as to how many employees there are? What is the percentage of locals versus Westerners? Also, the article may consider including a few awards that the newspaper has recently won. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortechina ( talk • contribs) 11:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
South China Morning Post an English language publication. The depiction of Chinese, pinyin, IPA, and Jyutping is unnecessary and clutter. Chinese is often helpful for terms derived from Chinese, or China-centric topics often rendered exclusively in Chinese. However, in this case, the Chinese is a translation of the English, so its inclusion here is unwarranted. See Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Use_other_languages_sparingly. Readers interested in the Chinese characters should click on the Chinese version of this article. -- Jiang 08:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
--Lauren Stuchbery--
If the "Editorial" section is taken directly from a press release or blurb, it should be credited accordingly.
This Chinese name appears at the home page of its PC-version Hong Kong edition official website, so we know it does have an official Chinese name even if it is an English publication. Obonggi ( talk) 15:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
User:Zeyfah added a quote from Jack Ma which I removed from the article. I feel that the quote is non-specific to this situation, and its relevance therefore is questionable until a reliable source brings this quote into play. On a second point, if we agree to keep this quote, it should be from a reliable source that makes the connection to this acquisition/ownership. -- Ohc ¡digame! 14:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
The claim for SCMP's political alignment and the sources cited for it are ludicrous. Anyone who has casually perused the paper would know that it's hardly pro-China. Many of its articles are highly critical of China to the point of mockery. The claim of it being "anti-western/pro-China" is based exclusively on op-eds of western media, making it extremely biased and unsuitable for Wikipedia. In fact, why have an item of political alignment at all? I didn't see such an entry for several of the major American newspapers such as WSJ or NYT, so why here? Wikipedia is really not neutral.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.237.1.39 ( talk • contribs) 22:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
@ Sirlanz: Please explain how the sources do not support the claim that the stance of the newspaper is not anti-Western/pro-China when the comments which are documented in those very sources to have been made by the executive vice-chairman of the company that has purchased the newspaper reflect exactly that stance. Please also clarify what you mean when you wrote "watch this space" in you summary. Wingwraith ( talk) 21:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on South China Morning Post. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.abcbookworld.com/view_author.php?id=2010When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Multiple users (@ Wefk423: and myself) have objected to the removal of the logo by User:MarchOrDie. It isn't redundant as it isn't even the same as the masthead. Citobun ( talk) 01:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
https://www.hkcnews.com/article/34027/褚簡寧-michael_chugani-34027/ states:
WhisperToMe ( talk) 01:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Please indulge me why the New York Times is not a biased source, considering every media company in the world reflects certain political views. The BBC,CNN, even WSJ are all politically aligned with the Anglo Saxon world and are Pro-Western media. Any media outlet that holds different point of views is labeled "propaganda," and warned not to be trusted yet no one seems to notice or care about the blatant double standards. Allegations are not proof, yet you people want to add weight to that claim by placing it in the lead section. When I read it, it makes me think SCMP is propaganda outlet, which it isn't but you made it look that way. If I wanted to know more about the Palestine-Israel conflict I could pay attention to Israel media outlets, but then I would be fed pro-Israel side of things. Vice versa, if I pay attention to Palestinian media, I would be fed pro-Palestinian side of things. You don't understand that the New York Times is not invulnerable to biases too, especially when China is a threat to American military and economic supremacy? The sinophobia is clear as day.
″Since the change of ownership in 2016, it has been alleged to be on a mission to promote China's soft power abroad.[9] According to critics, it is moving away from independent journalism and pioneering a new form of "propaganda".[9]″ EndRacismNow2021 ( talk) 15:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Anyone can make up "allegations", but to give it that much weight by putting it in the lead section would undoubtedly cause serious REPUTATIONAL damage to the newspaper if that's your intended goal. Second, why are you cherry picking which sources are reliable and which are unreliable? Why is all Chinese media considered unreliable? If they cover a story talking about the suicide of Jeffrey Epstein, is it a lie because Chinese media covered it? Do you think politics bleeds into the media? Are all Israeli media outlets unreliable, because they are pro-Israeli? Do you trust the Saudi Arabian media when they say they have the best women's rights? EndRacismNow2021 ( talk) 01:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Why are you trying to avoid my question? I used those examples to try to understand your thinking. Upon inspecting your page, I see you like to share Anti-government media outlets in Hong Kong. Now I know where you politically align yourself, you're exposed. The CEO of SCMP is a Chinese American, how does that support the China propaganda narrative that you're trying to spread? EndRacismNow2021 ( talk) 08:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)