Talk:2016 Mong Kok civil unrest

Article seems to lean strongly towards government POV

This line in particular stuck out to me in the article's intro (emphasis mine):

The incident was described as an escalation from the government's crackdown on street hawkers during the Chinese New Year holidays. It was actually a well organized premeditated assault on the police to advance the agenda of a new political organization that was formed since the 2014 protest.

This hardly seems in line with the NPOV guidelines of Wikipedia and strikes a remarkably partisan tone for what is an ongoing event. I suggest it be revised and those who are following the ongoing unrest closely add more context and information in line with Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. Nivenus (talk) 01:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

This was a recent addition, it has been reverted to the longstanding NPOV version. _dk (talk) 03:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Arrests section

Following on from my comment on ANI, I've spent some time restructuring the arrests section, particularly the paragraph concerning Lam's arrest. As it stands now, it retains all the detail from before I started copy editing. I'm of two minds concerning the size of the paragraph. There is scope for some of the text to be pared down. I would be inclined to remove the quote by the group as it doesn't really add much to the section. As there will obviously be some dissenting opinions, I won't be doing anything precipitous, but instead would like to hear the opinions of others. Blackmane (talk) 15:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

As mentioned in the ANI, there's been undue excessive coverage in the paragraph about Lam's arrest without charge. Now Lam is charged with rioting, some of the detail could be even out-of-date. The content should be trimmed as per WP:NOTNEWS. STSC (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I already wrote my thoughts on this at ANI. I think the article should reflect what has received coverage in the news and I don't think basic details about the incident qualify as undue detail. Citobun (talk) 06:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The article should be focused on the riots themselves. Peripheral events that occur as a direct result of the riots should be included but care must be taken that the peripheral events not overshadow the focus of the article. As it stands, the singular paragraph concerning Lam's arrest is already a little long in my view, for which I will take responsibility as I sought to capture the salient points of the sources but unfortunately had to make a few extensions in the language. The current version, I feel, needs trimming. The paragraph should be about Lam's arrest, but instead it ends up digressing into reactions by other groups to his arrest. This causes a deviation from the purpose of the paragraph. The text by Scholarism and the University can be combined into one statement as they largely say the same thing. The quote from the group should be removed as it adds nothing to the paragraph. I will take another stab at paring it down some more without losing the key points. Blackmane (talk) 13:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I've copied the section to my sandbox rather than directly make edits to it, which would just clutter the edit history if I end up making multiple edits. I'll post a link when I think it's as good as I can make it. Blackmane (talk) 13:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Please see my test edit here. Blackmane (talk) 13:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I do not feel that this is peripheral coverage. It's pretty central to the government trying to prove that it is a "riot" that involved Scholarism. I will try building in more content shortly. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 15:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

No need to sensationalise the arrest of just one little-known member of the group out of 60+ arrests. STSC (talk) 07:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I said peripheral events, not peripheral coverage, by which I mean events that occurred following from, surrounding, or as a result of the main event the article covers. The arrest of Lam is an event that is a result of the riots. I feel that if there is substantial ongoing coverage of this event, then it would make sense to keep the section here short and link it to an expanded section on the Scholarism article to avoid cluttering this one. I have a feeling that the aftermath section will continue to grow faster than the section about the riots themselves and this will definitely become WP:UNDUE. Blackmane (talk) 00:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The Lam's arrest has become an insignificant minor story. Should it be Joshua Wong, then it would be quite different. STSC (talk) 08:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

This is all part of the HK govt's attempt at revisionism of the 1967 riots. The arrest is clearly a warning sign that drags Scholarism into the centre of the disturbance when in fact they were in the periphery – a move to tar them with the same brush as the violent fringe known as HK Indigenous. The arrest was after the event, and thus I believe calculated move. An arrest of Josh would have immediately sent thousand more onto the streets, and the police were careful to avoid such overt provocation. Arresting a second-line figure leaves just enough doubt that Scholarism was being targeted. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 11:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Please be mindful of soap boxing or theorising about the motives of the HK government, that's treading onto synthesis ground. We're not here to discuss the politics but the content. Whether it is the government's ulterior motive or not is irrelevant. As it stands, the section covers enough context to describe the aftermath of the riots. Until there is more reporting about any arrests, such that there are more sources available, there doesn't seem to be much more that can be written about Lam's arrest. If anything, it's time to move on to more current events, i.e. the aftermath, that are happening. Blackmane (talk) 14:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I am well aware it may sound like soapboxing, but someone actually said: "The whole idea, of course, is to condemn the protesters in association with the pro-democracy movement in the public opinion war ... Condemning the riot has the purpose of justifying the hardline (stance) of Beijing."

Grammar

Grammar and citations in the Hawkers crackdown needs to be fixed, Ohconfucius. Thank you! Lmmnhn (talk) 04:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

'Hawkers crackdown' section

There's always crackdown on illegal hawkers as well as illegal car parking in the streets since the British rule. It's rather silly to sensationalise the "hawkers crackdown" issue by bringing up some old news in Kweilin Street in 2014. STSC (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

On this point, I disagree. It's worthwhile to show some city wide context and a little history. For people not familiar with Hong Kong's hawker community, it would otherwise look like a one off incident that blew up without reason. Blackmane (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The cause of the riot is still debatable. My point is the crackdown on illegal hawkers is a common occurrence in Hong Kong and it has never been a big issue; to include the detail of some past incidents elsewhere in 2014 is rather undue. Besides, there's a wikilink: "Further information: Hawkers in Hong Kong". STSC (talk) 06:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

These things happen when emotions run high and all that is necessary after that is a trigger. You can throw an aerosol can onto a fire and nothing will happen for 10 minutes, then it explodes. The distal cause of the manifestation is the bright red line drawn by the localists after last year's campaign, and the government's refusal to reconsider the policy of purging the streets of hawkers – a policy dating back years – and the more recent demands of the DAB. There has been quite enough talk about this if you read their social media posts that they have made it their next priority (after parallel shoppers) to preserve HK culture including street food at lunar NY; just a week earlier, a group of artists set up a mobile food festival in the streets and was very well received by the people. The trigger of the MK disturbances is Government sending in inspectors into the narrow streets of MK backed up by police after unofficial clearances in Leung King Estate and arrests on NY eve in Kweilin Street. The mention of 2014 and the increasing hatred of the police, I believe, are relevant because these set the scene for the DAB motion for zero tolerance of hawkers and the ensuing elevation in temperature. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 11:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Change title to 2016 Mong Kok Riot

I think riot is a better title, as this was a riot- there was violence. The government also said it was a riot. TheCoffeeAddict talk|contribs 03:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The government is not an impartial party. Per WP:NPOV, "civil unrest" is the most neutral way to describe the event, which was not exclusively violence. Citobun (talk) 04:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

General revision of tone and structure of article

Many major errors exist in the presentation of information, including structuring of the information presented and the tone in which the article is written. Below listed are some major examples

1) In the introductory paragraph

Batons, pepper spray, unnecessary force and suspected torture were used by the police and two warning shots, which is not allowed in Police Force Ordinance[12] were fired into the air, while protesters threw glass bottles, bricks, flower pots and trash bins toward the police and set fires in the streets.

The determination of whether the use of force is unnecessary is at best an unsubstantiated opinion, and contributes nothing to the introduction of the article. Moreover, this detail, along with the violation of the cited police ordinance, should be placed further down in the "Course of Events" section of the article.

2)

The relationship between the Hong Kong Police Force, often referred to as "Asia's finest" in the past,

The qualification after the comma is unnecessary. Even if it was to be included, this requires citation.

3)

in the case of Chu, the police refused to prosecute.

i) Decision of prosecution in common law jurisdictions does not lie with Police Forces or other Law Enforcement agencies, but with the Prosecutions Division of the respective Justice departments. ii) The internal investigation by the police into Chu's action has already resulted in him being charged and the case has now been heard and Chu sentenced.

4)

Sociology lecturer and activist Lau Siu-lai, wishing to provoke public debate over the hawker issue, acted in deliberate defiance of the FEHD and was arrested.[27][28] Originally wishing just to enjoy the ambience of the street market, Lau was arrested when she began to help sell grilled cuttlefish in defiance of the FEHD officers and her arrest was ordered by the senior officer present.

Sentence does not make sense in terms of order of events. Did she wish to provoke public debate by helping a hawker to sell cuttlefish? Or did she sell cuttlefish herself? Is that act in defiance of the directions of the FEHD? What was she charged with upon arrest? Does the FEHD have arresting powers? Besides these details which are missing, a citation is needed for the above.

5)

At around 2 am, two warning shots were fired into the air on Argyle Street by a team of traffic officers which had become surrounded by protesters and who were being pelted with pallets and rocks

The event is poorly described. The entire team fired two shot? Why were they surrounded?

The events portrayed in the following video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqSotqe6dTc) and other media outlets indicate that one traffic police officer, while attending to events not relating to the riot, was injured and laid unconscious. Rioters continued to advance on the injured officer, which prompted his colleagues to approach in order to protect the injured. One of the officers on the scene drew his firearm and fired two warning shots into the air. (this is also where the line about breaching the Use of Force guidelines should go)

6)

Their alleged offences include participating in unlawful assembly, attacking police officers, refusing to be arrested, obstructing police and carrying weapons

The offences should be cited directly in accordance to common law and not paraphrased (e.g. Assaulting a Police Officer, Resisting Arrest, Obstruction of Justice, Possession of Offensive weapons). These are charges upon which the Police has the right to arrest the person accused. The tone of this is more suited to an op-ed piece rather than an encyclopedic entry.

Furthermore, the tone of the article (in the use of language and order of information) is overtly partial, and is not conducive to presenting a factual entry for the event. Many grammatical errors are also present, which I am currently in the process of correcting. Can followers of this section please provide some opinions and suggestions pertaining to the correction of the aforementioned issues? — Preceding unsigned comment added by M049980 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)