Talk:2019 Yuen Long attack

Wording in article title, infobox, lede etc.

"Terrorist Attack"?

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)

Maybe blame on bad translation, but not a terrorist attack as far as reporting says. Kingsif (talk) 00:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

Of course we already have a template for that, I should have known :-) – Levivich 02:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

(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))

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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 — Patma20 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Pascotam (talk • contribs).

• In reply to the edit summary of SPAs. Even one newspaper Apple Daily changed to terrorist attack as their same old tabloid journalism. It seem other major newspaper, SCMP, Ming Pao, HKET, HKEJ, Sing Tao (including sister newspaper The Standard), Oriental Daily News as well as Western media did not change to use that wording. Even the popular online-only newsaper, thestandnews.com, did not change the wording to terrorist attack. Matthew hk (talk) 16:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Apple Daily and the Standnews have all began to refer the attacks as Terrorist Attacks, perhaps due to their further analysis of what happened and the international standards of terrorism. Given the foreign media is unlikely to revisit an old story, and the other mainstream media being pro-establishment entities, this should be enough to label the incidents properly to reflect the seriousness of the event. The Chinese version of this page also labelled it as a terrorist attack, there is a lot more online media in Chinese language labelling the event as terrorism, the English version should reflect for consistency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.64.243.40 (talk) 2019-07-26T08:37:56 (UTC) — 45.64.243.40 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

In zh-wiki there is literally an essay zh:维基百科:是英文维基说的！. It means we don't really care the practice of other wiki, each local wiki had its own binding policy. Also, The Stand News (thestandnews.com) use the tag 元朗襲擊 (lit. Yuen Long attack) in 熱門話題 (lit. hot topic), but not [Yuen Long] terrorist attack [元朗] 恐怖襲擊. Also, even 2 newspapers did change the wording. There are many other major newspaper in Hong Kong. Matthew hk (talk) 09:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

More on The Stand News for non local editors. The Stand News is an online newspaper which also acted as a blog webhost for some public figures (or local slang KOL), thus even some blogger in The Stand News, labelled it as terrorist attack, the journalistic news article by the journalist of The Stand News (those labelled as 立場報道), still used 元朗襲擊 wording . See this news article on 26 July. Matthew hk (talk) 09:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Yesterday the Hong Kong Daily called it a "mob attack"[2] the Straits Times[3] didn't use the word terrorist, the New York Times didn't either[4] nor did the Guardian this morning.[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 2019-07-26T09:29:02 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that there's not anything resembling unambiguous and wide-spread RS support of calling this brawl a terrorist attack. Simonm223 (talk) 13:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The issue was somehow "resolved" by WP:SPI block and WP:RPP. But since the article was unprotected again, not sure the sock will re-emerged again to insert that "terrorist attack" wording to the lede or not. Matthew hk (talk) 12:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I saw that somebody pinged me. I made the revert very shortly after the incident itself when the reliable sources haven't started calling it a terrorist attack yet. I'd say circumstances have changed and I don't feel strongly either way. I won't object if somebody readded this attack to the list of terrorist attacks. Deryckchan (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

English primary source of lawmaker labelling this as terrorist attack

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.

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)

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)

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.

Title "violence"

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.

---

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) — Pascotam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

If you like, please follow the proper WP:RM process to start a discussion thread. Yes, local newspaper The Standard use "mob attack",[6] as well as NYT. [7] (both links are obtained from the citation of the wiki article) Matthew hk (talk) 12:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

See also WP:CRITERIA. Matthew hk (talk) 12:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Despite Pascotam was blocked as sock master. Other editors feel free to start a WP:RM process . It did seem English media use quite often "the attack", "mob attack" BTW. Matthew hk (talk) 09:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

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 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)

Support merge.-Tai Po Joe (talk) 05:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support the main article covers the topic more in-depth than what we have here. It can be split again if the content there grows too large. feminist (talk) 05:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

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 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.

---

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

• 600 phpTw9rj7.jpg

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

The image might qualify for :en fair-use exception. --Túrelio (talk) 09:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

And it is a typo. Should be WP:NFC. Matthew hk (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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 [8][9]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

Lede need rewrite

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)

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)

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)

"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)

Fix bias

I noticed that no one talked about the fact the Junius Ho's grave was destroyed by protesters. Can anyone add the fact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bohaska (talk • contribs) 2019-07-26T09:58:47 (UTC) — Bohaska (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

No one confirm which side vandalized the grave. Online rumour which can't be documented in the encyclopedic article, rumoured it was did by the white mob (which another rumor was the white mob was hired to perform the attacks on 21 July, but they fails to receive their wage), or way more conspiracy theory that Ho did the vandalism himself. However, according to WP:verify, we can't add rumour. Ming Pao also stated "網上昨就事件有不同傳言流傳，內容涉及指控不同派別的人破壞墳墓", as well as 暫未有人被捕, without really suggesting any group including the protesters did it. Matthew hk (talk) 10:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, your citation from HKFP did not state which side did it , but merely Ho, the victim, accused the protesters (or more precisely the followers of Eddie Chu 11:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)) did the vandalism on his parent grave. Matthew hk (talk) 11:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Requested move 27 July 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: page moved. El_C 18:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC) El_C 18:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

---

2019 Yuen Long violence → 2019 Yuen Long attack – Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:SPECIFIC. The current title, "... violence", is kind of ambiguous; there might be various 'violence' in Yuen Long, but we should be specific with this major incident. It was in fact an attack. Multiple media outlet also used "attack" too. Cheers. Wefk423 (talk) 11:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support. There is no google ngram available, but picking 1 news article from each newspaper, would support "attack" is the WP:COMMONNAME. The Guardian on 26 July use "Yuen Long attack, a violent attack, NYT on 25 July use Mob Violence, ...Yuen Long, where thugs believed to be connected with organized crime groups attacked people in and around a train station, The strait stimes on 25 July used last weekend's attacks, HKFP on 25 July used violent mob attacks, RTHK on 26 July used The protest march was planned over an attack by a group of armed men on MTR passengers, SCMP on 24 July used Victims of the attack at Yuen Long MTR station. Matthew hk (talk) 13:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support as the common terms should be adopted. hoising (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - The word "attack" could mean many things. STSC (talk) 17:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @STSC: What do you have in mind? In my opinion, "violence" seems more ambiguous than "attack". Cheers. –Wefk423 (talk) 17:23, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Military attack? Sexual attack? Verbal attack? ..., etc. I think the better title would be 2019 Yuen Long political violence. STSC (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Please list any one other notable "attack" in Yuen Long in 2019. Please don't make up your own article title and read WP:CRITERIA first. To be more precise , may be "mob attack" or "violent attack" are worth to consider, but your proposal was complete off the chart and not appeared in news article. Matthew hk (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

You're being silly to say I just make up my own article title. We're here to discuss, for God's sake. STSC (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

No one even use that term in google trend. [10] . Matthew hk (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Just who told you a Wikipedia article title is decided by Google trends? STSC (talk) 18:33, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I had told you to read WP:CRITERIA. Google ngram is one of the metric to prove it is a common name, but it is not available for current affair. Google trend is an inferior alternative due to UGC nature. Either on looking at the news article and google trend, please prove your proposal had pass most of the WP:CRITERIA, there are total of 5 criteria. Matthew hk (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

In case you don't know, the cat is named after attack (Attacks in 2019). Matthew hk (talk) 18:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Add a quote: Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject.. The minimum entry requirement was the candidate of the RM proposal, is appeared in the reliable source or at least by context. Matthew hk (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it is very important for us to choose a title that is not ambiguous, but also not too specific as there is simply no any official conclusion of the attack. Is it a political attack? Is it a terrorist attack? Or like they said, "safeguarding their home"? Maybe finding the common name is the best idea, especially from reliable media outlets. As mentioned above by Matthew, just "attack" seems to be the most mentioned term. –Wefk423 (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME - "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." Attack? What attack? It's maybe notable to Hong Kong people but not other readers outside Hong Kong. STSC (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Please list the news article to have you proposed new title for the wiki-article in the main body of that news article as evidence. Matthew hk (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Also another quote. 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. For example, many article title of football related article are not meant to those completely not understand football. Also, "political attack" is an accusation that violate NPOV, as there is no one to declare their aim or from police investigation, and please read all the wording of newspapers. Matthew hk (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Never mind, Matthew, whether political or not is out of this discussion. On this RM, "violence" is still better than "attack", therefore, I oppose. STSC (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support – Use common name and call a spade a spade. I would also like to point out that STSC is a long-term pro-Beijing agenda editor who is being incredibly disingenuous about this issue, exemplifying his usual M.O.. He knows full well the nature of this attack and is deliberately trying to portray it as a run-of-the-mill fight between two parties in order to mislead western editors. This user has been making disruptive contributions like this for years – it goes back to the 2014 protests. For previous discussion please see these notices from 2015 and 2016. Citobun (talk) 02:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

To be fair , accusation of WP:NOTHERE should go somewhere else (may be WP:ANI?). If "pro-Beijing", then they should happy to go to "2019 Yuen Long attack" instead of "political violence" [from Beijing/establishment camp]. The concept did covered in NYT as Here is a look at the history of the triads and their past political violence in Hong Kong. and under sub-section "What is their history of political violence?" "The attack in Yuen Long was meant to frighten people from attending protests, Professor Lo [盧鐵榮] said", without a firm accusation wording of Yuen Long attack is a new chapter of political violence in Hong Kong by the journalist view. Matthew hk on public computer (talk) 04:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Despite if went to "political violence" direction, there would be changing the scope of the article to cover a long list of accusation of police violence for 27 July 2019 protests/rally/self-declared shopping, hiking, sightseeing. Matthew hk on public computer (talk) 04:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment/Oppose(?). @Wefk423: the current title came about after a post to the Current Events Noticeboard. At the time, the article was labeled "2019 Yuen Long Terrorist Attack." I needed to make an in-the-moment decision to rename this article to something as neutral because it was actively being edited before we had all the facts straight.
  If you ask me now though, we should just rename to 2019 Yuen Long mob violence as calling it an "attack" may give the impression this was like an armed assault of some sort. Both "attack" and "mob violence" are common names, but I feel mob violence is more descriptive. However, I of course may be bias towards the name that is similar to the one I originally chose. Cheers! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

How about "violent mob attack", super precise, NPOV (without any accusation of the motive) but not concise and may be not the most common name BTW. Matthew hk on public computer (talk) 06:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Matthew hk: Definitely not concise enough if it takes 3 words what used to be said in one. I guess we could use the term 2019 Yuen Long mob attack, but that is not my favorite. We're still talking about a bunch of dude with wooden clubs and steel rods attacking things indiscriminately. I see the appeal in labelling it an attack as it shows there was malfeasance behind the event, but I'm not convinced that attack is the right word for this thing. Hmmmm.... –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I guess we could use 2019 Yuen Long mob attack if we want to be more precise. But I don't think it is necessary to label it as "mob attack" when there is only one major attack incident in Yuen Long for now. To me, the biggest concern is that "violence" sounds too ambiguous and vague. It could mean they are punching or pushing, but they are actually attacking people indiscriminately. I think I see the concern when the word "attack", but it seems to be the best choice for now, especially when it is used by a majority of media outlets. –Wefk423 (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Wefk423: Being WP:PRECISE is always a worthwhile goal. Also, according to the sources for this move request, generally the WP:RS qualify it in some way. If we want to reserve a redirect like 2019 Yuen Long attack to this article, that's fine with me. I just would prefer we be careful with our words with such a political charged incident. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support   JaJaWa |hello  12:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support – I would even prefer that "attack" becomes plural: "Yuen Long attacks" ... because there were two or three waves of the mob violence that night, at different locations and times. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 01:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• Neutral Yuen Long Attack is probably accurate enough, if vague, though Yuen Long Brawl is short, to the point and a bit pithy if we're looking for alternates. Simonm223 (talk) 12:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

  @Simonm223: Doesn't brawl make it sound two-sided? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

  As I said. I don't really care much. Offered it if people want a different succinct title. Or leave it as is. Simonm223 (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support per nom and Matthew HK. I would also support 2019 Yuen Long mob attack. Sdkb (talk) 17:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

---

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.

Ireland reaction

I had deleted the reaction of Ireland as self revert. As the primary source stated "updated on 16 July", it seem the warning was issued on 16 July 2019, instead of after 21 July. This rumour of cause-and-effect was started in internet forum. Despite it was reported by newspaper The Standard on 24 July, the news reporter did not have a firm wording on cause-and-effect, thus may be too bold to say the Yuen Long attack was the cause of the travel warning, instead of the protests (and police violence) in general. Matthew hk on public computer (talk) 03:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

It seem it was also reported by UDN, using the article from Central News Agency. But CNA seem quoting TVB, which obviously not a reliable source for this protests. (even the junior staff protest the editorial decision of the senior staff of TVB). Thus, i doubt their ability of fact check and the adjustment of travel warning was happened after 21/7 mob attack. Matthew hk on public computer (talk) 05:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Junius Ho allegations

I've removed the para about Junius Ho from the lede on the basis that it violates WP:GOSSIP. Simply put - a photograph of a person standing next to an anonymous man in a white t-shirt and he-said /she-said about whether He thought this person was one of THOSE white shirts or just a constituent he was greeting as a politician have no place in an encyclopedia. If he is charged, or censured, or faces some sort of career consequence as a result of this, it would likely be due, but still probably not in the lede of the article about the brawl. Simonm223 (talk) 12:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Infobox and suspects

Several people had fixed the infobox wording again and again, 65.60.163.223 , @User3204:, please familiar yourself before adding suspects and accusation to infobox ( I mean this, this, this and this) . Please read also the edit summary.

• we don't name suspects in the infobox per Consensus (Special:Diff/907529934)

-- Matthew hk (talk) 07:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I checked out that link about accusations (but no suspects names are being listed, only gang affiliation) ... and this is what credible media is reporting:

"Hong Kong police to launch raids on white-clad thugs, including members of 14K and Wo Shing Wo triad gangs, who unleashed terror on protesters and bystanders in Yuen Long"

https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-and-crime/article/3019637/hong-kong-police-launch-raids-white-clad-thugs

So I dunno. Seems like there are plenty of other media stories like this that talk about how triad gangsters have been arrested in relation to these attacks. So we have to wait until they are convicted in a court of law before putting that information into the infobox? 65.60.163.223 (talk) 08:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

They are still suspects. Matthew hk (talk) 08:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

True, and court proceedings could take years. : ) 65.60.163.223 (talk) 08:20, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

The news article only reported some of them have (confirmed) triad background. It is UNDUE to add pro-Beijing label to it (and we probably never know). Wikipedia is a tertiary source , not a propaganda machine or doing its own journalist reporting . I forgot the link of the specific wiki essay, but wikipedia often have timelag as a compromise of accuracy. Since they are living people, WP:BLP policy also applies, which Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.. Matthew hk (talk) 08:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I get that, but nobody's legal names are being used -- only thing listed was presumed political affiliation and triad gang group. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 08:37, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

You certainly NOT get that for what is talking about in Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Remove "suspected perpetrator" field in Template:Infobox civilian attack. Matthew hk (talk) 08:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, actually, most of that discussion is about the controversy involved with listing a (potentially innocent) person's legal name and says nothing about alleged political or group affiliations. We are talking about an issue of group violence ... this is a mob, not an individual. The entity of a group mob will never go on trial or be found guilty, etc. So this is a bit different. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 08:56, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

And in that village pump discussion, one person wrote this:

"Oppose. In some cases it is appropriate for us to name the perpetrator prior to conviction (e.g. when extremely widely reported in highly public events) - but known with a high degree of certainty. In other cases - e.g. historic cases, events in warfare, etc - while we might not have a definite perpetrator it might still be appropriate to name in the infobox." 65.60.163.223 (talk) 09:02, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, this very same information is clearly listed on the Chinese page version:

https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019年7月元朗襲擊事件

So why not here too? What's the difference, exactly? 65.60.163.223 (talk) 09:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

OK guys, so here's what you need to pay attention to here WP:BLPCRIME. Basically, if a person is suspected of a crime and is not a public figure, Wikipedia must act with special care and tact. Which means, no, we don't list their names until they've been tried and convicted. Even if that takes years. See also WP:NOTNEWS and WP:10YT - we don't need to rush to judgment. We're an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. We can take time to get it right. Simonm223 (talk) 12:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223: and @Matthew hk: Nobody here is even suggesting to list any names! : )

The controversy is about if we can list the fact that gangster groups were involved in the attacks on the infobox. Otherwise, just reading the infobox makes it look like these attacks are by a group of random men dressed in white, which is misleading at best. This is a clear example of coordinated political violence, as reported by numerous reputable media outlets both in Hong Kong and abroad. So how then to make this point clear on the infobox? What field is most appropriate to explain this important information?? Thanks very much. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 23:07, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Groups of BLPs are still BLPs.Simonm223 (talk) 00:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223: and @Matthew hk: True, but it depends on the size of the group and these triad organizations are very large groups.

From WP:BLP#Legal persons and groups: "The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group." (emphasis added)

• 14K Triad is the second largest triad group, with 25,000 members.
• Wo Shing Wo is one of the oldest triad groups, with as many as 70,000 members.

Talking about these entities does not appear to be the same as talking about individuals, per the link referenced above in regards to BLP and groups. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 02:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223: and @Matthew hk:

Also, if there is collusion between triad / police / politicians / government ... then there will never be any legal "proof" due to corruption.

"Gangs of Hong Kong: The local mafia is doing China’s bidding against the protesters"

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/02/opinion/hong-kong-protests-triads-gang-china.html

65.60.163.223 (talk) 06:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

An American soldier raped people in Japan, is quite different to label US Marine Corp raped Japanese or even US had stared a war crime on Japan. The NYT article despite UNDUE and only reporting the opinion of Dr. Lo, had stated triad are only gun-for-hire. We never know those mob are representing themselves or an official action of the gang (and those gang are loose enough that we never know did the chain of command work or not). Matthew hk (talk) 12:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223: and @Matthew hk:

So we could say the assailants were composed of: "gang members of various triad groups and others all dressed in white." ??

Or maybe: "numerous assailants had links with organized crime syndicates" ... etc. Then it is less specific, but still truthful.

Something like that? I think it's okay to be a bit more specific than simply the dress code. Because reading only the infobox makes it look like this was a random attack by "people dressed in white" and it was clearly not random, but well planned and coordinated.

How can we better communicate that aspect? How to explain on the infobox that it was not random? Thanks. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 01:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

You go with what can be attributed to reliable sources; and to use Wikipedia voice, there has to be pretty clear agreement among reliable sources. If sources differ, we give statements and attribute both. So, for instance, if SCMP says one thing and China Daily says another, you say Author X at SCMP described the assailants as members of the triads while author Z at China Daily called them "white-shirted thugs." Remember: Wikipedia isn't the arbiter of truth, only of what can be verified by reliable sources. Stick to that. Simonm223 (talk) 00:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223: and @Matthew hk:

Yes, verifiability from reliable sources totally makes sense ... though I wouldn't say that China Daily has much credibility, with a proven track record of information distortion. According to China Daily, the "thugs dressed in white" were probably CIA operatives, along with all foreigners at any given protest ever ... it's all western conspiracy (nevermind lack of any mention of evidence). No genuine democracy movement here! : )

Anyway, it seems to me from reading a bunch of media articles, there is already pretty wide consensus that members of organized crime were very likely involved in the Yuen Long attacks. And even more arrests of gangsters have been made in recent days, in relation to those attacks. Due to potential government corruption, however, it is questionable that any of them will ever be charged and tried for their crimes. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 02:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

We don't exclude a reliable source just based on its POV. If you accept NYT is reliable, so is China Daily. Just like Ming Pao. Or SCMP. Simonm223 (talk) 01:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223: and @Matthew hk:

I'm not sure that's really true. New York Times usually does a good job fact checking their stories (not always, but usually) ... and I don't think the same can really be said about China Daily. Having an editorial board that cares about actual facts is kind of important in terms of being a credible news source. You can't engage in censorship and basically just print fiction and expect it to be considered anything other than propaganda. Call it like it is, please. : ) 65.60.163.223 (talk) 02:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

NYT article is reporting the OPINION of Dr. Lo. Those opinion may notable enough to be summarised in the "reaction" section of this article, as well as the fact that some of the arrested suspect has triad background, should belongs somewhere in the mainbody. However, the full detail are not suitable to put in infobox. We did not put the full list of the suspected true identity of Jack the Ripper in the infobox. Matthew hk on public computer (talk) 04:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

And sorry for late reply to zh-wiki practice. I copied the same reply at your user talk page and at this article talk page. In zh-wiki there is literally an essay zh:维基百科:是英文维基说的！. It means we don't really care the practice of other wiki, each local wiki had its own binding policy. Matthew hk on public computer (talk) 04:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223: and @Matthew hk:

Okay, I am talking about a lot more than just the New York Times opinion piece:

"Pro-Government Thugs Beat Up Dozens of Hong Kong Protesters"
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/yuichirokakutani/2019/07/22/thugs-beat-up-dozens-of-hong-kong-protesters-sparking-demonstrations-n2550420

"Henchmen Enlisted Against Hong Kong Democracy Protesters"
https://realmoney.thestreet.com/politics/henchmen-enlisted-against-hong-kong-democracy-protesters-15027394

"Over 40 injured as ‘gangsters’ attack protesters in Yuen Long"
http://www.ejinsight.com/20190722-over-40-injured-as-gangsters-attack-protesters-in-yuen-long/

"HIRED THUGS: China-backed ‘triad’ mobsters beat pregnant woman to ground as gangs attack Hong Kong democracy protesters"
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9554262/hong-kong-protest-triad-mob-latest-news/

"Anger in Hong Kong over 'triad attack' on anti-government protesters"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/22/anger-hong-kong-triad-attack-anti-government-protesters/

"These Are the Triad Gangs Linked to Hong Kong Protester Attacks"
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-24/who-are-triads-and-are-they-behind-hong-kong-attacks-quicktake

"Hong Kong police under fire after ‘triads’ beat protesters"
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/asia-pacific/hong-kong-police-under-fire-after-triads-beat-protesters-1.3963668

"Suspected 'Triad' Gangs Mark Dangerous New Phase in Hong Kong's Crisis"
https://time.com/5631502/hong-kong-protests-triads-yuen-long/

"Triads linked to violent pro-China gangs as Hong Kong protests enter dangerous new phase"
https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/triads-linked-to-violent-pro-china-gangs-as-hong-kong-protests-enter-dangerous-new-phase-20190722-p529ln.html

"'Triad' attack on Hong Kong protesters sparks anger"
https://au.news.yahoo.com/anger-soars-over-vicious-mob-attack-hong-kong-031454278--spt.html

"Hong Kong 'triad' gang attack in train station 'an attempt to silence voice of the people', says protest leader"
https://news.yahoo.com/hong-kong-triad-gang-attack-122500559.html

"Anger in Hong Kong over 'triad attack' on anti-government protesters"
https://news.yahoo.com/anger-hong-kong-over-triad-090823507.html

"Fears of thugs-for-hire in Hong Kong after mob attack"
https://www.krtv.com/cnn-asia-pacific/2019/07/23/fears-of-thugs-for-hire-in-hong-kong-after-mob-attack/

"Anger soars over vicious triad attack on Hong Kong protesters"
https://japantoday.com/category/world/anger-soars-over-vicious-mob-attack-on-hong-kong-protesters

"Triad gangster attack in Hong Kong after night of violent protests-lawmaker"
http://news.trust.org/item/20190722011033-76kfs

"‘Triad’ Thugs Use Clubs to Punish Hong Kong’s Pro-Democracy Protesters. But That’s Not Gonna Stop Them."
https://www.thedailybeast.com/in-hong-kong-triad-thugs-use-clubs-to-punish-pro-democracy-protestors-but-thats-not-gonna-stop-them

How many more sources do we need, exactly? : ) 65.60.163.223 (talk) 06:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Townhall.com is not a reliable source. The street is fine as a source. I am not familiar with ejinsight.com but it looks fine. The Sun is a tabloid, not reliable. The telegraph doesn't have a great reputation but is allowable as a source with attribution. The Bloomberg source seems fine. Irish Times is fine as a source. Same with Time. Same with Sydney Morning Herald. Yahoo news isn't great, but if it's just backing up what other reliable sources say, then it's fine. Japan Today is fine. Thompson Reuters is fine. The Daily Beast is iffy - but no moreso than China Daily. So for the most part these sources are reliable sources to use. So the question becomes what, precisely you want to use them for? Also keep in mind that if other contradictory sources such as this one which describes MTR protesters as violent [11] then we give WP:DUE weight to both. So again, the question is not, "are these sources reliable?" as most of them are reliable to varying degrees. The question becomes "what edit do you want to make to the article from these sources?" Simonm223 (talk) 12:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223:

To make minor clarification about "organized crime" connections (no need to be more specific than that). We should make mention of "organized crime" somewhere on the infobox so that the nature of the attacks is more clear. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 02:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Please be specific with your proposed edit. Frankly I think infoboxes in current event articles are generally a bad idea though. Simonm223 (talk) 11:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223: and @Matthew hk:

Okay, I have looked over the infobox template and yeah, it is difficult to determine what would be best for this information. What makes sense to me is something like this:

• "Motive - political in nature with links to organized crime"

I think the sources support that designation. It is vague enough that it is not specifically condemning any individuals or groups by name. So my proposal is that either we update the infobox, or change the last sentence of the second paragraph of the lede to something like this:

• "Many accused the police of failing to protect citizens from being attacked. Many have also alleged that police colluded with the mobs and participating organized crime elements."

Thoughts? Is there better wording that could be used? Thanks for your input! 65.60.163.223 (talk) 00:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Many is too vague - be specific, who are accusing the police according to the reliable sources you cite? Simonm223 (talk) 11:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

"Thugs-for-hire"

The distinguishing feature of the Yuen Long attacks was the violence perpetrated by thugs associated with local triad groups in New Territories, an area in Hong Kong that borders the city of Shenzhen in mainland China. Triad gangs in New Territories have long had a reputation of being rather close to the mainland authorities. Hiring of thugs or gangsters to beat up protestors and to carry out challenging day-to-day policies are a common phenomenon in mainland China. These thugs are commonly hired by local governments to do dirty jobs that the authorities cannot legitimately send the police to carry out, according to academic research by Lynette Ong, a professor of political science at the University of Toronto (footnote 1). Thugs or gangsters provide local governments with "plausible deniability" and a "veneer of legitimacy" (footnote 2). To be sure, credible evidence suggests thugs were similarly to beat up protestors in Hong Kong during the Occupy Central Movement in 2014 (footnote 3).

Footnotes

1. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3125865
2. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3161882
3. https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/thugs-mainland-china-hong-kong-protests

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Onglynette (talk • contribs) 20:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC) — Onglynette (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Yes, very relevant and necessary to understand the situation. Something about this should be made clear on the infobox somehow. No need to "falsely accuse" or even mention which specific triad gangs: it could simply say that members of organized crime syndicates are likely to have participated in these events to some degree. Thoughts from others? 65.60.163.223 (talk) 23:07, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

• Nam Pin Wai people 20190722.png
• Yuen Long Station White Tee people oepn the gate 20190721.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Fake Claims in Article re "Suspected involvement of Junius Ho"

The currently article falsely accuses Junius Ho of being involved in the attack. The accusations are not supported by the actual source articles.

This is the supporting reference currently in the article: https://hk.news.appledaily.com/local/realtime/article/20190722/59848508

The actual article states: 網上流傳一段短片，立法會議員何君堯與大批白衣人握手，更舉拇指及鼓掌稱讚，有白衣人向何君堯稱「你哋係我嘅英雄」。網上亦流傳何君堯與元朗白衣人的合照，元朗有建築物外牆亦出現「聲討禍港泛民議員」的標貼。何在facebook回應指，自己當時只是「晚飯後路過」，因很多市民「很認同我為港敢言發聲支持警察維持治安，要求跟我拍照，我亦樂於接受」，辯稱與「白衣人打黑衣人事件」絕對沒有任何關係。

Translation to English: A video circulating online shows, LegCo member Junius Ho shake hands with white-clothed man (or men), showing thumbs up to indicate support, with the white-clothed man saying "you people are my hero(es)". Social media also circulated Junius Ho in picture with white-clothed man, with the signage "Legislative Member Voicing Criticism of Rioter Who Bring Vileness to Hong Kong" appearing on the wall of building in Yuen Long. Ho responded on facebook, he was "on the way back after dinner", because many citizen "strongly agreed with my courage to speak up for Hong Kong, support of police, support public order, they asked to take photo with me, I gladly accepted", and claimed to have no relation whatsoever with the "White-clothed men attack black-clothed men incident".

(note: the commas in the English translation are in the exact same spot in the Chinese text, therefore it may not be grammatically correct)

The source article from Apply Daily reports the allegation the white-clothed attackers may be members of organized crime. However the article did not accuse Junis being involved in the attack, nor did the article identify the white-clothed man beside Junis was a member of organized crime, or a member who took part in the attack.

I also checked the article from HKFP (in the wiki article), there was no claim made by HKFP that the man who stood by Junius was a member of the white-clothed attackers. Therefore, the wiki article statement "At least one of the white-clothed men who shook hands with Ho has been shown to have been inside Yuen Long Station during the attacks." is completely false.

(aside: This is why I think HKFP has sloppy journalism, they appear to be suggesting the attack and the Junius photo are related, but they are not actually making that assertion in their writing. They also provided no picture showing any similarity between the attackers and the man who stood next to Junius. Nor did they assert the men look the same anywhere in the article. HKFP also never bothered to interview Junius for comment on the incident when reporting him on the incident.)

Anyways, please delete these unsourced allegations. 192.0.235.66 (talk) 01:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.0.235.66 (talk)

Latest Report from the Independent Police Complaints Council

The current article needs some updating based on the latest reports by the IPCC. Has anyone else read it who would like to collaborate with me regarding future edits about the incident? Thomaslam1990 (talk) 11:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Is 721 incident a terrorist attack?

Let's refer to the HK law Cap.575 United Nations (Anti-Terrorism Measures) Ordinance. Section 2 of the law stated the below:

==============================================================================

terrorist act means the use or threat of action where

(I)the action is carried out with the intention of, or the threat is made with the intention of using action that would have the effect of

(A)causing serious violence against a person; (B)causing serious damage to property; (C)endangering a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action; (D)creating a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public; (E)seriously interfering with or seriously disrupting an electronic system; or (F)seriously interfering with or seriously disrupting an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private; and

(II)the use or threat is

(A)intended to compel the Government or an international organization or to intimidate the public or a section of the public; and (B)made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause;

==============================================================================

My point of view is

1) In 721 incident, are the violence serious? (comparing with firearm shots, bombing, car crashing etc.) Obviously not. It was just some physical fighting between two violent groups. 2) do the mobs conduct the violence to advance any political, religious or ideological cause? No. It was just a clash of two groups who hold different views on the hong kong riot.

As the elements of "effect" and "intent" were both absent in the 721 incident, I cannot see how the incident fit the definition of terrorism or terrorist act. The terrorism-related categories at the bottom of the page should be removed. They are totally misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandy221 (talk • contribs) 06:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't "fighting between two violent groups", it was a series of indiscriminate attacks on random civilians. This is well cited in the article. What "violent group" was this cook a part of? Please do not promote obvious false narratives here. Citobun (talk) 07:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

(1) The violence by the white-clad attackers is serious. "Physical fighting between two violent groups" is total BS because the white-clad groups were obviously the attackers, while the protesters and the commuters were the victims. (White-clad groups had gathered in the afternoon before the conflicts in HK Island had even started, and these white-clad men are clearly the perpetrators)

(2) Gang members (and Junius Ho) have been threatening the protesters several days prior, that they will beat the crap out of them if they step foot in Yuen Long. That's a clear advancement of political view. They wished to achieve this objective through intimidating the public and sending out a chilling effect. OceanHok (talk) 07:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

https://www.facebook.com/truthhkcom/videos/759183001517489/?vh=e&extid=nreAASq0E5YQMEjG

Please watch the above video and you would see how it resulted in the violent scene. Please note how the black clan provoked the white ones by throwing hard objects and using the fire hose. Mandy221 (talk) 13:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

If you define 721 incident as terrorism, would you name the shooting against george floyd as a terrorist incident as well? Mandy221 (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

You are welcome to name any publication(s) released by any government/think-tank/CT expert that name 721 incident as a terrorist incident, IF YOU CAN FIND ANY Mandy221 (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

If you refer to the US Country Report on Terrorism (https://www.state.gov/reports/country-reports-on-terrorism-2019/) published in June 2020 (almost a year after 721 incident), the section of Hong Kong DID NOT name 721 incident as a terrorist attack, can you explain why? Mandy221 (talk) 14:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Please make your judgement objectively by referring to the facts but not merely by your biased perceptions. Mandy221 (talk) 14:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I cannot take you seriously when you drop a link from "truth-hk". Watch this and this to properly educate yourself. OceanHok (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Your videos are totally irrelevant to the discussion as I cannot see how they explain that 721 was a terrorist incident. Also, please note that RTHK has been known for producing biased shows relating to the protests in Hong Kong. Below is one of the examples: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/society/article/3085122/hong-kong-public-broadcaster-apologises-police-over

You are supposed to address my questions: Could you name any publication(s) released by any government/think-tank/CT expert that name 721 incident as a terrorist incident? Mandy221 (talk) 22:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mandy221: nobody is obliged to engage with you, particularly while you are knowingly spreading disinformation. Reliable sources (cited in the article) indicate that the white-clad men attacked people indiscriminately and unprovoked, both at Fung Yau Street North and Yuen Long station. All you've come up with are silly conspiracy videos geared toward misleading ignorant people who live outside Hong Kong, and government/police sources, not reliable secondary sources. Take your disinformation campaign elsewhere. Citobun (talk) 05:06, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Citobun, please show some respect. You are welcome to rebut me by giving evidence but not merely by making allegation against me. Mandy221 (talk) 12:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

moreover, is “indiscriminate” a common element to define terrorist incident? i cannot see this in any international definition. Mandy221 (talk) 12:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Please remember, I am not meaning the white clan’s actions were right, yes, they were illegal, but that was definitely NOT terrorist incident. Please dont try to exaggerate the incident for whatever purpose. Mandy221 (talk) 12:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

BBC article about edit wars

Posted today on the BBC news site. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

"pro government councilors"?!

Wouldn't anti democracy be more accurate? 2604:3D09:D78:1000:8C12:2766:50E6:A00 (talk) 20:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)