While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or
poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see
this noticeboard.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hong Kong, a project to coordinate efforts in improving all
Hong Kong-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Hong Kong-related articles, you are invited to
join this project.Hong KongWikipedia:WikiProject Hong KongTemplate:WikiProject Hong KongHong Kong articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the
scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please
Join,
Create, and
Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Now that the article has been expanded quite significantly, and that it has way more information than the parent article, I have withdrew the merge.
OceanHok (
talk) 14:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)reply
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.
Parent article has more information than this separate article. I don't really see the point of having it split at this point.
OceanHok (
talk) 12:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Merge. Per nom. HNot notable outside of the strict context of the protests. --
Ohconfucius (on the move) (
talk) 13:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Death of Chow Tsz Lok right now only goes up to 8 November inclusive and does not (yet) mention the protests (such as on 11 November) sparked by Chow's dath.
2019 Hong Kong protestsright now has only about three sentences which overlap with what is in the present version of Death of Chow Tsz Lok. In
List of November 2019 Hong Kong protestsright now I count about 10-11 sentences in common, but the quality of referencing is not that precise in the List article. I see no point in integrating info about the expected investigation into the death into
List of November 2019 Hong Kong protests - since it's not itself a protest and a serious, independent investigation is unlikely to happen that fast (evidence has to be gathered, legal procedures done, documents gathered). I don't see why the investigation would make sense in the main 2019 HK protests article, apart from a brief summary when (presumably) it's completed. Regarding notability, the sources in this article so far, and for the moment the sources that are so far only in the other two articles, make it clear that this death has sparked off further protest (such as the 11 November protests) and is of interest to the international media (such as
Time (magazine),
Seattle Post-Intelligencer).
Boud (
talk) 18:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)reply
I am with
Boud. The proposer clearly know the importance of the subject article, but nevertheless delete most of the content in the name of merge, which had trimmed many important content.
Universehk (
talk) 03:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose. The Death of Chow Tsz Lok is a topic significant enough to exist as a standalone article.
WikiSuperfan (
talk) 10:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose for now. There is enough content for a standalone article. If a few months down the line Chow's death ceases being discussed in public discourse, we can rethink.
Deryck C. 13:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)reply
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.
Some facts may as well
This
video by CGTN said Chow was a parkour practitioner and was an observer which was why he was in the car park. This was what led to him to accidentally jump off the building. Not mentioned was that his buddy narrowly avoided going the same way. Also, not mentioned here was that the officer was later reprimanded for his comments.
82.26.220.45 (
talk) 01:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the suggestion. CGTN has a known bias against Hong Kong's protest movement so I think we'd be giving this speculation undue weight if we covered it, unless it was corroborated by a few other reputable media outlets.
Deryck C. 16:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)reply
...but then HKFP, BBC News, Apple Daily and so many western media outlets has a bias toward the Hong Kong's protest movement. It's good to have an alternative perspective IMO.
82.26.220.45 (
talk) 23:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Unexplained blanking
User:Cold Season, why have you deleted mention that a witness claimed that medics told firefighters they were blocked by police? Citobun (
talk) 04:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)reply
First off, I was the one who wrote the entire timeline information. It is literally my own text from earlier and I decided that the timeline in table format should be worked into the body of the text with editorial discretion, where context matters.
Secondly, we now have an actual OFFICIAL account from the ambulances service of the Fire Service Department. It's one unnamed "witness" versus the FSD themselves. The accusation of being blocked still remains in the article in any case.
Thirdly, if we're talking about deleting things, why did you delete the following things in the body of the text:
[1] (that is, everything that's beyond the timeline section).
I contest the
wholescale and disingenuous revert of my preceding edits. This is not the first time. I have come back to the article to find that the editor concerned is still demonstrating an unacceptable pattern of
ownership behaviour. This low-importance article has been turned into War and Peace. It's too long, too complex and too convuluted. We should follow
summary style by avoid excessive detail and verbosity, because it's a r
eal turnoff for readers. I also object to the allegation that I deliberately changed the meaning. Some loss of
trivial detail is certainly a by-product of simplification; some errors may also have crept in due to the fact that I had reverted to a previous version that may have contained the errors that were the target of objections. Let's work together instead of
engaging in disruptive behaviour to
make a point. -- Ohc revolution of our times 13:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)reply
This behaviour has become long-term issue. I rarely edit these articles as it is just toxic to deal with. TBH I think as the user has been warned multiple times it's about time for ANI. Citobun (
talk) 05:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)reply
I need sometime to look at the bulk revert in detail but I'll only respond to one part of it for now: In
this edit, I found it disingenuous that an editor who claimed to have limited command of Chinese (
here) had the audacity to dismiss the challenge a native user of Hong Kong Chinese regarding a Hong Kong Chinese source with the flippant comment "you know very well what it refers to". Yes I do know very well, and you don't. In the meantime I'm happy to leave the article in a state that Citobun and Ohconfucius agree on.
Deryck C. 10:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)reply
I'm not so familiar with this article but enountered this editor at
Death of Luo Changqing last year, where they demonstrated the same behaviour described by Ohconfucius above. I had to back away as the unceasing, POV-pushing revert warring made it way too toxic. Citobun (
talk) 13:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)reply
However, it was ascertained that the disseminated footage actually depicted ambulance A346, which was assigned to a person with shortness of breath and back pain who would decline ambulance services; the personnel encountered an ongoing police dispersal operation against protesters, where tear gas was used, and waited in the ambulance for safety.
What is disingenuous is that you tried to remove this with your rambling about how the footage was not
“released in response to HKUST's allegation” (something never claimed), while you are aware that it is the reverse (that is, the HKUST president was commenting on the footage in circulation).
It is clear that the source is referring to the footage (showing ambulances) circulating in various media in the aftermath of Chow’s fall, so stop talking untruths. --
Cold Season (
talk) 05:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)reply
As you have quoted yourself, the text you want to insert into the article using said source is "However, it was ascertained that the disseminated footage actually depicted ambulance A346", so it is clear where the burden of proof lies. It is unacceptable
WP:SYNTH to link the two sources together this way when neither source makes that link.
Deryck C. 18:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)reply
The source explicitly talks about the footage showing the ambulances, put in a paragraph talking about said footage showing the ambulances. Burden of proof established, as the topic in the source (which you claim to know very well) is clear. (Notwithstanding that you are now ignoring how your previous argument for removal was also not valid.)
Here, it is bolded for you, as it was in the wiki article:
In an email to HKUST staff and students pledging to take up the matter with police and demand clarification, HKUST president Wei Shyy said: "We saw the footage of ambulances being blocked by police cars and the paramedics walking to the scene, causing a delay of 20 minutes in the rescue operation of our student."[1] However, it was ascertained that the disseminated footage actually depicted ambulance A346, which was assigned to a person with shortness of breath and back pain who would decline ambulance services; the personnel encountered an ongoing police dispersal operation against protesters, where tear gas was used, and waited in the ambulance for safety.[2]
I've made no
WP:SYNTH, as this is what the source themselves state about the footage. There's also nothing about the footage being “released in response to HKUST's allegation” which you (wrongly) use as reason for removal. --
Cold Season (
talk) 21:34, 8 August 2021 (UTC)reply
There are about 300 ambulances in Hong Kong. Your proposed text purported a link that the two sources were talking about the same ambulance, which is not supported by the sources. You claim that my "previous argument for removal was also not valid" when I have only made one argument: that in your misunderstanding of the sources you created an original synthesis not present in either source. I appreciate your desire to improve these articles but I'm afraid your combative behaviour is making it difficult for other editors to take your ideas on board.
Deryck C. 09:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)reply
To user Ohconfucius:
Your edits for “brevity” is what’s disingenuous, simply an excuse for content removal and not a valid argument (which you do not give) on why it should be removed.
Brevity does not justify removing information from an article. Secondly, you
claim that my edits are blanket reverts (which is not true, as I went by it one by one), while you are the one that state that “errors may … have crept in” your edits (which is ironic).
In addition to your content removal, I'll also point it out how misleading your edits are one-by-one after your done with your slash-and-burn (since what I wanted to write here, prepared yesterday, has been overtaken by your new edits). But here's two short examples of many to come, you changing the statement (what was literally said, per the refs) to a misleading statement:
[allegations] which the police called false and groundless.[2] → police vehemently denied responsability
and did not require their help[3] → and did not require their presence
PS: You broke an URL in the references. --
Cold Season (
talk) 05:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Thanks for starting to engage. I must be doing quite well for you only to find two "misleading statements" among my changes. However, I disagree with that categorisation; I also resent your objectionable accusation of a quote: slash and burn. You seem to be a lone wolf, and others have evidently had enough of your POV-pushing and tendentious editing, but I don't expect you to stop until you are topic banned. Your continuing
casting aspersions as to motives and your
continuing insults will get you banned. However, I hope that you can turn over a new leaf and we can edit productively together. If you have any substantive issue with the changes, I'd be pleased to hear them and put them right. I am mindful when editing that while we must be careful not to misstate; reformulation and use of synonyms are techniques commonly used. The article contains abundant and extensive quotes of police statements, and we must also avoid giving
giving undue emphasis. We must also avoid
WP:close paraphrasing of sources for copyright reasons. -- Ohc revolution of our times 21:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)reply
(1) I did not just find only 2 misleading edits (I said more were to come later). I made a list of about 15 to 20 things (or more if separated into smaller chunks) that were misleading, but you made new edits afterwards. I hadn't found the time to redo it.
(2) I'm unconcerned with close paraphrasing, as I only reproduce relevant terms (reflected in the sources) and not copy the whole content. Such as "false", "groundless", "help" in the examples above. I'm curious to your "found" examples of close paraphrasing to prove that your statement is not meritless.
(3) And lets not pretend how you didn't address me insultingly when this dispute started
[4] and here at the top calling me disingenuous. --
Cold Season (
talk) 20:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Here's a list of things, incomplete. The first line is how it was written before (based on
stable url). The second line is your misleading changes (based on
stable url). I bolded things for emphasis.
False generalization, since the source only speaks among his school friends:
His friends were unaware of Chow's political views, as they hardly discussed politics.[5]
His political views were not known, as friends said they rarely discussed politics.
I think the grammar in both the source and the article text is sufficiently clear that they're referring to some friends, not every single human being who knows Alex Chow.
Deryck C. 11:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Your misleading edit added a rationale for the doxxing which was never stated in the source:
After doxxing efforts by protesters, the private details of a police officer's wedding in Tseung Kwan O on 3 November 2019 were leaked and calls were made to crash the event, which would eventually lead to an overnight confrontation between police and protesters.[6]
Continuing and accumulated grievances against police brutality since the start of the anti-ELAB protests led to doxing of police officers and calls for revenge. Private details of a police officer's wedding in Tseung Kwan O on 3 November 2019 were thus leaked, and calls were made to crash it.
The source state that it was more than 100 protesters, not around 100:
Then, around 00:20 on 4 November, over 100 protesters gathered at the junction of Tong Ming and Tong Chun streets, with some creating roadblocks.[7]
Then, around 00:20 on 4 November, around 100 protesters gathered at the junction of Tong Ming and Tong Chun streets, with some creating roadblocks.
You removed what Chow was doing in his last moment captured before the fall. Secondly, it's the last moment captured on camera before the fall. A critical wording, as there is footage of him lying injured there too (that is, after the fall). Again, misleading:
The CCTV footage showed that Chow was wandering alone inside the car park and on a connecting footbridge from 0:26 to 01:02, when he was walking upwards to the third floor, the last moment captured on camera before the fall.[8]
CCTV footage showed that Chow was wandering alone, backwards and forwards between the inside the car park and on a connecting footbridge from 0:26 until 01:02 – the last moment he was captured on camera.
The source talks about firefighters, you misleadingly changed it to police. Secondly, you removed important context. Again, misleading:
There were several people, including those in black clothing and firefighters, inside the car park at the time. The firefighters arrived at the car park at 00:55 in response to a call about a fire. At 01:05, they were informed by a passerby about Chow's fall.[9] (cite for the last bit, see stable url mentioned for rest)
At 01:05, police were informed by a civilian that a person had fallen.
You removed important content about what was happening:
The firefighters requested an ambulance at 01:11 as they were providing aid to Chow.[10]
...
You misleadingly changed the wording matching the source, as this does not mean the same:
She said that the firefighters told the police that they were able handle the incident and did not require their help.[11]
She said that the firefighters told the police that they had the situation under control and did not require their presence.
Oh, this one is nasty... See how you changed specifically who the police pointed crowd control weapons at (i.e., protesters), removed what kind of weapons it was (i.e., crowd control weapons), and misleadingly changed the meaning to imply that police used the weapons to disperse people at the scene.
She added that the police left the first-aiders alone, but dispersed the people near the scene and pointed crowd control weapons towards protesters.[12]
The police then dispersed the people at the scene with weapons, and left the first-aiders alone to provide care.
The source doesn't talk about a junction:
They arrived via Po Shun Road at Tong Ming Street, but they could not proceed further as they were held up by a queue of vehicles including double-decker buses and private cars.
The ambulance was obstructed by other vehicles including double-decker buses and private cars at the junction of Po Shun Road at Tong Ming Street.
I think the article text is an accurate summary of the source when you read the source with the geographical context of the street names in mind.
"N+114°15'20.5"E/Deryck C. 11:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)reply
You removed context such as why the police was blaming the protesters (the roadblocks) and decided to reword the "false and groundless" statement (the literal wording as given in the source) to vehemently push your POV sentence (which you duplicate in the lead too). Again, misleading:
The police said that roadblocks set up by protesters had prevented vehicles from passing.[13]Protesters maintain that the police blocked the ambulance from reaching Chow,[14]which the police called false and groundless.[15]
The police and protesters each blamed the other side for blocking the ambulance from reaching Chow; police vehemently denied responsability.
The context here is that Chow did not respond to his father, which you removed:
He asked Chow why he was going out so late at night, but Chow did not respond, and told him to be careful.[16]
He did not tell his family why he was going out so late at night.
The possible contention here is father vs family. I've edited the relevant sentence in the article.
Deryck C. 11:18, 28 August 2021 (UTC)reply
It's important content to know what Chow himself was doing, which you removed. Secondly, I've noticed that you tend to insert weasel words throughout, but that might merely be coincidence...
The messages that Chow made in online group chats on Telegram revealed that Chow was at the car park to watch the protest. One of Chow's messages was "[I'm] at the car park just to watch the show. [I] brought nothing." Another of his messages showed that he was "getting the popcorn." His final message was "[I] also went down to give something to others."
Chow made posts in online group chats on Telegram saying that he was merely at the car park to watch the protest. His final message was "[I] also went down to give something to others."
I think "merely" is a reasonable paraphrasing of "just to watch ... brought nothing".
Deryck C. 11:18, 28 August 2021 (UTC)reply
How do you know that the method was jail breaking? The source does not state so. Also, you removed the context that the one testifying was the one who attempted to unlock it:
He stated that he was unable to retrieve the contents of Chow's iPhone, which Chow used to communicate with others that night, after failed attempts to unlock it.[17]
He stated that police had attempted but were unable to jailbreak the iPhone which Chow had been using to communicate with others that night and retrieve its contents.
I've tweaked this one to avoid words like "jailbreak" which could be misunderstood in context.
Deryck C. 11:18, 28 August 2021 (UTC)reply
This is the end of the list, but more to come, as I'm not done. I'm just telling you this again, since you missed or choose to miss it last time.
Secondly, your edits also fail
WP:INTEGRITY here and there (not pointed out here). Ergo, your edits are aptly likened to a slash and burn.
Finally... Of course, it was expected that you wouldn't provide a reasoning for your edits, but only state "I disagree"... --
Cold Season (
talk) 22:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)reply
This article has long been problematic as it has been thoroughly
quote-bombed with official proceedings which attempt to draw an unjustified conclusion (to a certainty that doesn't exist), and which have been called into question because independent sources consider the government narrative is untrustworthy. I will be reworking the article in due course – I'll probably start by paring down the relevant parts. -- Ohc revolution of our times 09:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Propose edits here
I suggest that from now on, proposed edits be printed here (the before and the after) for discussion.
Tony(talk) 21:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)�reply