3325:( It would appear...) My mistake, I assumed that the law had actually been written judging by how many people in the news (on both sides) were telling me what was in it. A great part of the problem with issues like these is that you westerners opine that any information that disagrees with your viewpoint is not reliable and is mere propaganda. Only pundits that support your viewpoint are deemed reliable. Hong Kong needs some improved security; maybe this law will provide it. The first bit of fighting was at a largely peaceful demonstration, where a fringe attacked the police. The police responded to the thrown bricks, sharpened rebars &c. with tear gas. The tear gas also hit the non-violent protestors. Since then things have escalated. The government hid in her bedroom, possibly literally. I have seen, in person, businesses torched because they were owned by people from the Mainland and shops that sell to Mainland tourists smashed and ransacked. While outside others are smashing traffic lights and pulling down bus stop signs. Is it democratic to terrorise an ethnic minority? What do I say to frightened 9-10 year-old students of mine? This violence was not what democracy was supposed to be.
2598:
requires a vote in the LegCo in accordance with the usual procedures. Hence I have changed the reference to
Article 23 to refer instead to the 2003 bill, and then pointed out that the bill purported to be in compliance with Article 23 of the Basic Law. I have also made more explicit what exactly is the difference: the proposed law is not to go through the LegCo. Finally, âcanâ is unclear: we do not know, as yet, whether or not the proposed enactment of a national security law by inclusion in Annex III will be constitutional or not. Of course, it would be one thing for a few legal experts to make this remark, or perhaps a LegCo member or two; however, given that the Bar Association has raised this question, I think that there is a sufficient prima facie case to the contrary to remove âcanâ and the concomitant air of definitiveness, and then to point out that the constitutionality of this procedure has been disputed by the association.
3290:
responsibility of the editors to decide what is worthy of being here or not. The way I see it, whenever I find a new relevant article on the subject I include it. Be it good or bad. The problem with the
Chinese government is that they have very few... Read here none... reliable (non-propaganda) news outlets to explain their motivations. Tweets from the spokesperson can't be included. Do you see where I'm going here? The only thing available about this is negative. And by the way, if you'd informed yourself before commenting here, you'd know that the law doesn't exist yet. It's to be drafted after the order was given (which makes no sense in a real democracy btw).... Care to give that link to the new law please? I will add it if it is from a reliable (non propaganda) source. *Look at global times in
2028:: the decision authorises the drafting and enactment of a National Security Law; it is not itself the law. Either the law will successfully be enacted, in which case the decision to enact it should have a separate article (i.e., this one), or it won't be enacted, in which case the ultimately frustrated decision to enact such a law won't in fact have been the law itself! If this article is to be renamed, it should be renamed to something like âHong Kong National Security decisionâ. If the law is not in the end implemented, perhaps a redirect from âHong Kong National Security Lawâ to this page would be appropriateâbut if there is to be a law, the decision to enact it and the law itself must be distinguished.
2677:: That of course leaves the other condition, which is when a law relates to "defence and foreign affairs, as well as other matters outside the limits of the autonomy of the Region". I think we should quote this in whole (which is what I have done). I do not think we need to quote the remainder of Article 18(3) as a wholeâit breaks up the text, and there is no legal dispute as to the first sentence of Article 18(3). Of course, we should also cover views on the interpretation of this condition e.g. from the DOJ/HKBAâthen of course the reader will be able to decide having been informed of the main arguments in the dispute. (7)
2115:, but the decision the NPC is going to make on 28/5 is basically the same as the "law" they are going to enact, meaning that a separate NPC decision article doesn't really seem that necessary. I think we should have an overview article named "Hong Kong national security law" about Beijing's and HKSAR's push to enact a NSL in HK (in both 2003 and now) and the subsequent opposition and impacts, keep the Article 23 NSL article, and then move the content we have in this page to a separate article when we know the upcoming "law"'s official name. But before that, I think the page can keep the current title or be moved to
3009:
instead of by Annex III, I am not really sure whether this is an issue because I haven't seen any sourceâthe DOJ, NPCSC, Chinese media, international mediaâsuggesting it might go through the LegCo instead of being enacted under
Article 18(3) of the Basic. If it's about mentioning Article 23, I think it's relatively clear in the text that Article 23 is the basis of the HKBA's argument, but that not everyone (for example, the DOJ) agrees with them. I don't want to remove the template if there actually is a dispute, but I'm not really sure what exactly you'd like to change; I tried to clarify things
623:
2884:, not the law itself. It's just a very long procedural motion. The decision was released by the NPC and available in Xinhua etc. quite soon after its passage. The CLT translation was not based on an unsourced leak: the text it was based on had already been published. Second, CLT isn't a blogâmany websites that aren't blogs use Wordpress, e.g., topically, HKFP. Third, if you want to add information from the BBC, it would be helpful to integrate it into the existing body of the article, instead of adding on a new and frankly redundant section.
335:
314:
613:
592:
2685:: quite apart from NPOV, I think that the sentence I complain of in (7) suffers from another flaw: it seems to imply that Article 18(3) was written specifically with this law in mind. Of course it may in fact authorise it, but that's as a result of an application of the general principle given by Article 18, which is quite distinct from the article deliberately and specifically authorising this particular law. Another point: usually one would refer to âArticle
996:: "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.". The first sentence didn't give a viewpoint on the subject, it simply stated it. The second and third sentences serve as a reference to a viewpoint on it. If you have another reference that has a different viewpoint than this one I would be glad to accept that as a fourth sentence and concensus on the matter. Thank you.
2287:
the national security law for Hong Kong and inserting it directly to Annex III, at least to those readers not familiar to this subject (e.g. Modernmore), which is why I put a disputed tag on it. Indeed, the article should demonstrate the reader the concern from HKBA in detail, the nature of the bill to promoting the legislating of the law, the fact that it's still unsure who (HKLegCo or SCNPC) will eventually legislate the law is still uncertain.
718:
697:
1661:. Then more low level Beijing committee starts to develop the new law, or a bill, which would be approved by China Beijing Government in future and written directly in Hong Kong Mini-constitution, but Carrie Lam's and Hong Kong LegCo approvals would be not needed. But anyway, Hong Kong Gazette must say at least a few words about the Beijing legislative actions, I suppose. So, I was puzzled, but was right when said not move.
728:
2715:
reasonable to leave it there. Of course, if we were just to leave it there, that might create NPOV problems. So that's why I also left the DOJ's response: Article 23 only allows national security legislation but doesn't include it within the limits of the HKSAR's autonomy. Given the DOJ thinks the argument is sufficiently plausible to merit a response, I think it's reasonable to leave the mention of
Article 23
1738:. I was the editor that created this article. At the time there had yet been any universal English translation for this bill in news articles, that was why I simply used the official name in the agenda. Would happily support a common name if there was to be one. On a side note, this is not yet a law so the amended title should not be national security "law" unless the title change takes place after 28 May. --
345:
2782:. It is fine to have a translation, but it needs to be cited to a reliable secondary or primary source that has a translation. For all we know this translation was made by Google translate. There perhaps is an official translation some where that we should cite. It is also fine to have underlines, but those too need to be cited. Who said these parts are notable? Allowing these in the article invites
235:
2681:: as you say, I think we should leave the reader to decide whether Article 18 actually authorises enactment by inclusion in Annex III or not. I don't think that leaving in the phrase "article 18(3, 4)âŚauthorises the enactment of a national security law" is compatible with allowing the reader to decide: it implies that clearly Article 18(3) or Article 18(4) (or both!) actually do authorise it. (8)
2855:), second, I read the info on BBC and put the info also in the section ("The details of the new legislation were kept in secret, even Hong Kong's Chief Executive Carrie Lam not seen that, until the new law was published only in Chinese language"), that is, if the draft was kept in secret, so it adds strange sense, how the leak on WordPress appeared, so I propose to delete the text from
2498:). So this proposal kinda becomes moot, because all the previous votes and reasoning here don't apply in the same sense. If this proposal is enacted, I believe it would now be a merge, rather than a move. Consequently, I think this proposal has to be closed without action and a new proposal for either a merge, or a rename of this article to something else, should be considered.
192:
2606:, which is the present title of the article, on the grounds that it purports to authorise an unconstitutional procedure to enact a law. On the other hand, it does not in fact oppose the idea of a law of this type concerning national security, which is in the end why I referred to concerns and left it at the startâit seems that the article will soon be renamed at any rate.
283:
3013:. I don't mean to be presumptuous, but if there is no dispute the we really ought to remove the template, so as to avoid confusing peopleâespecially since it's not at all obvious on this talk page what exactly you're disputing, and the only remarks about it are under the proposal to move the article. Of course if there is something in dispute I shan't remove it.
2668:: Presumably we should not cover the a state of emergency condition in detail, because (as far as I know) neither the HKSAR government nor the CPG have relied on that condition. If you have any reliable sources showing that the HKSAR government and/or the CPG have in fact said that the region is in a state of emergency and therefore that they are relying on
1331:
3169:, so I'm not really inclined to use it. Anyway, since there is uncertainty, I think we should leave it there for now. Maybe later if there's something clearer indicating a threat to protesters we could add that to the protest section, and then leave another sentence in the support section saying the PLA support the law.
2602:
page, just as I shall continue to use curly quotation marks except in articles in line with policy). More importantly, however, I am conflicted as to whether to include it within the âoppositionâ section, or whether to include at the start. I suppose in a very literal sense that the
Association has opposed the
2073:, which provides the framework for such a statute in Hong Kong. A clear distinction needs to be made between the NPC move and the law itself, which hasn't yet been enacted. Until such time that it is one and the same, the article should stay in a separate namespace from the "Hong Kong National Security Law". --
2318:
area of activities and subversion compared to
Article 23. While the national security law focuses on upholding the Chinese government's regime, Article 23 aims at the subversion of the Chinese Communist Party. There are overlapped provisions withing two drafts, but we should not confuse them as the same bill.
3092:
From what I understood in the article, the commander was referring to the upcoming protests. It is true that the last statement is in support of the law though. The title might have thrown me off. Can you comment here on your interpretation of the statement? Btw, I don't think it qualifies as a minor
2317:
to
Article 23. The congress has asked the Hong Kong government to push forward the legislation of Article 23 while commencing the national security law. This one is aimed on pass protestors inflicted by extradition bill protest and the promotion of Hong Kong Independency, which covers an even braoder
954:
and stop stating opinions as facts. Also avoid talking about individuals and events that are unrelated and unreferenced in the HKFP article we are talking about. "illegal U.S. wars of aggression" is a very simple, ill-informed way to talk about the intricate subjects you are referencing. I think your
2628:
helloâI've numbered my remarks here just because there are a lot of separate issues; numbering of course has a certain legalistic connotation of hostility so I should just like to attempt to dispel any apprehension of imminent discourtesy on my part. These remarks concern my edit of -1513 bytes. (1)
2332:
I don't know what you are talking about here, of course national security law is not article 23, nor is it the same as this bill. Both article 23 and this bill are promoting the legislating of a national security law. Article 23 asks HK to legislate it asap but HK decided to violate it, so this bill
1114:
I won't make any statement about what I feel regarding this being in the lead, but I do not think it is remotely correct to refer to Wong, Law or Rubio in the way that you did (and such statements are not remotely backed up by our articles on these individuals nor the reliable sourcing behind them).
991:
I agree that the legislation bypass is already stated in the sentence before. But it is a cold explanation of what it is actually doing. Here, we have the chance to add reactions to this legislation bypass. I find it very arbitrary and politically charged to refer to someone as an extremist, it is a
3120:
certain that the remark concerned the protests. Third, given the first two factors, I think that if there were to be some mention of this in the protests section, it should be some analyst saying âah actually these chaps are threatening the protestersâ. So I think that at most it relates equally to
3115:
hello. I suppose in retrospect I perhaps oughtn't to have done that. I thought of it as two minor changes: first, one for concision, second, one to move it. I think that to a certain extent these remarks are aimed at protesters. However, two considerations motivated the move. First, similar remarks
2745:
that the NPCSC will directly legislate and then include the result in Annex IIIâand that itself has been the subject of debate which should be covered. Would you agree that the coverage of the dispute at least is accurate? I'd be entirely happy with some sort of addition to say something like: âThe
2601:
Relatedly, I also included a more detailed account of the association's remarks in the âDomestic responsesâ section. I should be grateful if someone would point me to a
Knowledge policy concerning whether I ought to have capitalised âthe associationâ (obviously I shanât here, because this is a talk
2286:
Yes. One problem is when discussing the HKBA's view on the bill, the article focus too much on
Article 23, which is talking about the law, instead of on Article 18, which is talking about the bill that promoting the passing of the law. The writing about HKBA sounds as if the NPC is legislating the
3215:
yes, I'm inclined to agree with that policyâŚwe should only use them if we can't find other sources, but I am not really sure that their interpretation of the PLA's remarks is that trustworthy without corroboration. Apropos of nothing at all, do you know what's happening with that DRN? (If there's
3142:
I see... It is true that the purpose of the statement is unclear. In my opinion it was intended as some kind of threat to the protesters. But there are only implicit links between the statement and the protests in the article. We can't be attributing intentions, but looking at the title, it seems
2663:
I agree that we should leave the question of whether national security is within the scope the authority
Article 18(3) grants to the NPCSC to the reader. However, there is no point in quoting bits that are not the subject of the controversy, so we should limit what we quote to precisely that. (5)
2238:
but an order to ask Hong Kong to comply the article 23. You can't have "The HKSAR shall legislate national security law according to the Basic Law as soon as possible" as an article of HK national security law, just like you can't write "the Constituent Assembly should legislate a constitution of
2171:
This decision is not going to be written into Annex III. It is a national level decision not directly applied to HKSAR and has only symbolic meaning. If NPCSC passes one in Annex III, it's going to be affected, while the decision only gives such a possibility. If it got passed, it can be moved to
3060:
Ah I seeâI have no objection to your most recent edits, and I'm glad we could reach consensus. Although I imagine we have rather different political views it's very good to be able to follow NPOV and write good Knowledge articles (and ensure that the article doesn't conflate the decision and the
3008:
I think it would be good to resolve whatever issues caused you to put up the factual accuracy banner. If it's about the use of the term "national security law", the specific bit you complained about doesn't appear in the article any longer. If it's about the possibility of enactment by the LegCo
2714:
on Article 23âsince that isn't really the subject of the proposal to move the articleâthe reason I mentioned it there is because that's the basis of the HKBA's argument. There's no other reason in the Basic Law to regard national security as within the HKSAR's autonomyâthat's it. So I think it's
2597:
I accidentally forgot to include an edit summary on my latest edit of +284 bytes. The following is the rationale. Article 23 itself is merely an article of the Basic Law; it does not require âapprovalâ of the LegCo. A bill submitted in completion of the constitutional requirements of Article 23
1184:
reference. And no, I was asking for your help about the accusations made here. I was not very clear as to what I was expecting of you probably :p. I simply notified you because you have been very helpful to me recently and I wanted you to see the discussion and help me take the right decisions
46:
3351:
I have been amazed by all the people, on both sides, telling the world what is in the law, when they have not read the actual bill. Anyway, the actual text is now published and in the link above. Please keep this page to the actual facts of the case and not the yellow-peril prejudices of many
3289:
standards for now as consensus was reached on harder points. It is supposed to be a neutral article that only refers to information on the outside and does not take a standpoint. If you have any issues with neutrality please point them out directly in a constructive comment. It is not the
3419:
2264:
I agree that the law and decision are different, but was that why you put the header about the factual accuracy of the article being in dispute? I think the article does a reasonable job of distinguishing the two at the momentâis there anything perhaps that you think should be changed?
2859:, or change this with leak of draft from official newspapers (I didn't read Ming Pao or Apple Daily as I cannot speak Cantonese) if there are present. Postscript. Personally I added in the section info from BBC, so I may be biased a bit, because I want to save my, and delete your:)
1304:- This is now on the DRN. Please do not continue the conversation on this page at this time, if you do, it will be hard for the moderator of the dispute to keep up and have to keep going back and forth between pages. Please wait until a moderator opens up the conversation. Thanks,
817:. I also modified it to remove the non-neutral parts. What I don't understand is that: " Joshua Wong, Nathan Law, and Marco Rubio should not be cited in the lede and especially not without WP:ATTRIBUTION". We are not referencing what's inside the article, but the article itself.
3412:
155:
3116:
have been made and nothing has been done in that connexion. Second, it is uncertain whether this really relates to the protests, or whether it's just usual blather at a moment of tension from government functionaries of the sort familiar to us all over the world, whereas it
2740:
also, one more thing (sorry to throw such a wall of text at you!). I'm not sure it's really the case that âit's still unsure who (HKLegCo or SCNPC) will eventually legislate the law.â Do you have a good reliable source for that? Also, if it is, there is still the
3256:
It would appear much less biased if Knowledge could refer to the actual text of the law rather than opinions of people who are biased against Beijing and would be negative no matter what the law actual said. A link to the text of the new law would be helpful.
2069:, which the CPC deliberately coins terms to mean the clear opposite of how the term is defined. It's also important not to conflate the decision in some rubber-stamp parliament and the law in the territory itself. Right now, it's a NPC decision, similar to the
1343:
regarding Criticism. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. Any editors are welcome to add themselves as a party, and you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is
812:
I think we should include the criticism that has been formulated in HKFP, as it was already cited right before. Please discuss this matter here before undoing so that you can explain your position better. Not adding the criticism part is not compliant with
3032:
in my previous reply to you. This article should include only concerns over the seven points themselves instead of concerns over future enacting of a national security law, which is also a current news trend. I think the problem is primarily solved by
3121:
the protests and the law, and so the, letâs say, âexpected value of the ratioâ between its relevance to the the law and protests is going to be more than one to one. Sorry to be so terribly convolutedâperhaps I should've written something here first.
3010:
3334:
I trust that we will get the text sometime and that you will use it, rather than pundits hot air, in this article. I also hope that the Mainland government will consult HK people and include responsible safeguards. There seem to be no realistic
1246:
template. You may feel free to use this method as well when you see such contentious or defamatory claims not backed up by reliable sources about living persons on any non-article page, and on any article you may simply remove the data (per
3164:
I think the CNN headline isn't actually trying to do that. There's no reason for CNN not to say that if that's their interpretation. I did in fact find a link indicating that the PLA were directly threatening protestersâŚbut it was from the
1423:
26:
870:
I don't think it qualifies as fringe. You can type "refusal of condemning violence" in google and find that it is pretty widespread among activists. I'm not saying it's the "right behaviour", be mindful here, but this is far from being
149:
2476:
per the fact that the current title is WAY too long and unwieldy. Alternatively, I could also support a title of "NPC Hong Kong Security Law Decision" or something similar, to address the concerns of some of the other editors here.
2554:
I have added an article that describes the response by the Chinese state-run media in the Lead. I think it might not be the best place to put this, but I saw no appropriate place to add it. Please discuss or move to a subsection.
3402:
1010:
Also, what? Marco Rubio is an extremist? He's a politician! I don't think it was wise of you to call him an extremist, even if you and I strongly disagree with his views. Please refrain to express your personal opinions here.
3061:
lawâgood bit of pedantry there!); I think the article is better off as a result of our discussions. Also, thank you for creating the new article. Perhaps the article or Trump's response will even make it to the news page.
2519:. Interchanging words only creates even further confusion. Consistency in titles should be kept. Using 'legislation' here was something we made up anyway - that is not the official title, nor what is used by the media.
2633:: thank you for adding Lawrence Ma's views; I think most people understand that an association speaks for all its members, but in editing I retained the reference. (I think we should go by the extent of coverage.) (2)
3407:
2650:
the court; it merely has made a remark on what the court should do. Similarly the DOJ in saying that they are of the view that Article 23 does not include national security within the limits of the HKSAR's autonomy
2645:
the Basic Law, i.e. to make rulings. That is entirely distinct from the expression of a considered view as to what the correct interpretation of the Basic Law (or any other law) is. The HKBA would hardly purport to
2778:, that has the full text of the draft in Chinese. I see problems with this. The translation seems to have been made by Knowledge editors and the additions of underlines also added by Knowledge editors and both are
2672:
condition to enact laws by inclusion in Annex III then obviously they should be included and I encourage you to do so. Since none of the sources cited refer to Article 18(4) I have removed any reference to it. (6)
3236:
Well I left a note earlier today saying it's been a while and the other person did not answer... At all... Like he doesn't care about anything other than being right and making a point. We'll see how it resolves.
2290:
Probably the more concerning one is "commonly referred to as the Hong Kong national security law" with sources doesn't indicate that. This sentence without any scare quote can mislead a low of people by itself.
1345:
2746:
national security law may be enacted through the LegCo or by inclusion in Annex III of the Basic Law without reference to the LegCo. The constitutionality of the second method of enactment has been disputed .â
2945:"Decision of the National People's Congress on Establishing and Completing the Hong Kong's Special Administrative Region's Legal System and Implementation Mechanisms for the Preservation of National Security"
883:
for the Nobel Peace Prize, and in the light of that, even if you and I disagree with the refusal of condemning violence, he cannot simply be relayed to the fringe because of that. Please read carefully about
1123:
You're bordering on defamation of living persons, which is unacceptable on talk pages as much as it is on our articles. Back up your claims with reliable sources, or refactor your comments immediately (per
2356:
None of your source has called this bill the national security law. Please give some genuine source before promoting a move. HK national security legislation is more related but still not the topic.
1445:
Current title "National People's Congress Decision on Hong Kong national security legislation" is already an arbitrary abbreviation of the longer draft title, which is not used anywhere by the media
1522:. It carries the same neutral denotation of "Hong Kong national security law" and the use by the HK government shows that it is basically interchangeable. I prefer the "Hong Kong national security
1775:])? Currently I found first time LegCo calling it as "NPC's deliberation on the draft decision on establishing legal system and enforcement mechanisms for HKSAR to safeguard national security" (
1655:
yet, see what CNN's Asian producer Steven Jiang explains: "China's National People's Congress voted to approve a decision to enact a highly controversial national security law in Hong Kong" (
1144:. (I don't think you would have known what my views on this would be, and I don't think this qualifies as canvassing, but I still want you to keep that policy in mind since you're new here.)
170:
2412:. The main subject of the article is the law itself, not the decision. The decision sets the scope of the eventual law, but it's only a part of the process through which it will be enacted.
137:
3480:
2637:: I do not think that I "wrte one-sided opinion only". NPOV of course dictates that both the HKBA and DOJ's views should be included. That is what I did. (That is also what you did!) (3)
2515:, I would like to suggest that if we decide to keep the current name, 'legislation' should be still be changed to 'law', to keep consistency with other Hong Kong related articles on the
832:
Actually, the purported concern expressed in HKFP that the legislation bypasses LegCo has already been noted, and I left that as is. It alone is sufficient as a balance in terms of NPOV.
3450:
959:
is dropping eveytime you write here. I will try to find a way to resolve this dispute other than by interacting with you because I don't think you are willing to discuss this in a
3307:
This was discussed above. There was a translation, but it was unsourced, so it was removed. We need a citation to an official translation if we are to include it in the article.
506:
131:
1928:
1706:
452:
127:
879:
only displays your personal opinion on the subject. Please think carefully before using politically loaded terms. I want to re-insist on the fact that this person has been
1206:
One last thing, what should be done if the statements on living persons are not retracted? I never had to deal with such a situation, and it frankly scares me because of
177:
922:
well-documented support of the illegal U.S. wars of aggression in Afghanistan and Iraq), please stop referencing it as if it held any modicum of validity in argument.
1527:
2774:
of the article there is a section titled "Content" with a translation of the decision draft "with notable passages underlined".The citation for it is a news site,
3475:
1404:
1285:
669:
568:
560:
456:
444:
3431:
3388:
3316:
3301:
3272:
3246:
3203:
3178:
3152:
3130:
3102:
3070:
3049:
3022:
2926:
2893:
2868:
2824:
2810:
2795:
2755:
2728:
2702:
2615:
2586:
2564:
2528:
2507:
2486:
2467:
2442:
2421:
2402:
2388:
2369:
2342:
2327:
2300:
2274:
2248:
2220:
2203:
2149:
2132:
2101:
2087:
2037:
2020:
1998:
1981:
1964:
1939:
1906:
1874:
1853:
1840:
I'm not sure whether I specifically support the proposed new title, but the current one is definitely too long and not a common name, so I do support changing
1821:
1790:
1749:
1730:
1693:
1670:
1631:
1617:
1584:
1565:
1539:
1469:
1417:
1357:
1313:
1295:
1278:
1219:
1194:
1167:
1108:
1086:
1053:
1020:
1005:
972:
933:
918:, before last year's innumerable violent incidents. The award itself has long lost its credibility after Kissinger and Obama became recipients (not to mention
901:
854:
826:
1710:
143:
367:
3460:
391:
212:. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them.
1480:
401:
81:
1185:
according to WP policy. Thank you very much again, that's exactly the answer I was expecting actually... Very helpful and neutral, thank you very much!
3040:. At this specific moment, I cannot see any misleading thing. If no misleading information get added to the article, I think the tag can be removed. --
2112:
1714:
2116:
1339:
1137:
3470:
3465:
3445:
519:
2183:
2066:
679:
564:
523:
199:
87:
3495:
3041:
2394:
2361:
2334:
2292:
2240:
2195:
2187:
1973:
919:
780:
770:
481:
2719:
there. As for the mention above, I think it's just useful historical background. Do you think people might get confused between the two?
1388:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
3485:
3455:
1557:
1451:
1210:. But I don't want to bother you with stuff I could handle on my own, so feel free to just point me to the right direction if you want.
498:
485:
3264:
2641:: Obviously neither the HKBA, nor the DOJ, not in fact anyone else other than the courts of the HKSAR and the NPCSC have the power to
2495:
2973:
2357:
3500:
3359:
2494:- There's a problem here. Since this move was proposed, a page with almost identical name to the one proposed has been developed (
1488:
2120:
2070:
645:
3376:
3036:
2655:
pretending to be the court or the NPCSC. Article 158 is neither here nor there. Nobody is saying that the HKBA's view is right
2455:
2235:
1427:
358:
319:
215:
203:
101:
32:
3143:
like the author tried to do exactly that...It really is a good edge case of wikipedia reference mechanics and logic... Hum...
2958:
2524:
2503:
2178:
1605:
1593:
106:
22:
1511:
1036:
836:
3490:
2543:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
76:
3427:
2914:
is blog, because there in notice on the website that every body may edit the texts even without registration (see About
2092:
Hello, do you mean we should create the page after HKNSL is enacted and separate information of draft and after voting?
1778:
1770:
1622:
Thank you for your vote. For your information, this legislation is different from Article 23 in that it bypasses LegCo.
1271:
1160:
294:
2174:
1884:
636:
597:
260:
67:
1972:
per above. The current title is too long and prefers commonly used title over it. but wait after the law has passed.
3312:
2852:
2820:
2791:
2454:
that China deems itself allowed to interfere and make such a law, it is not the law itself. The article already at
1580:
644:
related articles on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
366:-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Hong Kong-related articles, you are invited to
2520:
2499:
1960:
1379:
741:
702:
264:
2917:). By the way, then, I think, I will just add the reference to the Xinhua, then info will be proper referenced!
3398:
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
3045:
2398:
2365:
2338:
2296:
2244:
2199:
2191:
1773:
before it is introduced into the Council. It has to be given three readings for its passage by the Council. " (
1439:
1048:
928:
849:
3352:
westerners. A comparison with similar laws in other countries might go a long way to making the page neutral.
1977:
3379:
or save this article as independent so far? Then if somebody feels to merge, propose that here on talk page.
1561:
1455:
3423:
3268:
2054:
1073:. I found his explanation very credible in the forum, he seemed a very poised person. May I add that he was
745:, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the
221:
111:
3363:
3297:
3242:
3199:
3148:
3098:
2560:
2145:
1689:
1413:
1291:
1215:
1190:
1104:
1082:
1016:
1001:
968:
897:
822:
3003:
2735:
2709:
2623:
2259:
1955:
as per above. Current title is excessively verbose and the proposed title is more concise and accurate.
1091:
I'm sorry, but you will need to bring other people here in order to make me change ideas on the subject.
3308:
3221:
3174:
3126:
3066:
3018:
2944:
2889:
2831:
2816:
2806:
2787:
2751:
2724:
2698:
2611:
2582:
2270:
2085:
2033:
2014:
1994:
1576:
1515:
1484:
1389:
1026:
The forum I linked to with Wong being a key participant is straight from the horse's mouth. There is no
300:
3280:
1810:
It is an entirely sensible proposition to which I would be more than happy to give my full support. --
1519:
3413:
Protest against national anthem bill and proposed national security law in Hong Kong, 27 May 2020.jpg
3384:
3355:
3260:
2922:
2864:
2384:
2380:
2323:
2319:
2216:
2212:
2097:
2093:
1956:
1870:
1866:
1786:
1666:
1613:
1549:
1353:
1309:
2478:
282:
3191:
2779:
2482:
2050:
1891:
1392:
after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1248:
1207:
1118:
986:
865:
807:
268:
163:
57:
1718:
2438:
2417:
2128:
1861:
SEO can be improved effectively since the shorter term is a common phrase used by general media.
1849:
1769:
May we wait for until it will be just called in English words: "A bill is first published in the
72:
1604:, I suppose. Would LegCo enact the bill? May the whole article to be merged as a new section to
1507:
1255:
if a user is persistent in violating BLP so an administrator can ensure it is properly stopped.
334:
313:
3293:
3238:
3210:
3195:
3159:
3144:
3110:
3094:
2952:
2572:
2556:
2463:
2141:
2046:
1685:
1553:
1409:
1287:
1240:
1233:
1227:
1211:
1186:
1181:
1141:
1131:
1125:
1100:
1078:
1012:
997:
964:
893:
818:
612:
591:
243:
209:
53:
3217:
3185:
3170:
3137:
3122:
3087:
3062:
3014:
2905:
2885:
2838:
2802:
2747:
2720:
2694:
2607:
2578:
2281:
2266:
2076:
2029:
2009:
1990:
1934:
1816:
1744:
1627:
1535:
1465:
1264:
1153:
993:
951:
876:
872:
840:
350:
3291:
3380:
2918:
2875:
2860:
1805:
1782:
1726:
1662:
1609:
1432:
Amended proposal boldly: proposer had left blank so moving first two bullet points into it
1349:
1305:
2717:
as purported evidence that national security is within the limits of the HKSAR's autonomy
536:
1709:, which was also commonly referred to as "national security law / legislation" (Source:
3286:
2058:
1922:
1887:
1032:
960:
548:
2974:"Hong Kong Free Press to relaunch in 2020 after being selected by Newspack initiative"
1040:
Hong Kong's pro-democracy activists so far have been unwilling to condemn the violence
3439:
3394:
Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
2915:
2783:
2430:
2413:
2124:
2111:: It was ok for 831 Decision to have its own article because it was only part of the
1845:
1702:
1492:
1252:
1077:
for the nobel peace prize? Do you see any terrorists being nominated for that prize?
1070:
1066:
956:
814:
1684:
The current name is not cited anywhere in the media and it makes it harder to find.
2459:
1476:
628:
2801:
I'll replace it with a summary drawn from the translation by China Law Translate.
2577:
I moved it to the âsupportâ section, since it describes support for the decision.
717:
696:
1989:
as per above. The current title is pretty much unsearchable in its current form.
2351:
1811:
1764:
1739:
1646:
1623:
1531:
1461:
1258:
1201:
1175:
1147:
1094:
1074:
885:
880:
727:
234:
3346:
2429:. It's only a decision. There isn't a Hong Kong national security law now. --
1898:
1722:
1601:
1424:
National People's Congress decision on Hong Kong national security legislation
1346:
National_People's_Congress_Decision_on_Hong_Kong_national_security_legislation
733:
723:
618:
340:
27:
National People's Congress decision on Hong Kong national security legislation
2333:
authorize the SCNPC to legislate if HK still choose to delay indefinitely. --
2062:
889:
363:
3403:
Hong Kong protest against proposed national security law on 24 May 2020.jpg
2458:
is about the legislation and such. This is such a misguided move proposal.
259:) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
224:
when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
2675:
Defence, foreign affairs, other matters outside lims. of autonomy of HKSAR
2775:
2061:", although it's not so easy to conflate concepts with their oxymorons â
1475:"Hong Kong national security law" and "national security law" is used by
1927:
Please note that the Hong Kong equivalent of your example should be the
1883:
Present title is incredibly awkward and renaming would be in line with
1777:]). A bit long title too, I suppose. So, probably, we have to monitor
1330:
3408:
Joint meeting held by 17 Hong Kong District Councils, 6 June 2020.png
2119:
that reads slightly better in my opinion (and stays consistent with
1502:
The only other appropriate term is the "Hong Kong national security
1337:
This message is to inform interested editors of a discussion at the
2450:
Per comment directly above and various other comments: this is the
2159:- Article needs to be shortened. BigRed606 04:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
1597:
641:
888:
before making any other statements that could be perceived has a
843:
mandates that Wong's opinions be relegated there, to the fringe.
2393:
The law has not even been legislated yet. The bill is passed. --
3190:
ok, good call. And also, there seems to be concensus regarding
2117:
2020 NPCSC Decision on Hong Kong national security legislation
1498:
It is the English equivalent to the Chinese abbreviation "ĺĺŽćł"
746:
276:
229:
186:
17:
1284:
I have opened a dispute resolution request for this subject.
2169:
too early. Might be better to discuss after it to be passed.
1329:
2843:
Hi, there, I think there are two problems with the section
1865:, after the draft is passed (it will definitely anyways.)
2996:
Factual accuracy dispute: what exactly is being disputed?
2659:, or that the HKBA has some jurisdiction as a court. (4)
2184:
2020 impelling on Hong Kong national security legislation
2053:; the Regime likes to deliberately conflate the notions "
1251:). But, I would recommend that you report such issues to
1348:". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
2771:
469:
436:
431:
426:
421:
3194:
lol did not see that coming, as I am not from the UK.
1651:
You're right, I first was puzzled. But it's neither a
835:
Law and Wong, as "pro-democracy" activists, have been
162:
1592:
untill it is not law, it is new law, that is a bill,
1929:
National Security (Legislative Provisions) Bill 2003
1707:
National Security (Legislative Provisions) Bill 2003
1236:, I have removed the offending statements using the
640:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
1030:about violence against non-violent civilians, with
992:fine line to thread in my opinion. I want to quote
362:, a project to coordinate efforts in improving all
2666:State of emergency condition in 18(4) of the Basic
2211:Please do not confuse two law, per below comment.
3035:: I just moved HKBA's concern over article 23 to
2766:Translation of the decision draft with underlines
3481:C-Class China-related articles of Mid-importance
2847:, first, English translation was from WordPress
2593:Art. 23, constitutionality, the Bar Assoc., etc.
35:for general discussion of the article's subject.
2631:on the distinction between the HKBA and members
2358:Bill on Hong Kong national security legislation
1326:There is a case at the DRN regarding this page.
3418:Participate in the deletion discussion at the
1136:My recommendation here is to take this to our
3451:Knowledge articles that use Hong Kong English
3216:more, we can discuss it thereâjust curious.)
914:Wong was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize
176:
8:
3093:change if you changed the text I wrote. Thx
2186:(impelling = zh. ć¨čż, the official usage). --
1657:] ). So, Beijing Parliament approved only a
3347:https://www.chinadailyhk.com/article/135392
1061:
3353:
3258:
2045:It's easy to conflate two similar issues:
1401:as moot (new article has requested name).
1378:The following is a closed discussion of a
837:noted in their refusal to condemn violence
691:
586:
409:
308:
247:, which has its own spelling conventions (
1495:. It is a neutral term used universally.
2936:
2360:would be a less controversial title. --
2239:Nepal" in the Nepalese constitution. --
892:of him. (Opinions expressed as facts).
693:
588:
310:
280:
2950:
1065:accusations. I'm finding it harder to
1059:Oh wow, you're going all in with your
1039:
1027:
3476:Mid-importance China-related articles
1596:. Wait for till enacting (or not) by
267:, this should not be changed without
7:
2972:Press, Hong Kong Free (2019-11-07).
1397:The result of the move request was:
1140:. For future reference, also review
739:This article is within the scope of
634:This article is within the scope of
356:This article is within the scope of
749:and the subjects encompassed by it.
299:It is of interest to the following
25:for discussing improvements to the
3461:High-importance Hong Kong articles
2679:"Manner of reference to Article 18
2496:National Security Bill (Hong Kong)
14:
3342:Link to the actual (English) text
2910:I see your point, but, I believe
2880:first, the translation is of the
2539:The discussion above is closed.
1442:: Use commonly recognizable names
2175:Hong Kong Basic Law Annex III-14
2121:2014 NPCSC Decision on Hong Kong
2071:2014 NPCSC Decision on Hong Kong
1528:more commonly searched on Google
726:
716:
695:
621:
611:
590:
343:
333:
312:
281:
233:
190:
47:Click here to start a new topic.
3377:Hong Kong national security law
3037:Hong Kong national security law
2456:Hong Kong national security law
2313:The national security law is a
2236:Hong Kong national security law
1701:move but also suggest adding a
1428:Hong Kong national security law
875:. Dismissing his statements as
775:This article has been rated as
674:This article has been rated as
396:This article has been rated as
376:Knowledge:WikiProject Hong Kong
214:Content must be written from a
198:The subject of this article is
3471:C-Class China-related articles
3466:WikiProject Hong Kong articles
3446:Knowledge controversial topics
3252:The actual text of the new law
2179:Hong Kong Basic Law Article 23
2026:Oppose, but rename differently
1340:Dispute resolution noticeboard
1138:dispute resolution noticeboard
379:Template:WikiProject Hong Kong
1:
2657:just because the HKBA said so
1705:to distinguish this from the
648:and see a list of open tasks.
44:Put new text under old text.
2639:Article 158 of the Basic Law
2194:) 05:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)--
1779:Hong Kong Government Gazette
3496:Low-importance law articles
3375:Will we discuss merge with
3366:) 2020-07-01T02:11:49 (UTC)
3029:
2643:legally bindingly interpret
1885:Macau national security law
1863:We should wait until 28 May
1608:? If it it the same topic?
654:Knowledge:WikiProject China
569:...assess the un-Importance
453:...needing expert attention
208:When updating the article,
52:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
3517:
3486:WikiProject China articles
3456:C-Class Hong Kong articles
3432:09:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
2957:: CS1 maint: url-status (
2853:Knowledge:Blogs as sources
1894:) 18:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
1458:) 05:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
1371:Requested move 23 May 2020
781:project's importance scale
680:project's importance scale
657:Template:WikiProject China
402:project's importance scale
2978:Hong Kong Free Press HKFP
2882:decision to enact the law
2513:In proposal of a new name
1516:also by the HK government
1099:Think you can help here?
774:
755:Knowledge:WikiProject Law
711:
673:
606:
408:
395:
328:
307:
210:be bold, but not reckless
82:Be welcoming to newcomers
3501:WikiProject Law articles
3389:19:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
3317:07:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
3302:03:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
3273:23:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
3247:03:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
3204:23:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
3179:23:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
3153:22:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
3131:22:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
3103:22:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
3071:22:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
3050:21:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
3023:13:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
2927:15:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
2894:11:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
2869:19:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
2825:21:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
2811:18:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
2796:16:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
2756:18:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
2729:18:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
2703:09:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
2616:14:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
2587:14:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
2565:22:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
2541:Please do not modify it.
2529:20:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
2508:20:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
2487:22:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
2468:19:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
2443:08:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
2422:12:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
2403:19:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
2389:07:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
2370:18:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
2343:18:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
2328:07:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
2301:18:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
2275:16:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
2249:05:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
2221:07:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
2204:07:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
2150:01:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
2133:16:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
2102:08:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
2088:06:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
2038:14:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
2021:07:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
1999:01:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
1982:21:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
1965:21:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
1940:09:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
1907:21:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
1875:14:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
1854:14:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
1822:18:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
1791:17:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
1750:09:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
1731:05:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
1694:01:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
1671:21:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
1632:20:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
1618:20:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
1585:08:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
1566:05:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
1540:03:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
1470:03:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
1450:End of amendment by me,
1440:Knowledge:Article titles
1418:21:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
1385:Please do not modify it.
1358:21:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
1314:22:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
1296:20:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
1279:17:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
1220:07:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
1195:07:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
1168:06:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
1109:06:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
1087:06:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
1054:05:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
1021:05:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
1006:05:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
973:19:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
934:18:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
902:18:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
855:03:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
827:03:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
758:Template:WikiProject Law
1506:" which is used by the
1477:mainland Chinese media
1334:
660:China-related articles
565:...assess the un-Class
561:...maintain popularity
289:This article is rated
202:and content may be in
77:avoid personal attacks
2661:Quoting Article 18(3)
2550:Chinese news reaction
2517:national security law
1333:
359:WikiProject Hong Kong
216:neutral point of view
102:Neutral point of view
3491:C-Class law articles
3224:) 23:49, 30 May 2020
2851:, that is blog (see
2689:â, not âthe Article
2521:ProcrasinatingReader
2500:ProcrasinatingReader
1781:for official title.
543:Page creation needed
520:Start-Class articles
464:Collaboration needed
457:...without infoboxes
265:relevant style guide
261:varieties of English
107:No original research
3285:This article meets
3081:PLA commander moved
2912:China Law Translate
2857:China Law Translate
2849:China Law Translate
2379:the law is passed.
2051:Umbrella Revolution
1600:, then enacting by
1028:fine line to thread
555:Miscellaneous tasks
524:Stub-Class articles
263:. According to the
3424:Community Tech bot
3371:Asking about merge
1508:Chinese government
1335:
1180:Oh thanks for the
549:Requested articles
476:Improvement needed
382:Hong Kong articles
295:content assessment
88:dispute resolution
49:
3367:
3358:comment added by
3275:
3263:comment added by
2683:Minor CE quibbles
2084:
2047:Umbrella Movement
1909:
1459:
1433:
1408:
1405:non-admin closure
1364:
1321:
1277:
1166:
1051:
950:Please adhere to
931:
852:
795:
794:
791:
790:
787:
786:
690:
689:
686:
685:
637:WikiProject China
585:
584:
581:
580:
577:
576:
482:GA-Class articles
368:join this project
275:
274:
244:Hong Kong English
228:
227:
185:
184:
68:Assume good faith
45:
3508:
3309:Richard-of-Earth
3284:
3214:
3189:
3163:
3141:
3114:
3091:
3007:
2988:
2987:
2985:
2984:
2969:
2963:
2962:
2956:
2948:
2941:
2909:
2879:
2842:
2835:
2832:Richard-of-Earth
2817:Richard-of-Earth
2788:Richard-of-Earth
2772:current revision
2739:
2713:
2627:
2576:
2435:
2355:
2285:
2263:
2113:electoral reform
2083:
2080:
2074:
2017:
2012:
1926:
1904:
1896:
1809:
1768:
1650:
1577:Hkfreedomfighter
1449:
1431:
1402:
1387:
1360:
1317:
1274:
1267:
1261:
1256:
1245:
1239:
1231:
1205:
1179:
1163:
1156:
1150:
1145:
1135:
1122:
1098:
1064:
1063:
1047:
1045:
990:
927:
925:
869:
848:
846:
811:
763:
762:
759:
756:
753:
736:
731:
730:
720:
713:
712:
707:
699:
692:
662:
661:
658:
655:
652:
631:
626:
625:
624:
615:
608:
607:
602:
594:
587:
499:C-Class articles
486:B-Class articles
445:Attention needed
413:Hong Kong To-do:
410:
384:
383:
380:
377:
374:
353:
351:Hong Kong portal
348:
347:
346:
337:
330:
329:
324:
316:
309:
292:
286:
285:
277:
240:This article is
237:
230:
194:
193:
187:
181:
180:
166:
97:Article policies
18:
3516:
3515:
3511:
3510:
3509:
3507:
3506:
3505:
3436:
3435:
3420:nomination page
3396:
3373:
3344:
3278:
3254:
3208:
3183:
3157:
3135:
3108:
3085:
3083:
3001:
2998:
2993:
2992:
2991:
2982:
2980:
2971:
2970:
2966:
2949:
2943:
2942:
2938:
2903:
2873:
2836:
2829:
2815:Nice!, Thanks.
2768:
2733:
2707:
2621:
2595:
2570:
2552:
2547:
2431:
2349:
2279:
2257:
2078:
2075:
2015:
2010:
1957:Octoberwoodland
1938:
1920:
1899:
1820:
1803:
1762:
1748:
1644:
1383:
1373:
1362:(DRN Volunteer)
1328:
1322:
1272:
1265:
1259:
1243:
1237:
1225:
1199:
1173:
1161:
1154:
1148:
1129:
1116:
1092:
1060:
1043:
984:
955:case regarding
923:
863:
844:
805:
803:
760:
757:
754:
751:
750:
742:WikiProject Law
732:
725:
705:
659:
656:
653:
650:
649:
627:
622:
620:
600:
531:Deorphan needed
470:Recommend topic
441:
398:High-importance
381:
378:
375:
372:
371:
349:
344:
342:
323:Highâimportance
322:
293:on Knowledge's
290:
269:broad consensus
191:
123:
118:
117:
116:
93:
63:
12:
11:
5:
3514:
3512:
3504:
3503:
3498:
3493:
3488:
3483:
3478:
3473:
3468:
3463:
3458:
3453:
3448:
3438:
3437:
3416:
3415:
3410:
3405:
3395:
3392:
3372:
3369:
3343:
3340:
3339:
3338:
3337:
3336:
3329:
3328:
3327:
3326:
3320:
3319:
3253:
3250:
3234:
3233:
3232:
3231:
3230:
3229:
3228:
3227:
3226:
3225:
3082:
3079:
3078:
3077:
3076:
3075:
3074:
3073:
3053:
3052:
3042:173.68.165.114
3004:173.68.165.114
2997:
2994:
2990:
2989:
2964:
2947:. 28 May 2020.
2935:
2934:
2930:
2901:
2900:
2899:
2898:
2897:
2896:
2827:
2767:
2764:
2763:
2762:
2761:
2760:
2759:
2758:
2736:173.68.165.114
2710:173.68.165.114
2624:173.68.165.114
2594:
2591:
2590:
2589:
2551:
2548:
2546:
2545:
2535:
2534:
2533:
2532:
2531:
2489:
2470:
2445:
2424:
2407:
2406:
2405:
2395:173.68.165.114
2374:
2373:
2372:
2362:173.68.165.114
2347:
2346:
2345:
2335:173.68.165.114
2308:
2307:
2306:
2305:
2304:
2303:
2293:173.68.165.114
2288:
2260:173.68.165.114
2252:
2251:
2241:173.68.165.114
2225:
2224:
2223:
2196:173.68.165.114
2188:173.68.165.114
2161:
2160:
2153:
2152:
2135:
2109:Oppose for now
2106:
2105:
2104:
2040:
2023:
2001:
1984:
1974:114.125.249.55
1967:
1949:
1948:
1947:
1946:
1945:
1944:
1943:
1942:
1932:
1911:
1910:
1897:strike sock--
1877:
1856:
1837:
1836:
1835:
1834:
1833:
1832:
1831:
1830:
1829:
1828:
1827:
1826:
1825:
1824:
1814:
1794:
1793:
1753:
1752:
1742:
1733:
1696:
1678:
1677:
1676:
1675:
1674:
1673:
1637:
1636:
1635:
1634:
1587:
1569:
1568:
1500:
1499:
1496:
1447:
1446:
1443:
1434:
1421:
1395:
1394:
1380:requested move
1374:
1372:
1369:
1367:
1327:
1324:
1316:
1300:
1282:
1281:
1171:
1170:
1119:CaradhrasAiguo
1057:
1056:
1049:leave language
1033:Deutsche Welle
987:CaradhrasAiguo
982:
981:
980:
979:
978:
977:
976:
975:
941:
940:
939:
938:
937:
936:
929:leave language
907:
906:
905:
904:
866:CaradhrasAiguo
858:
857:
850:leave language
833:
808:CaradhrasAiguo
802:
799:
797:
793:
792:
789:
788:
785:
784:
777:Low-importance
773:
767:
766:
764:
738:
737:
721:
709:
708:
706:Lowâimportance
700:
688:
687:
684:
683:
676:Mid-importance
672:
666:
665:
663:
646:the discussion
633:
632:
616:
604:
603:
601:Midâimportance
595:
583:
582:
579:
578:
575:
574:
573:
572:
552:
551:
540:
539:
528:
527:
503:
502:
493:Cleanup needed
490:
489:
473:
472:
461:
460:
440:
439:
434:
429:
424:
418:
415:
414:
406:
405:
394:
388:
387:
385:
355:
354:
338:
326:
325:
317:
305:
304:
298:
287:
273:
272:
238:
226:
225:
195:
183:
182:
120:
119:
115:
114:
109:
104:
95:
94:
92:
91:
84:
79:
70:
64:
62:
61:
50:
41:
40:
37:
36:
30:
16:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3513:
3502:
3499:
3497:
3494:
3492:
3489:
3487:
3484:
3482:
3479:
3477:
3474:
3472:
3469:
3467:
3464:
3462:
3459:
3457:
3454:
3452:
3449:
3447:
3444:
3443:
3441:
3434:
3433:
3429:
3425:
3421:
3414:
3411:
3409:
3406:
3404:
3401:
3400:
3399:
3393:
3391:
3390:
3386:
3382:
3378:
3370:
3368:
3365:
3361:
3357:
3349:
3348:
3341:
3335:alternatives.
3333:
3332:
3331:
3330:
3324:
3323:
3322:
3321:
3318:
3314:
3310:
3306:
3305:
3304:
3303:
3299:
3295:
3292:
3288:
3282:
3276:
3274:
3270:
3266:
3262:
3251:
3249:
3248:
3244:
3240:
3223:
3219:
3212:
3207:
3206:
3205:
3201:
3197:
3193:
3187:
3182:
3181:
3180:
3176:
3172:
3168:
3161:
3156:
3155:
3154:
3150:
3146:
3139:
3134:
3133:
3132:
3128:
3124:
3119:
3112:
3107:
3106:
3105:
3104:
3100:
3096:
3089:
3080:
3072:
3068:
3064:
3059:
3058:
3057:
3056:
3055:
3054:
3051:
3047:
3043:
3039:
3038:
3031:
3027:
3026:
3025:
3024:
3020:
3016:
3012:
3005:
2995:
2979:
2975:
2968:
2965:
2960:
2954:
2946:
2940:
2937:
2933:
2929:
2928:
2924:
2920:
2916:
2913:
2907:
2895:
2891:
2887:
2883:
2877:
2872:
2871:
2870:
2866:
2862:
2858:
2854:
2850:
2846:
2840:
2833:
2828:
2826:
2822:
2818:
2814:
2813:
2812:
2808:
2804:
2800:
2799:
2798:
2797:
2793:
2789:
2785:
2781:
2777:
2773:
2765:
2757:
2753:
2749:
2744:
2737:
2732:
2731:
2730:
2726:
2722:
2718:
2711:
2706:
2705:
2704:
2700:
2696:
2692:
2688:
2684:
2680:
2676:
2671:
2667:
2662:
2658:
2654:
2649:
2644:
2640:
2636:
2632:
2625:
2620:
2619:
2618:
2617:
2613:
2609:
2605:
2599:
2592:
2588:
2584:
2580:
2574:
2569:
2568:
2567:
2566:
2562:
2558:
2549:
2544:
2542:
2537:
2536:
2530:
2526:
2522:
2518:
2514:
2511:
2510:
2509:
2505:
2501:
2497:
2493:
2490:
2488:
2484:
2480:
2475:
2471:
2469:
2465:
2461:
2457:
2453:
2449:
2446:
2444:
2440:
2436:
2434:
2428:
2425:
2423:
2419:
2415:
2411:
2408:
2404:
2400:
2396:
2392:
2391:
2390:
2386:
2382:
2378:
2375:
2371:
2367:
2363:
2359:
2353:
2348:
2344:
2340:
2336:
2331:
2330:
2329:
2325:
2321:
2316:
2315:different law
2312:
2311:
2310:
2309:
2302:
2298:
2294:
2289:
2283:
2278:
2277:
2276:
2272:
2268:
2261:
2256:
2255:
2254:
2253:
2250:
2246:
2242:
2237:
2233:
2229:
2226:
2222:
2218:
2214:
2210:
2207:
2206:
2205:
2201:
2197:
2193:
2189:
2185:
2182:
2180:
2176:
2170:
2166:
2163:
2162:
2158:
2155:
2154:
2151:
2147:
2143:
2139:
2136:
2134:
2130:
2126:
2122:
2118:
2114:
2110:
2107:
2103:
2099:
2095:
2091:
2090:
2089:
2086:
2082:
2081:
2072:
2068:
2064:
2060:
2056:
2052:
2048:
2044:
2041:
2039:
2035:
2031:
2027:
2024:
2022:
2019:
2018:
2013:
2005:
2002:
2000:
1996:
1992:
1988:
1985:
1983:
1979:
1975:
1971:
1968:
1966:
1962:
1958:
1954:
1951:
1950:
1941:
1936:
1930:
1924:
1919:
1918:
1917:
1916:
1915:
1914:
1913:
1912:
1908:
1905:
1903:
1895:
1893:
1889:
1886:
1882:
1878:
1876:
1872:
1868:
1864:
1860:
1857:
1855:
1851:
1847:
1844:in some way.
1843:
1839:
1838:
1823:
1818:
1813:
1807:
1802:
1801:
1800:
1799:
1798:
1797:
1796:
1795:
1792:
1788:
1784:
1780:
1776:
1774:
1772:
1766:
1761:
1760:
1759:
1758:
1757:
1756:
1755:
1754:
1751:
1746:
1741:
1737:
1734:
1732:
1728:
1724:
1720:
1716:
1712:
1708:
1704:
1700:
1697:
1695:
1691:
1687:
1683:
1680:
1679:
1672:
1668:
1664:
1660:
1656:
1654:
1648:
1643:
1642:
1641:
1640:
1639:
1638:
1633:
1629:
1625:
1621:
1620:
1619:
1615:
1611:
1607:
1603:
1599:
1595:
1591:
1588:
1586:
1582:
1578:
1574:
1571:
1570:
1567:
1563:
1559:
1558:94.21.219.127
1555:
1551:
1550:WP:COMMONNAME
1547:
1544:
1543:
1542:
1541:
1537:
1533:
1529:
1525:
1521:
1517:
1513:
1512:US government
1509:
1505:
1497:
1494:
1490:
1486:
1485:HK government
1482:
1478:
1474:
1473:
1472:
1471:
1467:
1463:
1457:
1453:
1452:94.21.219.127
1444:
1441:
1437:
1436:
1435:
1429:
1425:
1420:
1419:
1415:
1411:
1406:
1400:
1393:
1391:
1386:
1381:
1376:
1375:
1370:
1368:
1365:
1363:
1359:
1355:
1351:
1347:
1342:
1341:
1332:
1325:
1323:
1320:
1319:DRN Volunteer
1315:
1311:
1307:
1303:
1302:ATTN EDITORS:
1298:
1297:
1293:
1289:
1286:
1280:
1275:
1269:
1262:
1254:
1250:
1242:
1235:
1229:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1217:
1213:
1209:
1203:
1197:
1196:
1192:
1188:
1183:
1177:
1169:
1164:
1158:
1151:
1143:
1139:
1133:
1127:
1120:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1106:
1102:
1096:
1089:
1088:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1072:
1068:
1055:
1050:
1041:
1038:
1035:
1034:
1029:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1008:
1007:
1003:
999:
995:
988:
974:
970:
966:
962:
958:
953:
949:
948:
947:
946:
945:
944:
943:
942:
935:
930:
921:
917:
913:
912:
911:
910:
909:
908:
903:
899:
895:
891:
887:
882:
878:
874:
867:
862:
861:
860:
859:
856:
851:
842:
838:
834:
831:
830:
829:
828:
824:
820:
816:
809:
800:
798:
782:
778:
772:
769:
768:
765:
748:
744:
743:
735:
729:
724:
722:
719:
715:
714:
710:
704:
701:
698:
694:
681:
677:
671:
668:
667:
664:
647:
643:
639:
638:
630:
619:
617:
614:
610:
609:
605:
599:
596:
593:
589:
570:
566:
562:
559:
558:
557:
556:
550:
547:
546:
545:
544:
538:
535:
534:
533:
532:
525:
521:
518:
517:
516:
515:
514:Destub needed
511:
509:
508:
500:
497:
496:
495:
494:
487:
483:
480:
479:
478:
477:
471:
468:
467:
466:
465:
458:
454:
451:
450:
449:
447:
446:
438:
435:
433:
430:
428:
425:
423:
420:
419:
417:
416:
412:
411:
407:
403:
399:
393:
390:
389:
386:
369:
365:
361:
360:
352:
341:
339:
336:
332:
331:
327:
321:
318:
315:
311:
306:
302:
296:
288:
284:
279:
278:
270:
266:
262:
258:
254:
250:
246:
245:
239:
236:
232:
231:
223:
219:
217:
211:
207:
205:
201:
200:controversial
196:
189:
188:
179:
175:
172:
169:
165:
161:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
139:
136:
133:
129:
126:
125:Find sources:
122:
121:
113:
112:Verifiability
110:
108:
105:
103:
100:
99:
98:
89:
85:
83:
80:
78:
74:
71:
69:
66:
65:
59:
55:
54:Learn to edit
51:
48:
43:
42:
39:
38:
34:
28:
24:
20:
19:
15:
3417:
3397:
3374:
3354:â Preceding
3350:
3345:
3294:PhysiqueUL09
3281:42.3.185.107
3277:
3265:42.3.185.107
3259:â Preceding
3255:
3239:PhysiqueUL09
3235:
3211:PhysiqueUL09
3196:PhysiqueUL09
3192:WP:DAILYMAIL
3166:
3160:PhysiqueUL09
3145:PhysiqueUL09
3117:
3111:PhysiqueUL09
3095:PhysiqueULO9
3084:
3034:
3030:two concerns
2999:
2981:. Retrieved
2977:
2967:
2939:
2931:
2911:
2902:
2881:
2856:
2848:
2844:
2780:WP:UNSOURCED
2769:
2742:
2716:
2690:
2686:
2682:
2678:
2674:
2669:
2665:
2660:
2656:
2652:
2647:
2642:
2638:
2634:
2630:
2603:
2600:
2596:
2573:PhysiqueUL09
2557:PhysiqueUL09
2553:
2540:
2538:
2516:
2512:
2491:
2473:
2451:
2447:
2432:
2426:
2409:
2376:
2314:
2231:
2227:
2208:
2173:
2168:
2164:
2156:
2142:Herobrine303
2137:
2108:
2077:
2042:
2025:
2007:
2003:
1986:
1969:
1952:
1931:. -- NYKTNE
1901:
1880:
1879:
1862:
1858:
1841:
1735:
1698:
1686:PhysiqueUL09
1681:
1658:
1652:
1589:
1572:
1545:
1523:
1503:
1501:
1460:Proposer is
1448:
1422:
1410:Mdaniels5757
1398:
1396:
1384:
1377:
1366:
1361:
1338:
1336:
1318:
1301:
1299:
1288:PhysiqueUL09
1283:
1249:WP:BLPREMOVE
1228:PhysiqueUL09
1212:PhysiqueUL09
1208:WP:BOOMERANG
1198:
1187:PhysiqueUL09
1172:
1132:PhysiqueUL09
1101:PhysiqueUL09
1090:
1079:PhysiqueUL09
1069:, so please
1058:
1031:
1013:PhysiqueUL09
1009:
998:PhysiqueUL09
983:
965:PhysiqueUL09
920:Liu Xiaobo's
915:
894:PhysiqueUL09
819:PhysiqueUL09
804:
796:
776:
761:law articles
740:
675:
635:
629:China portal
554:
553:
542:
541:
530:
529:
513:
512:
507:Image needed
505:
504:
492:
491:
475:
474:
463:
462:
443:
442:
397:
357:
301:WikiProjects
256:
252:
248:
241:
213:
197:
173:
167:
159:
152:
146:
140:
134:
124:
96:
21:This is the
3360:1.64.92.219
3218:Docentation
3186:Docentation
3171:Docentation
3138:Docentation
3123:Docentation
3088:Docentation
3063:Docentation
3015:Docentation
2906:Docentation
2886:Docentation
2839:Docentation
2803:Docentation
2748:Docentation
2743:possibility
2721:Docentation
2695:Docentation
2608:Docentation
2579:Docentation
2282:Docentation
2267:Docentation
2030:Docentation
2011:RealFakeKim
1991:Threedotshk
1653:legislation
1526:" as it is
1504:legislation
1390:move review
886:Joshua_Wong
747:legal field
242:written in
150:free images
33:not a forum
3440:Categories
3381:PoetVeches
3167:Daily Mail
2983:2020-07-04
2932:References
2919:PoetVeches
2876:PoetVeches
2861:PoetVeches
2381:Modernmore
2320:Modernmore
2230:- This is
2213:Modernmore
2094:Modernmore
2006:as above.
1900:Jezebel's
1867:Modernmore
1806:PoetVeches
1783:PoetVeches
1663:PoetVeches
1610:PoetVeches
1606:Article 23
1602:Carrie Lam
1594:Article 23
1554:WP:CONCISE
1520:some media
1350:Galendalia
1306:Galendalia
1234:WP:BLPTALK
1182:WP:CANVASS
1142:WP:CANVASS
1126:WP:BLPTALK
1062:(Redacted)
734:Law portal
537:...orphans
522:(5,424) â˘
3028:I listed
2786:content.
2479:Goodposts
2067:socialism
2063:socialism
1923:Jorge1777
1888:Jorge1777
1399:not moved
1075:nominated
1044:Caradhras
994:WP:BIASED
952:WP:YESPOV
924:Caradhras
890:judgement
881:nominated
877:WP:FRINGE
873:WP:FRINGE
845:Caradhras
841:WP:FRINGE
801:Criticism
373:Hong Kong
364:Hong Kong
320:Hong Kong
257:travelled
222:citations
90:if needed
73:Be polite
23:talk page
3356:unsigned
3261:unsigned
2953:cite web
2776:Ming Pao
2604:decision
2452:decision
2414:Squirist
2125:OceanHok
2057:" with "
1846:Glades12
1659:decision
1590:Not move
1493:UK media
1489:US media
1481:HK media
1241:redacted
963:manner.
567:(390) â˘
220:Include
58:get help
31:This is
29:article.
3287:WP:NPOV
2845:Content
2770:In the
2492:Comment
2474:Support
2472:Mostly
2460:Kingsif
2433:DRIZZLE
2410:Support
2228:Comment
2157:Support
2138:Support
2059:Chinese
2055:Chinese
2043:Oppose:
2004:Support
1987:Support
1970:Support
1953:Support
1881:Support
1859:Support
1771:Gazette
1736:Neutral
1703:hatnote
1699:Support
1682:Support
1573:Support
1546:Support
1438:As per
1046:Aiguo (
961:WP:NPOV
926:Aiguo (
916:in 2017
847:Aiguo (
779:on the
678:on the
571:(1,324)
526:(6,732)
501:(1,026)
484:(60) â˘
427:history
400:on the
291:C-class
253:realise
204:dispute
156:WPÂ refs
144:scholar
3000:Hello
2784:WP:POV
2653:is not
2448:Oppose
2427:Oppose
2377:Update
2352:Rinbro
2165:Oppose
1812:NYKTNE
1765:NYKTNE
1740:NYKTNE
1647:Rinbro
1624:Rinbro
1532:Rinbro
1462:Rinbro
1266:have a
1260:Coffee
1253:WP:ANI
1202:Coffee
1176:Coffee
1155:have a
1149:Coffee
1095:Coffee
1071:WP:DBF
1067:WP:AGF
1037:noting
957:WP:AGF
815:WP:POV
510:(348)
455:(4) â˘
297:scale.
249:colour
128:Google
2209:False
2177:(cf.
1902:Ponyo
1723:Dps04
1598:LegCo
1273:beans
1162:beans
651:China
642:China
598:China
488:(290)
448:(60)
437:purge
432:watch
171:JSTOR
132:books
86:Seek
3428:talk
3385:talk
3364:talk
3313:talk
3298:talk
3269:talk
3243:talk
3222:talk
3200:talk
3175:talk
3149:talk
3127:talk
3099:talk
3067:talk
3046:talk
3019:talk
3011:here
2959:link
2923:talk
2890:talk
2865:talk
2821:talk
2807:talk
2792:talk
2752:talk
2725:talk
2699:talk
2670:that
2635:NPOV
2612:talk
2583:talk
2561:talk
2525:talk
2504:talk
2483:talk
2464:talk
2439:talk
2418:talk
2399:talk
2385:talk
2366:talk
2339:talk
2324:talk
2297:talk
2271:talk
2245:talk
2234:the
2217:talk
2200:talk
2192:talk
2146:talk
2129:talk
2098:talk
2079:Ohc
2065:and
2049:and
2034:talk
1995:talk
1978:talk
1961:talk
1935:talk
1892:talk
1871:talk
1850:talk
1817:talk
1787:talk
1745:talk
1727:talk
1721:) --
1690:talk
1667:talk
1628:talk
1614:talk
1581:talk
1562:talk
1548:per
1536:talk
1518:and
1491:and
1466:talk
1456:talk
1414:talk
1354:talk
1310:talk
1292:talk
1232:Per
1216:talk
1191:talk
1105:talk
1083:talk
1017:talk
1002:talk
969:talk
898:talk
823:talk
459:(23)
422:edit
392:High
164:FENS
138:news
75:and
3422:. â
3033:now
2693:â.
2232:not
2123:).
1524:law
1276://
1270://
1263://
1165://
1159://
1152://
1128:).
771:Low
752:Law
703:Law
670:Mid
178:TWL
3442::
3430:)
3387:)
3315:)
3300:)
3271:)
3245:)
3202:)
3177:)
3151:)
3129:)
3118:is
3101:)
3069:)
3048:)
3021:)
2976:.
2955:}}
2951:{{
2925:)
2892:)
2867:)
2823:)
2809:)
2794:)
2754:)
2727:)
2701:)
2648:be
2614:)
2585:)
2563:)
2527:)
2506:)
2485:)
2466:)
2441:)
2420:)
2401:)
2387:)
2368:)
2341:)
2326:)
2299:)
2291:--
2273:)
2247:)
2219:)
2202:)
2167:-
2148:)
2131:)
2100:)
2036:)
2008:â
1997:)
1980:)
1963:)
1873:)
1852:)
1842:it
1789:)
1729:)
1717:,
1713:,
1692:)
1669:)
1630:)
1616:)
1583:)
1575:.
1564:)
1556:.
1552:,
1538:)
1530:.
1514:,
1510:,
1487:,
1483:,
1479:,
1468:)
1430:â
1426:â
1416:)
1382:.
1356:)
1312:)
1294:)
1268:âď¸
1257:â
1244:}}
1238:{{
1218:)
1193:)
1157:âď¸
1146:â
1107:)
1085:)
1052:)
1042:.
1019:)
1004:)
971:)
932:)
900:)
853:)
839:.
825:)
563:â˘
255:,
251:,
158:)
56:;
3426:(
3383:(
3362:(
3311:(
3296:(
3283::
3279:@
3267:(
3241:(
3220:(
3213::
3209:@
3198:(
3188::
3184:@
3173:(
3162::
3158:@
3147:(
3140::
3136:@
3125:(
3113::
3109:@
3097:(
3090::
3086:@
3065:(
3044:(
3017:(
3006::
3002:@
2986:.
2961:)
2921:(
2908::
2904:@
2888:(
2878::
2874:@
2863:(
2841::
2837:@
2834::
2830:@
2819:(
2805:(
2790:(
2750:(
2738::
2734:@
2723:(
2712::
2708:@
2697:(
2691:x
2687:x
2626::
2622:@
2610:(
2581:(
2575::
2571:@
2559:(
2523:(
2502:(
2481:(
2462:(
2437:(
2416:(
2397:(
2383:(
2364:(
2354::
2350:@
2337:(
2322:(
2295:(
2284::
2280:@
2269:(
2262::
2258:@
2243:(
2215:(
2198:(
2190:(
2181:)
2144:(
2140:â
2127:(
2096:(
2032:(
2016:T
1993:(
1976:(
1959:(
1937:)
1933:(
1925::
1921:@
1890:(
1869:(
1848:(
1819:)
1815:(
1808::
1804:@
1785:(
1767::
1763:@
1747:)
1743:(
1725:(
1719:3
1715:2
1711:1
1688:(
1665:(
1649::
1645:@
1626:(
1612:(
1579:(
1560:(
1534:(
1464:(
1454:(
1412:(
1407:)
1403:(
1352:(
1344:"
1308:(
1290:(
1230::
1226:@
1214:(
1204::
1200:@
1189:(
1178::
1174:@
1134::
1130:@
1121::
1117:@
1103:(
1097::
1093:@
1081:(
1015:(
1000:(
989::
985:@
967:(
896:(
868::
864:@
821:(
810::
806:@
783:.
682:.
404:.
370:.
303::
271:.
218:.
206:.
174:¡
168:¡
160:¡
153:¡
147:¡
141:¡
135:¡
130:(
60:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
