Talk:Death of Chow Tsz-lok

Proposed merge with 2019 Hong Kong protests

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.

---

Parent article has more information than this separate article. I don't really see the point of having it split at this point. OceanHok (talk) 12:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Merge. Per nom. HNot notable outside of the strict context of the protests. --Ohconfucius (on the move) (talk) 13:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Death of Chow Tsz Lok right now only goes up to 8 November inclusive and does not (yet) mention the protests (such as on 11 November) sparked by Chow's dath. 2019 Hong Kong protests right now has only about three sentences which overlap with what is in the present version of Death of Chow Tsz Lok. In List of November 2019 Hong Kong protests right now I count about 10-11 sentences in common, but the quality of referencing is not that precise in the List article. I see no point in integrating info about the expected investigation into the death into List of November 2019 Hong Kong protests - since it's not itself a protest and a serious, independent investigation is unlikely to happen that fast (evidence has to be gathered, legal procedures done, documents gathered). I don't see why the investigation would make sense in the main 2019 HK protests article, apart from a brief summary when (presumably) it's completed. Regarding notability, the sources in this article so far, and for the moment the sources that are so far only in the other two articles, make it clear that this death has sparked off further protest (such as the 11 November protests) and is of interest to the international media (such as Time (magazine), Seattle Post-Intelligencer). Boud (talk) 18:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I am with Boud. The proposer clearly know the importance of the subject article, but nevertheless delete most of the content in the name of merge, which had trimmed many important content. Universehk (talk) 03:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. The Death of Chow Tsz Lok is a topic significant enough to exist as a standalone article. WikiSuperfan (talk) 10:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. There is enough content for a standalone article. If a few months down the line Chow's death ceases being discussed in public discourse, we can rethink. Deryck C. 13:47, 15 November 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.

Some facts may as well

This video by CGTN said Chow was a parkour practitioner and was an observer which was why he was in the car park. This was what led to him to accidentally jump off the building. Not mentioned was that his buddy narrowly avoided going the same way. Also, not mentioned here was that the officer was later reprimanded for his comments. 82.26.220.45 (talk) 01:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. CGTN has a known bias against Hong Kong's protest movement so I think we'd be giving this speculation undue weight if we covered it, unless it was corroborated by a few other reputable media outlets. Deryck C. 16:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

...but then HKFP, BBC News, Apple Daily and so many western media outlets has a bias toward the Hong Kong's protest movement. It's good to have an alternative perspective IMO. 82.26.220.45 (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Unexplained blanking

User:Cold Season, why have you deleted mention that a witness claimed that medics told firefighters they were blocked by police? Citobun (talk) 04:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

First off, I was the one who wrote the entire timeline information. It is literally my own text from earlier and I decided that the timeline in table format should be worked into the body of the text with editorial discretion, where context matters.

Secondly, we now have an actual OFFICIAL account from the ambulances service of the Fire Service Department. It's one unnamed "witness" versus the FSD themselves. The accusation of being blocked still remains in the article in any case.

Thirdly, if we're talking about deleting things, why did you delete the following things in the body of the text: [1] (that is, everything that's beyond the timeline section).

--Cold Season (talk) 12:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

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:

• Sheung Tak Memorial Alex chow.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Reverts

I contest the wholescale and disingenuous revert of my preceding edits. This is not the first time. I have come back to the article to find that the editor concerned is still demonstrating an unacceptable pattern of ownership behaviour. This low-importance article has been turned into War and Peace. It's too long, too complex and too convuluted. We should follow summary style by avoid excessive detail and verbosity, because it's a real turnoff for readers. I also object to the allegation that I deliberately changed the meaning. Some loss of trivial detail is certainly a by-product of simplification; some errors may also have crept in due to the fact that I had reverted to a previous version that may have contained the errors that were the target of objections. Let's work together instead of engaging in disruptive behaviour to make a point. -- Ohc ^{revolution of our times} 13:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

This behaviour has become long-term issue. I rarely edit these articles as it is just toxic to deal with. TBH I think as the user has been warned multiple times it's about time for ANI. Citobun (talk) 05:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I need sometime to look at the bulk revert in detail but I'll only respond to one part of it for now: In this edit, I found it disingenuous that an editor who claimed to have limited command of Chinese (here) had the audacity to dismiss the challenge a native user of Hong Kong Chinese regarding a Hong Kong Chinese source with the flippant comment "you know very well what it refers to". Yes I do know very well, and you don't. In the meantime I'm happy to leave the article in a state that Citobun and Ohconfucius agree on. Deryck C. 10:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not so familiar with this article but enountered this editor at Death of Luo Changqing last year, where they demonstrated the same behaviour described by Ohconfucius above. I had to back away as the unceasing, POV-pushing revert warring made it way too toxic. Citobun (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

To user Deryck Chan:

This is what the source says:

消防通訊中心接到A492救護車主管的求助後，派出A346號救護車前往處理原先廣盈閣一名病人氣促及腰痛的召喚，救護車於凌晨1時23分到達唐俊街及唐明街的十字路口，當時大批警員及警車正於路口中央集結，及向廣明苑唐明街方向正施放催淚彈，亦是如傳媒片段中有警車停於救護車前的情況， 救護車基於現場情況不安全，救護車同事留於車內密切留意情況，及向消防通訊中心表示未能通過路口。
A346號救護車主管於評估情況安全後，帶同救護裝備由一名自稱急救員，到廣隆閣外處理一名傷者，發現傷者已由的A492救護車的救護人員處理中，救護員於是由消防員引領下，處理原先接報有氣促及腰部痛的病人，而到場後消防員已正為傷者治理，救護員接手後該傷者表示不需要救護服務，並在現場簽署拒絕使用救護車表格。

This is what the Wiki article says:

However, it was ascertained that the disseminated footage actually depicted ambulance A346, which was assigned to a person with shortness of breath and back pain who would decline ambulance services; the personnel encountered an ongoing police dispersal operation against protesters, where tear gas was used, and waited in the ambulance for safety.

What is disingenuous is that you tried to remove this with your rambling about how the footage was not “released in response to HKUST's allegation” (something never claimed), while you are aware that it is the reverse (that is, the HKUST president was commenting on the footage in circulation).

It is clear that the source is referring to the footage (showing ambulances) circulating in various media in the aftermath of Chow’s fall, so stop talking untruths. --Cold Season (talk) 05:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

As you have quoted yourself, the text you want to insert into the article using said source is "However, it was ascertained that the disseminated footage actually depicted ambulance A346", so it is clear where the burden of proof lies. It is unacceptable WP:SYNTH to link the two sources together this way when neither source makes that link. Deryck C. 18:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The source explicitly talks about the footage showing the ambulances, put in a paragraph talking about said footage showing the ambulances. Burden of proof established, as the topic in the source (which you claim to know very well) is clear. (Notwithstanding that you are now ignoring how your previous argument for removal was also not valid.)

Here, it is bolded for you, as it was in the wiki article:

In an email to HKUST staff and students pledging to take up the matter with police and demand clarification, HKUST president Wei Shyy said: "We saw the footage of ambulances being blocked by police cars and the paramedics walking to the scene, causing a delay of 20 minutes in the rescue operation of our student." However, it was ascertained that the disseminated footage actually depicted ambulance A346, which was assigned to a person with shortness of breath and back pain who would decline ambulance services; the personnel encountered an ongoing police dispersal operation against protesters, where tear gas was used, and waited in the ambulance for safety.

I've made no WP:SYNTH, as this is what the source themselves state about the footage. There's also nothing about the footage being “released in response to HKUST's allegation” which you (wrongly) use as reason for removal. --Cold Season (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

There are about 300 ambulances in Hong Kong. Your proposed text purported a link that the two sources were talking about the same ambulance, which is not supported by the sources. You claim that my "previous argument for removal was also not valid" when I have only made one argument: that in your misunderstanding of the sources you created an original synthesis not present in either source. I appreciate your desire to improve these articles but I'm afraid your combative behaviour is making it difficult for other editors to take your ideas on board. Deryck C. 09:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

To user Ohconfucius:

Your edits for “brevity” is what’s disingenuous, simply an excuse for content removal and not a valid argument (which you do not give) on why it should be removed. Brevity does not justify removing information from an article. Secondly, you claim that my edits are blanket reverts (which is not true, as I went by it one by one), while you are the one that state that “errors may … have crept in” your edits (which is ironic).

In addition to your content removal, I'll also point it out how misleading your edits are one-by-one after your done with your slash-and-burn (since what I wanted to write here, prepared yesterday, has been overtaken by your new edits). But here's two short examples of many to come, you changing the statement (what was literally said, per the refs) to a misleading statement:

1. [allegations] which the police called false and groundless. [2] → police vehemently denied responsability
2. and did not require their help [3] → and did not require their presence

PS: You broke an URL in the references. --Cold Season (talk) 05:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for starting to engage. I must be doing quite well for you only to find two "misleading statements" among my changes. However, I disagree with that categorisation; I also resent your objectionable accusation of a quote: slash and burn. You seem to be a lone wolf, and others have evidently had enough of your POV-pushing and tendentious editing, but I don't expect you to stop until you are topic banned. Your continuing casting aspersions as to motives and your continuing insults will get you banned. However, I hope that you can turn over a new leaf and we can edit productively together. If you have any substantive issue with the changes, I'd be pleased to hear them and put them right. I am mindful when editing that while we must be careful not to misstate; reformulation and use of synonyms are techniques commonly used. The article contains abundant and extensive quotes of police statements, and we must also avoid giving giving undue emphasis. We must also avoid WP:close paraphrasing of sources for copyright reasons. -- Ohc ^{revolution of our times} 21:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

(1) I did not just find only 2 misleading edits (I said more were to come later). I made a list of about 15 to 20 things (or more if separated into smaller chunks) that were misleading, but you made new edits afterwards. I hadn't found the time to redo it.

(2) I'm unconcerned with close paraphrasing, as I only reproduce relevant terms (reflected in the sources) and not copy the whole content. Such as "false", "groundless", "help" in the examples above. I'm curious to your "found" examples of close paraphrasing to prove that your statement is not meritless.

(3) And lets not pretend how you didn't address me insultingly when this dispute started [4] and here at the top calling me disingenuous. --Cold Season (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Here's a list of things, incomplete. The first line is how it was written before (based on stable url). The second line is your misleading changes (based on stable url). I bolded things for emphasis.

False generalization, since the source only speaks among his school friends:

• His friends were unaware of Chow's political views, as they hardly discussed politics. [5]
• His political views were not known, as friends said they rarely discussed politics.
  • I think the grammar in both the source and the article text is sufficiently clear that they're referring to some friends, not every single human being who knows Alex Chow. Deryck C. 11:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Your misleading edit added a rationale for the doxxing which was never stated in the source:

• After doxxing efforts by protesters, the private details of a police officer's wedding in Tseung Kwan O on 3 November 2019 were leaked and calls were made to crash the event, which would eventually lead to an overnight confrontation between police and protesters. [6]
• Continuing and accumulated grievances against police brutality since the start of the anti-ELAB protests led to doxing of police officers and calls for revenge. Private details of a police officer's wedding in Tseung Kwan O on 3 November 2019 were thus leaked, and calls were made to crash it.

The source state that it was more than 100 protesters, not around 100:

• Then, around 00:20 on 4 November, over 100 protesters gathered at the junction of Tong Ming and Tong Chun streets, with some creating roadblocks. [7]
• Then, around 00:20 on 4 November, around 100 protesters gathered at the junction of Tong Ming and Tong Chun streets, with some creating roadblocks.

You removed what Chow was doing in his last moment captured before the fall. Secondly, it's the last moment captured on camera before the fall. A critical wording, as there is footage of him lying injured there too (that is, after the fall). Again, misleading:

• The CCTV footage showed that Chow was wandering alone inside the car park and on a connecting footbridge from 0:26 to 01:02, when he was walking upwards to the third floor, the last moment captured on camera before the fall. [8]
• CCTV footage showed that Chow was wandering alone, backwards and forwards between the inside the car park and on a connecting footbridge from 0:26 until 01:02 – the last moment he was captured on camera.

The source talks about firefighters, you misleadingly changed it to police. Secondly, you removed important context. Again, misleading:

• There were several people, including those in black clothing and firefighters, inside the car park at the time. The firefighters arrived at the car park at 00:55 in response to a call about a fire. At 01:05, they were informed by a passerby about Chow's fall. [9] (cite for the last bit, see stable url mentioned for rest)
• At 01:05, police were informed by a civilian that a person had fallen.

You removed important content about what was happening:

• The firefighters requested an ambulance at 01:11 as they were providing aid to Chow. [10]
• ...

You misleadingly changed the wording matching the source, as this does not mean the same:

• She said that the firefighters told the police that they were able handle the incident and did not require their help. [11]
• She said that the firefighters told the police that they had the situation under control and did not require their presence.

Oh, this one is nasty... See how you changed specifically who the police pointed crowd control weapons at (i.e., protesters), removed what kind of weapons it was (i.e., crowd control weapons), and misleadingly changed the meaning to imply that police used the weapons to disperse people at the scene.

• She added that the police left the first-aiders alone, but dispersed the people near the scene and pointed crowd control weapons towards protesters. [12]
• The police then dispersed the people at the scene with weapons, and left the first-aiders alone to provide care.

The source doesn't talk about a junction:

• They arrived via Po Shun Road at Tong Ming Street, but they could not proceed further as they were held up by a queue of vehicles including double-decker buses and private cars.
• The ambulance was obstructed by other vehicles including double-decker buses and private cars at the junction of Po Shun Road at Tong Ming Street.
  • I think the article text is an accurate summary of the source when you read the source with the geographical context of the street names in mind."N+114°15'20.5"E/ Deryck C. 11:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

You removed context such as why the police was blaming the protesters (the roadblocks) and decided to reword the "false and groundless" statement (the literal wording as given in the source) to vehemently push your POV sentence (which you duplicate in the lead too). Again, misleading:

• The police said that roadblocks set up by protesters had prevented vehicles from passing.[13] Protesters maintain that the police blocked the ambulance from reaching Chow,[14] which the police called false and groundless.[15]
• The police and protesters each blamed the other side for blocking the ambulance from reaching Chow; police vehemently denied responsability.

The context here is that Chow did not respond to his father, which you removed:

• He asked Chow why he was going out so late at night, but Chow did not respond, and told him to be careful. [16]
• He did not tell his family why he was going out so late at night.
  • The possible contention here is father vs family. I've edited the relevant sentence in the article. Deryck C. 11:18, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

It's important content to know what Chow himself was doing, which you removed. Secondly, I've noticed that you tend to insert weasel words throughout, but that might merely be coincidence...

• The messages that Chow made in online group chats on Telegram revealed that Chow was at the car park to watch the protest. One of Chow's messages was "[I'm] at the car park just to watch the show. [I] brought nothing." Another of his messages showed that he was "getting the popcorn." His final message was "[I] also went down to give something to others."
• Chow made posts in online group chats on Telegram saying that he was merely at the car park to watch the protest. His final message was "[I] also went down to give something to others."
  • I think "merely" is a reasonable paraphrasing of "just to watch ... brought nothing". Deryck C. 11:18, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

How do you know that the method was jail breaking? The source does not state so. Also, you removed the context that the one testifying was the one who attempted to unlock it:

• He stated that he was unable to retrieve the contents of Chow's iPhone, which Chow used to communicate with others that night, after failed attempts to unlock it. [17]
• He stated that police had attempted but were unable to jailbreak the iPhone which Chow had been using to communicate with others that night and retrieve its contents.
  • I've tweaked this one to avoid words like "jailbreak" which could be misunderstood in context. Deryck C. 11:18, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

This is the end of the list, but more to come, as I'm not done. I'm just telling you this again, since you missed or choose to miss it last time. Secondly, your edits also fail WP:INTEGRITY here and there (not pointed out here). Ergo, your edits are aptly likened to a slash and burn. Finally... Of course, it was expected that you wouldn't provide a reasoning for your edits, but only state "I disagree"... --Cold Season (talk) 22:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

References

• This article has long been problematic as it has been thoroughly quote-bombed with official proceedings which attempt to draw an unjustified conclusion (to a certainty that doesn't exist), and which have been called into question because independent sources consider the government narrative is untrustworthy. I will be reworking the article in due course – I'll probably start by paring down the relevant parts. -- Ohc ^{revolution of our times} 09:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Propose edits here

I suggest that from now on, proposed edits be printed here (the before and the after) for discussion. Tony (talk) 21:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)�