Jump to content

Talk:Reactions to the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests

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

Company Reactions

[edit]

Would it be beneficial to list out the reactions from various businesses? 71.211.175.77 (talk) 22:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Broken citations

[edit]

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 07:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I originally misread the errors, but I've resolved them by removing all of the unused list-defined references by custom script. — Newslinger talk 14:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese government reactions belong on the main page

[edit]

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)[reply]

I mean I agree, but at this point I think we need to start putting together a navigation sidebar for these articles. They're producing rather a lot of children. Simonm223 (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - @Simonm223:, I do not disagree, but we do have {{2019 Hong Kong protests}}. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the template is a good start but it needs a lot of updating, and I don't think many people want to navigate to the bottom to find links to child pages. Simonm223 (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly agree with creation of a navigation sidebar. We do have quite a few important articles currently orphaned. I think it may be appropriate to link some of the tertiary articles on the bottom template, like "Hong Kong Way" or "2019 Yuen Long Violence" but the secondary articles that were split off from the main article should be more prominent and easy to find. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 17:01, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A sidebar for the 2019 Hong Kong protests would be very helpful. — Newslinger talk 02:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've formatted the links in the sidebar, moved it to Template:2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests, and placed it in all of the relevant articles (except for Junius Ho, where it might be undue). Thank you, Simonm223, for creating the sidebar. — Newslinger talk 03:06, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It makes no sense to put the PRC government's reaction on the main page when it doesn't even have the Hong Kong govenrment's reaction there. Flaughtin (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proposed move below should resolve the neutrality issue in the title. All of the reactions in this article should also be summarized in the relevant section of the main article. I would assign more weight to the Chinese government's response in the main article, since they are one of the listed "parties to the civil conflict" in the main article's infobox. — Newslinger talk 03:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rename this article to Reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong protests

[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: Moved. (non-admin closure)  samee  converse  18:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Support. Works as well, while solving the problem in the simplest way. –Wefk423 (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Solve the Problem in a Simple Way. Mariogoods (talk) 02:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I've updated the proposed article name to Reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong protests (as Wei4Green suggested below) per WP:CONSISTENCY because 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests was moved to 2019 Hong Kong protests, and I've updated the current article name because the current article was moved from International reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests to International reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong protests at the same time. — Newslinger talk 10:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Great idea and solution! 65.60.163.223 (talk) 05:48, 30 August 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.

Putting criticism of protesters here

[edit]

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)[reply]

I disagree. That page is more about allegations of what has happened in the protests. Not much is about criticism. I would argue that "Aggressive tactics in the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests" is a more accurate title for the page. Ltyl (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Tactics and methods surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests would be a better target, then? – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article is nominated for deletion, which I agree. The article is not really criticism from parties or a person, it is almost a collection of news reports including original research. I don't think we should merge it at all. –Wefk423 (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

[edit]

"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)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

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)[reply]

Domestic reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong protests

[edit]

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.

Cunard (talk) 00:04, 6 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.

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)[reply]

The discussion above 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.

Simonm223's edits

[edit]

@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)[reply]

Hey Mariogoods, I deleted ~33,000 bytes from this article in an attempt to prevent another page-split due to excessive length. I must assure you that in gauging what to delete I didn't pay any attention whatsoever to the edit history and could not tell you what of your material I deleted. My selection criteria were relatively simple: was this a detail where, in retrospect the action caused some significant change in what was happening in the Hong Kong narrative? So, I deleted quite a bit of content about intermediate protests that were not of any particular size and that didn't attract any significant attention outside of Hong Kong. I retained as much as possible about key incidents such as Yuen Long, the human chain, the very large marches, etc. Beyond that, I deleted information which was largely repetitive; we don't need to know every time the CCP says the same thing, the same time the HK government says the same thing or every time protesters say the same thing. I also reduced the international reactions section to contain only one reaction from each nation or trans-national group represented. Generally I gave preference to a head of state or a leader of government where such was available. Otherwise, I retained whichever statement seemed most comprehensive. I did make some small edits for NPOV compliance. If you have concerns about that category of edit, I'd be happy to discuss them at a specific edit level. Now I will note that my major edit was done under the heading of WP:BOLD per a discussion at this talk page. However I want to reiterate that I was not targeting your edits in any way, shape or form. Simonm223 (talk) 00:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. My view is that some deleted contents are notable enough to keep, while some really needs deletion. For example, US senior official and Germany meeting the key figure of the protest is notable enough to include. I will describe my view more detailed in the suggested split part. However, I agree that some contents should be deleted. Mariogoods (talk) 10:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I actually retained the information regarding principle protest figures meeting with German government officials (or at least I had not intended to delete it); I am not sure I recall seeing anything about such meetings with US officials. Simonm223 (talk) 11:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extraneous Detail

[edit]

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)[reply]

I see there was an issue with an incorrect date; this is why copy-edits are important. I'll withdraw my concern with thanks for the correction. Simonm223 (talk) 12:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide solidarity protests

[edit]

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)[reply]

Hearthstone and NBA

[edit]

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)[reply]

boycott section in Mainland China reactions section, since Chinese government is engaging in the boycott. Mariogoods (talk) 03:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite, players in north america are boycotting Blizzard for the Hearthstone incident. SYSS Mouse (talk) 19:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Chinese government is not engaged in the boycott. Magnetic Flux (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Biased entry

[edit]

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)[reply]

Lam mention in PLA cleaning debris?

[edit]

@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)[reply]

I remembered that theSCMP source cited one PLA solider said it has "nothing to do with Carry Lam" (I forget the sentence). Mariogoods (talk) 00:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It only says: "One of the soldiers said their action had nothing to do with the Hong Kong government." Even if this was included, it would have to be attributed to one soldier telling SCMP this rather than in WP voice. But one soldier telling the SCMP something vague is such a weak statement that it shouldn't really be included per WP:PROPORTION. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting proposal

[edit]
NO CONSENSUS
No consensus to split the article into Domestic reactions to the 2019-20 Hong Kong protests and, I assume, International reactions to the 2019-20 Hong Kong protests. As such, the article should not be split until consensus is reached in a new discussion. Since the discussion has been open for over a month and admin closure was requested eight days ago at WP:ANRFC, I feel compelled to close this discussion. (non-admin closure) comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 11:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@RealFakeKim: The old article was about 40kB of prose, which is not long and falls under Length alone does not justify division by WP:SPLIT. Most “reactions” articles also do not split domestic and international reactions. This split seems entirely unnecessary. — MarkH21talk 19:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose And @RealFakeKim:. This split is controversial and it is a revert of the last WP:RM. Please ask for consensus and post it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure when leaving the thread opening for at least a while. For normal Rfc it is one month, for this split and activity of the discussion of the protests, at least it should leave the thread open for 2 weeks. Matthew hk (talk) 08:36, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.

Peer Review

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Peer Review

[edit]

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)[reply]

Proposal to merge portions of international response

[edit]

International reactions to the protests seem to be split across a number of pages, with apparently no consistency of what content should go where.

  1. 2019–20 Hong Kong protests#International reactions
  2. National People's Congress decision on Hong Kong national security legislation#International responses
  3. National Security Bill (Hong Kong)#United Kingdom's response, and Five Eyes response section on same page
  4. Reactions to the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests#International reactions

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)[reply]

  • I added a lot of the UK response on the Hong Kong national security law article (what you have listed as "National Security Bill (Hong Kong)", an inaccurate title that a new editor moved it to without any discussion). I think since the UK's response came more as a reaction to what China wants to put in the law, rather than simply the decision, and as a move that would only be executed if the law is made, this article is the appropriate place. Whereas the US response was immediate, and so seems to be a reaction to the decision rather than to the law. Both, and other relevant responses, should probably get some level of coverage in all those articles, but it might be harder to incorporate into the long protests article. Kingsif (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main protests article serves as a summary while the Reactions page limits itself only to international responses to the protests but not the bill. I think it makes sense to merge UK an US responses in one page though. OceanHok (talk) 05:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • But what would the page be? The US is responding to the decision and what that stands for, while the UK is responding to the prospect of the law and how it affects the Joint Declaration. So it couldn't be called "Responses to the NPCSC decision on Hong Kong national security law" or "Responses to the 2020 Hong Kong national security law" without being inaccurate about one of them. Maybe wait until a bill is put in (or a law passed without one), make an article about the bill/law, and decide from there where everything belongs. Kingsif (talk) 06:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ProcrasinatingReader: Kingsif (talk) 02:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good proposal. OceanHok (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With no objection, and since the law is now in place and more responses will come in, I've made the new article and merged from others where appropriate. Tell me what you think. Kingsif (talk) 12:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment of U.S. media coverage

[edit]

Regarding this WP:POINT removal:

  1. The U.S. this Jul / Aug enacted toughest sanction yet imposed on China in relation to Hong Kong (Axios), thus assessment of U.S. media coverage is inherently WP:DUE.
  2. There are at least six ("Camp supporting protests", "Citizens' responses", "Corporate pressure", "Social media", "olidarity protests", "Counter-protests") entire sections describing reactions by non-governmental parties. Half of the Iran section's response is on a Football Federation of Iran spokesperson. Again, an "NGO". Get a grip of the facts first.
  3. WP:RS/P is quite clear that Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting is only definitively not to be used when making claims about living persons. Don't use a word salad of inappropriately-applied policies in an attempt to obfuscate. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 14:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stop trying to be so cute and operatic with the Wikilawyering. You can't moan and groan about WP:POINT (which my initial removal wasn't) when your revert of my revert was itself a pointy edit.
1) That's irrelevant. So an article in the United States says that the U.S. sanctions Hong Kong leader Carrie Lam. Big deal. What the hell does that have to do with media bias from a partisan outlet that doesn't even mention that article?
2) It's obvious you didn't read my edit summary, if you did then you didn't read it carefully. I obviously meant the inclusion of the material in the countries section - that's why I made the specific reference to government official/government officials. Of course I still argue that that doesn't mean that that paragraph belongs anywhere in the article, but in the meantime a mutual acknowledgement of the (objective) fact that that paragraph doesn't belong in the countries section because all the material there documents the views of government official/government officials only should be a good first step towards a resolution of this second point of contention. I have accordingly moved that paragraph to the "other reactions" section of the article
3) There's no obfuscation from me. That's just more projection from you. It's UNDUE and therefore INDISCRIMINATE because outside of a few state run and fringey shitrags (they are that), the findings of this partisan outlet isn't mentioned at all in reliable sources; on the other hand, virtually all of the reliable sources which have done media analysis on the protests have been looking at (and critical of) the way China's state media has covered the protests. It's BLOATED, especialy in contrast with the other material in the "other reactions" section. And there are verfiability issues as RSP clearly states that FAIR is a biased source for which there is no consensus over its reliability. As the removal of the paragraph is under dispute I have in the interim added material from a counterbalancing source to rectify the NPOV issue. If you remove the material that I've added, then your preferred material must be removed as well. All or nothing. Flaughtin (talk) 00:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
3) Our own article on Accuracy in Media is damning on its factual accuracy:

"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

If anything is WP:UNDUE here, it is including any findings from AIM to serve as a factual basis, particularly when AIM is mentioning supposed "adequate" coverage in relation to only the Polytechnic University standoff, not the half-year-long charade as a whole. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 01:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments are nonsensical. It's not about serving as a factual basis, it's about counterbalancing your POV. AIM and FAIR are both explicitly partisan outlets so it's undue for either to serve as factual basis for anything. You can't say FAIR is a reliable source (or at any rate, that the material constitutes due weight) and in the same breath say that AIM isn't - that kind of hypocrisy and absurdity isn't going to fly. Citing (cherry picking) three AIM op-eds doesn't negate the validity and soundness of what was written in the AIM article I used (where's the lie?), much less esteablish that AIM is an unreliable source.
But in any case, please do not try to deflect from your failure to address my original arguments about your preferred material. I repeat: It's UNDUE and therefore INDISCRIMINATE because outside of a few state run and fringey shitrags, the findings of this partisan outlet isn't mentioned at all in reliable sources. Just because some random sycophant at Global Times, CGTN or any one of the usual state run rags suffers from this neurosis to eat up and barf out whatever comes out of some equally raggedy outlet's behind because their handlers in Beijing are getting beaten the fuck up by a bunch of kids from Hong Kong doesn't mean that anybody else on Wikipedia needs to be foaming at the mouth over its inclusion in this article. It's BLOATED, especialy in contrast with the other material in the "other reactions" section. And there are verfiability issues as RSP clearly states that FAIR is a biased source for which there is no consensus over its reliability. Explain or it will have to go. It is that simple. Flaughtin (talk) 09:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You both need to calm down; please discuss the content dispute calmly, civilly, and without edit warring. Flaughtin, your language here is a bit far. — MarkH21talk 11:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

fairness & Accuracy in Reporting

[edit]

Subsection split off 23:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment: In WP:RSP, Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting is a yellow source due to no consensus on its reliability, so it should be treated as The source is marginally reliable (i.e. neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable), and may be usable depending on context per 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". — MarkH21talk 12:08, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll continue the debate with you as I would just be fucking about if i was to carry on with the back-and-forth with that other person.
I repeat my arguments against using the information from that "watchdog": it's UNDUE and therefore INDISCRIMINATE because outside of state run media, the findings of that partisan outlet isn't mentioned at all in reliable sources; on the other hand, virtually all of the reliable sources which have done media analysis on the protests have been looking at (and critical of) the way China's state media has covered the protests. It's BLOATED, especialy in contrast with the other material in the "other reactions" section. And there are verfiability issues as RSP clearly states that FAIR is a biased source for which there is no consensus over its reliability. I will remind you for the record that whether a source for which there is no consensus over its reliability is usable depends on context (per MREL) and the ONUS is on you to justify its usability as you are the one who is seeking to (re)include the disputed content.
And please explain why you removed the Reuters opinion piece. Flaughtin (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the length of the mention of the FAIR report is somewhat separate from whether it should be mentioned at all. I agree that it should probably be trimmed (perhaps to a sentence or two). However, both CaradhrasAiguo and I think that it's a significant enough source and viewpoint to be mentioned with WP:INTEXT attribution (this isn’t something being stated in WP:WIKIVOICE). Sources are also not required to be neutral à la WP:BIASED.
For what it’s worth, the coverage of AIM also needs to be trimmed (if not removed) for being disproportionately covered.
Opinion pieces 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. — MarkH21talk 18:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:MarkH21 I think that it's a significant enough source and viewpoint to be mentioned with WP:INTEXT attribution - that's not good enough. You have (the responsibility per ONUS) to explain how your preferred material is significant enough to warrant inclusion. You'll also note the double standards in your application of the due weight criteria. You justified your removal of the opinion piece I included on the grounds that it was not written by from a subject-matter expert or more broadly reported by other RSes but you at the same time vouch for the opinion piece from that "watchdog" even though it was not written by a subject-matter expert or more broadly reported by other RSes. This cannot stand - if you remove the material that I've added, then your preferred material must be removed as well. All or nothing. Flaughtin (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop linking [[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:
  • Both CaradhrasAiguo and I have expressed that FAIR is a (partisan) reliable and significant source when it comes to reports on journalistic practices. As the previous RSP/RSN discussions note, it's not a reliable source for contentious BLP claims nor for topics unrelated to journalistic reporting; but that's not this case. In this particular case, the FAIR report is about patterns in journalistic reporting and has been mentioned in a CNBC article (link), a Hong Kong Free Press article (link), two SCMP opinion articles (link, link), and several Chinese state-owned media articles (Xinhua, CGTN, etc.).
  • WP:RSEDITORIAL concerns opinion pieces. The FAIR report is not an opinion piece, so it doesn't fall under WP:RSEDITORIAL (whereas a Reuters opinion piece does). Non-opinion pieces can derive reliability from the publication itself; the FAIR report does not solely derive its reliability from its author, just as a non-opinion article from the New York Times can be reliable without its author being a subject-matter expert.
Don't lump different sources together with false equivalences. — MarkH21talk 16:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The persistent All or nothing WP:INCIVIL snipes at the end are becoming disruptive. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:MarkH21 I have expressed that FAIR is a (partisan) reliable and significant source when it comes to reports on journalistic practices. You're not reading what I am saying, if you are then you're not reading it carefully. I asked you to provide an explanation of your position, not a description of it. I repeat: the finding of this "watchdog" is undue/fringe as virtually all of the reliable sources which have done media analysis on the protests have been looking at (and critical of) the way China's state media has covered the protests. The other sources that you've provided to establish the due weight of this opinion piece (it's not possible for FAIR to produce any other type of work when it explicitly describes itself as a politically-partisan/party-political organization) are not good enough. It's not as simple as saying CNBC and HKFP are citing the report, they are citing Lam who is citing the report and whether the SCMP opinion editorials can be used will depend on your position to the Reuters opion editorial I used: if that editorial isn't good enough to warrant inclusion in the article, then neither should the SCMP op eds be good enough to substantiate due weight of the report. All or nothing. Flaughtin (talk) 05:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're bringing up several different points here. So one by one:

  1. There is significant evidence of FAIR's reliability from reliable sources that describe FAIR as a media watchdog or 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):
    • For example, the SAGE Publications academic encyclopedia (which analyzes and criticizes activist groups) describes FAIR as

      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.

    • Another Routledge encyclopedia (which analyzes and criticizes interest groups) describes FAIR as

      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.

    • A research paper in Communication Quarterly that independently statistically verified 20 years of FAIR claims about PBS while acknowledging FAIR's bias:

      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.

  2. Just because an organization (that primarily critiques media outlets) contradicts & criticizes several media outlets does not mean that it is not a significant viewpoint.
  3. As far as I'm aware, FAIR has not described itself as part of any political party.
  4. A source that explicitly describes its bias does not automatically only publish opinion pieces.
  5. The CNBC and HKFP articles are reliable sources for the statement that FAIR is 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.
  6. I didn't claim that the SCMP opinion articles are reliable sources for the article here. I just posted those as links in addition to the other examples of sources that talk about the specific FAIR report. This isn't the same as including a non-subject-matter-expert opinion article in the WP article.
  7. So far, you have only said that FAIR is biased and holds a critical position that is different to several other sources. That doesn't mean that FAIR is unreliable (e.g. see WP:BIASEDSOURCES). There hasn't been any evidence presented so far of poor publishing practices (I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but none have really come up) while there are RSes that describe and verify FAIR claims, demonstrating at least some reliability.

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). — MarkH21talk 06:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1) That's irrelevant. I'm going by what RSP says and what they are saying is that there is no consensus over its reliability - i.e. a source of dubious reliability. Their words, not mine. If you think FAIR is a (categorically) reliable source, then it's your job to overturn that resolution, not me.
2) Well no not really because that's how we establish what constitutes due weight. (by the way the findings isn't just criticizing "several" media organizations, its criticizing representative media organizations) But even if you were right in what you said, you'd still be wrong in the conclusions you are drawing. It's not about what the findings are opposed to, it's about how much (external) support the findings have. Which in the case of your preferred material is virtually none.
3) I never said FAIR describes itself as part of any political party (it's possible that it can - maybe it's a(n informal) part of the Congressional Progressive Caucus), I said it describes itself as a politically-partisan/party-political organization which it explicitly does: FAIR is the national progressive media watchdog group, challenging corporate media bias, spin and misinformation...as a progressive group, we believe that structural reform is ultimately needed to break up the dominant media conglomerates, establish independent public broadcasting and promote strong non-profit sources of information. If you are going to play these word games, then it would help if you carefully read (or just read) what I wrote.
4) You're missing the point. It's not an issue of what form the works by the "watchdog" actually take. It's an issue of due weight. For explicitly politically-partisan entities/biased sources like FAIR, the threshold of due weight is higher and citing just a few sources which mention (some in passing) its findings isn't going to cut it.
5) Irrelevant. The issue isn't about reliability but due weight.
6) Irrelevant. The issue isn't about reliability but due weight.
7) Irrelevant. The issue isn't about reliability but due weight.
I will initiate the RFC but not before I clear up the confusion (mainly on your part) in this exchange. Flaughtin (talk) 10:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You asked me to explain the position that FAIR is a (partisan) reliable and significant source when it comes to reports on journalistic practices so I explained RS aspects of FAIR.
You are making a false equivalence between no consensus over its reliability and 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? — MarkH21talk 22:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy in Media column

[edit]

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. — MarkH21talk 16:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your concern about the reliablity of the column is nonsensical. The majority of the article consists of specific examples that the author gives to support the conclusion that the msm has done an adequate job covering the protests and he goes so far in the 5th paragraph to provide a corroborating hyperlink (to the original article) for each and every example he cites there. Did you even read the article? Flaughtin (talk) 05:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What? The reliability of a source is not based on how logical you personally find the arguments & examples contained in the source. It's predominantly how other sources describe it. Furthermore, this is a column piece so it derives its reliability from the author Spencer Irvine himself. I don't see any evidence of him being an RS or WP:DUE here.
CaradhrasAiguo raised concerns above, and I haven't found external RSes supporting its reliability. If you can bring some up, that would be fine. — MarkH21talk 06:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Whether a source is reliable isn't mainly up what other say about it (which is more of a DUE issue than an RS one), it's also what the source does to prove that it is reliable. My point about the article's mode of citation is relevant to RS beause it establishes (or helps establish) the reliability of the source by showing how the article doesn't engage in QUESTIONABLE journalistic practices. Have you even read Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources? Flaughtin (talk) 10:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Err, WP:REPUTABLE literally says:

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.

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. — MarkH21talk 22:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Irvine, Spencer (November 18, 2019). "Media Covers Police-Protester Standoff Outside Hong Kong University". Accuracy in Media.

Reverts

[edit]

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)[reply]

The first is literally explained in the section above; the reliability of an opinion piece derives from its author per WP:RSEDITORIAL (they are 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 budget next to the intext attribution & wikilink for Deutsche Welle that's in the same section. — MarkH21talk 06:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1) Your reply is nonsensical. My material doesn't present the op ed as a statement of fact, it presents it as an op ed with explicit attribution; the source that published the op ed is a reliable source (Reuters which this guy is writing for); and WP:RSEDITORIAL doesn't say anything about excluding an op ed just because the author is not a subject matter expert. That is just nonsense you are making up. Putting aside the fact that the guideline makes it clear that the identity of the author doesn't determine the reliability of opinion content (it only says the identity of the author may help determine reliability) and granting for the sake of argument your argument that the author isn't an expert, all it says is that editor's are required to attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact which in this case is exactly what i did.
2) The descriptor is required per ATTRIBUTEPOV because RWB is a partisan source and CONTEXTMATTERS/DUE in order to establish how and why RWB is an appropriate source to use to discuss the journalistic consequences of the protests in the relevant section of the article. Flaughtin (talk) 10:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit strange to talk about these two different issues simultaneously, particularly as part of it is in the previous section. But alas:
  1. There's nothing being made up. WP:RSEDITORIAL says 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).
  2. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV says that opinions should be WP:INTEXT attributed. It already is intext attributed - to Reporters Without Borders. The requirement is not to give a description of the already-attributed source. None of the examples at WP:INTEXT do that, for instance. I honestly don't think this is a big deal though, so "global media watchdog", NGO, or whatever. we don't really need a whole citation for that.
— MarkH21talk 23:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What bill?

[edit]

The article's intro says nothing about the bill and the first para of the article body starts with:

  • "Before the protest, Carrie Lam has insisted that the bill was "beneficial", as it can "protect Hong Kong's public safety, and fulfil Hong Kong's international duty", after Hong Kong people, Taiwan and several foreign envoys voiced concerns about the bill.

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reactions_to_the_2019–2020_Hong_Kong_protests&oldid=1209983324"