Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as a WP:POVFORK. Introduction of any relevant material into another article is fine, but the usual sourcing, POV, etc. rules will apply regardless of what article the material is in. RL0919 (talk) 20:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Criticism of the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recently created article that is a WP:POVFORK of International reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests and 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests. It's not appropriate to have a criticism-only article. CataracticPlanets (talk) 20:12, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CataracticPlanets (talk) 20:12, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CataracticPlanets (talk) 20:12, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article isn't really "criticism", but more like a biased collection of news reports. No specific criticism from any person or party regarding the protests. –Wefk423 (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
John M Wolfson's comment answers this criticism. Ltyl (talk) 20:54, 31 August 2019 (UTC) — Ltyl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note to closing admin: Ltyl (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
  • I'd like comment on two points 1) That page is not criticism-only. It is not criticism at all. It's a list of allegations of the uses of aggressive tactics. If it reads like criticism, that's because the tactics do look too aggressive in some cases - the wording has mostly been faithful paraphrase of the sources. 2) It is very much in the spirit of this page where the police misconducts are documented. As the latter page is live and well, I don't see why the Criticism of the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests page should be deleted. Ltyl (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the Allegations of Hong Kong Police Force misconduct surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests is WP:DUE, so is the page in discussion. I believe the page in discussion is a very significant part of the story that explains, in no small part, how the event escalates. I don't mind merging the two pages or the two pages with other pages that provide additional perspectives, but I strongly disagree that this page is either WP:POVFORK or WP:UNDUE. Ltyl (talk) 20:54, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And then we have even more forks like Tactics and methods surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests (largely written by the same two contributors). Here we get such exceptionally neutral language like Protesters are reported to have adopted Bruce Lee’s philosophy, to be "formless [and] shapeless, like water", which is somehow supposed to not be meaningless tripe. And then we have not one, but three (1, 2, 3) lists of individual protests. These so thoroughly overlap in their recounting of blatant news that in one section we've felt the need to include four hat notes to individual sections on the other articles. We've also gone ahead and started a fourth list for September before we even have anything to put there. Besides the fact that none of these are even lists at all. They're just breaking things down in the most minute time frames possible so that we have more space to put news stories.
It is difficult to adequately express the extent to which this is far and away the most egregious violation of WP:NOTNEWS I have ever seen. GMGtalk 12:24, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, this is an article about on-going protests ... of which there are sometimes daily occurrences. Fortunately, the overflow of information can eventually be summarized and condensed by experienced editors. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 05:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do admit it's too much like a newspaper, and obviously, too much details. Some merging and condensation is needed for all of the sub-articles, but it will take a lot of effort - professional and experienced editors are needed. –Wefk423 (talk) 12:30, 1 September 2019 (UTC
@Wefk423: This level of detail may be appropriate for WikiNews, which despite being nearly 15 years old, continues to struggle as a project, and could greatly benefit from increased participation by motivated contributors. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, doesn't seek to provide a book-length examination of a subject in exhaustive detail, or to over-emphasize the importance of recent event. Instead, Wikipedia provides value in being able to condense complex topics into a concise and accessible overview, to quickly take the reader from ignorance to familiarity. Alternatively, a project like WikiNews seeks to provide up-to-the-minute details of recent events, and a project like WikiBooks seeks to provide a depth of coverage that an encyclopedia article cannot. So that's not to say that the content isn't educationally useful, but merely that, in order to provide a coherent educational resource, each of these projects necessarily has limits on scope and format. GMGtalk 13:12, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Merge, very much condense and put in perspective It has lots of decent sources and provides some useful information, but the material should be condensed and merged with the main article on the subject. Wikipedia should also give the material the weight it deserves. For example, about what percentage of the protestors are violent? Is is just a relative small percentage of protestors who are violent? I also notice that the creator of the article is a one issue editor - namely this Hong Kong riot. The person could be a member of the Chinese Communist Party and government employee wanting to shape public opinion via Wikipedia. The material essentially covers two issues: violent protestors and doxxing. Do we really need a whole article to cover this. And I have heard reports of the police beating protestors. And the Chinese Communist Party: tortures political/religious dissidents: engages in involutary organ removal and subsequent sales or the organs; demolishes churches; has set up involuntary reeducation camps and has set up a police surveillance state. China is just reaping what it sowed in Hong Kong and the people are justifiably concerned/angry about the Chinese suppressing political/religious freedom.Knox490 (talk) 00:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Knox490: This comment contains serious personal attack without proof, which is in violation of WP:NPA policy. And starting from the personal attack ("The person could be a member...") this comment is basically POV jibberish that is irrelevant to this discussion. This vote should be disqualified simply based on WP:NPA in my opinion. The question "about what percentage of the protesters are violent" is tangentially relevant to WP:DUE, but really it is neither here nor there. The percentage is NOT always relevant. The violence has an unproportionally large effect in shaping the evolution of the event. I dare say, despite the hype about police brutality, it is also a very small part of police conducts. However, again it plays a much larger role. As cited in the article, hundreds of doxxing cases against the police/families have been referred to further investigations, and violence has become a recurrent theme. I don't see how this information is not WP:DUE. Ltyl (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Personal opinions regarding the PRC are irrelevant to deletion discussions, nor should AfD be used to circumvent WP:NPOV and introduce WP:SYNTH by proposing, without reliable sources, that discussion of violence from protesters should be framed as being the fault of the PRC. Please stay on topic. Simonm223 (talk) 14:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Condense and merge into the "international reactions" article. --Bangalamania (talk) 00:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The article is NOT the 'reactions' from anyone, despite suggested otherwise by the word 'criticism' in the title. It is a compilation of the notable reports from the news. However, I don't object to merging the article with other balanced articles. Ltyl (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Condense and merge Critical responses to the Hong Kong protests are notable, but best included in the main article in succinct form.TH1980 (talk) 01:45, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@TH1980: I don't disagree with this, but believe that said action should be considered together with other articles such as Allegations of Hong Kong Police Force misconduct surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests to provide unbiased discussion. Also, I need to point out that 'Critical response' is not a precise characterisation of the article. Again, it is a compilation of notable reports from the news. Ltyl (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but merge any notably new material. Following John M Wolfson's comments above, the original title "Aggressive and abusive tactics used by the protesters in the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests" very much sounds like a WP:POVFORK of Tactics and methods surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests and WP:UNDUE; whether the actions are "aggressive" or "abusive" forms of civil disobedience techniques used against unresponsive governments and police, in HK or elsewhere around the world, or whether they are really "tactics" or not, or whether they are proportionate to the threat and urgency, are questions that go more into (at present) the "Reactions" article - PRC policy aims to discredit 30% of HK's population as "violent rioters". The tactics themselves (if they are tactics) make sense in the "Tactics" article. (As mentioned at Talk:Tactics and methods surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests#Government tactics and methods, it might be worth it to WP:SPLIT off the PRC part of "Reactions" into a "PRC/HK governmental tactics ..." article, after choosing a reasonable name. The tactics of the PRC/HK governments in this context are a notable topic, no matter whether they are respectful of human rights and the international legal principle of self-determination or not.) Boud (talk) 02:02, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Boud: This comment is mostly about the title of the article, so I assume that the editor has no objection to the majority part of the content of the article. Several points: 1) I don't mind changing the title. I'm not attached to the word 'tacitcs' either. I believe 'aggressive acts' can also be an accurate characterisation of the reports in cited sources. 2) The WP:POVFORK charge, I believe, is not supported by the history of the pages and the facts. First of all, a condensed version of same contents is included in the Tactics and methods surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests page, without objection, so far at least. This means there is NO pov disagreement, hence NO WP:POVFORK. 3) Regarding the WP:UNDUE charge, I'm hard pressed to see any supporting argument in the comment. Without further clarification I'm not able to respond properly, but I'll refer back to my other comments posted above. Ltyl (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It is repeating many of the information from the tactics page and to be honest, all the accusations are written in a way that feel like an indiscriminate list of details and events that can be easily summarized. If you ask me, I will say that other than the timeline articles and Hong Kong Way, all other subpages should be merged back to the main page. OceanHok (talk) 03:17, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@OceanHok: I welcome further improvements to the article (including changing the title). Regarding the indiscriminate charge, I'm afraid a lot of honest articles on WP are not immute to this charge (The allegations of police misconduct comes to mind again). There is a small sweet spot between WP:NPOV and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. In any case, I'm not certain at all indiscriminate is a sufficient ground for deleting the page given the reality of WP articles. I'm not against merging this and all the other articles back to the main page, except for the minor concern about the size of the page. Ltyl (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@OceanHok: Due to article size, it may worth to leave a few sub-articles not merging back to the main article. But yes, some detail should throw away as people are expected to read citations for more detail. Matthew hk (talk) 14:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Condense and merge Merged to the [International] reactions page. [International] reactions lacks reaction not from nations (such as the website leaks key pro-protest figures' personal information, SCMP covered the news). Mariogoods (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree. Again, the page is not 'response' from any parties, as explained multiple times already. Ltyl (talk) 10:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:OR on listing lots of event. A new version my be restart by summarizing criticism by notable people and organization, and detail may be not that required, due to overlap with other sub-articles. Matthew hk (talk) 03:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree with the WP:OR charge. No evidence supports this. Again, the page is not 'criticism' despite the title. See previous comments. Ltyl (talk) 10:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC) — Ltyl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note to closing admin: Ltyl (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
As a new user (or a sock account i don't know), i advised you to read WP:synthesis. Summarized lots of news article and made conclusion that were not appeared in the news article, is an original research that is forbidden in wikipedia. Talking about Afd matter, the article was bold move to Criticism of the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests, which may worth to restart after deletion of the current OR content. While Aggressive and abusive tactics used by the protesters in the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests, the original article title, may worth for a school thesis project, but have no place in wikipedia. Only summary of external criticism and accusation may worth to remain in wikipedia, but not the thesis by the wiki editors. Matthew hk (talk) 13:42, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I conceded I should probably have added 'allegations' in the title. However, I would not accept broad and vague accusations like WP:synthesis or WP:OR without any evidence. As I said above, you did not provide evidence re. WP:OR. It is not a good-faith discussion if you make the accusation but do not provide any proof. To move things forward, let me guess what you are trying to say: are you saying the adjectives 'aggressive' or 'abusive' are WP:OR or WP:synthesis? Well I would say this is debatable. Given the evidence provided in the article, I think these words are appropriate description of the behaviours/tactics. Ltyl (talk) 14:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • SPA sometimes has been thrown around in the discussion. I'm not sure what it is intended. Is this an insinuation that I am biased? That's itself an interesting bias. Ltyl (talk) 14:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPA is quite self explanatory. No edits outside the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests (and sub-articles), newly registered and created this article. For content, listing detail of actions as supports of the criticism by the wiki editors, is not allowed. In your article, is full of detail and lack of notable critics and pro-government politicians to condemn the protesters. However, for the latter, as other people said, it may worth to merge with International reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests, which being under WP:RM. Matthew hk (talk) 14:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPA does not explain the insinuation. Anyway, you are welcome to scrutinize my articles. I'm not sure if your comment For content, listing detail of actions as supports of the criticism by the wiki editors, is not allowed is relevant. Did I make any criticism in the article? I don't think so. As I expalined multiple times already, the article is not about criticism, and the title is not my original title. Can you please specify which part you think is a criticism or WP:OR or WP:synthesis? Without knowing your argument, I'm not able to lay out my counter argument. Ltyl (talk) 14:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPA is quite related to WP:NOTHERE. Please check that. Narrow area of interest are allowed , but SPA may be not. Your original title Aggressive and abusive tactics used by the protesters in the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests, already a criticism by yours, and the content are content fork. Matthew hk (talk) 15:03, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPA is not a policy, and I'm not certain at all that it could be the basis of WP:NOTHERE. OK, so you ARE saying the title is the 'criticism' you are referring to. I am not certain I agree with that, but I could go a long with the title alleged aggressive tactics used by the protesters in the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests. As for the content are content fork, I'm not sure I agree. As I said above, Allegations of Hong Kong Police Force misconduct surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests is live and well. It's important to also give suitable weights to other sides of the story that has been widely reported. Ltyl (talk) 15:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Overlap is policy (edit: a well agreed practice hat have quasi-policy status 15:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)) WP:SPA, WP:NOTHERE, are quasi-policies that people quoting it as rationale to block people from editing wikipedia in WP:ANI. If you encounter any edit dispute on International reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests which being RM to just Reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests, please follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Matthew hk (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My point of these off-topic comment, is, being so narrow area of interest on one and only one topic as well as WP:POVFORK as well as so strongly protect your own content in this Afd, would quickly eroding AGF on you by other editors, as well as may be quickly attract endorsement of topic ban or even block at ANI. I endorsed that there is lack of summary and criticism of the violent act of some protesters, but the article is clearly cut WP:POVFORK that labelling all protesters are violent. WP:POVFORK is a well written content guideline that editor should followed. And yes WP:NPOV is another policy so that violent acts of some protesters should be reflected in the article and the sub articles of 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests, but not forking a rival version of sub-article. Matthew hk (talk) 16:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I really wish you could elaborate on the WP:POVFORK charge. It's common practice on WP to wirte a summary on a main article and then link to an article that provides more details. Allegations of Hong Kong Police Force misconduct surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests is such an example, but not the only one. My article follows this practice. I believe this fact alone is not sufficient for the WP:POVFORK charge. To show WP:POVFORK I believe you need to show there was an POV disagreement in the tactics and method article, where my article supposedly forked from. But there wasn't one. Ltyl (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And please do not put words in my mouth - the article I wrote did no such thing as labelling all protesters are violent. I am very frustrated by the fact that it seems you haven't read the article despite making multiple charges. I feel that it's you who don't want to see anything unfaverable to the protesters, and react so strongly to what I wrote. Ltyl (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, I don't see anything wrong to defend what I wrote. Ultimatley, the fate of the artilce will be decided by the majority vote. However, this thread is the exact place to argue. Banning me solely based on my argments in this threads clearly would be a gross violation of WP policy. Good faith is shown by honest arguments and reasonable intepretation of what others say. It's not shown by being submissive to others' opinions. Ltyl (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd challenge the assertion that it's common practice to have such a large cluster of articles even on as complicated a current event as the HK protests. The fact that we needed to create a navigation sidebar last week just to keep track of all the sub-pages is actually quite uncommon within Wikipedia. This entire series of articles could use some (very careful) paring down to a more reasonable length - because as it stands it's becoming an indiscriminate list of everything the newsmedia has said about Hong Kong in the last three months, and that's not encyclopedic gold standard by any means. As such, avoiding additional content forks, regardless of the POV label, is probably to the benefit of our treatment of the subject. That said, if there's an issue with anti-China POV hardliners trying to exclude mention of the well-covered and definitely due mention violence that happened throughout the protests and in particular this weekend, that should be addressed at the appropriate talk pages. (I should note, I just got back from a long weekend and have not looked yet. This is only in response to argument at this page.) Simonm223 (talk) 12:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears that a consensus is emerging that the contents on the protests should be pared down. It's a positive outcome of this discussion. Ltyl (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Don't see any reason to delete valuable information from the encyclopedia.80.111.165.52 (talk) 13:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In case you are new, you can read WP:Deletion policy and WP:What wikipedia is not. Matthew hk (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now, given that a summary section on Tactics and Methods has been added to the main page. It would seem there is room to flesh out the Tactics and Methods subpage a bit more. So it would seem appropriate to merge the article in this AfD discussion back to the Tactics and Methods subpage. Ltyl (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry but I'm not seeing any WP:OR here - it seems rather odd to delete this particular subset of content and to merge everything else. That would impact WP:NPOV. Simonm223 (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If any of the content from this article is merged (instead of deleted) then I would highly suggest that it is very stringently fact checked (before any merge), and that all references are carefully looked over to make sure that the claims being made in the wiki article match up with what the reliable sources are (or, are not) actually saying. Thank you. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes of course, as we should for any other articles, especially all the articles surrounding the protests. Ltyl (talk) 12:10, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding your accusations there were factually problems, please provide evidence. I'm confident that the article has no more factual problems than any other articles on this event. Making accusations without evidence is not good-faith discussion. Ltyl (talk) 13:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just take a look at the edit history for Tactics and methods surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong protests#Confrontational tactics ... yesterday I found some sources that did not support stated claims about violence by protesters ... making broad statements with vague claims about violence by protesters, and then some of those sources don't even hold up. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 16:34, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with your characterisation. Your changes actually are not reflected by the reports. You claimed I mis-stated the news reports but actually you are associating my writing with wrong sources. 1) MTR employees' information was leaked on the internet. This is reported in SCMP. 2) Your edit 'White-shirted bystander' is wrong, because there were other bystanders being assaulted in other occasions, and the latter is what I referred to. Ltyl (talk) 17:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Next time when you make an accusation, I'd expect you to be as specific as my response I have just written above. Ltyl (talk) 17:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ltyl: I was very specific in the edit summaries. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please be as specific when you make accusations on this page then. Ltyl (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ltyl: Just amazing ... following my comment above about fact-checking before any merge (prior to any consensus decision was reached here) you went ahead and started merging into the main article! This is definitely not how consensus works. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to talk about good-faith we can talk about good faith. If you want to talk about rules we can also talk about rules. If we are talking about rules, then clearly you are mis-stating the the fact. I did not violate any rules. I didn't merge the 'criticism' page into the main page. I added the content on the 'Tactics and methods' page into the main page - the content you also edited and fact-checked. If you want to talk about good faith, how about the act of merging "the allegations of police misconducts" page into the main page? It's clear that some editors have proposed to delete it. However, it was merged back to the main page without any discussion. Is it a good faith edit? My edit is made with as much good faith as it was. Ltyl (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criticism_of_the_2019_Hong_Kong_anti-extradition_bill_protests&oldid=914503630"