Talk:Nathan Law

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nathan Law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150602064945/http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=30&art_id=150532&sid=43192431&con_type=1&d_str=20141020&isSearch=1&sear_year=2014 to http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=30&art_id=150532&sid=43192431&con_type=1&d_str=20141020&isSearch=1&sear_year=2014
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150602051950/http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=30&art_id=150614&sid=43205640&con_type=1&d_str=20141022&isSearch=1&sear_year=2014 to http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=30&art_id=150614&sid=43205640&con_type=1&d_str=20141022&isSearch=1&sear_year=2014

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Lede: former politician??

Hi all: should Law be called a "former" politician?? Law is still actively advocating. --Now wiki (talk) 04:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• NATHAN LAW 02.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

NOTUS article is not a reliable source

In the NOTUS article cited regarding accusations of sexual harassment, it references only an unnamed, anonymous source claiming familiarity with the individual involved. Such a serious allegation cannot be substantiated through a source of this nature, as it risks defaming a living person without reliable corroboration. Furthermore, the article highlights that several accounts with zero followers began spreading these rumors, suggesting the possibility of a smear campaign orchestrated by political opponents, especially given the individual's political sensitivities.

Nathan Law himself later addressed these claims in two credible media outlets, Radio Free Asia and The Chaser, categorizing them as part of a concerted effort to damage his reputation.

Considering these factors and in line with Wikipedia’s policy on biographies of living persons WP:BLP, I will remove this content to mitigate the potential harm to this individual. Additionally, questionable sources and potentially libellous statements should not be added to a biography of a living person and should not be reintroduced without more reliable sources. Kendhaomf (talk) 22:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree I also don’t think this article and news agency should be considered as a reliable source. Especially since Nathan have responded in other platform, such as rfa, and highlighted the risk of CCP propaganda and disinformation campaign. We at Wikipedia should ensure the accuracy to the most of our ability. Therefore, I agree that we should not include this. Nanarooney (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree I do not think this news agency should be considered as a good resource and it is not listed from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. Plus Nathan already states in rfa news channel that it is a misinformation and we need to ensure the information spreaded in wiki must be as accurates as it can. Otherwise. it is a propaganda from the China and we are spreading false information. Notepadplusplusplus (talk)