Talk:Police misconduct allegations during the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests

Broken citations

After this article was split from the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests article, some of the named references are no longer linked to the source information. Affected references show up as a "Cite error" instead of a citation in the References section. To fix this, we'll need to find the source information from all of the original citations before the split (Special:Permalink/912297542) and populate them into this article. — Newslinger talk 07:11, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Richard-of-Earth resolved the errors by commenting out the unused citations. Since the comments were extremely long (184kb), I've deleted them entirely. — Newslinger talk 14:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

My thought was they might use them later, but it is probably best to just delete them. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Text in Questionable tactics

@OceanHok: Several comments:

• I think it's important to state clearly they were deployed to infiltrate 'radical' protesters regarding undercover agents.
• The cited source does not support the claim that the tactic means the undercovers will break the law with the protesters.
• Those suspected raptors did not acknowledge they were police. The current wording implies they were. There is a small difference, although I'm not feeling strongly about this point.

warrant cards & lack of identification

It is my impression that throughout a vast majority of the protests to date, police have very consistently not displayed any form of identifying information, as prescribed by law.
Currently, the Lack of identification section only gives a couple of examples. It would be good to find some sources that can further explain this trend, and how prevalent it is. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 04:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I know there had been questions raised about this at some of the police press conferences, so there must be more news sources and details available on the topic. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 04:50, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Title

Can we at least get a better one? Volunteer Marek 00:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

There is no genocide here

Seriously, likening the situation in Hong Kong to the Rwandan genocide is tacky, inappropriate and WP:UNDUE - anybody who is claiming that the situation is comparable to a genocide is expressing a WP:FRINGE opinion. As such it doesn't merit inclusion here. Simonm223 (talk) 13:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the Rwandan genocide resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. So far (thankfully) the police in Hong Kong have not killed anybody. These are not comparable events and some protester trying to make the comparison is not due inclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 14:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

No one said there is a genocide. The problem is with the word the police used to describe the protester that is problematic. WP:PCR requires context, and calling someone "cockroaches" without mentioning its context makes no sense, given that it is the main point of this controversy when it comes to how they use this degradatory term. I would like to say that WP:DUE depends on the reliability of sources, which is demonstrated here. Free Press/Standard are both credible RS. Attribution is clearly stated, so this is not WP:AWW. Your accusations that I was comparing police misconduct to an actual genocide is factually incorrect. It was a lack of sensitivity from the police that caused this controversy, and saying that they say "cockroach" only presented half of the picture which is insufficient. OceanHok (talk) 15:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I've said that the claim that it's comparable in any way is WP:FRINGE and as such WP:UNDUE care to address that? Simonm223 (talk) 15:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Then maybe you can demonstrate how you can explain the problem without using the "fringe theory" while simultaneously giving the context? Otherwise, this discussion is not going anywhere. OceanHok (talk) 15:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Just report that the police called the radical subset of the protesters "cockroaches" - it's not hard to see how that's insulting. Bringing in unrelated genocides doesn't engender sympathy from the reader - it makes the people raising these comparisons look like unhinged loons. Simonm223 (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Police Shooting

WP:NOTAFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Believe there has been two shots fired (one with intent to kill) either today or yesterday. One was shot in the hand, other was shot towards the heart without warning (this has gained more fame). Wondering if anybody has added these. Sometaintedlove (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Controversies of the Hong Kong Police Force

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.

---

This article overlaps significantly with a large section of Controversies of the Hong Kong Police Force. I suggest a merge from this article to the general one to consolidate the overlapping focus and repeated material across the two articles. — MarkH21 (talk) 07:49, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

• Merge - Yes, it makes sense. STSC (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
• Do not merge - The controversies of the Hong Kong Police Force should include a short, concise summary of what is written here. Police brutality during the 2019 protests is a notable topic on its own because it leads to the five core demands and escalates the protests. OceanHok (talk) 14:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Not at this time - We can see what shakes out as having WP:10YT significance going forward. But the fact police shot somebody in HK which is pretty unprecedented in general and certainly a first for a protest action at the very least suggests this is a unique and notable topic. Simonm223 (talk) 17:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • For the actual shooting event, if it is notable then it warrants a separate article and is not relevant to whether the allegations for the 2019 HK protests as a whole should be separate from 2019 Hong Kong protests and Controversies of the Hong Kong Police Force. — MarkH21 (talk) 20:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I used this as an example rather than an exhaustive list. I think it's pretty clear from WP:RS that the police, at the very least, exacerbated the situation within the HK protests. As such, this is a relevant issue to the protests and should not be merged into a general controversies article. In addition, I think there's rather too much back here to merge into 2019 Hong Kong protests. Simonm223 (talk) 14:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
      • Ah sorry, that was unclear to me from the wording. I certainly agree with the assessment that the role of the police in the situation is notable, but I think that the specific topic "Allegations of ..." is not. I agree now that a merge may not be the best solution, but see my proposal below. — MarkH21 (talk) 06:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
        • Allegations of... are important until such time as any of this is proven in a court or tribunal. Our *personal opinion* may be that the police exacerbated an already tense situation and acted with undue force toward protesters - and the *personal opinion* of others might be that violent protesters were tossing Molotovs as early as July and the police were simply responding to lethal force with an escalation of their own force. Wikipedia should say neither until such time as there is something unambiguous to say, "this is what happened" per WP:NPOV, WP:BLPCRIME and WP:V among other policies and essays of significance. Simonm223 (talk) 12:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose at this time - Oppose merge at this time, since both topics are notable on their own, and allegations are a fork of the protests. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per Jax 0677's reason. Mariogoods (talk) 00:48, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as the misconduct of Hong Kong Police Force is unprecented in Hong Kong history. I think this can stay as a single page. Asd34567 (talk) 11:48, 1 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.

Proposed rename to Hong Kong Police Force misconduct during the 2019 Hong Kong protests

The role of the police in the situation is notable, but the "Allegations of ..." is effectively a disorganized list with weak selection criteria. Based on the way that the article is introduced and its title, the article is a list of any allegation ever reported by RS, rather than a comprehensive coverage and prose description of the role of the HK police in the protests. This does not do the topic justice and lends itself to a bit of a mess when it comes to article readability.

I am suggesting moving the article to Hong Kong Police Force misconduct during the 2019 Hong Kong protests and refocusing the existing content. — MarkH21 (talk) 06:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per my comment in the move proposal immediately above. It would violate WP:NPOV to say in Wikipedia voice that police officers engaged in misconduct prior to a tribunal or court adjudicating this. Right now their misconduct is alleged, and just like any other otherwise non-notable suspects of any other crime, we must not assume their guilt. Simonm223 (talk) 12:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • It wouldn’t be written as actual misconduct, but be clearly presented with sections on allegations / lawsuits / etc. — MarkH21 (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Right now it is quite clear based on video footage and reports from Amnesty International (found here) that there is widespread misconduct. Although many will dispute this. Blebpotatonose (talk) 12:05, 21 March 2020 (HKT)
    • All the more reason not to rename it to propose that it definitely was misconduct in Wiki voice. Simonm223 (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
      • An article about claimed or potential misconduct does not imply that there was misconduct. But I see how it may be interpreted that way. I suppose the current article can be restructured appropriately without a move or merge. At the very least, I’ll replace the “surrounding” in the title to “during” because the latter is actually well-defined. — MarkH21 (talk) 18:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose at this time - Fine as it is. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Even it is not a properly set up WP:RM, "Allegations " should be existed per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Expressions of doubt (and may be WP:BLPCRIME). There is no way to turn allegations to court rulings for foreseeable future and the wording should be staying. Matthew hk (talk) 17:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

POV tag

I’ve added a POV tag, since there are potential issues with maintaining a neutral point of view. Many of the allegations are made in WP voice and are exclusively sourced to the same few (disputably partisan) sources such as the Hong Kong Free Press. Having a breadth of reliable sources on allegations before using WP voice would alleviate this concern. — MarkH21 (talk) 15:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• I have just removed the NPOV tag. The article has been extensively rewritten since it was placed in November. Feel free to put it back if you feel that your concerns haven't been addressed. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 23:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:DUE and a bunch of random accusations

It seems like anytime any outlet has repeated any accusation, no matter how vague or minor about a police officer, it's been put in this article. I've removed some of the most WP:CRUFT like pieces here. But consider this: there are accusations against the Hong Kong Police force that actually are quite serious, and if they are found to be true would demonstrate systemic problems with the force.

But some of these are getting drowned out by saying things like police were "grinning" or affixed a strap to the front of their baton. This stuff seems like irrelevant (in the former) and fishing (in the latter) and neither forward the Wikipedia objective of neutrally discussing some very troubling accusations. In fact they make the article look like amateur hour. This also goes for things like proposing police arresting people in a mall constitutes break and entry on the part of the cops just because the mall owners didn't call them. Let's please try to restrict this article to what is WP:DUE per WP:10YT and similar guidance. If your goal is to present a clear, neutral and truthful perspective on possible instances of police misconduct during these protests, doing so will be to your advantage. Simonm223 (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on reliability of Hong Kong Free Press

There is a noticeboard discussion on the reliability of Hong Kong Free Press, especially with regard to its reporting on the 2019 Hong Kong protests. If you are interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Is the Hong Kong Free Press a reliable source?. — Newslinger talk 11:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Tense

At some stage the "has been", "has decided", etc, will need to be switched to plain past tense. Tony (talk) 05:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Maintaining neutral POV

It was only today that I became aware of an edit made only a minute after my last edit, on 1 May (I don't know if the rapid succession of the edits was a random incidence). It removed words containing "allege" throughout the article (it seems), the sort of thing that could easily be done in an automated process, though I don't say that this was the source.

I wish to advise of this incident because I think that, with an article nominated for deletion, it is extra critical that such sharpening of language is not advised unless supported by references; and because I think the page ought to be watched more closely to detect such issues more quickly in the future. --CRau080 (talk) 22:19, 5 May 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:

• Hong Kong Police Attack Kowloon Mosque.gif

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)