Talk:1 July police stabbing

Proposed merge of Leung Kin-fai into July 1 police stabbing

The subject appears to be notable for only one event. The media coverage on Leung's career/background is limited and the information about his career can easily be documented in the event article. Leung currently fails notability for WP:1E. Sun8908 _Talk 16:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. An event does not need to be internationally major to be a major event. The fact that the July 1 police stabbing had a major impact in Hong Kong, and had a wide international media coverage cannot be ignored. I still think he fits into WP:1E, have a significant role in a major event. Update (23 August 2021): The article has been expanded and reviewed. I don't see any reasons for merging it into this article. Eight96Four (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Support. The biographical details on Leung Kin-fai are scant and assuming them to grow substantially, say through a currently still unknown network of which Leung was part, would be WP:CRYSTALBALL. As per the present data available, WP:PSEUDO indicates that a separate article on Leung is not advised.--CRau080 (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. I have looked into the story and have built up the article, and believe the subject is notable notwithstanding the apparent WP:ONEEVENT because of the political situation in Hong Kong. This is mainly due to the backdrop of the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests, and the effect the support for him has elicited strong (almost violent) reaction from the Beijing government citing the Hong Kong national security law, and repercussions of his death on Hong Kong society. A very strong assertion of notability has now been made in the lead section of the article. -- Ohc ^{revolution of our times} 06:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Mild oppose. Normally I'd agree with the WP:1E argument, but in this case the main article is already quite long, and I believe having a separate article on the life of Leung Kin-fai is a valid WP:Content fork. Deryck C. 14:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

But there are literally only two sentences about Leung's life apart from the incident. I think, if the main article is too long, the separated article should be the reactions since the section occupies a large part of the article. Sun8908 _Talk 08:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Support merge, agreeing with the clear case ofWP:1E, and noting that once overlap is accounted for the combined page size is less than 100k, with considerably less readable prose. Klbrain (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1 July police stabbing/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Shushugah (talk · contribs) 16:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Initial review

There are many grammatical mistakes and extensive usage of passive voice so it's not clear who is being referenced, for example phrases like "according to one source" don't make it clear if it's a newspaper source, anonymous source referenced in a newspaper etc...

The lede includes excessive details about the student unions' vigil and is WP:UNDUE cherrypicking from all the different responses to the attack. Leaving it out altogether from the lede would be my recommendation.

While the specific three anniversaries mentioned seem plausible/accurate, the NYTimes and CNN sources used only verify the handover of Hong Kong to China anniversary, but not the enactment of security law or communist party anniversaries.

The reception section could be summarized/much shorter.

I was really surprised the Impact section didn't discuss the impact of the stabbing on broader Hong Kong society, and instead solely focused on impact of one politician's appearance, a foreign journalist and co-workers of Leung.

The excessive usage of images (15 images related to protests in one section alone) is not compliant with WP:GALLERY recommendations and is not very focused for me.

Image copyrights

• I couldn't verify that the still File:Police stabbed in Causeway Bay East Point Road 20210701-1.png created from the WhiteShadowJournalist video [1] are the original video creators/owners of the video'd incident. I looked them up and couldn't find much information about them. Their video has less than 40,000 views which doesn't suggest to me that it's one of the original videos and it has not bee reviewed on Wikimedia Commons yet. Verifying this, finding another freely licensed photo and or using WP:NFCC fair use would be alternative remedies.
• The photos used from Stand News are verified, although unfortunately the newspaper was shut down last week, so many of their facebook links don't work anymore. That's not a major concern for me.

In short, I will give a week for corrections to be made, but a lot of work needs to be done. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

My belated thanks to user:Shushugah for the thorough GAN review. As an editor who worked extensively on this article, I would like to offer a few remarks to the esteemed Wikipedia admin team, as well as others.

From a sober own assessment, also taking into account the probably heightened demands due to the sensitive subject of the article involving a suicide, it would not have occurred to me to submit a GAN at the stage that the article was in. My own work on the article, at least over long stretches (before the aftermath of the HKU Student Union controversy), was primarily motivated by what I saw as serious problems in the article: one of the most glaring – eventually removed by myself – being the statement that the stabbing plus suicide had been a part of the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests;[2] another being the inclusion of some wikilinks of dubious value [3]. The list could go on; see my edit summaries. I concede that I could have done better in grammar fixes and most probably, taken more care in avoiding them myself (English being my second language); but with the numerous Chinese-language references with which I was confronted, and which I had no easy time to read, this was a secondary concern. Of some note may also the username of the nominator; just voicing this is, I hope, not a violation of WP:ASPERSIONS. While I appreciate that everyone should be able to submit a GAN, there is IMHO a potential for this freedom to be exploited to cripple other editors' enthusiasm for just helping to deliver an article that is "meeting the needs of most readers", a view that Wikipedia itself endorses as fully reasonable. Thank you for hearing me out.--CRau080 (talk) 11:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if I am allowed to reply here. But would like to share my perspective. Before I came here, the introduction had minimised the police statement to a few short sentences while giving disportionate large amounts of coverage to the; "some Hong Kongers" who beautify, glorify, celebrate and idolise the terrorist actions.

I came here only for the article [Vitasoy] and later came across this article on police stabbing. And as someone who thinks it's wrong to kill someone you don't even know personally. I am shocked beyond disbelief when I read this article that I couldn't help but contribute. Just so we are on the same page, do we all agree that the terrorist is a terrorist and that nothing justifies what he did? If we agree that terrorism shouldn't be glorified or celebrated.

Why is the introduction like 70 percent overrepresenting the Hong Kongers voices that glorify the terrorist act? Why is the police statement given only a few short sentences? Is it okay to go minimise the police statement explaining why terrorism is not acceptable but give so many coverage to "some radical Hong Kongers" who argues that he is a hero for trying to murder police? I am sorry but Wikipedia must have some moral code where when it comes to what's obviously immoral terrorist acts. The worst thing this article can do is to mostly give priority to "some" voices that police officers deserve getting stabbed to death and honouring a cold blooded murderer. The article for moral reasons, should not risk going that direction and why I disagree it is a good article. Thanks. 49.186.209.37 (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

This article risks being morally bankrupt

I have concerns that this article is overrepresenting radical voices in such a way almost as if it doesn't seem to be aware how it's validating voices that advocate and cheer for indiscriminate murder. I was really hoping for at least one quote in the intro that reasonably points out that even if one is angry, one should never resort to murder. I am no supporter of police brutality but wrong is wrong. Murdering a cop is never an answer. Yet reading this article and I feel the the page is like reading a one sided terrorist memo on why it's so morally glorious to go killing a random officer. The ratio of voices calling him a martyr is so excessively high on this page. Surely there are some mature and less radical Hong Kong voices that condemns senseless terrorism. This article risks inciting terrorism at this point and should be rewritten completely. Or at the VERY MINIMUM, have at least a police statement explaining why glorifying terrorism is bad yet that was utterly absent in the introduction. And why for raw moral reasons to not justify murdering cops, I had added in one police statement in the lead as the minimal balance against all the overwhelming number of voices that makes killing police officers look glorified.

Also whoever edited it, seem to be all uninterested on whether the victim survived or not and how they are doing. I also added in the victims side of the story as it was utterly absent before. [4]

I don't know think I can ever emphasize this enough that the page gives readers the impression that they can become extremely popular and remembered in history well, if they do the same thing as him. Is it allowed to glorify a terrorist on Wikipedia? The article on [1 July police stabbing] feels like reading epoch Times where the editing feels extraordinarily biased to defending his fans and making him look like a freedom fighter. [5]. That's dangerous and there must be a Wikipedia rule where you cannot be giving people the impression that it is noble to target police officers and murder them. This page upsetted me as I strongly believe it is leaned towards the bias to promote radical terrorism through over-representing radical voices and limiting voices that condemns terrorism, including the victim himself. 49.186.209.37 (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Why is the actual victim testimony undue?

@CRau080 you say the victim shouldn't be allowed to express his opinion about his attack and that we should silence his voice on Wikipedia because you think he is unimportant? This page is about an attack only on him. And there's generous amount of information about how people support the attacker. And also on how the police suppress them for supporting the attacker. And as well a lot of info about the attacker motives. But there is exactly zero info in the intro about what even happened to the victim in the lede. And absolutely zero testimony by the victim. That is what's not neutral and unbalanced here, and the original issue I had with the page as it seems to be heavily slanted towards endorsing the attacker pov. There should be at least one mention at the minimum that the victim survived after 7 hours of surgery, and that he voiced his opinion given to the media that he does not forgive his attacker and he doesn't agree with the violence as a solution. 49.179.58.52 (talk) 20:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC)