Template:CEN noticeboard

"Terrorist Attack"?

Apple Daily have begun to use the headline "Yuen Long Terrorist Attack" for all articles associated with the incident.--Patma20 (talk) 09:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC) There are now many English sources describing the events as terrorism. The Civil Human Rights Front is calling it terrorism in their open letter to 61 countries, not to mentioned individual lawmakers making such a reference. Max Chung, the organizer of the 727 Reclaim Yuen Long protest, is calling the upcoming protest as a condemnation of a "terror attack". There are numerous Chinese media calling it as a terrorist attack - and not by a misinterpretation. comment addeby --Patma20 (talk) 06:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC) Patma20[reply]

I'm not seeing sources that describe this using the words "terrorist" or "terrorism". For example: NYTimes "mob attack", BBC: "armed mob violence". South China Morning Post has used the word in the sense of "he the chaos and terror", "unleashed terror/terrorising protesters", but not "terrorist" or "terrorism". Although there are reports that "one lawmaker calls incident 'terrorism'", I don't see sources, in their own voice, calling it "terrorism" or a "terrorist attack". Are there any sources, perhaps non-English sources, that describe the attack, in their own voice, as terrorism? – Levivich 00:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe blame on bad translation, but not a terrorist attack as far as reporting says. Kingsif (talk) 00:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've renamed this article to 2019 Yuen Long violence until a better name can be decided upon. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, MJL. Should the "terrorist" redirect be G7'd? (My concern is we contribute to citogenesis of applying that NPOV label.) But maybe it's a good redirect to keep? I'm not sure. – Levivich 02:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: Only qualifies for WP:G7 if Angelalive requests deletion. Otherwise, it's a ((R from non-neutral name))/((R from inaccurate name)). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we already have a template for that, I should have known :-) – Levivich 02:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The attack has fulfilled all the descriptions of terror attack. So the term terror attack must be included in the description part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pascotam (talk • contribs) 2019-07-23T09:41:29 (UTC)

@Pascotam:. Hi newbie. In case you don't know, wikipedia is based on secondary source , instead of wiki editor's original research. If there are many news report using terror attack, then it is safe to use that wording. However, it is not and just some opinion of some well known "KOL". Matthew hk (talk) 09:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.inmediahk.net/node/1065882. In this article, the term “terror attack” ( 民主派譴責元朗恐襲) has been mentioned in the heading. Thats a primary source and not my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pascotam (talk • contribs) 2019-07-23T09:58:05 (UTC)
1. Sign your post. 2. Put you reply in order (i.e. the last unless reply to someone comment in specific). 3. It is not widely using "terror attack" by major media. So it is WP:UNDUE. Matthew hk (talk) 10:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I have just added 2 primary sources for reference. (5 and 6) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pascotam (talk • contribs) 10:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please put your comment in order, again. Your comment had moved to the (second) last to follow the timestamp of the discussion. Matthew hk (talk) 10:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthew. I have attached 2 Chinese sources which clearly stated the term „terror attack/terrorism“ have been used. And apart from the written sources, there are YouTube records of the Pro-democracy lawmakers which also used the term „terror attack“ extensively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pascotam (talk • contribs) 10:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Also, based on the citations you provided (Special:Diff/907499776, Special:Diff/907499901), they are news reporting directly quoting primary source, and directly publishing opinion of a public figure respectively. But as other wiki editors stated (see above comment), "terror"wording is not used in Western media. Also, local Hong Kong also did not use the "terror attack/Terrorist Attack" wording. It is WP:DUE to say a number of public figures such as pan-democratic, 梁啟智, Simon Shen, 盧斯達 condemned it is a terror attack, but WP:UNDUE to change article title and infobox or the wording of the first sentence of the lede. Matthew hk (talk) 10:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC) (edited 10:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Also, the matter was discussed in Wikipedia:Current events noticeboard#2019 Yuen Long violence, which pretty much snowball consensus to NOT list the Yuen Long attack as a terrorist incident. Matthew hk (talk) 13:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Such as the edit summary of Deryckchan Remove Yuen Long attack for now - no reliable source has characterized it as "terrorist attack" so far at List of terrorist incidents in July 2019.
Doug Weller There are clearly mixed opinions regarding this and I see nothing authoritative either here or in the main article, just various people's opinions.~
Thus, @David Kwan 4: whatever you are socking or not please participate the discussion using one account (the account that registered earlier). Matthew hk (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We don't use headlines (which you refer to as "title of article" as sources. They are rarely used by the author of the article itself. And the sources I saw were only people, mainly politicians, offering their opinions. That definitely is not enough. Doug Weller talk 14:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@David Kwan 4:, i took the liberty to merge the discussion thread. As seen in a SCMP article on 23 July (today), the news reporter using the wording "attack", without terror/terrorist. This is not the place for propaganda war in wikipedia. Matthew hk (talk) 15:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And have to correct my comment in #English primary source of lawmaker labelling this as terrorist attack, not sure a typo or the journalist mixed up the two persons or not, SCMP attributed the opinions to Roy Kwong, while two sourced that added previously (Special:Diff/907499901, see above comment; [1]) attributed to Kenneth Leung. Or Leung and Kwong both made similar statements. Matthew hk (talk) 15:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@David Kwan 4:, seem you did not wish to take part in the discussion and also ignoring an admin Doug Weller's comment, and reintroducing terrorist wording in the following edits: Special:Diff/907549709, Special:Diff/907549984. Matthew hk (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

English primary source of lawmaker labelling this as terrorist attack

Merged with the related thread. Please post reply in #"Terrorist Attack"?. (involved editor close) Matthew hk (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Post-closing comment. The users Pascotam and David Kwan 4, were blocked for socking. Matthew hk (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2019 (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.

https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3019574/hong-kong-police-deny-accusation-they-colluded-thugs-who — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Kwan 4 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC) — David Kwan 4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

We don't (not often to) use primary source in wikipedia article as citation. Most of the time wiki editors are summarizing secondary source. The article you provided, did not stated that SCMP called it as terrorist attack, but an opinion of Kwong Chun-yu, which already have The Standard and INMEDIAHK Network (香港獨立媒體網), one Chinese and English, one have print edition and one online only , but both free newspaper as citation for the same press conference. Also, please don't use multiple accounts for illegitimate use. As i accused you as a sock of an editor that had received the 3RR warning it clearly not a legitimate use of posting new stuff using second account. Matthew hk (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please read also #"Terrorist Attack"? and may be centralize the discussion there. FYI, #Title “violence” was regarding to change the WP:article title to mob attack/mob violence. Matthew hk (talk) 15:07, 23 July 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.

Merge

The thread is located in Talk:2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests#Yuen Long 21 July Matthew hk (talk) 08:35, 23 July 2019 (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.

Moved to Talk:2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests § Merge
 – –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge.-Tai Po Joe (talk) 05:43, 23 July 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.

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

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The image might qualify for :en fair-use exception. --Túrelio (talk) 09:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It have no tag. Please see also WP:NCC. Lastly, if you want to oppose the deletion, you need to go to commons:File:600_phpTw9rj7.jpg (or commons:File talk:600_phpTw9rj7.jpg) Matthew hk (talk) 09:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No idea what NCC has do with this image. I don't want to oppose deletion, as I might be the Commons' admin forced to delete the image. I want that you :en guys save it for the article. --Túrelio (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For re-load to local wiki (en-wiki this wiki), it seem a critical commentary , but i would say not normally for keeping journalistic photo, using fair use. Matthew hk (talk) 09:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's currently the lead-image of the article and it seems to be historically, if not forensically important, as it shows attackers and a victim. --Túrelio (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is literally a WP:CSD#F7 criteria for file in local wiki. It need a careful wording to have that file to speedy keep in local wiki. ltn.com.tw (自由時報) is a commercial source, however, itself was using a photo from a facebook page "香港突發事故報料區". So, the copyrights itself was questionable (should it belongs to facebook according to ToS?). I am not sure The Stand News have photo or not regarding the attack, but it seem screen capturing their video for any use is allowed, given the commentary is reflecting the fact instead of distorting it. Matthew hk (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And it is a typo. Should be WP:NFC. Matthew hk (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Number of attackers

So far there has been no confirmed number of the attackers. Apple Daily mentioned it as many as 1000. But as few as 100 is definitely unbelievable. Pascotam (talk) 10:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The attached source mentioned “over a hundred” and “several hundred” many times.
https://www.hk01.com/社會新聞/354982/元朗黑夜-重組-白色恐怖-漫長一夜-白衣人施暴的冇警5小時 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pascotam (talk • contribs) 10:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again source mentioned the number to be “up to 1000”.
https://topick.hket.com/article/2406887/【元朗襲擊】元朗近千白衣人狂打黑衣人%E3%80%80杜汶澤怒斥：元朗進入無警時份 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pascotam (talk • contribs) 10:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We may be quoting HA (edit: HA for injured , Police for attackers. 11:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)) but also stating unconfirmed figures that were reported by newspaper. However, HK01 is marginal reliable according to CUHK survey on interviewing random HK citizen [2][3]. I think some reliable "print" newspaper such as HKEJ may have news reporting on the figure instead. Matthew hk (talk) 11:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Or TV station such as NOW and I-Cable are reliable and qualify as citation for WP:verify. Matthew hk (talk) 11:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think currently it is safe to use the word “hundreds” to describe the number of attackers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pascotam (talk • contribs) 12:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you ever read your user talk page? You need to sign your post in talk page namespace , user talk namespace "wikipedia talk" namespace , but not in article namespace. Matthew hk (talk) 12:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Title “violence”

Al Jazeera used the term “masked mob”, BBC used “(armed) mob violence” and France 24 used “mob attack” to describe the incidence.

The term “violence” cannot show the seriousness of the incidence.

I suggest using the BBC term in the title. Namely “Yuen Long (armed) mob violence”. I strongly believe the word “mob” has to be included. Pascotam (talk) 12:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you like, please follow the proper WP:RM process to start a discussion thread. Yes, local newspaper The Standard use "mob attack",[4] as well as NYT. [5] (both links are obtained from the citation of the wiki article) Matthew hk (talk) 12:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See also WP:CRITERIA. Matthew hk (talk) 12:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lede need rewrite

It seem resolved by the work of Wefk423 . Matthew hk (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2019 (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.

FYI, lede is to summarize the main paragraphs of the article. It is not suitable to put info and fact in lede but absent in the main paragraphs . Currently, the lede failed to summarize the article , as well as the claim of "terror attack" may worth to move to a separate section, which may be named as "Public Response". Matthew hk (talk) 12:51, 23 July 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.

Timeline

According NOW the tv channel, quoting victim, the incident already happened in Yuen Long outside the train station before 10:00pm, thus the location and time in the infobox may need to change. Also, more citation is needed. Matthew hk (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pascotam and David Kwan have been blocked as socks

their posts here can be struck through. Doug Weller talk 19:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Alleged" police collusion

I changed "Suspected" collusion to "Alleged" collusion. I think our job is to report this as allegations, not suspicions. Magnabonzo (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Categories