Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:2019 Hong Kong extradition bill

Section removal

I'd like to query the removal of the section entitled "Colonial-era officials". I think breaking it up makes it clearer. Can anyone tell me in what way is it unsuitable? -- Ohc ¡digame! 14:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Existence of close paraphrasing

Having read the article and looked at many source documents, it seems to me that there may be substantial amounts of close paraphrasing in the article. I would invite all editors to examine the article and remove any such instances that may have been copied from the news articles without sufficient attention. -- Ohc ¡digame! 07:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New standalone article for protest against the extradition bill?

Hello all. I feel like there will be more developments on the protests against the bill, especially the 11/6 and 12/6 protests. As it will become very lengthy, should the protest content be moved to a new article? –Wefk423 (talk) 13:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nota bene* Some content of the protests has been moved to 2019 Hong Kong extradition bill protests. Cheers. –Wefk423 (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The number of protesters

The description of number of protesters (hundreds of and thousands of) retrieved from Washington Post may be misleading, especially when it was posted on the main page. I think a specific number, such as "1.03 million (claimed by the Civil Human Rights Front) or 240,000 (claimed by the police)" retrieved from NPR may be better. -- BrandNew Jim Zhang (talk) 13:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Authorities ALWAYS undercount protesters. I once counted a Vancouver Peace Mach myself by walking front to back and our numbers were 110,000 and the news reported 30,000. Between 240,000 and 1,000,000 protesters... is a useful way to phrase it, which also highlights the subjectivity of the number. 72.141.106.240 (talk) 18:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Such an estimate based on your technique would be wildly inaccurate. In any event, the Reliable Sources will be the deciding factor on the numbers. 104.169.19.0 (talk) 00:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is ongoing problem of the methodology to estimate the number of protesters of every anniversary of 4th June as well as other protest such as 1 July 2003. Some general consensus by the general public was the police was always under estimate and then the claims from the speaker of the protests often overestimate. 1 million was quoted by all major media (Reuters, ABC) but may be not reliable. Unfortunately HKUPOP did not make any scientific estimate for 9 June 2019 protest. According to Edward Yiu, his estimate was 0.86 to 1.38 million. However, not sure why his page was take down by facebook.
And yes, i agreed with 104.169.19.0. Wikipedia fundamental principles were no WP:OR and based on summarize WP:reliable source. Matthew hk (talk) 08:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The two numbers are both correct. the lower figure is the peak number of the crowd. given that it was an all day protest, most people did not stay for the entire day but participated for part of the time. a crowd of 240 000 people is a significant number of people from a crowd control perspective which is why the police gave that number. over a million attended the protests but not for the entire day. There have been misconceptions created in the western media that the Hong Kong authorities under counted the number. 49.198.7.235 (talk) 02:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could a legally trained person please try and either reduce the legal jargon, or explain it better? It would be helpful to have the bullet points include whether people are opposed to them, or not, and why exactly. The whole issue is generally clear, but the details are murky to innocent bystanders. 72.141.106.240 (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

I commented out the long description in the infobox with edit summary "far too long for an infobox" but it was reverted by Lmmnhn without explanation. Therefore I am initiating discussion here. In my view, the infobox is for a short summary and essential data, and this huge description does not belong there. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see someone has put it in a collapsible box. This may be an acceptable compromise if the default state is collapsed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 June 2019

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: move to 2019 Hong Kong extradition bill. There is clear consensus for a move, and weak consensus for "2019 Hong Kong extradition bill" rather than the originally proposed "Hong Kong extradition bill 2019". (closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 → Hong Kong extradition bill 2019 – excessive and unused official name Viztor (talk) 18:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because it did not quite fit most of the WP:CRITERIA. Matthew hk (talk) 05:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any other extradition bills that have been introduced in LegCo this year? If not, then the proposed target is precise enough for WP:PRECISE: titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that. —Nizolan (talk) 14:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is the amendment of the old extradition bill, so year 2019 is needed. Since it is criteria not criterion, official name is very precise, but did not have the same recognize level as the common name . I would say anyone oppose the new proposal, read the 4 WP:CRITERIA first. Matthew hk (talk) 07:19, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize." - Only experts will recognize the full title of the bill.
The new title would also fulfill the Naturalness criterion: "The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for" - nobody except a lawyer is likely to search for the full legal title of the bill.
The current title obviously does not fulfill the criterion of "Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it".
As for the final criterion: Consistency, the relevant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(government_and_legislation) states: Prefer titles that reflect the name commonly used in reliable sources. And, -I feel this should be decisive-:
Generally, use the short title instead of the long title (for example, European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999 instead of An Act to amend the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978 so as to alter the method used in Great Britain for electing Members of the European Parliament to make other amendments of enactments relating to the election of Members of the European Parliament and for connected purposes), unless the long title is much better known. However, a redirect from long to short titles should be created, and the long title should be included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xavdeman (talk • contribs) 09:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(government_and_legislation)? Xavdeman (talk) 10:55, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Did you actually read the section on legislation: Prefer titles that reflect the name commonly used in reliable sources. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 15:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, which is why I added my support above. I merely wanted to provide another source in addition to COMMONNAME and CONCISE ;) Sorry if I confused you with the question mark. Xavdeman (talk) 12:51, 16 June 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.

Who owns this page?

Null result on a text search for "Assange" gives a good idea. The people who brought to the world "rendition" of political opponents for torture and murder and who want to extradite Assange to terrorise all who would speak of their deeds, and who can order rent-a-crowd in Hong Kong against extradition of common criminals, would have no difficulty spamming Wikipedia with thousands of pages like this. Is it because they are desperate that they go overboard and lose credibility by their absurd abuses? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.166.16.4 (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, please see: Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content
All Wikipedia content—articles, categories, templates, and other types of pages—is edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, or how high-standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page. Also, a person or an organization that is the subject of an article does not own the article, and has no right to dictate what the article may say.
There is already an extradition treaty between the United States of America and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. You can find it at UK–US extradition treaty of 2003. Assange is relevant to that article, not to the Hong Kong extradition bill.
Please also read up on the Tu Quoque Fallacy
The “tu quoque,” Latin for “you too,” is also called the “appeal to hypocrisy” because it distracts from the argument by pointing out hypocrisy in the opponent. This tactic doesn’t solve the problem, or prove one’s point, because even hypocrites can tell the truth. Focusing on the other person’s hypocrisy is a diversionary tactic. In this way, the tu quoque typically deflects criticism away from one’s self by accusing the other person of the same problem or something comparable. If Jack says, “Maybe I committed a little adultery, but so did you Jason!” Jack is trying to diminish his responsibility or defend his actions by distributing blame to other people. But no one else’s guilt excuses his own guilt. No matter who else is guilty, Jack is still an adulterer.[1]

--Xavdeman (talk) 00:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Status

The status is listed as “halted”. Carrie Lam has said that the bill is “dead”, but has not withdrawn it.[1] Should the status bar reflect the political status of the bill (which is ambiguous anyway) or its legal status? My understanding is that there is no timeframe for a second reading but that the government could give notice at any point for one.[2] I think that “second reading indefinitely suspended” or “notice of second reading withdrawn by government” would be more accurate. Docentation (talk) 10:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep it as halted. The bill has not been formally withdrawn, so like you say it can be re-tabled at any time. The bill is dead according to Carrie Lam (HK Chief Exec.), however the very same bill can be 'resurrected at any time by simply (re-)scheduling a second reading. So until it is formally (legally) withdrawn, the status of 'halted' is correct.
Additionally, we should avoid legal jargon per Rule 4: Wikipedia is not primarily aimed at experts; therefore, the level of technical detail in its articles must be balanced against the ability of non-experts to understand those details.--Xavdeman (talk) 00:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Xavdeman:; I fully agree that the bill can be re-tabled at any time. The plain meaning of “halt” includes both stopping permanently (i.e. withdrawal in this instance) and stopping with the possibility (though not certainty) of resumption (i.e. suspension of second reading.) So I think that “Second reading indefinitely suspended” or even just “indefinitely suspended” would have a better chance of communicating what is required. The alternative, whilst not jargon, does not actually mean what the box should say. I do however see what you mean about jargon, and would happily support alternative phrasing, but I can’t think of anything at the moment. Don’t worry though; I shan’t change it until there is consensus here on what, if anything, it should be changed too. Docentation (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. I agree that "second reading of the bill indefinitely suspended" would be more accurate than simply "halted" and I do think this would be understood by most. Especially if you hyperlink the words 'reading of the bill' to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_(legislature) . As far as I'm concerned you can change the status to that.--Xavdeman (talk) 17:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Right, well nobody else seems to be bothered about this, and it’s been on the talkpage for nearly a week, so I shall change it forthwith, especially in view of your suggestion. No second reading for this amendment! Docentation (talk) 22:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I have just discovered that the template doesn’t work as I think it does; “halted” is the best option of the presets. I’ll see whether I can add some sort of prominent note. Docentation (talk) 22:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that I have come up with a workable solution, though I am not attached to my use of the summary field. Docentation (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The bill has been officially withdrawn by Carrie Lam in a video. SammyknowsitallCriticize 02:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sammyknowsitall: The status is "will be formally withdrew" It was announced that once the resuming of the meeting of the LegCo, government official will formally announce the withdrew, which the formal withdraw process requires to be announce in LegCo official meeting. Matthew hk (talk) 04:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Killed bill: Hong Kong leader's peace offering fails to win over critics". South China Morning Post. 2019-07-09. Retrieved 2019-07-12.
  2. ^ "As it happened: Carrie Lam backs down and 'suspends' Hong Kong extradition bill, sets no new time frame". South China Morning Post. 2019-06-15. Retrieved 2019-07-12.

Clearing "demonstrations" section?

Hello all. The Demonstrations sections of this article only includes 4 events out of the many major protests. Since it doesn't seem to be updated and detailed enough, I was wondering if we should clear them all and simply replace it with a main template linking to the main protest article? –Wefk423 (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I changed title of subheading to clarify that this is not an exhaustive list of all demonstrations against the bill. No need to remove the section.Xavdeman (talk) 00:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

excellent source

See https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/hongkong-protests-extradition-narrative/ for excellent content in this matter. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:00, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Breakdown of initial paragraph

The initial paragraph above the infobox is a bit long and therefore difficult to read; and I do not have the knowledge of the subject matter to change it. Could someone who does have the sufficient knowledge maybe cut down the first paragraph a bit? AquariusMallard (talk) 13:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2019_Hong_Kong_extradition_bill