Jump to content

Talk:2019 Prince Edward station attack

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 7 October 2019

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 01:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Involved editor) Post close comment, User:香蕉糖 is a confirmed sock of Angelalive. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Angelalive. Matthew hk (talk) 09:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Prince Edward station attack → ? – The current title , 2019 Prince Edward station attack is violating WP:NPOV. May be "31 August incident" is more NPOV but it seem a direct transliteration from Chinese, thus i doubt it is the common name in English. The context of the incident, is, there are civil conflict between black shirt protesters and armed (with axe) "anti-protesters" which "anti-protesters" use axe to attack and protester gave return blow. And then police arrived and accused by media that, they indiscriminate attack the citizen in the wrong train carriage as part of their arrest (thus WP:BLPCRIME applies, it should use "suspect", "accused " wording instead of firm wording), plus accusation of killing citizen in the process. The only more widely accepted fact would be those injured were sent to hospital a few hours after the incident. Thus, "attack" wording is not appropriate, "terrorist attack" even more not appropriate, but i am not sure what they are using in English media to describe the event. Matthew hk (talk) 12:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Sceptre (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • no Disagree I think "terrorist attack" may violate NPOV (but perhaps not, as there are lots of credible sources using the term "terrorist attack"), but I can't see why using "attack" merely would violate that, as attack really happened in that occasion. That is an objective description on the event.--香蕉糖 (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with Zac92651 (I think he wrote his comment at a separate section but he's referring to this discussion) that it is censorship if we just use the date for the article name.--香蕉糖 (talk) 00:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: 香蕉糖 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this RM. [reply]
Dear newbie, please read WP:CRITERIA. Wikipedia is not a place for political propaganda. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is a tertiary source that should only based on secondary source. And for wikipedia policy, there is WP:RM, WP:RS, WP:CRITERIA, WP:V, WP:RS guidelines. Matthew hk (talk) 02:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For the source, i dig out some source: NYT just describe the incident but did not have a name for it: A primary locus of this weekend’s demonstrations has been Prince Edward Station in Mong Kok, where riot officers charged into a waiting train car during mass protests on Aug. 31, beating four people with batons and dousing them in pepper spray. [1] Aug. 31 - CCTV footage shows footage of police beating protesters on a train at Prince Edward metro station in Kowloon district as they cowered on the floor. [2], and CNN At least 51 people were arrested in the streets and in the subway, police said on Sunday. Video footage from Prince Edward subway station in Kowloon showed officers chasing and hitting individuals with batons as they made the arrests. Arrestees have been accused of "participating in unauthorized assembly," "criminal damage," and other charges. [3] Matthew hk (talk) 02:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion published on Indie online news publisher and website Hong Kong Free Press: The ‘831’ Prince Edward MTR incident proves Hong Kong urgently needs Access to Information reform [4]. and their news reporting Fire dept. says recording of Aug 31 MTR incident was within normal practice, condemns logbook leak [5] (bold by myself) Matthew hk (talk) 02:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Google search is a very weak reason due to UGC nature. "31 August Prince Edward incident" as search term had google result too.
Such as channelnewsasia [7] Medics delayed by Hong Kong police officer in Prince Edward MTR incident: Fire service. Matthew hk (talk) 06:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not saying that there aren't other potential valid names. However "August 31 police action" or "31 August Incident" do not return any relevant results. Maerlon0 (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Google search may be very unreliable due to recording ip and cookie, but using private mode, this and this appear in the first page of search result when using "31 August Incident" (without quote) as search term (And they are both news articles that related to the incident). But the most important thing is, WP:RM and WP:article title did not decided that way. Matthew hk (talk) 18:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And using your logic "2019 Prince Edward station attack" (with quote / exact match) as search term, shown wiki echo only, indicated that no reliable source use exactly "attack" wording. Matthew hk (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But then that goes to show that some users who are looking for this won't find anything by using those search topics (I was unable to locate anything even with cookies removed on multiple search engines). I'm opposed to using either of the proposed names as they're too ambiguous and possibly outside Hong Kong they won't pull up the event. "Prince Edward Station Incident" does pull up relevant information and is a more neutral term. We would definitely need a redirect from "Prince Edward Station Attack" Maerlon0 (talk) 18:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You need to read WP:RS and WP:RM and WP:Article title: Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject.. Please brought url of newspaper articles to prove overwhelmingly they are using "attack" wording. Matthew hk (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And probably WP:NEO for keeping "Prince Edward Station Attack" as redirect. Matthew hk (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 27 October 2019

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: There is no consensus to move this article, and it should remain at its present title for the timebeing.(non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


2019 Prince Edward station attack → 31 August Prince Edward station incident – Simple. WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:NOTAVOTE. WP:BLPCRIME, and related Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Arguments without arguments despite this is RM. WP:Article title stated article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. And there is no RS (Opinion articles are not RS) stated "attack" wording. Thus the article title "2019 Prince Edward station attack" fails many of the criteria. See above #Requested move 7 October 2019 section of such "discussion" and blatant voting by SPA as well as what are appeared in English language newspaper.

If you want Chinese source, they did not use "attack" wording either for most of the media except facebook propaganda by the protester and Apple Daily, which the former is not RS and the latter is criticized very often for their passionate wording, tabloid journalism and it was well known for getting low score in the opinion poll on creditability by CUHK (see [9]). Other survey by Reuters ranked Apple 13th. [10] Matthew hk (talk) 02:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So pick all the wording from the newspaper:

  • Hong Kong Economic Journal use "721及831事件 for 2019 Yuen Long attack and "2019 Prince Edward station incident", ([11]) which 事件 = incident in the headline. In the main body, 7-21 incident they used the wording "721元朗西鐵站白衣人襲擊事件" = "21 July Yuen Long West Rail Station, white-shirted men attacks" which is similar to the current article title in en-wiki. While the long title used for 8-31 incident, they used "831太子港鐵站警方執法行動" = "31 August Prince Edward station police clearance/raid" (法 = law, 行動 = action, 執 = pick, so you can't have a direct transliteration)
  • RTHK Chinese use 831太子站事件 [12] = 31 August Prince Edward incident.
Not Apple to Apple articles in English, all did not use "attack" wording [13][14][15]
  • Am730 use either 831 or 8.31太子站衝突疑團 [19] = "Questions/Rumour/Uncertainty in 31 August Prince Edward station conflict"
  • Oriental Daily use description instead 8月31日警員到多個港鐵站進行搜捕，期間爆發混亂 [21], while 混亂 = chaos and 搜捕 = arrest, but not other wording
  • Metro (HK edition) use "太子831" or 8.31太子站事件 [22]
  • Stand News (excluding Opinion article per stated above reasoning ) [23][24] use just 8.31 or 8.31 太子站警方濫暴案 = case of abusive arrests on 31 August Prince Edward station. 濫 may be translated to excessive or other similar context
  • (edit: 02:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)) topick of Hong Kong Economic Times Holdings (publisher of Hong Kong Economic Times) [25] use 港鐵太子站8月31日衝突 = MTR Prince Edward station 31 August conflict.

The list would be too long thus skipping some smaller in scale online publish-only news website and Chinese-government owned, HK based newspaper. Matthew hk (talk) 02:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit 05:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC): add back the list of Eng news article from the first RM:

  • SCMP [26] Douglas Tsang Tsz-ming, 30, one of the protesters at Prince Edward, said he was there over the August 31 incident, in which police chased demonstrators into the station and went after them on trains, resulting in injuries. Protesters have accused police of indiscriminately beating commuters, while the force said its officers were targeting those who had changed out of their trademark black outfits to blend in with passengers.
  • HKFP [27] Aug 31 MTR incident...On Tuesday, Civic Party lawmaker Alvin Yeung presented a logbook relating to an incident where baton-wielding police stormed Prince Edward MTR station, deploying pepper spray and making arrests.
  • Channel News Asia [28] Prince Edward MTR incident...Riot police had stormed trains at Prince Edward MTR station in Mong Kok, making several arrests and deploying pepper spray after protesters rushed into the station on the night of Aug 31. The incident has been in the spotlight after rumours circulated online that three protesters died during the police operation - a claim the authorities have repeatedly denied. Matthew hk (talk) 05:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ping @Paine Ellsworth: who reverted the bold move. How controversial it is for "incident" instead of "attack" if there is NO RS in English in Chinese that use "attack" wording? Matthew hk (talk) 02:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Contentious labels may related to the RM and the lede. Which "terrorist attack" wording is obviously against the policy, and "attack" wording is borderline against the policy. Matthew hk (talk) 02:38, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you take a step back. The previous move request was open for an extended period and did not find support for the change you suggested. It is not appropriate to perform a "bold" move when opposition to the move has already been expressed; move discussions are to be used "if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested." The sources above in Chinese are not relevant to the naming of this article, and it appears to be a descriptive title, which is not based upon the establishment of a "common name" (that's appropriate, since a common name for this event is unlikely to have been established in English at this time).
At the risk of raising the temperature with hyperbolic examples, I assume you would not want Nanjing Massacre moved to "Nanjing Incident" because of the prevalence of Japanese sources that call it 南京事件. (To be clear, the current title of that article is appropriate.) And there are other prominent events called "incidents" in Chinese that do not serve as the basis for our titles on those subjects (e.g. the one from 1989). Given that your new proposal does not include new information on English-language usage, I suggest you take the previous outcome to WP:MR if you think it is necessary to have the close reevaluated. However, I do not see anything in the previous discussion indicating consensus in favor of a change. Dekimasuよ! 04:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Were I to take this a bit further and comment evidence in the previous request, I'd note that you cited The New York Times stating "riot officers charged into a waiting train car during mass protests on Aug. 31, beating four people with batons and dousing them in pepper spray." and "CCTV footage shows footage of police beating protesters on a train at Prince Edward metro station in Kowloon district as they cowered on the floor." To me, it does not appear to be a clear NPOV or NDESC violation to describe such actions as an "attack" (n. an aggressive and violent action against a person or place). Rather it seems to me that because "attack" is the agreed-upon neutral term used in titles for many events that resulted in significant loss of life, you have now formed a negative association with the previously neutral term. Given that others read the evidence the same way, I do not see consensus for a change and would endorse the previous close. Dekimasuよ! 04:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I had listed ENGLISH source that none of them support "attack" as descriptive title, if you read the English source, they use "violent police raid". "misconduct in police arrest" is different in context as simply "attack". May be "civil conflict" is an alternative .
If you want further English article, by CNN at 7 September, ([29]) it used Mong Kok police station has become a focus for demonstrations in the past week after officers entered the nearby Prince Edward subway station on Sunday and forcefully arrested a number of people.. "forcefully arrested", still not "attack".
For your point, Nanjing Massacre is appeared in the RS, Nanjing incident is way more rarer. While None of RS actually using "attack" wording and some RS of English media either describe the incident, or explicitly use "incident" wording. If you even want to support "attack" wording , there is clearly no RS to support that and violate WP:BLPCRIME editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. . And in fact, if you want, Alleged misconduct of Hong Kong police in arrestment on 31 August in Prince Edward station may have more chance to pass Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Expressions of doubt and #Contentious labels than "attack" based on RS. Matthew hk (talk) 04:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Or even alternative, 2019 Prince Edward station police raid, 2019 Prince Edward station police attack has more context it is surrounding the police action, instead of simply just 1 party attack another. Matthew hk (talk) 04:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) My point related to what was supposed to be the new information in the new request: data from foreign language sources. The only difference between this request and the closed discussion was the addition of foreign language sources, which are not relevant, so it was unclear from the proposal why a new move request was initiated immediately following the previous close.
WP:BLPCRIME does not appear to be relevant here either, since no individuals are identified as attackers. And as above, attacks are not necessarily crimes. But the point is not to relitigate a closed discussion. Since the previous discussion ended without consensus, it would be a good start to suggest a different option that doesn't seem to be running roughshod over expressed opposition. Maybe 2019 Prince Edward station police attack would work; the suggestions in your final post above seem more appropriate to me at first glance. Dekimasuよ! 04:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure make up a descriptive as "police attack" would work or not. "Paris police attack" in the headline of Guardian, refer to Paris that police was attacked by admin staff Parts of central Paris were sealed off on Thursday after an employee at the city’s police headquarters stabbed and killed four colleagues before being shot dead. [30] , while "police attack " as a keyword, in Independent website, refer to Police officer suspended after being filmed beating naked woman in Detroit hospital.
The nature of the MTR incident, based on RS, which they are not well agreed on, ranged from it is a lawful arrest of suspect but imply use of violent, to it is an unlawful action that did not even have evidence to label them as suspect. While look at article in Category:Attacks in 2019, seem "Attack" imply either mass shooting, stabbing, terrorist attack, or the description in Category:Attacks by year This category is for articles that describe by year : aggression, violence, mortal attacks on humans by other humans or animals.. It is DUE by the RS it had accused miscount in the arrest / police raid, but not "Attack" which in everywhere in wikipedia as simply as crime / unlawful / immoral behaviour. Matthew hk (talk) 05:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, yes i should file a MRV as the discussion was clearly only participated by SPA article creator, and other random guy that based on record, did not have many edit that also look like SPA, and both of their reasoning was really Please base arguments on article title policy, as shown in the RM template? None of the RS i presented are really discussed. Or based on the citations, the locus is police and their action, and it is an arrest of suspect (some of the suspect did charged and waiting court trail. The law is a harsh terrible law. It was accused of becoming a political tool on protester, is another matter that out of this RM) and alleged abuse of law-enforcement power that use excessive force in mass arrestment (which in a separate news reporting, police can arrest people and release them due to not enough evidence, or yet another accusation of mass arrest of innocent people and just jail them in the police station for a while) or just alleged police miscount on non-suspect and innocent people. Without touching the DUE and UNDUE, the first RM really show "attack" is the best wording to substitute "arrest?" Matthew hk (talk) 05:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. To editor Matthew hk: the reverting of your page move had nothing to do with the merits of your arguments between attack vs. incident. The controversy comes in when a requested move is closed as "no consensus" and the article title should remain at its current name. Also, since move requests that are opened after a no-consensus outcome are more likely to be successful only after a wait of 3–6 months, you won't want to get your hopes up high for this request's desired outcome. You should take Dekimasu's suggestion to heart and take a step back. I still suggest that you withdraw this request and wait for a few months before trying again to garner consensus for this page move. You can also take the previous request to Move review; however, I think it's likely that closure would be snow-endorsed. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 16:07, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it became a wall of text of literature review.
Bloomberg There has since been widespread speculation among many involved in the historic protest movement that somebody was killed in the chaos as police aggressively pursued protesters in the crowded station, swinging batons, tackling people to the ground and using pepper spray. Injured people were seen being taken out of the station on stretchers, fueling the rumors. [31]
RFA in headline Hong Kong's MTR Screenshots Do Little to Assuage Concerns Over Police Attack [32]
Reuters CCTV footage shows footage of police beating protesters on a train at Prince Edward metro station in Kowloon district as they cowered on the floor. [33]
DW Dozens of people also rallied at malls belonging to rail link operator MTR Corp., which had aided police during a violent raid at the Prince Edward subway station on August 31. The company eventually shut down the Prince Edward station later Saturday after some protesters started gathering again. [34]
WSJ in headline Hong Kong Protesters Gather at Site of Subway Station Attack, in main body Joyce Cheung, a 40-year-old accountant, was among those who said that police should release CCTV footage from the Aug. 31 incident. Subway authorities “always allow the police to go into the MTR and attack citizens,” she said, referring to the name of the Hong Kong’s commuter railway operator. [35]
--Matthew hk (talk) 08:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:TALK please avoid excessive emphasis. And besides, text in some colors may pose a problem for some readers. --Robertiki (talk) 05:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The Chinese language has a habit of understating historical atrocities as mere "incidents" due to cultural factors discouraging people from talking about them. This is reflected in 1989 Tiananmen Square protests (which the Chinese refer to as "June Fourth incident") and Death of Li Wangyang (Chinese: "Li Wangyang incident"). The extent to which Chinese usage should affect English-language article titles is limited. If police attacked train passengers indiscriminately, Wikipedia should describe this attack as such. feminist (talk) 02:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2019_Prince_Edward_station_attack&oldid=1198959706"