Talk:Steve Vines

Criticism not allowed?

User:Citobun simply deleted my addition to the wiki page on Steve Vines criticism of the Chinese government and local HK government calling it a "lopsided personal essay". Would he/she care to elaborate? Surely what Vines is most well known for, i.e. his critical commentary, should be part of the article? All statements are provided for with solid evidence. So that can't be a problem either.... A look at User:Citobun's own profile and previous edits suggests that political motivations are the actual reasons behind his removal of my additions to the article (even though I simply add factual statements backed up by solid evidence mostly from Vines' own writings)ABC23341 (talk) 00:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I think it is perfectly valid to detail Vines' views on the Chinese government, since it's a large part of the writing he does. That being said, some material in this section may be going into original synthesis territory. For example, while it is true that Vines described Lam's government as "Quislings", the article does not use Nazis as a comparison, and it would be incorrect to assume so without a secondary source that makes the link, since according to the Quisling page, it is a term "for a person who collaborates with an enemy occupying force – or more generally as a synonym for traitor" that originated in WWII-era Norway. To improve this section, we'd want to find more secondary sources that describe and interpret his views, rather than relying only on primary sources and making interpretations from that. The section could also benefit from some other less-critical viewpoints (I'm sure they exist) to balance things out, rather than just including the most shocking and harsh criticisms he has made. I would thus also advise we cut down on some of these quotes and describe his views using summary style. Let me know what you all think. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 00:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've made some changes. Hope it is okay now. The fact that I used a lot of primary sources is that - apart from his own prolific writings - there is little secondary literature that focuses on the contents of his critique. Also, I would argue that the wikipedia article as a whole was not really balanced before my addition and is more balanced now.ABC23341 (talk) 03:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@ABC23341: Do not cast aspersions against me without without citing a specific basis for doing so, or I will report you for making personal attacks. Review WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a place for political campaigning) and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Your contribution was an unencyclopedic little essay (WP:SYNTH) that doesn't belong on an encyclopedia. Citobun (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@ABC23341: I have read the amended passage (thanks for editing it) but still feel it constitutes WP:SYNTH because it remains an indiscriminate collection of Vines' statements, without context, that appears to be independently making a specific point/argument without that being supported by reliable secondary sources. If Vines is a critic of note of the Chinese government (i.e. more than any other political commentator and therefore worth highlighting) this should be reflected in reliable sources. Thanks. Citobun (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Citobun: I have reverted your last edit. I do not think this constitutes WP:SYNTH as it does not "make[] or suggest[] a new statement not supported by any one of the sources." Clearly Vines is very critical of the Chinese central government and local HK government. He admits as much (happy to provide further sources) and it has clearly been the focus of his writing (as also noted by @Yeeno:). If there cannot be a section on his critical writing in the article, then the question would be whether WP:N is given. Why then would we need details of the departure of a random journalist? ABC23341 (talk) 00:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Combining his various writings to draw the independent conclusion that criticism of the government is "the focus of his writing" and something worthy of an entire subsection is clearly WP:SYNTH. Citobun (talk) 05:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@ABC23341: I have deleted two sentences of the paragraph in question. The reasons for doing so were, at least in my view, not directly related to this thread but rather of a technical nature, and are contained in the respective edit summaries. The remaining material cites Vines' 2021 book, which due to its recency hardly supports that he is a "long-standing" critic as prominently stated at the outset. So from a purely technical view, some more work may be needed on the section. I tend to think that the criticism of Citobun regarding problems with WP:SYNTH is at least partly justified. That Vines has been writing prolifically seems to increase the risk, at least to someone like me who is not familiar with much of his writing, that some of these writings do not quite support the point made about the views of Vines about China and Hong Kong as they appear now (what about his views on reformers/moderates from there?). But perhaps this is an issue best dealt with by involving other editors as well, ideally after the technical shortcomings have been addressed.--CRau080 (talk) 05:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@CRau080: Thanks a lot for your suggestions. So, just to clarify, you would want me to add more sources for each of the sentences? As for Vines' views on Hong Kong and China, I think the statement that he is a long-term critic is accurate. I have been trying to find views of his about moderates/reformers as you suggested, but without success I am afraid. See for example his columns for Hong Kong Free Press: https://hongkongfp.com/author/stevenvines/ ABC23341 (talk) 15:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@ABC23341: Also for other editors' convenience, the diff edits for the two sentences are here (a) and here (b). As for (a), to reinsert the sentence in question would require, in my opinion, to document via references that Vines was either exceptionally rare or exceptionally early with his two judgements on Patten and Tung. Since I believed this not to be the case, I didn't suggest adding more references; but if you or other editors can find something that proves me wrong, I think the sentence can be added back (or just the material for one of them as appropriate). As for (b), I considered that the sentence as it stood presented two quotes from two different paragraphs almost as if they came from one sentence, which is problematic to fix. If one tried to repair this matter by deleting one of the quotes, some problems remain. I suggest being specific as his calling China a bully may not be very clear taken by itself. Also, while I don't know his writings well at all (apart from the HKFP columns since some time back), he does appear have his idiosyncrasies in style, mixing in some sarcasm, or what you want to call it, to also engage readers. So an opinion of someone else who wrote about Vines would be far better than letting Vines' words speak for his views.

If Vines never published about the hopes he had harbored for Hong Kong to take a different path than what led him to leave, then it is still not a final proof of his "real" mindset. So I think this warrants some care with general conclusions. Perhaps a formulation like, "He repeatedly said" would hence be preferable.--CRau080 (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

References