Talk:Reactions to the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests

3738:

of people in Hong Kong "must be guaranteed" and to whom Wong had written an open letter seeking her backing for the protests." The subject of second clause of the sentence is unclear. This should be broken up into two sentences. The first sentence ending with "guaranteed." The second sentence stating, "Additionally, Wong wrote an open letter to Chancellor Merkel seeking her backing for the protests." The following sentence from the "Customs Changes" section should also be altered because the sentence structure is grammatically incorrect: "Chinese government has required goods mailed from Mainland China to Hong Kong to be investigated while goods which are believed as related to the protests are forbidden to mailing." It should read, "Hong Kong government has required goods shipped from Mainland China to be investigated, and goods related to the protests are forbidden from being mailed at all." The message is clear throughout the article, but it would be easier to understand if the sections were edited for conciseness and proper grammar.

3255:

and that didn't attract any significant attention outside of Hong Kong. I retained as much as possible about key incidents such as Yuen Long, the human chain, the very large marches, etc. Beyond that, I deleted information which was largely repetitive; we don't need to know every time the CCP says the same thing, the same time the HK government says the same thing or every time protesters say the same thing. I also reduced the international reactions section to contain only one reaction from each nation or trans-national group represented. Generally I gave preference to a head of state or a leader of government where such was available. Otherwise, I retained whichever statement seemed most comprehensive. I did make some small edits for NPOV compliance. If you have concerns about that category of edit, I'd be happy to discuss them at a specific edit level. Now I will note that my

4483:

the protests have been looking at (and critical of) the way China's state media has covered the protests. The other sources that you've provided to establish the due weight of this opinion piece (it's not possible for FAIR to produce any other type of work when it explicitly describes itself as a politically-partisan/party-political organization) are not good enough. It's not as simple as saying CNBC and HKFP are citing the report, they are citing Lam who is citing the report and whether the SCMP opinion editorials can be used will depend on your position to the Reuters opion editorial I used: if that editorial isn't good enough to warrant inclusion in the article, then neither should the SCMP op eds be good enough to substantiate due weight of the report. All or nothing.

4074:, if you did then you didn't read it carefully. I obviously meant the inclusion of the material in the countries section - that's why I made the specific reference to government official/government officials. Of course I still argue that that doesn't mean that that paragraph belongs anywhere in the article, but in the meantime a mutual acknowledgement of the (objective) fact that that paragraph doesn't belong in the countries section because all the material there documents the views of government official/government officials only should be a good first step towards a resolution of this second point of contention. I have accordingly moved that paragraph to the "other reactions" section of the article 4368:- that's not good enough. You have (the responsibility per ONUS) to explain how your preferred material is significant enough to warrant inclusion. You'll also note the double standards in your application of the due weight criteria. You justified your removal of the opinion piece I included on the grounds that it was not written by from a subject-matter expert or more broadly reported by other RSes but you at the same time vouch for the opinion piece from that "watchdog" even though it was not written by a subject-matter expert or more broadly reported by other RSes. This cannot stand - if you remove the material that I've added, then your preferred material must be removed as well. All or nothing. 4078:

of the reliable sources which have done media analysis on the protests have been looking at (and critical of) the way China's state media has covered the protests. It's BLOATED, especialy in contrast with the other material in the "other reactions" section. And there are verfiability issues as RSP clearly states that FAIR is a biased source for which there is no consensus over its reliability. As the removal of the paragraph is under dispute I have in the interim added material from a counterbalancing source to rectify the NPOV issue. If you remove the material that I've added, then your preferred material must be removed as well. All or nothing.

4292:

done media analysis on the protests have been looking at (and critical of) the way China's state media has covered the protests. It's BLOATED, especialy in contrast with the other material in the "other reactions" section. And there are verfiability issues as RSP clearly states that FAIR is a biased source for which there is no consensus over its reliability. I will remind you for the record that whether a source for which there is no consensus over its reliability is usable depends on context (per MREL) and the ONUS is on you to justify its usability as you are the one who is seeking to (re)include the disputed content.

3723:

sub-articles, condensing it, or adding subheadings. Moreover, the movement has its unique historical background and it would be helpful to add it so that people can better understand. Lastly, since this is a political topic that may be edited several times by the supporters from multiple parties, it is essential to keep it in a neutral perspective. Many sources that the article cited is from the media and obvious has its own bias or support towards a specific party or authority. The picture in the article is political-biased and should not be used (the black and white pic)

291: 2454:: Per the above, I propose renaming this article. It's the easiest way to solve the "pov" problem and would also allow us to add information about what hong kong government reaction, which we don't even get in the main article. We can divide the section up into "Domestic" (this would include the stuff we have right now about the "Chinese government and media") and "International" (the stuff from the article we currently have would fall under there) Comments from any of you are welcomed. 386: 365: 769: 156: 748: 129: 3758:

timeline of events. Additionally, for the sake of understanding the context behind China's pressure in Hong Kong, it may be beneficial to provide context as to how Hong Kong's government officials formally report to Beijing. It would also be beneficial to explain the "one country, two systems" policy, in which Hong Kong would lose its full autonomy 50 years after 1997. This would provide context to the anger of the Hong Kong people and the adamancy of the Chinese government.

281: 260: 1946: 664: 643: 32: 779: 674: 396: 166: 991: 98: 232: 3804:

but the next 2 articles are. It seems like the bulk of the UK response has been collated on the 3rd page, although some info is scattered across the other pages. In contrast, the US response is mostly collated on this page and the 2nd page, with little mention on the 3rd page, where the UK response is listed. There's a significant bulk of reaction on the first page with no organisation.

954: 3839:

only be executed if the law is made, this article is the appropriate place. Whereas the US response was immediate, and so seems to be a reaction to the decision rather than to the law. Both, and other relevant responses, should probably get some level of coverage in all those articles, but it might be harder to incorporate into the long protests article.

882: 861: 2191:. We do have quite a few important articles currently orphaned. I think it may be appropriate to link some of the tertiary articles on the bottom template, like "Hong Kong Way" or "2019 Yuen Long Violence" but the secondary articles that were split off from the main article should be more prominent and easy to find. 4895:) that there is media bias in US media reports (or more broadly Western media reports) of the HK protests does not contradict the RS reports about media bias in Chinese media reports. It's not a fringe viewpoint that there is bias in both media.Do you mean an RfC on this specific inclusion of the FAIR report? — 4933:

said that overall, the mainstream media had done an adequate job in describing the Hong Kong protests, pointing to the fact that the media had noted the aggressive tactics employed by both Hong Kong’s police force and the protesters. Some examples that the watchdog used as evidence of the adequacy of

4432:(whereas a Reuters opinion piece does). Non-opinion pieces can derive reliability from the publication itself; the FAIR report does not solely derive its reliability from its author, just as a non-opinion article from the New York Times can be reliable without its author being a subject-matter expert. 4185:

doesn't mean that anybody else on Knowledge needs to be foaming at the mouth over its inclusion in this article. It's BLOATED, especialy in contrast with the other material in the "other reactions" section. And there are verfiability issues as RSP clearly states that FAIR is a biased source for which

3281:

Thank you for your response. My view is that some deleted contents are notable enough to keep, while some really needs deletion. For example, US senior official and Germany meeting the key figure of the protest is notable enough to include. I will describe my view more detailed in the suggested split

4772:

FAIR is the national progressive media watchdog group, challenging corporate media bias, spin and misinformation...as a progressive group, we believe that structural reform is ultimately needed to break up the dominant media conglomerates, establish independent public broadcasting and promote strong

3803:

For example, the first article contains info on how the UK said they would open up a path for BNO nationals, a statement which is notable but is in direct response to the National Security Bill itself. That article isn't updated with the progress of that info, and how the right was actually granted,

3533:

It only says: "One of the soldiers said their action had nothing to do with the Hong Kong government." Even if this was included, it would have to be attributed to one soldier telling SCMP this rather than in WP voice. But one soldier telling the SCMP something vague is such a weak statement that it

3455:

This entry is entirely biased. There is no portray of the violent riots, including the use of Molotov cocktails, melee weapons such as metal pipes. There is no mention of the bullying and beating of anybody who holds a different political view by the rioters. There is no mention of the mass deletion

3324:

I didn't revert your second edit because I thought your arguments merited discussion there at least. However, from my perspective, the July 15 statement from Lam does not represent any significant turning point on the evolution of her position on the issue. On July 9 she said "the bill was dead" and

5167:

1) Your reply is nonsensical. My material doesn't present the op ed as a statement of fact, it presents it as an op ed with explicit attribution; the source that published the op ed is a reliable source (Reuters which this guy is writing for); and WP:RSEDITORIAL doesn't say anything about excluding

5015:

Not really. Whether a source is reliable isn't mainly up what other say about it (which is more of a DUE issue than an RS one), it's also what the source does to prove that it is reliable. My point about the article's mode of citation is relevant to RS beause it establishes (or helps establish) the

4986:

What? The reliability of a source is not based on how logical you personally find the arguments & examples contained in the source. It's predominantly how other sources describe it. Furthermore, this is a column piece so it derives its reliability from the author Spencer Irvine himself. I don't

4077:

3) There's no obfuscation from me. That's just more projection from you. It's UNDUE and therefore INDISCRIMINATE because outside of a few state run and fringey shitrags (they are that), the findings of this partisan outlet isn't mentioned at all in reliable sources; on the other hand, virtually all

3737:

The article is incredibly informative and explains the Hong Kong protests very well. The following sentence from the "Allegation of foreign interference" section should be altered: "The meeting came after German Chancellor Angela Merkel's trip to the PRC, where she said that the rights and freedoms

5040:

That's what the guideline for reliable source says. Does Spencer Irvine's column have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Is Spencer Irvine a reliable author? There's no evidence for that.A source's citation mode does not establish reliability. There are awful unreliable sources that cite

4765:

2) Well no not really because that's how we establish what constitutes due weight. (by the way the findings isn't just criticizing "several" media organizations, its criticizing representative media organizations) But even if you were right in what you said, you'd still be wrong in the conclusions

4482:

You're not reading what I am saying, if you are then you're not reading it carefully. I asked you to provide an explanation of your position, not a description of it. I repeat: the finding of this "watchdog" is undue/fringe as virtually all of the reliable sources which have done media analysis on

4405:

and I have expressed that FAIR is a (partisan) reliable and significant source when it comes to reports on journalistic practices. As the previous RSP/RSN discussions note, it's not a reliable source for contentious BLP claims nor for topics unrelated to journalistic reporting; but that's not this

4291:

I repeat my arguments against using the information from that "watchdog": it's UNDUE and therefore INDISCRIMINATE because outside of state run media, the findings of that partisan outlet isn't mentioned at all in reliable sources; on the other hand, virtually all of the reliable sources which have

3838:

article (what you have listed as "National Security Bill (Hong Kong)", an inaccurate title that a new editor moved it to without any discussion). I think since the UK's response came more as a reaction to what China wants to put in the law, rather than simply the decision, and as a move that would

3722:

This article has a very detailed illustration of the movement. According to Knowledge notice, this article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. I think to simply list out various countries’ responses do not help illustration the movement itself, please consider splitting content into

3254:

material I deleted. My selection criteria were relatively simple: was this a detail where, in retrospect the action caused some significant change in what was happening in the Hong Kong narrative? So, I deleted quite a bit of content about intermediate protests that were not of any particular size

4180:

But in any case, please do not try to deflect from your failure to address my original arguments about your preferred material. I repeat: It's UNDUE and therefore INDISCRIMINATE because outside of a few state run and fringey shitrags, the findings of this partisan outlet isn't mentioned at all in

3172:

I don't think WP:CRUFT should apply here. Chinese government is not only expressing their views, but has taken many actions against those who supports the protests. Also, realiable source (Reuters, SCMP) says "Chinese nationalist netizens" has also taking online movement against the protests most

4971:

Your concern about the reliablity of the column is nonsensical. The majority of the article consists of specific examples that the author gives to support the conclusion that the msm has done an adequate job covering the protests and he goes so far in the 5th paragraph to provide a corroborating

3807:

This is a mess that lacks consistency, and if I'm looking for info on the UK response I had to scour through 4 pages to find where the bulk is, plus find some additions from the others. Same for the US one, except it's on a different page. These pages do not interlink to each other, for the most

3757:

I think the article is written in a neutral tone, and lays out, in detail, the vastly different responses from a variety of political parties. I felt that the Government section (under Government but before pro-government parties) could be broken down into several sub categories, for example, by

4761:

1) That's irrelevant. I'm going by what RSP says and what they are saying is that there is no consensus over its reliability - i.e. a source of dubious reliability. Their words, not mine. If you think FAIR is a (categorically) reliable source, then it's your job to overturn that resolution, not

4741:

and I found this FAIR report to represent a significant viewpoint that has reported by independent RSes, and there is evidence towards its reliability in general from other RSes. If you still disagree for whatever reason, you can bring up an RfC for example to bring in external editors to build

4653:

Over the past 20 years, the media advocacy group, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), has issued a series of studies criticizing the PBS NewsHour for having an "establishment bias" and a lack of diversity in news sourcing. However, the perception of FAIR as a liberal advocacy group, and

4778:

4) You're missing the point. It's not an issue of what form the works by the "watchdog" actually take. It's an issue of due weight. For explicitly politically-partisan entities/biased sources like FAIR, the threshold of due weight is higher and citing just a few sources which mention (some in

4162:

Your comments are nonsensical. It's not about serving as a factual basis, it's about counterbalancing your POV. AIM and FAIR are both explicitly partisan outlets so it's undue for either to serve as factual basis for anything. You can't say FAIR is a reliable source (or at any rate, that the

3360:

Is there a consensus on the number of these that should be included in here and up to when (if at all)? Seems like the past weekend of worldwide protests specifically mentioned in solidarity with Hong Kong would be worth mentioning - I saw SBS News in Australia linking those to the weekend of

4725:

I didn't claim that the SCMP opinion articles are reliable sources for the article here. I just posted those as links in addition to the other examples of sources that talk about the specific FAIR report. This isn't the same as including a non-subject-matter-expert opinion article in the WP

3499:

There are some mentions about lawmakers condemning them for not having been asked by the government and not asking the government, with counter-reactions. This could be added, but would have to be attributed to them, and would have to include the counter-reactions (e.g. SCMP’s mention of

4769:

3) I never said FAIR describes itself as part of any political party (it's possible that it can - maybe it's a(n informal) part of the Congressional Progressive Caucus), I said it describes itself as a politically-partisan/party-political organization which it explicitly does:

2783:

on the New Pages Feed, and I think its content should be merged here, assuming that it is in fact renamed merely "Reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests". If it is then subsequently split up I have no opinion as to where this content should go. –

5179:

2) The descriptor is required per ATTRIBUTEPOV because RWB is a partisan source and CONTEXTMATTERS/DUE in order to establish how and why RWB is an appropriate source to use to discuss the journalistic consequences of the protests in the relevant section of the article.

2100: 3249:

Hey Mariogoods, I deleted ~33,000 bytes from this article in an attempt to prevent another page-split due to excessive length. I must assure you that in gauging what to delete I didn't pay any attention whatsoever to the edit history and could not tell you what of

5168:

an op ed just because the author is not a subject matter expert. That is just nonsense you are making up. Putting aside the fact that the guideline makes it clear that the identity of the author doesn't determine the reliability of opinion content (it only says

5270:"Before the protest, Carrie Lam has insisted that the bill was "beneficial", as it can "protect Hong Kong's public safety, and fulfil Hong Kong's international duty", after Hong Kong people, Taiwan and several foreign envoys voiced concerns about the bill. 3818:

I'm proposing portions of these - specifically, the international response of countries who have done more than express their discontent, such as the Five Eyes countries - be merged in some form and, for the most part, be collated on the same page.

2803:

I disagree. That page is more about allegations of what has happened in the protests. Not much is about criticism. I would argue that "Aggressive tactics in the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests" is a more accurate title for the page.

4267:

is a separate source whose reliability has to be assessed separately. Its reliability and merit for inclusion is not based on the false equivalence of "if that progressive watchdog is included then this conservative watchdog must be included". —

3880:

and how it affects the Joint Declaration. So it couldn't be called "Responses to the NPCSC decision on Hong Kong national security law" or "Responses to the 2020 Hong Kong national security law" without being inaccurate about one of them. Maybe

2935: 4163:

material constitutes due weight) and in the same breath say that AIM isn't - that kind of hypocrisy and absurdity isn't going to fly. Citing (cherry picking) three AIM op-eds doesn't negate the validity and soundness of what was written in the

2823: 4733:). There hasn't been any evidence presented so far of poor publishing practices (I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but none have really come up) while there are RSes that describe and verify FAIR claims, demonstrating at least some reliability. 975:

for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. The former page's talk page can be accessed at

4023:("Camp supporting protests", "Citizens' responses", "Corporate pressure", "Social media", "olidarity protests", "Counter-protests") entire sections describing reactions by non-governmental parties. Half of the Iran section's response is on a 3786: 3296:

I actually retained the information regarding principle protest figures meeting with German government officials (or at least I had not intended to delete it); I am not sure I recall seeing anything about such meetings with US officials.

73:

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

3904: 2581: 964: 4066:

1) That's irrelevant. So an article in the United States says that the U.S. sanctions Hong Kong leader Carrie Lam. Big deal. What the hell does that have to do with media bias from a partisan outlet that doesn't even mention that

4654:

various methodological ambiguities, establish the need for an independent cross-verification of their research findings. A partial replication and a comparative analysis with the alternative independent newscast, Democracy Now!,

2848:

The article is nominated for deletion, which I agree. The article is not really criticism from parties or a person, it is almost a collection of news reports including original research. I don't think we should merge it at all.

4181:

reliable sources. Just because some random sycophant at Global Times, CGTN or any one of the usual state run rags suffers from this neurosis to eat up and barf out whatever comes out of some equally raggedy outlet's behind

3853:

The main protests article serves as a summary while the Reactions page limits itself only to international responses to the protests but not the bill. I think it makes sense to merge UK an US responses in one page though.

3325:

started facing criticism for vagueness. That she said vague things and faced criticism on July 15 is literally repetition. As such, I don't think that it contributes anything to a public understanding of this event.

3021: 2973: 2904:

I believed it is not suitable. First, Chinese government and anti-protest figure also claimed they are pro-Hong Kong. Second, "violent" is better used when actions (military, police) had done by Chinese government.

3025: 2977: 4137:

findings from AIM to serve as a factual basis, particularly when AIM is mentioning supposed "adequate" coverage in relation to only the Polytechnic University standoff, not the half-year-long charade as a whole.

4313:

Whether the length of the mention of the FAIR report is somewhat separate from whether it should be mentioned at all. I agree that it should probably be trimmed (perhaps to a sentence or two). However, both

968: 3693:

when leaving the thread opening for at least a while. For normal Rfc it is one month, for this split and activity of the discussion of the protests, at least it should leave the thread open for 2 weeks.

3234:, I have seen that you have made serveal editing which removed many contents. I believed that we should gain consequence first since the protests are occuring and some contents are important to mention. 2005:

Affected references show up as a "Cite error" instead of a citation in the References section. To fix this, we'll need to find the source information from all of the original citations before the split

5205:. The point is that there is no evidence that Pete Sweeney is a recognized expert (one avenue to demonstrating reliability and reflecting a significant viewpoint), nor other evidence that this is a 5135:

to just include the opinion of that particular journalist, when there are no RSes to support the inclusion of the opinion of that particular journalist.The second is explained in the edit-summary.

843: 2651:. We need to mention something about domestic reactions for a long time. From the government's response, to pro-establishment's U-turn in July, to citizens not splitting with the frontliners etc. 5338: 3690: 2928: 2870: 241: 139: 4718:, or that "Several Chinese media reports and Carrie Lam have pointed to this specific FAIR report. They do not support the claim within the FAIR report, but they establish verifiable facts 2706:. Since the content of this sub-article, have Chinese government and other foreign government. And should add back the notable opinions from pro-government camp, if they are not violating 4766:

you are drawing. It's not about what the findings are opposed to, it's about how much (external) support the findings have. Which in the case of your preferred material is virtually none.

5398: 5318: 2344:. I would assign more weight to the Chinese government's response in the main article, since they are one of the listed "parties to the civil conflict" in the main article's infobox. — 932: 922: 809: 805: 5037:

Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors.

3626:

I propose that the section Domestic responses be split into a separate page called Domestic reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong protests. The section is large enough to make its own page.

3489: 3013: 2965: 2585: 2504: 2228: 3380:

I think these two incidents should be split off into own article and the corresponding info from respective article merged into it since it does not fall into government reaction.

5403: 4884: 3968:

With no objection, and since the law is now in place and more responses will come in, I've made the new article and merged from others where appropriate. Tell me what you think.

557: 5393: 503: 4742:

broader consensus about FAIR's inclusion in this article or perhaps a new RSN RfC about FAIR (since this is becoming quite general beyond the scope of this article alone). —

4701:

Just because an organization (that primarily critiques media outlets) contradicts & criticizes several media outlets does not mean that it is not a significant viewpoint.

83: 4729:

So far, you have only said that FAIR is biased and holds a critical position that is different to several other sources. That doesn't mean that FAIR is unreliable (e.g. see

5016:

reliability of the source by showing how the article doesn't engage in QUESTIONABLE journalistic practices. Have you even read Knowledge's guidelines for reliable sources?

4837:. I never claimed that FAIR is categorically generally reliable. We're talking about a limited context concerning reports about journalistic biases in the United States.Re 2731: 977: 898: 801: 1907: 1893: 1878: 1863: 1848: 1833: 1818: 1803: 1789: 1775: 1760: 1745: 1730: 1715: 1700: 1685: 1670: 1655: 1640: 1625: 1610: 1595: 1580: 1565: 1550: 1535: 1520: 1505: 1490: 1475: 1460: 1445: 1430: 1415: 1400: 1386: 1373: 1359: 1344: 1329: 1314: 1299: 1284: 1269: 1254: 1239: 1224: 1209: 1194: 1179: 1164: 1149: 1135: 1121: 1106: 1091: 1076: 1061: 1047: 1034: 1011: 3017: 2969: 4411: 2340:

The proposed move below should resolve the neutrality issue in the title. All of the reactions in this article should also be summarized in the relevant section of the

5383: 833: 5235:

do that, for instance. I honestly don't think this is a big deal though, so "global media watchdog", NGO, or whatever. we don't really need a whole citation for that.

3797: 5209:

opinion. There are all kinds of published opinions from journalists. Just because a journalist has published their opinion does not mean that it should be included (

4338:), with exceptions if the author is a subject-matter expert (which does not appear to be the case here). Just reporting that an opinion piece says something isn’t 5333: 2400: 619: 337: 2121:

I mean I agree, but at this point I think we need to start putting together a navigation sidebar for these articles. They're producing rather a lot of children.

5388: 5323: 5108:) violates NPOV and your removal of the RSF descriptor violates INTEXT (it doesnt matter how well-known you you think RSF is). Explain or I will revert back . 4939: 2569: 2514: 2341: 1994: 960: 889: 866: 611: 507: 495: 2170:

Yeah, the template is a good start but it needs a lot of updating, and I don't think many people want to navigate to the bottom to find links to child pages.

5378: 418: 791: 5353: 5328: 5313: 4554:

that mainstream media heavily favor corporate and government elites and marginalize minority, female, public interest, and dissenting viewpoints. FAIR

452: 442: 222: 212: 3485: 5368: 4600:

FAIR dedicates itself to researching and exposing the exclusion of viewpoints and distortions in the mainstream press. To this end, the organization

3581:

until consensus is reached in a new discussion. Since the discussion has been open for over a month and admin closure was requested eight days ago at

730: 720: 5303: 4946:

This isn't even a report from AIM, it's from their staff column. Even non-column reports from AIM may not be reliable for statements of fact (which

2961: 2866: 2780: 2727: 2555: 2279: 3777:

International reactions to the protests seem to be split across a number of pages, with apparently no consistency of what content should go where.

5358: 570: 69: 3791: 2901:"attacking pro-Hong Kong solidarity protests in New Zealand and defending violent opposition against these protests" in reaction of New Zealand. 3340:

I see there was an issue with an incorrect date; this is why copy-edits are important. I'll withdraw my concern with thanks for the correction.

2513:– This article currently mentions the Chinese government's response to the protests. Considering the sovereignty dispute that is central to the 5373: 5348: 5308: 3574: 615: 574: 347: 5363: 5194:

It's a bit strange to talk about these two different issues simultaneously, particularly as part of it is in the previous section. But alas:

4630: 4581: 2326:

It makes no sense to put the PRC government's reaction on the main page when it doesn't even have the Hong Kong govenrment's reaction there.

796: 753: 4041:

to be used when making claims about living persons. Don't use a word salad of inappropriately-applied policies in an attempt to obfuscate.

3493: 2835: 2793: 532: 188: 4540:, the aforementioned CNBC article, and the aformentioned HKFP article. Several RSes go further in their analysis of FAIR (emphasis mine): 4415: 4006: 3885:

until a bill is put in (or a law passed without one), make an article about the bill/law, and decide from there where everything belongs.

3570: 2385:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a

5343: 4330:.For what it’s worth, the coverage of AIM also needs to be trimmed (if not removed) for being disproportionately covered.Opinion pieces 4248: 4034: 2685:

As a natural broadening of the article's scope, and elegant solution to POV issue. Also, in case anyone is concerned about consistency,

2616: 2192: 1975: 696: 549: 536: 4288:

I'll continue the debate with you as I would just be fucking about if i was to carry on with the back-and-forth with that other person.

5078: 4164: 972: 4999:

raised concerns above, and I haven't found external RSes supporting its reliability. If you can bring some up, that would be fine. —

4406:

case. In this particular case, the FAIR report is about patterns in journalistic reporting and has been mentioned in a CNBC article (

4103:"Waterboarding Is Not Torture": Torture is what "left-wingers associate with anything that makes an accused terrorist uncomfortable". 5172:) and granting for the sake of argument your argument that the author isn't an expert, all it says is that editor's are required to 4954:, but there are serious concerns about the reliability of the column itself. I also haven't found any RS mentions of this report. — 4876: 4253:

The source is marginally reliable (i.e. neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable), and may be usable depending on context

4846: 4407: 3243: 4880: 4419: 2033:

I originally misread the errors, but I've resolved them by removing all of the unused list-defined references by custom script. —

2150: 313: 48:

to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to

4332:

are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact

4017: 3835: 2878: 2707: 2007: 409: 370: 179: 134: 38: 4480:

I have expressed that FAIR is a (partisan) reliable and significant source when it comes to reports on journalistic practices.

3781: 3824: 3656:. Most “reactions” articles also do not split domestic and international reactions. This split seems entirely unnecessary. — 687: 648: 5129:

reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

5289: 5251: 5189: 5162: 5117: 5052: 5025: 5010: 4981: 4965: 4906: 4800: 4753: 4492: 4471: 4448: 4377: 4353: 4308: 4279: 4216: 4195: 4149: 4087: 4052: 3977: 3963: 3948: 3927: 3894: 3863: 3848: 3828: 3767: 3747: 3732: 3703: 3667: 3635: 3618:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

3606: 3547: 3528: 3519:

I remembered that theSCMP source cited one PLA solider said it has "nothing to do with Carry Lam" (I forget the sentence).

3513: 3467: 3442: 3422: 3404: 3389: 3370: 3349: 3334: 3306: 3291: 3276: 3203: 3186: 3164: 3139: 3110: 3092: 3059: 3037: 2947: 2914: 2890: 2858: 2839: 2813: 2797: 2743: 2719: 2698: 2677: 2660: 2643: 2624: 2605: 2546: 2498: 2481: 2463: 2421: 2361: 2335: 2312: 2291: 2260: 2222: 2200: 2179: 2165: 2130: 2112: 2074: 2050: 2027: 1983: 3713:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

3216:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

3003:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

53: 5203:

The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint

2943: 109: 49: 45: 5123:

The first is literally explained in the section above; the reliability of an opinion piece derives from its author per

4888: 5139:

talks about attributing the statement to RSF, not describing in greater details what RSF is. It's unnecessary / undue

4858: 4819:

marginally reliable (i.e. neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable), and may be usable depending on context

4024: 3588: 304: 265: 3910: 2673: 417:-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Hong Kong-related articles, you are invited to 312:

related articles on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

4850: 2521:

than the current one. This is the easiest solution to implement, and it sidesteps the sovereignty issue entirely.

5228: 3935: 3820: 2753: 2376: 4775:

If you are going to play these word games, then it would help if you carefully read (or just read) what I wrote.

82:. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see 17: 4466: 4144: 4047: 2831: 2789: 4972:

hyperlink (to the original article) for each and every example he cites there. Did you even read the article?

4925:, since it is separate from the discussion about FAIR above. The AIM column was mentioned in this article as: 4650:

that independently statistically verified 20 years of FAIR claims about PBS while acknowledging FAIR's bias:

1979: 4730: 4669: 4647: 3463: 3438: 2939: 2620: 2573: 2443: 2275: 2196: 894: 75: 3456:

of accounts on Twitter, Facebook or even Youtube who are sympathetic to the HKSAR and Chinese governments.

31: 5220: 4935: 4892: 4201:

You both need to calm down; please discuss the content dispute calmly, civilly, and without edit warring.

3991: 3763: 3395:

boycott section in Mainland China reactions section, since Chinese government is engaging in the boycott.

2874: 2871:

Aggressive and abusive tactics used by the protesters in the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests

2301: 2282:. Chinese government play a huge role in this matter. Also support the creation of a navigation sidebar. – 1955: 5231:. The requirement is not to give a description of the already-attributed source. None of the examples at 5198: 5124: 5105: 4841:, the FAIR report was cited by Chinese media and Carrie Lam (as noted by the CNBC & HKFP articles), 4791:

I will initiate the RFC but not before I clear up the confusion (mainly on your part) in this exchange.

4429: 4425: 4335: 3812: 3743: 3631: 3459: 3434: 3177:(Their action has got Xinwen Lianbo's brief methion as the example of "1.4 million people's opposion"). 2765: 2761: 2669: 2565: 2386: 2278:, the reaction of the Chinese government was included in the main article, while splitting reactions to 115: 4807:

FAIR is a (partisan) reliable and significant source when it comes to reports on journalistic practices

4537: 3787:

National People's Congress decision on Hong Kong national security legislation#International responses

2061:

Starting this discussion here and will link from the main page. But as I've asserted previously, it's

5285: 5140: 4342:, unless the opinion piece is from a subject-matter expert or more broadly reported by other RSes. — 3728: 3724: 3699: 3535: 3524: 3501: 3418: 3400: 3385: 3287: 3239: 3182: 3160: 2910: 2886: 2715: 2598: 2539: 2494: 2354: 2253: 2215: 2043: 2020: 5266:

The article's intro says nothing about the bill and the first para of the article body starts with:

2099:, article is over 100kB and some of the last few sections should be split to a new article entitled 5185: 5113: 5031: 5021: 4996: 4977: 4947: 4842: 4796: 4738: 4488: 4402: 4373: 4323: 4315: 4304: 4191: 4083: 3345: 3330: 3302: 3272: 3106: 3055: 2827: 2785: 2739: 2639: 2518: 2459: 2389:

after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2331: 2308: 2175: 2126: 2070: 4664: 4512:

There is significant evidence of FAIR's reliability from reliable sources that describe FAIR as a

4183:

because their handlers in Beijing are getting beaten the fuck up by a bunch of kids from Hong Kong

897:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

695:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

187:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

4951: 3959: 3859: 3601: 3199: 3135: 3088: 3033: 2983: 2656: 2161: 2108: 2710:#Knowledge is not a newspaper or #Knowledge is not an indiscriminate collection of information. 4707:

A source that explicitly describes its bias does not automatically only publish opinion pieces.

3907:, and move it all there, with topic-relevant synopses at the various articles mentioned above. 2805: 385: 364: 5174:

attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact

4930: 4922: 4686: 4627: 4578: 4544: 4457: 4358: 4264: 4186:

there is no consensus over its reliability. Explain or it will have to go. It is that simple.

4093: 4059:

Stop trying to be so cute and operatic with the Wikilawyering. You can't moan and groan about

3973: 3944: 3923: 3890: 3844: 3759: 3543: 3509: 2854: 2694: 2477: 2287: 1945: 768: 747: 280: 259: 155: 128: 2873:) should be deleted. While criticism to the protests and protesters should put here once the 5232: 5224: 5136: 4838: 4830: 4678: 4619: 4570: 4363: 4327: 4319: 4260: 3739: 3680: 3643: 3627: 3366: 2987: 2686: 401: 5277:

Please expand the article's intro so that it makes clear which bill is being talked about.

5131:}} and this particular author is not demonstrably a subject-matter expert. It would not be 4428:

concerns opinion pieces. The FAIR report is not an opinion piece, so it doesn't fall under

2101:

Chinese government and media reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests

5281: 5214: 4130: 4060: 3994: 3695: 3653: 3582: 3520: 3479: 3414: 3413:

Not quite, players in north america are boycotting Blizzard for the Hearthstone incident.

3396: 3381: 3283: 3235: 3178: 3156: 3047: 2906: 2882: 2711: 2591: 2532: 2490: 2429: 2413: 2347: 2246: 2236: 2208: 2086: 2036: 2013: 679: 5143:

to describe every in-text attributed source. It's as unnecessary as it would be to write

4063:(which my initial removal wasn't) when your revert of my revert was itself a pointy edit. 2300:

I'm already working on the sidebar though it's early days as I've never made one before.

587: 4547:

academic encyclopedia (which analyzes and criticizes activist groups) describes FAIR as

2924:

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

5210: 5181: 5148: 5109: 5017: 4973: 4822: 4792: 4484: 4369: 4300: 4256: 4202: 4187: 4079: 4030: 3341: 3326: 3298: 3268: 3260: 3229: 3125: 3102: 3080: 3074: 3051: 2809: 2735: 2635: 2455: 2327: 2304: 2240: 2171: 2141: 2122: 2094: 2066: 2000: 599: 171: 4251:

is a yellow source due to no consensus on its reliability, so it should be treated as

673: 663: 642: 5297: 5206: 5132: 4992: 4609: 4339: 4318:

and I think that it's a significant enough source and viewpoint to be mentioned with

4244: 4010: 3955: 3914: 3855: 3597: 3321: 3195: 3131: 3084: 3029: 2652: 2437: 2157: 2104: 4613: 5242: 5153: 5104:) are nonsensical: you removal of the Reuters opinion piece (which doesn't violate 5095: 5043: 5001: 4956: 4897: 4744: 4476: 4439: 4344: 4270: 4207: 3969: 3940: 3919: 3886: 3840: 3686: 3658: 3539: 3505: 2850: 2690: 2524: 2473: 2449: 2283: 296: 4704:

As far as I'm aware, FAIR has not described itself as part of any political party.

2732:

Talk:2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests#Requested move 4 September 2019

4682: 4521: 4362:

I think that it's a significant enough source and viewpoint to be mentioned with

2824:

Tactics and methods surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests

1951:

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

4872: 4868: 4604:

focused on the output of the media and publishes its findings in several forums.

4525: 3362: 778: 5145:

German public international broadcaster funded by the German federal tax budget

4710:

The CNBC and HKFP articles are reliable sources for the statement that FAIR is

4643: 4597:

encyclopedia (which analyzes and criticizes interest groups) describes FAIR as

4863: 3905:

Responses to the 2020 Chinese involvement with Hong Kong national security law

2406: 2065:

POV to treat Chinese government reactions as "international" in this context.

784: 774: 669: 391: 286: 165: 161: 4809:

so I explained RS aspects of FAIR.You are making a false equivalence between

4689: 4665:"FAIR and the PBS NewsHour: Assessing Diversity and Elitism in News Sourcing" 4594: 3876:

and what that stands for, while the UK is responding to the prospect of the

3174: 2582:

International reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests

2576:, and I've updated the current article name because the current article was 2232: 965:

International reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests

414: 231: 184: 4564: 3648:

The old article was about 40kB of prose, which is not long and falls under

3263:

per a discussion at this talk page. However I want to reiterate that I was

4623: 4574: 4167:(where's the lie?), much less esteablish that AIM is an unreliable source. 4119:

It is apparent that he is a member of an international socialist movement

1974:

Would it be beneficial to list out the reactions from various businesses?

953: 692: 4871:

in the Journal of the European Institute for Communication and Culture,

4533: 4529: 4422:), and several Chinese state-owned media articles (Xinhua, CGTN, etc.). 3012:- Article is over 100 kB, and should be split to new articles entitled 5079:"Media Covers Police-Protester Standoff Outside Hong Kong University" 4259:. Here, I think that its inclusion is fine, given that the text uses 3022:

Chinese government and media reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong protests

2974:

Chinese government and media reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong protests

2687:

there's plenty of precedent for articles of the form "Reactions to X"

5041:

things properly. Anybody can write a garbage blog and cite thing. —

3026:

Worldwide solidarity protests related to the 2019 Hong Kong protests

2978:

Worldwide solidarity protests related to the 2019 Hong Kong protests

3798:

Reactions to the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests#International reactions

2205:

A sidebar for the 2019 Hong Kong protests would be very helpful. —

4615:

Encyclopedia of Interest Groups and Lobbyists in the United States

309: 4508:

You're bringing up several different points here. So one by one:

4437:

Don't lump different sources together with false equivalences. —

2472:. Works as well, while solving the problem in the simplest way. – 4788:

7) Irrelevant. The issue isn't about reliability but due weight.

4785:

6) Irrelevant. The issue isn't about reliability but due weight.

4782:

5) Irrelevant. The issue isn't about reliability but due weight.

2920:

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

2560: 881: 860: 4771: 3101:

I just trimmed about 30k bytes off this - that bold enough? ;)

2668:

That's an excellent idea! It makes simple for users to browse.

2368:

Rename this article to Reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong protests

4833:) which is closer to how most people would interpret the word 2867:

Criticism of the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests

1940: 985: 948: 91: 61: 26: 4398:

instead. As for FAIR report and the Reuters opinion article:

4027:

spokesperson. Again, an "NGO". Get a grip of the facts first.

3685:. This split is controversial and it is a revert of the last 3282:

part. However, I agree that some contents should be deleted.

4658:

regarding the narrow sourcing practices of the PBS NewsHour.

3792:

National Security Bill (Hong Kong)#United Kingdom's response

2760:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this

2577: 2231:, and placed it in all of the relevant articles (except for 230: 4950:

raised above), but an AIM column is probably not RS. Yes,

3691:

Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure

2929:

2 Million Hong Kong Protestors, 2019-06-16, timelapse.webm

5170:

the identity of the author may help determine reliability

4934:

the media representation included CNN's reporting of the

4817:. There is a distinction between these. Something can be 3815:, I believe reasons of duplicate and overlap apply here. 3575:

International reactions to the 2019-20 Hong Kong protests

4009:), thus assessment of U.S. media coverage is inherently 3872:

But what would the page be? The US is responding to the

3484:

I don’t see Lam mentioned in any of the three articles:

5102: 5099: 4296: 4071: 2881:, it seem the article need some criteria on inclusion. 2509: 520: 487: 482: 477: 472: 4663:

Scott, David; Chanslor, Mike; Dixon, Jennifer (2010).

4111:

AIM rejects the scientific consensus on climate change

3433:

The Chinese government is not engaged in the boycott.

3014:

International reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong protests

2966:

International reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong protests

2586:

International reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong protests

2505:

International reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong protests

2229:

Template:2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests

4569:. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc. 3903:

Can I suggest another proposal that may work? Create

2752:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a

2227:

I've formatted the links in the sidebar, moved it to

4857:. The viewpoint from these sources and others (e.g. 4326:). Sources are also not required to be neutral à la 3773:

Proposal to merge portions of international response

3571:

Domestic reactions to the 2019-20 Hong Kong protests

3194:

I think we can still do more to trim the article. --

2189:

Strongly agree with creation of a navigation sidebar

2057:

Chinese government reactions belong on the main page

893:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 691:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 308:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 183:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 5339:

List-Class China-related articles of Low-importance

413:, a project to coordinate efforts in improving all 5147:next to the intext attribution & wikilink for 4921:Opening a separate subsection for the column from 4322:attribution (this isn’t something being stated in 3782:2019–20 Hong Kong protests#International reactions 2768:. No further edits should be made to this section. 978:Talk:2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests 5227:attributed. It already is intext attributed - to 3018:Domestic reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong protests 2970:Domestic reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong protests 2953:Domestic reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong protests 4386:, that doesn't properly send a ping. Use either 4235:Subsection split off 23:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC) 3267:targeting your edits in any way, shape or form. 3130:, thank you, we are now down to about 120 kB. -- 52:regarding potentially objectionable content and 44:Images or details contained within this article 18:Talk:Reactions to the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests 5399:Low-importance International relations articles 5319:List-Class social movements task force articles 4952:reliable sources are not required to be neutral 4712:a media critique organization based in New York 3050:not splitting the article into yet more forks. 2958: 2003:are no longer linked to the source information. 4825:) as FAIR is classified in RSP, without being 2934:Participate in the deletion discussion at the 5035: 4940:siege of the Hong Kong Polytechnic University 4927: 4651: 4598: 4548: 4117: 4109: 4101: 3794:, and Five Eyes response section on same page 3585:, I feel compelled to close this discussion. 2570:2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests 2515:2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests 1995:2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests 1012:Reactions to the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests 961:2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests 907:Knowledge:WikiProject International relations 8: 5404:WikiProject International relations articles 4929:The politically conservative media watchdog 4779:passing) its findings isn't going to cut it. 910:Template:WikiProject International relations 5394:List-Class International relations articles 4566:Encyclopedia of Activism and Social Justice 4460:snipes at the end are becoming disruptive. 3500:counter-reactions). That seems a bit undue 4805:You asked me to explain the position that 4656:confirm and validate many of FAIR's claims 3808:part, which makes it even harder to find. 3689:. Please ask for consensus and post it to 2554:I've updated the proposed article name to 2375:The following is a closed discussion of a 1008: 997: 855: 742: 637: 460: 359: 254: 123: 97: 95: 78:contentious material about living persons 5176:which in this case is exactly what i did. 2010:) and populate them into this article. — 46:may be graphic or otherwise objectionable 3834:I added a lot of the UK response on the 2962:Reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong protests 2728:Reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong protests 2556:Reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong protests 2510:Reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong protests 2280:Reactions to the 2014 Hong Kong protests 1956:The American Left Is Failing Hong Kong. 5384:Low-importance Law enforcement articles 5069: 4534:this academic encyclopedia by Routledge 1731:International Trade Union Confederation 1000: 857: 744: 639: 361: 256: 125: 5202: 5144: 5128: 4834: 4826: 4818: 4814: 4810: 4806: 4715: 4711: 4563:Anderson, Gary; Herr, Kathryn (2007). 4517: 4513: 4454: 4331: 4252: 4003:toughest sanction yet imposed on China 4002: 3650:Length alone does not justify division 3649: 1993:After this article was split from the 5334:Low-importance China-related articles 5077:Irvine, Spencer (November 18, 2019). 4205:, your language here is a bit far. — 2960:There is no consensus for a split of 1834:National Basketball Association (NBA) 818:Knowledge:WikiProject Law Enforcement 7: 5389:WikiProject Law Enforcement articles 5324:Social movements task force articles 4249:Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting 4230:fairness & Accuracy in Reporting 4035:Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting 3614:The following discussion is closed. 2997:The following discussion is closed. 2775:Putting criticism of protesters here 2394:The result of the move request was: 2274:. I think a good reference would be 2146:, I do not disagree, but we do have 887:This article is within the scope of 821:Template:WikiProject Law Enforcement 685:This article is within the scope of 407:This article is within the scope of 302:This article is within the scope of 177:This article is within the scope of 5379:List-Class Law enforcement articles 4410:), a Hong Kong Free Press article ( 4096:is damning on its factual accuracy: 4070:2) It's obvious you didn't read my 3473:Lam mention in PLA cleaning debris? 3259:edit was done under the heading of 2877:had successfully passed. But since 2489:Solve the Problem in a Simple Way. 2272:Support moving back to main article 1240:Allegations of foreign interference 1165:Allegations of foreign interference 890:WikiProject International relations 114:It is of interest to the following 4773:non-profit sources of information. 4530:this academic encyclopedia by SAGE 2826:would be a better target, then? – 2523:Converting this discussion into a 25: 5354:Low-importance Hong Kong articles 5329:List-Class China-related articles 5314:Low-importance sociology articles 4877:Educational Philosophy and Theory 4811:no consensus over its reliability 3986:Assessment of U.S. media coverage 3534:shouldn't really be included per 3212:The discussion above is closed. 967:on 2019-08-24. The former page's 5369:Low-importance politics articles 4558:to keep watch over the watchers. 4001:The U.S. this Jul / Aug enacted 3954:I think that's a good proposal. 3709:The discussion above is closed. 1944: 989: 952: 913:International relations articles 880: 859: 777: 767: 746: 672: 662: 641: 394: 384: 363: 289: 279: 258: 164: 154: 127: 96: 30: 5304:Knowledge objectionable content 5197:There's nothing being made up. 4991:evidence of him being an RS or 4815:a source of dubious reliability 3836:Hong Kong national security law 2527:to get input from more editors. 2517:, the proposed title is a more 927:This article has been rated as 838:This article has been rated as 725:This article has been rated as 447:This article has been rated as 427:Knowledge:WikiProject Hong Kong 342:This article has been rated as 242:the social movements task force 217:This article has been rated as 197:Knowledge:WikiProject Sociology 54:options for not seeing an image 5359:WikiProject Hong Kong articles 5151:that's in the same section. — 4966:16:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 4472:16:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 4449:16:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 4414:), two SCMP opinion articles ( 4378:11:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 4354:18:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC) 3504:for the incident right now. — 3371:04:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC) 3350:12:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC) 3335:11:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC) 3307:11:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC) 3292:10:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC) 3277:00:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC) 3244:22:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC) 3187:10:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC) 3165:17:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC) 3111:17:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC) 3093:16:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC) 3060:16:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC) 3038:16:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC) 2990:) 00:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC) 2422:18:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC) 2243:, for creating the sidebar. — 705:Knowledge:WikiProject Politics 430:Template:WikiProject Hong Kong 200:Template:WikiProject Sociology 50:Knowledge's content disclaimer 1: 5374:WikiProject Politics articles 5349:List-Class Hong Kong articles 5309:List-Class sociology articles 5223:says that opinions should be 4526:this academic journal article 4309:19:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC) 4280:12:08, 8 September 2020 (UTC) 4217:11:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC) 4196:09:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC) 4150:01:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC) 4088:00:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC) 4053:14:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC) 3548:08:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC) 3529:00:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC) 3514:23:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC) 3356:Worldwide solidarity protests 2948:12:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC) 2915:11:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC) 2891:14:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC) 2744:03:48, 5 September 2019 (UTC) 2720:15:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC) 2699:21:06, 1 September 2019 (UTC) 2606:10:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC) 901:and see a list of open tasks. 708:Template:WikiProject Politics 699:and see a list of open tasks. 316:and see a list of open tasks. 239:This article is supported by 191:and see a list of open tasks. 70:biographies of living persons 5364:List-Class politics articles 5098:These two reverts of yours ( 4683:10.1080/01463373.2010.503165 3704:08:36, 6 December 2019 (UTC) 3668:19:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC) 3636:12:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC) 3607:11:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC) 3468:15:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC) 3443:15:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC) 3423:19:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC) 3405:03:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC) 3390:01:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC) 1984:22:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC) 5252:23:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC) 5190:10:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC) 5163:06:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC) 5118:05:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC) 5053:22:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC) 5026:10:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC) 5011:06:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC) 4982:05:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC) 4938:and NBC's reporting of the 4907:22:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC) 4893:USC Professor Stanley Rosen 4801:10:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC) 4754:06:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC) 4602:conducts extensive research 4550:FAIR's source studies have 4518:media critique organization 4493:05:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC) 4299:the Reuters opinion piece. 4025:Football Federation of Iran 3204:15:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC) 3140:16:03, 3 October 2019 (UTC) 2859:20:17, 31 August 2019 (UTC) 2840:20:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC) 2814:19:52, 31 August 2019 (UTC) 2798:19:45, 31 August 2019 (UTC) 2678:09:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC) 2661:12:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC) 2644:11:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC) 2625:05:48, 30 August 2019 (UTC) 2615:– Great idea and solution! 2547:02:45, 30 August 2019 (UTC) 2499:02:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC) 2482:21:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC) 2464:21:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC) 2362:03:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC) 2336:21:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC) 2313:18:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC) 2292:18:12, 29 August 2019 (UTC) 2261:03:06, 30 August 2019 (UTC) 2223:02:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC) 2201:17:01, 29 August 2019 (UTC) 2180:16:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC) 2166:16:38, 29 August 2019 (UTC) 2131:16:19, 29 August 2019 (UTC) 2113:16:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC) 2075:12:16, 29 August 2019 (UTC) 2051:14:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC) 2028:07:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC) 2008:Special:Permalink/912297542 1686:International Organisations 1255:Reactions to the protesters 1180:Reactions to the protesters 797:WikiProject Law Enforcement 790:This article is within the 620:...assess the un-Importance 504:...needing expert attention 322:Knowledge:WikiProject China 80:must be removed immediately 5420: 5344:WikiProject China articles 5290:12:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC) 4827:questionable in most cases 4005:in relation to Hong Kong ( 3768:00:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC) 3733:02:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC) 3569:to split the article into 3155:. It was an reverse RM.... 933:project's importance scale 731:project's importance scale 453:project's importance scale 348:project's importance scale 325:Template:WikiProject China 223:project's importance scale 5229:Reporters Without Borders 3964:17:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC) 3949:02:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC) 3928:02:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC) 3895:06:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC) 3170:Support split and comment 3046:We should be cutting the 1894:Other international media 926: 875: 837: 762: 724: 657: 459: 446: 379: 341: 274: 238: 216: 149: 122: 39:Knowledge is not censored 4917:Accuracy in Media column 4875:in the academic journal 4538:Encyclopaedia Britannica 3978:12:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC) 3864:05:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC) 3849:20:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC) 3829:19:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC) 3711:Please do not modify it. 3616:Please do not modify it. 3214:Please do not modify it. 3000:Please do not modify it. 2879:WP:What wikipedia is not 2758:Please do not modify it. 2708:WP:What wikipedia is not 2382:Please do not modify it. 1136:Mainland China reactions 1122:Mainlanders in Hong Kong 1092:Camp supporting protests 824:Law enforcement articles 4670:Communication Quarterly 4648:Communication Quarterly 4295:And please explain why 3748:21:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC) 3577:. As such, the article 3361:protests in Hong Kong. 3173:notably "fan girl" and 2964:to new articles titled 2634:Works for my concerns. 2574:2019 Hong Kong protests 2444:User talk:65.60.163.223 2276:2014 Hong Kong protests 2151:2019 Hong Kong protests 1387:International reactions 904:International relations 895:International relations 867:International relations 5039: 4944: 4936:Death of Luo Changqing 4696: 4639: 4590: 4133:here, it is including 4121: 4113: 4105: 4092:3) Our own article on 2992: 2779:I found (and renamed) 2302:User:Simonm223/sandbox 1077:Pro-government parties 616:...assess the un-Class 612:...maintain popularity 328:China-related articles 235: 104:This article is rated 4624:10.4324/9781315704739 4575:10.4135/9781412956215 4037:is only definitively 3911:ProcrastinatingReader 3222: 2564:suggested below) per 1210:National security law 410:WikiProject Hong Kong 234: 180:WikiProject Sociology 5081:. Accuracy in Media. 4716:US media watch group 4618:(1 ed.). Routledge. 4382:Please stop linking 4033:is quite clear that 3936:ProcrasinatingReader 3821:ProcrasinatingReader 2730:: Per discussion at 2588:at the same time. — 2235:, where it might be 1864:Mainland China media 688:WikiProject Politics 594:Page creation needed 571:Start-Class articles 515:Collaboration needed 508:...without infoboxes 4885:USC Annenberg Media 4843:The Star (Malaysia) 3579:should not be split 3376:Hearthstone and NBA 1761:Solidarity protests 1150:Official statements 1015: 973:provide attribution 606:Miscellaneous tasks 575:Stub-Class articles 4556:an important place 4552:consistently shown 4522:this academic book 4165:AIM article I used 3811:Specifically, per 3617: 3556:Splitting proposal 2940:Community Tech bot 1285:Corporate pressure 1009: 600:Requested articles 527:Improvement needed 433:Hong Kong articles 236: 203:sociology articles 110:content assessment 5247: 5158: 5048: 5006: 4961: 4931:Accuracy In Media 4923:Accuracy in Media 4902: 4749: 4737:As of right now, 4632:978-1-315-70473-9 4583:978-1-4129-1812-1 4545:SAGE Publications 4543:For example, the 4469: 4444: 4359:User talk:MarkH21 4349: 4275: 4265:Accuracy in Media 4236: 4219: 4212: 4147: 4094:Accuracy in Media 4050: 3663: 3615: 3596: 3592: 3589:non-admin closure 3317:Extraneous Detail 3223:Simonm223's edits 2603: 2544: 2528: 2404: 2401:non-admin closure 2359: 2258: 2220: 2048: 2025: 1970:Company Reactions 1967: 1966: 1939: 1938: 1934: 1933: 1930: 1929: 1107:Citizen responses 1010:Section size for 984: 983: 947: 946: 943: 942: 939: 938: 854: 853: 850: 849: 741: 740: 737: 736: 711:politics articles 636: 635: 632: 631: 628: 627: 533:GA-Class articles 419:join this project 358: 357: 354: 353: 305:WikiProject China 253: 252: 249: 248: 90: 89: 60: 59: 16:(Redirected from 5411: 5250: 5245: 5161: 5156: 5083: 5082: 5074: 5051: 5046: 5009: 5004: 4964: 4959: 4905: 4900: 4752: 4747: 4731:WP:BIASEDSOURCES 4720:about the report 4694: 4693: 4637: 4636: 4588: 4587: 4465: 4463: 4447: 4442: 4397: 4396:{{ping|MarkH21}} 4393: 4389: 4385: 4352: 4347: 4278: 4273: 4234: 4215: 4210: 4200: 4143: 4141: 4046: 4044: 3939: 3918: 3684: 3666: 3661: 3647: 3605: 3594: 3586: 3483: 3233: 3129: 3078: 3002: 2736:Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 2670:Lakshmisreekanth 2601: 2597: 2594: 2563: 2542: 2538: 2535: 2522: 2512: 2453: 2441: 2433: 2420: 2418: 2411: 2398: 2384: 2357: 2353: 2350: 2256: 2252: 2249: 2218: 2214: 2211: 2155: 2149: 2145: 2098: 2090: 2046: 2042: 2039: 2023: 2019: 2016: 2001:named references 1989:Broken citations 1948: 1941: 1896: 1881: 1866: 1851: 1836: 1821: 1806: 1778: 1776:Counter-protests 1763: 1748: 1733: 1718: 1703: 1688: 1673: 1658: 1643: 1628: 1613: 1598: 1583: 1568: 1553: 1538: 1523: 1508: 1493: 1478: 1463: 1448: 1433: 1418: 1403: 1374:Taiwan reactions 1362: 1347: 1332: 1317: 1302: 1287: 1272: 1257: 1242: 1227: 1212: 1197: 1182: 1167: 1152: 1124: 1109: 1094: 1079: 1064: 1016: 998: 993: 992: 986: 956: 949: 915: 914: 911: 908: 905: 884: 877: 876: 871: 863: 856: 844:importance scale 826: 825: 822: 819: 816: 787: 782: 781: 771: 764: 763: 758: 750: 743: 713: 712: 709: 706: 703: 682: 677: 676: 666: 659: 658: 653: 645: 638: 550:C-Class articles 537:B-Class articles 496:Attention needed 464:Hong Kong To-do: 461: 435: 434: 431: 428: 425: 404: 402:Hong Kong portal 399: 398: 397: 388: 381: 380: 375: 367: 360: 330: 329: 326: 323: 320: 299: 294: 293: 292: 283: 276: 275: 270: 262: 255: 205: 204: 201: 198: 195: 174: 169: 168: 158: 151: 150: 145: 142: 140:Social Movements 131: 124: 107: 101: 100: 99: 92: 84:this noticeboard 62: 34: 27: 21: 5419: 5418: 5414: 5413: 5412: 5410: 5409: 5408: 5294: 5293: 5264: 5248: 5241: 5221:WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV 5159: 5152: 5093: 5088: 5087: 5086: 5076: 5075: 5071: 5049: 5042: 5034:literally says: 5007: 5000: 4962: 4955: 4919: 4903: 4896: 4750: 4743: 4662: 4660: 4633: 4608: 4606: 4584: 4562: 4560: 4461: 4453:The persistent 4445: 4438: 4395: 4391: 4387: 4383: 4350: 4343: 4276: 4269: 4232: 4213: 4206: 4139: 4129:If anything is 4042: 3988: 3933: 3908: 3775: 3755: 3720: 3715: 3714: 3678: 3664: 3657: 3641: 3620: 3611: 3610: 3609: 3593: 3573:and, I assume, 3563: 3558: 3477: 3475: 3453: 3378: 3358: 3319: 3227: 3225: 3220: 3123: 3072: 3028:. Thoughts? -- 2998: 2993: 2955: 2936:nomination page 2922: 2899: 2777: 2772: 2599: 2592: 2559: 2540: 2533: 2508: 2447: 2435: 2427: 2414: 2407: 2405: 2380: 2370: 2355: 2348: 2254: 2247: 2216: 2209: 2153: 2147: 2139: 2092: 2084: 2059: 2044: 2037: 2021: 2014: 1991: 1972: 1935: 1892: 1879:Hong Kong media 1877: 1862: 1847: 1832: 1817: 1802: 1790:Other reactions 1774: 1759: 1744: 1729: 1714: 1699: 1684: 1669: 1654: 1639: 1624: 1609: 1594: 1579: 1564: 1549: 1534: 1519: 1504: 1489: 1474: 1459: 1444: 1429: 1414: 1399: 1358: 1343: 1328: 1313: 1298: 1283: 1268: 1253: 1238: 1223: 1208: 1195:Customs changes 1193: 1178: 1163: 1148: 1120: 1105: 1090: 1075: 1060: 1048:Local responses 1003: 990: 912: 909: 906: 903: 902: 869: 823: 820: 817: 815:Law Enforcement 814: 813: 783: 776: 756: 754:Law Enforcement 710: 707: 704: 701: 700: 680:Politics portal 678: 671: 651: 582:Deorphan needed 521:Recommend topic 492: 432: 429: 426: 423: 422: 400: 395: 393: 373: 327: 324: 321: 318: 317: 295: 290: 288: 268: 202: 199: 196: 193: 192: 170: 163: 143: 137: 108:on Knowledge's 105: 23: 22: 15: 12: 11: 5: 5417: 5415: 5407: 5406: 5401: 5396: 5391: 5386: 5381: 5376: 5371: 5366: 5361: 5356: 5351: 5346: 5341: 5336: 5331: 5326: 5321: 5316: 5311: 5306: 5296: 5295: 5272: 5271: 5263: 5260: 5259: 5258: 5257: 5256: 5255: 5254: 5244: 5238: 5237: 5236: 5218: 5199:WP:RSEDITORIAL 5177: 5155: 5149:Deutsche Welle 5125:WP:RSEDITORIAL 5106:WP:RSEDITORIAL 5092: 5089: 5085: 5084: 5068: 5067: 5063: 5062: 5061: 5060: 5059: 5058: 5057: 5056: 5055: 5045: 5003: 4997:CaradhrasAiguo 4958: 4948:CaradhrasAiguo 4918: 4915: 4914: 4913: 4912: 4911: 4910: 4909: 4899: 4889:this interview 4789: 4786: 4783: 4780: 4776: 4767: 4763: 4746: 4739:CaradhrasAiguo 4735: 4734: 4727: 4723: 4708: 4705: 4702: 4699: 4698: 4697: 4677:(3): 319–340. 4659: 4644:research paper 4640: 4631: 4610:Ness, Immanuel 4605: 4591: 4582: 4559: 4514:media watchdog 4506: 4505: 4504: 4503: 4502: 4501: 4500: 4499: 4498: 4497: 4496: 4495: 4467:leave language 4455:All or nothing 4451: 4441: 4435: 4434: 4433: 4430:WP:RSEDITORIAL 4426:WP:RSEDITORIAL 4423: 4403:CaradhrasAiguo 4346: 4336:WP:RSEDITORIAL 4316:CaradhrasAiguo 4293: 4289: 4283: 4282: 4272: 4231: 4228: 4227: 4226: 4225: 4224: 4223: 4222: 4221: 4220: 4209: 4173: 4172: 4171: 4170: 4169: 4168: 4155: 4154: 4153: 4152: 4145:leave language 4100: 4099: 4098: 4097: 4075: 4068: 4064: 4056: 4055: 4048:leave language 4028: 4014: 3987: 3984: 3983: 3982: 3981: 3980: 3931: 3930: 3900: 3899: 3898: 3897: 3867: 3866: 3851: 3813:WP:MERGEREASON 3801: 3800: 3795: 3789: 3784: 3774: 3771: 3754: 3751: 3719: 3716: 3708: 3707: 3706: 3671: 3670: 3660: 3623: 3621: 3612: 3565: 3564: 3561: 3560: 3559: 3557: 3554: 3553: 3552: 3551: 3550: 3474: 3471: 3452: 3449: 3448: 3447: 3446: 3445: 3428: 3427: 3426: 3425: 3408: 3407: 3377: 3374: 3357: 3354: 3353: 3352: 3318: 3315: 3314: 3313: 3312: 3311: 3310: 3309: 3224: 3221: 3219: 3218: 3208: 3207: 3206: 3189: 3167: 3149: 3148: 3147: 3146: 3145: 3144: 3143: 3142: 3114: 3113: 3096: 3095: 3063: 3062: 3010:Support split 3007: 3006: 3005: 2957: 2956: 2954: 2951: 2932: 2931: 2921: 2918: 2898: 2895: 2894: 2893: 2865:That article ( 2862: 2861: 2845: 2844: 2843: 2842: 2828:John M Wolfson 2817: 2816: 2786:John M Wolfson 2776: 2773: 2771: 2770: 2754:requested move 2748: 2747: 2746: 2722: 2701: 2680: 2663: 2646: 2628: 2627: 2610: 2609: 2608: 2566:WP:CONSISTENCY 2525:requested move 2502: 2501: 2484: 2425: 2392: 2391: 2377:requested move 2371: 2369: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2338: 2320: 2319: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2295: 2294: 2268: 2267: 2266: 2265: 2264: 2263: 2239:). Thank you, 2203: 2190: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2116: 2115: 2081:Support split 2058: 2055: 2054: 2053: 1990: 1987: 1971: 1968: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1952: 1949: 1937: 1936: 1932: 1931: 1928: 1927: 1924: 1921: 1917: 1916: 1913: 1910: 1904: 1903: 1900: 1897: 1889: 1888: 1885: 1882: 1874: 1873: 1870: 1867: 1859: 1858: 1855: 1852: 1844: 1843: 1840: 1837: 1829: 1828: 1825: 1822: 1814: 1813: 1810: 1807: 1799: 1798: 1795: 1792: 1786: 1785: 1782: 1779: 1771: 1770: 1767: 1764: 1756: 1755: 1752: 1749: 1741: 1740: 1737: 1734: 1726: 1725: 1722: 1719: 1716:European Union 1711: 1710: 1707: 1704: 1701:United Nations 1696: 1695: 1692: 1689: 1681: 1680: 1677: 1674: 1666: 1665: 1662: 1659: 1651: 1650: 1647: 1644: 1641:United Kingdom 1636: 1635: 1632: 1629: 1621: 1620: 1617: 1614: 1606: 1605: 1602: 1599: 1591: 1590: 1587: 1584: 1576: 1575: 1572: 1569: 1561: 1560: 1557: 1554: 1546: 1545: 1542: 1539: 1531: 1530: 1527: 1524: 1516: 1515: 1512: 1509: 1501: 1500: 1497: 1494: 1486: 1485: 1482: 1479: 1471: 1470: 1467: 1464: 1456: 1455: 1452: 1449: 1441: 1440: 1437: 1434: 1426: 1425: 1422: 1419: 1411: 1410: 1407: 1404: 1396: 1395: 1392: 1389: 1383: 1382: 1379: 1376: 1370: 1369: 1366: 1363: 1355: 1354: 1351: 1348: 1340: 1339: 1336: 1333: 1330:Disinformation 1325: 1324: 1321: 1318: 1310: 1309: 1306: 1303: 1295: 1294: 1291: 1288: 1280: 1279: 1276: 1273: 1270:Advertisements 1265: 1264: 1261: 1258: 1250: 1249: 1246: 1243: 1235: 1234: 1231: 1228: 1220: 1219: 1216: 1213: 1205: 1204: 1201: 1198: 1190: 1189: 1186: 1183: 1175: 1174: 1171: 1168: 1160: 1159: 1156: 1153: 1145: 1144: 1141: 1138: 1132: 1131: 1128: 1125: 1117: 1116: 1113: 1110: 1102: 1101: 1098: 1095: 1087: 1086: 1083: 1080: 1072: 1071: 1068: 1065: 1057: 1056: 1053: 1050: 1044: 1043: 1040: 1037: 1031: 1030: 1028: 1025: 1023: 1020: 1014:(60 sections) 1005: 1004: 1001: 996: 994: 982: 981: 971:now serves to 959:Material from 957: 945: 944: 941: 940: 937: 936: 929:Low-importance 925: 919: 918: 916: 899:the discussion 885: 873: 872: 870:Low‑importance 864: 852: 851: 848: 847: 840:Low-importance 836: 830: 829: 827: 789: 788: 772: 760: 759: 757:Low‑importance 751: 739: 738: 735: 734: 727:Low-importance 723: 717: 716: 714: 697:the discussion 684: 683: 667: 655: 654: 652:Low‑importance 646: 634: 633: 630: 629: 626: 625: 624: 623: 603: 602: 591: 590: 579: 578: 554: 553: 544:Cleanup needed 541: 540: 524: 523: 512: 511: 491: 490: 485: 480: 475: 469: 466: 465: 457: 456: 449:Low-importance 445: 439: 438: 436: 406: 405: 389: 377: 376: 374:Low‑importance 368: 356: 355: 352: 351: 344:Low-importance 340: 334: 333: 331: 314:the discussion 301: 300: 284: 272: 271: 269:Low‑importance 263: 251: 250: 247: 246: 237: 227: 226: 219:Low-importance 215: 209: 208: 206: 189:the discussion 176: 175: 172:Society portal 159: 147: 146: 144:Low‑importance 132: 120: 119: 113: 102: 88: 87: 76:poorly sourced 65: 58: 57: 43: 35: 24: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5416: 5405: 5402: 5400: 5397: 5395: 5392: 5390: 5387: 5385: 5382: 5380: 5377: 5375: 5372: 5370: 5367: 5365: 5362: 5360: 5357: 5355: 5352: 5350: 5347: 5345: 5342: 5340: 5337: 5335: 5332: 5330: 5327: 5325: 5322: 5320: 5317: 5315: 5312: 5310: 5307: 5305: 5302: 5301: 5299: 5292: 5291: 5287: 5283: 5278: 5275: 5269: 5268: 5267: 5261: 5253: 5249: 5239: 5234: 5230: 5226: 5222: 5219: 5216: 5212: 5208: 5204: 5200: 5196: 5195: 5193: 5192: 5191: 5187: 5183: 5178: 5175: 5171: 5166: 5165: 5164: 5160: 5150: 5146: 5142: 5141:WP:PROMINENCE 5138: 5134: 5130: 5126: 5122: 5121: 5120: 5119: 5115: 5111: 5107: 5103: 5100: 5097: 5090: 5080: 5073: 5070: 5066: 5054: 5050: 5038: 5033: 5029: 5028: 5027: 5023: 5019: 5014: 5013: 5012: 5008: 4998: 4994: 4990: 4985: 4984: 4983: 4979: 4975: 4970: 4969: 4968: 4967: 4963: 4953: 4949: 4943: 4941: 4937: 4932: 4926: 4924: 4916: 4908: 4904: 4894: 4890: 4886: 4882: 4878: 4874: 4870: 4866: 4865: 4860: 4856: 4852: 4848: 4844: 4840: 4836: 4832: 4828: 4824: 4820: 4816: 4812: 4808: 4804: 4803: 4802: 4798: 4794: 4790: 4787: 4784: 4781: 4777: 4774: 4768: 4764: 4760: 4759: 4758: 4757: 4756: 4755: 4751: 4740: 4732: 4728: 4724: 4721: 4717: 4713: 4709: 4706: 4703: 4700: 4695: 4691: 4688: 4684: 4680: 4676: 4672: 4671: 4666: 4657: 4649: 4645: 4641: 4638: 4634: 4629: 4625: 4621: 4617: 4616: 4611: 4603: 4596: 4592: 4589: 4585: 4580: 4576: 4572: 4568: 4567: 4557: 4553: 4546: 4542: 4541: 4539: 4535: 4531: 4527: 4523: 4519: 4515: 4511: 4510: 4509: 4494: 4490: 4486: 4481: 4478: 4475: 4474: 4473: 4468: 4459: 4456: 4452: 4450: 4446: 4436: 4431: 4427: 4424: 4421: 4417: 4413: 4409: 4404: 4400: 4399: 4392:{{u|MarkH21}} 4381: 4380: 4379: 4375: 4371: 4367: 4365: 4360: 4357: 4356: 4355: 4351: 4341: 4337: 4333: 4329: 4325: 4321: 4317: 4312: 4311: 4310: 4306: 4302: 4298: 4294: 4290: 4287: 4286: 4285: 4284: 4281: 4277: 4266: 4262: 4258: 4254: 4250: 4246: 4242: 4239: 4238: 4237: 4229: 4218: 4214: 4204: 4199: 4198: 4197: 4193: 4189: 4184: 4179: 4178: 4177: 4176: 4175: 4174: 4166: 4161: 4160: 4159: 4158: 4157: 4156: 4151: 4146: 4136: 4132: 4128: 4127: 4126: 4125: 4124: 4120: 4116: 4112: 4108: 4104: 4095: 4091: 4090: 4089: 4085: 4081: 4076: 4073: 4069: 4065: 4062: 4058: 4057: 4054: 4049: 4040: 4036: 4032: 4029: 4026: 4022: 4021: 4015: 4012: 4008: 4004: 4000: 3999: 3998: 3996: 3993: 3985: 3979: 3975: 3971: 3967: 3966: 3965: 3961: 3957: 3953: 3952: 3951: 3950: 3946: 3942: 3937: 3929: 3925: 3921: 3916: 3912: 3906: 3902: 3901: 3896: 3892: 3888: 3884: 3879: 3875: 3871: 3870: 3869: 3868: 3865: 3861: 3857: 3852: 3850: 3846: 3842: 3837: 3833: 3832: 3831: 3830: 3826: 3822: 3816: 3814: 3809: 3805: 3799: 3796: 3793: 3790: 3788: 3785: 3783: 3780: 3779: 3778: 3772: 3770: 3769: 3765: 3761: 3752: 3750: 3749: 3745: 3741: 3735: 3734: 3730: 3726: 3717: 3712: 3705: 3701: 3697: 3692: 3688: 3682: 3676: 3673: 3672: 3669: 3665: 3655: 3651: 3645: 3640: 3639: 3638: 3637: 3633: 3629: 3624: 3619: 3608: 3603: 3599: 3590: 3584: 3580: 3576: 3572: 3568: 3555: 3549: 3545: 3541: 3537: 3536:WP:PROPORTION 3532: 3531: 3530: 3526: 3522: 3518: 3517: 3516: 3515: 3511: 3507: 3503: 3502:WP:PROMINENCE 3497: 3495: 3491: 3487: 3481: 3472: 3470: 3469: 3465: 3461: 3460:Magnetic Flux 3457: 3450: 3444: 3440: 3436: 3435:Magnetic Flux 3432: 3431: 3430: 3429: 3424: 3420: 3416: 3412: 3411: 3410: 3409: 3406: 3402: 3398: 3394: 3393: 3392: 3391: 3387: 3383: 3375: 3373: 3372: 3368: 3364: 3355: 3351: 3347: 3343: 3339: 3338: 3337: 3336: 3332: 3328: 3323: 3316: 3308: 3304: 3300: 3295: 3294: 3293: 3289: 3285: 3280: 3279: 3278: 3274: 3270: 3266: 3262: 3258: 3253: 3248: 3247: 3246: 3245: 3241: 3237: 3231: 3217: 3215: 3210: 3209: 3205: 3201: 3197: 3193: 3190: 3188: 3184: 3180: 3176: 3171: 3168: 3166: 3162: 3158: 3154: 3151: 3150: 3141: 3137: 3133: 3127: 3121: 3118: 3117: 3116: 3115: 3112: 3108: 3104: 3100: 3099: 3098: 3097: 3094: 3090: 3086: 3082: 3076: 3070: 3067: 3066: 3065: 3064: 3061: 3057: 3053: 3049: 3045: 3042: 3041: 3040: 3039: 3035: 3031: 3027: 3023: 3019: 3015: 3011: 3004: 3001: 2995: 2994: 2991: 2989: 2985: 2981: 2979: 2975: 2971: 2967: 2963: 2952: 2950: 2949: 2945: 2941: 2937: 2930: 2927: 2926: 2925: 2919: 2917: 2916: 2912: 2908: 2902: 2896: 2892: 2888: 2884: 2880: 2876: 2872: 2868: 2864: 2863: 2860: 2856: 2852: 2847: 2846: 2841: 2837: 2833: 2829: 2825: 2821: 2820: 2819: 2818: 2815: 2811: 2807: 2802: 2801: 2800: 2799: 2795: 2791: 2787: 2782: 2774: 2769: 2767: 2763: 2759: 2755: 2750: 2749: 2745: 2741: 2737: 2733: 2729: 2726: 2723: 2721: 2717: 2713: 2709: 2705: 2702: 2700: 2696: 2692: 2688: 2684: 2681: 2679: 2675: 2671: 2667: 2664: 2662: 2658: 2654: 2650: 2647: 2645: 2641: 2637: 2633: 2630: 2629: 2626: 2622: 2618: 2617:65.60.163.223 2614: 2611: 2607: 2604: 2602: 2596: 2595: 2587: 2583: 2579: 2575: 2572:was moved to 2571: 2567: 2562: 2557: 2553: 2552: 2551: 2550: 2549: 2548: 2545: 2543: 2537: 2536: 2526: 2520: 2519:neutral title 2516: 2511: 2506: 2500: 2496: 2492: 2488: 2485: 2483: 2479: 2475: 2471: 2468: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2461: 2457: 2451: 2445: 2439: 2431: 2424: 2423: 2419: 2417: 2412: 2410: 2402: 2397: 2390: 2388: 2383: 2378: 2373: 2372: 2367: 2363: 2360: 2358: 2352: 2351: 2343: 2339: 2337: 2333: 2329: 2325: 2322: 2321: 2318: 2314: 2310: 2306: 2303: 2299: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2293: 2289: 2285: 2281: 2277: 2273: 2270: 2269: 2262: 2259: 2257: 2251: 2250: 2242: 2238: 2234: 2230: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2221: 2219: 2213: 2212: 2204: 2202: 2198: 2194: 2193:65.60.163.223 2188: 2187: 2181: 2177: 2173: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2163: 2159: 2152: 2143: 2137: 2134: 2133: 2132: 2128: 2124: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2114: 2110: 2106: 2102: 2096: 2088: 2082: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2076: 2072: 2068: 2064: 2056: 2052: 2049: 2047: 2041: 2040: 2032: 2031: 2030: 2029: 2026: 2024: 2018: 2017: 2009: 2004: 2002: 1996: 1988: 1986: 1985: 1981: 1977: 1976:71.211.175.77 1969: 1960: 1959: 1954: 1953: 1950: 1947: 1943: 1942: 1925: 1922: 1919: 1918: 1914: 1911: 1909: 1906: 1905: 1901: 1898: 1895: 1891: 1890: 1886: 1883: 1880: 1876: 1875: 1871: 1868: 1865: 1861: 1860: 1856: 1853: 1850: 1846: 1845: 1841: 1838: 1835: 1831: 1830: 1826: 1823: 1820: 1816: 1815: 1811: 1808: 1805: 1801: 1800: 1796: 1793: 1791: 1788: 1787: 1783: 1780: 1777: 1773: 1772: 1768: 1765: 1762: 1758: 1757: 1753: 1750: 1747: 1743: 1742: 1738: 1735: 1732: 1728: 1727: 1723: 1720: 1717: 1713: 1712: 1708: 1705: 1702: 1698: 1697: 1693: 1690: 1687: 1683: 1682: 1678: 1675: 1672: 1668: 1667: 1663: 1660: 1657: 1656:United States 1653: 1652: 1648: 1645: 1642: 1638: 1637: 1633: 1630: 1627: 1623: 1622: 1618: 1615: 1612: 1608: 1607: 1603: 1600: 1597: 1593: 1592: 1588: 1585: 1582: 1578: 1577: 1573: 1570: 1567: 1563: 1562: 1558: 1555: 1552: 1548: 1547: 1543: 1540: 1537: 1533: 1532: 1528: 1525: 1522: 1518: 1517: 1513: 1510: 1507: 1503: 1502: 1498: 1495: 1492: 1488: 1487: 1483: 1480: 1477: 1473: 1472: 1468: 1465: 1462: 1458: 1457: 1453: 1450: 1447: 1443: 1442: 1438: 1435: 1432: 1428: 1427: 1423: 1420: 1417: 1413: 1412: 1408: 1405: 1402: 1398: 1397: 1393: 1390: 1388: 1385: 1384: 1380: 1377: 1375: 1372: 1371: 1367: 1364: 1361: 1357: 1356: 1352: 1349: 1346: 1342: 1341: 1337: 1334: 1331: 1327: 1326: 1322: 1319: 1316: 1312: 1311: 1307: 1304: 1301: 1297: 1296: 1292: 1289: 1286: 1282: 1281: 1277: 1274: 1271: 1267: 1266: 1262: 1259: 1256: 1252: 1251: 1247: 1244: 1241: 1237: 1236: 1232: 1229: 1226: 1222: 1221: 1217: 1214: 1211: 1207: 1206: 1202: 1199: 1196: 1192: 1191: 1187: 1184: 1181: 1177: 1176: 1172: 1169: 1166: 1162: 1161: 1157: 1154: 1151: 1147: 1146: 1142: 1139: 1137: 1134: 1133: 1129: 1126: 1123: 1119: 1118: 1114: 1111: 1108: 1104: 1103: 1099: 1096: 1093: 1089: 1088: 1084: 1081: 1078: 1074: 1073: 1069: 1066: 1063: 1059: 1058: 1054: 1051: 1049: 1046: 1045: 1041: 1038: 1036: 1033: 1032: 1026: 1021: 1018: 1017: 1013: 1007: 1006: 1002:Section sizes 999: 995: 988: 987: 979: 974: 970: 966: 963:was split to 962: 958: 955: 951: 950: 934: 930: 924: 921: 920: 917: 900: 896: 892: 891: 886: 883: 879: 878: 874: 868: 865: 862: 858: 845: 841: 835: 832: 831: 828: 811: 807: 803: 799: 798: 793: 786: 780: 775: 773: 770: 766: 765: 761: 755: 752: 749: 745: 732: 728: 722: 719: 718: 715: 698: 694: 690: 689: 681: 675: 670: 668: 665: 661: 660: 656: 650: 647: 644: 640: 621: 617: 613: 610: 609: 608: 607: 601: 598: 597: 596: 595: 589: 586: 585: 584: 583: 576: 572: 569: 568: 567: 566: 565:Destub needed 562: 560: 559: 551: 548: 547: 546: 545: 538: 534: 531: 530: 529: 528: 522: 519: 518: 517: 516: 509: 505: 502: 501: 500: 498: 497: 489: 486: 484: 481: 479: 476: 474: 471: 470: 468: 467: 463: 462: 458: 454: 450: 444: 441: 440: 437: 420: 416: 412: 411: 403: 392: 390: 387: 383: 382: 378: 372: 369: 366: 362: 349: 345: 339: 336: 335: 332: 315: 311: 307: 306: 298: 287: 285: 282: 278: 277: 273: 267: 264: 261: 257: 244: 243: 233: 229: 228: 224: 220: 214: 211: 210: 207: 190: 186: 182: 181: 173: 167: 162: 160: 157: 153: 152: 148: 141: 136: 133: 130: 126: 121: 117: 111: 103: 94: 93: 85: 81: 77: 72: 71: 66: 64: 63: 55: 51: 47: 41: 40: 36: 33: 29: 28: 19: 5279: 5276: 5273: 5265: 5173: 5169: 5096:User:MarkH21 5094: 5072: 5064: 5036: 5032:WP:REPUTABLE 4988: 4945: 4928: 4920: 4881:this article 4873:this article 4869:this article 4862: 4859:this article 4854: 4851:this article 4847:this article 4736: 4719: 4674: 4668: 4655: 4652: 4614: 4601: 4599: 4565: 4555: 4551: 4549: 4507: 4479: 4477:User:MarkH21 4361: 4324:WP:WIKIVOICE 4263:attribution. 4240: 4233: 4182: 4134: 4123:– Goss 2009 4122: 4118: 4115:– Goss 2009 4114: 4110: 4107:– Goss 2009 4106: 4102: 4072:edit summary 4038: 4019: 3989: 3932: 3882: 3877: 3873: 3817: 3810: 3806: 3802: 3776: 3760:Cathymeng123 3756: 3736: 3721: 3710: 3674: 3625: 3622: 3613: 3578: 3567:No consensus 3566: 3562:NO CONSENSUS 3498: 3476: 3458: 3454: 3451:Biased entry 3379: 3359: 3320: 3264: 3256: 3251: 3226: 3213: 3211: 3191: 3169: 3153:Oppose split 3152: 3119: 3068: 3044:Oppose split 3043: 3009: 3008: 2999: 2996: 2982: 2959: 2933: 2923: 2903: 2900: 2778: 2757: 2751: 2724: 2703: 2682: 2665: 2648: 2631: 2612: 2590: 2589: 2531: 2530: 2503: 2486: 2469: 2426: 2415: 2408: 2395: 2393: 2381: 2374: 2346: 2345: 2342:main article 2323: 2271: 2245: 2244: 2207: 2206: 2135: 2080: 2062: 2060: 2035: 2034: 2012: 2011: 1999:some of the 1998: 1992: 1973: 1957: 1345:Cyberattacks 1300:Social media 1019:Section name 928: 888: 839: 795: 726: 686: 605: 604: 593: 592: 581: 580: 564: 563: 558:Image needed 556: 555: 543: 542: 526: 525: 514: 513: 494: 493: 448: 408: 343: 303: 297:China portal 240: 218: 178: 116:WikiProjects 79: 68: 37: 5274:What bill? 4855:Chile Today 4366:attribution 4297:you removed 3753:Peer Review 3740:Bribrisweet 3718:Peer Review 3681:RealFakeKim 3644:RealFakeKim 3628:RealFakeKim 2766:move review 2387:move review 1626:South Korea 1581:Philippines 1551:North Korea 1536:New Zealand 1225:State media 5298:Categories 5282:Misha Wolf 5262:What bill? 5127:(they are 5065:References 4864:Asia Times 4520:, such as 4458:WP:INCIVIL 4016:There are 3990:Regarding 3725:Ziyuanying 3696:Matthew hk 3521:Mariogoods 3480:Mariogoods 3415:SYSS Mouse 3397:Mariogoods 3382:SYSS Mouse 3284:Mariogoods 3236:Mariogoods 3179:Mariogoods 3157:Matthew hk 2907:Mariogoods 2883:Matthew hk 2712:Matthew hk 2593:Newslinger 2534:Newslinger 2491:Mariogoods 2430:Newslinger 2349:Newslinger 2248:Newslinger 2210:Newslinger 2087:Newslinger 2038:Newslinger 2015:Newslinger 1958:The Nation 1908:References 1849:Journalism 1315:Censorship 1062:Government 785:Law portal 588:...orphans 573:(5,424) • 106:List-class 67:While the 5233:WP:INTEXT 5225:WP:INTEXT 5182:Flaughtin 5137:WP:INTEXT 5110:Flaughtin 5018:Flaughtin 4974:Flaughtin 4839:WP:WEIGHT 4831:WP:GUNREL 4793:Flaughtin 4690:0146-3373 4595:Routledge 4485:Flaughtin 4462:Caradhras 4370:Flaughtin 4364:WP:INTEXT 4328:WP:BIASED 4320:WP:INTEXT 4301:Flaughtin 4261:WP:INTEXT 4203:Flaughtin 4188:Flaughtin 4140:Caradhras 4080:Flaughtin 4043:Caradhras 4018:at least 3997:removal: 3342:Simonm223 3327:Simonm223 3299:Simonm223 3269:Simonm223 3230:Simonm223 3175:Li Yi Bar 3126:Simonm223 3103:Simonm223 3075:Simonm223 3052:Simonm223 2781:this page 2762:talk page 2636:Simonm223 2561:Wei4Green 2456:Flaughtin 2328:Flaughtin 2305:Simonm223 2241:Simonm223 2233:Junius Ho 2172:Simonm223 2142:Simonm223 2123:Simonm223 2095:Simonm223 2067:Simonm223 1997:article, 1611:Singapore 1416:Australia 1401:Countries 800:. Please 424:Hong Kong 415:Hong Kong 371:Hong Kong 194:Sociology 185:sociology 135:Sociology 5215:WP:UNDUE 4726:article. 4612:(2015). 4593:Another 4131:WP:UNDUE 4067:article? 4061:WP:POINT 3995:WP:POINT 3956:OceanHok 3915:OceanHok 3874:decision 3856:OceanHok 3654:WP:SPLIT 3598:waddie96 3595:comrade 3583:WP:ANRFC 3494:Guardian 3322:OceanHok 3196:MarioGom 3192:Comment: 3132:Jax 0677 3085:Jax 0677 3048:WP:CRUFT 3030:Jax 0677 2836:contribs 2822:Perhaps 2794:contribs 2764:or in a 2653:OceanHok 2568:because 2438:Jax 0677 2416:converse 2158:Jax 0677 2105:Jax 0677 1926:255,643 1915:156,123 1566:Pakistan 1521:Malaysia 1360:Military 702:Politics 693:politics 649:Politics 618:(390) • 5280:Thanks 5211:WP:ONUS 5091:Reverts 4835:dubious 4823:WP:MREL 4464:Aiguo ( 4257:WP:MREL 4241:Comment 4142:Aiguo ( 4045:Aiguo ( 4031:WP:RS/P 3970:Kingsif 3941:Kingsif 3920:Kingsif 3887:Kingsif 3841:Kingsif 3540:MarkH21 3506:MarkH21 3490:Reuters 3261:WP:BOLD 3081:be bold 2851:Wefk423 2725:Move to 2704:Support 2691:Colin M 2683:Support 2666:Support 2649:Support 2632:Support 2613:Support 2487:Support 2474:Wefk423 2470:Support 2450:Wefk423 2284:Wefk423 1923:255,643 1912:156,123 1857:17,119 1819:eSports 1797:20,252 1671:Vietnam 1461:Germany 1409:18,608 1394:27,036 1143:26,537 1055:22,280 1027:Section 969:history 931:on the 842:on the 794:of the 729:on the 622:(1,324) 577:(6,731) 552:(1,026) 535:(60) • 478:history 451:on the 346:on the 221:on the 5207:WP:DUE 5133:WP:DUE 4993:WP:DUE 4849:, and 4340:WP:DUE 4245:WP:RSP 4011:WP:DUE 3675:Oppose 3363:Yny501 3120:Reply 3069:Reply 2984:Cunard 2396:Moved. 2324:Oppose 2136:Reply 2063:deeply 1902:4,383 1887:8,198 1872:4,521 1812:1,645 1784:1,947 1769:4,102 1709:1,304 1694:2,350 1664:4,171 1649:2,764 1619:2,495 1596:Serbia 1529:1,067 1491:Israel 1446:France 1439:1,056 1431:Canada 1424:1,112 1381:3,159 1368:2,611 1353:1,094 1338:4,011 1323:2,271 1308:6,301 1293:2,767 1278:1,248 1263:3,958 1248:1,766 1233:6,990 1218:2,848 1188:1,664 1173:1,959 1158:3,895 1130:1,924 1115:6,023 1100:3,413 1085:3,043 1070:9,781 1029:total 810:Assess 808:, and 806:Create 561:(348) 506:(4) • 112:scale. 5243:MarkH 5201:says 5154:MarkH 5044:MarkH 5030:Err, 5002:MarkH 4995:here. 4957:MarkH 4898:MarkH 4891:with 4883:from 4861:from 4745:MarkH 4440:MarkH 4401:Both 4394:, or 4345:MarkH 4271:MarkH 4243:: In 4208:MarkH 4007:Axios 3687:WP:RM 3659:MarkH 3257:major 2580:from 2578:moved 2409:samee 2237:undue 1920:Total 1899:4,383 1884:8,198 1869:4,521 1809:1,645 1804:Macau 1781:1,947 1766:4,102 1706:1,304 1661:4,171 1646:2,764 1616:2,495 1526:1,067 1506:Japan 1436:1,056 1421:1,112 1378:3,159 1365:2,611 1350:1,094 1335:4,011 1320:2,271 1290:2,767 1275:1,248 1260:3,958 1245:1,766 1215:2,848 1185:1,664 1170:1,959 1127:1,924 1112:4,099 1097:3,413 1082:3,043 1067:9,781 1035:(Top) 1024:count 792:scope 539:(290) 499:(60) 488:purge 483:watch 319:China 310:China 266:China 5286:talk 5213:and 5186:talk 5114:talk 5101:and 5022:talk 4987:see 4978:talk 4813:and 4797:talk 4714:, a 4687:ISSN 4628:ISBN 4579:ISBN 4489:talk 4420:link 4416:link 4412:link 4408:link 4374:talk 4305:talk 4255:per 4192:talk 4084:talk 3992:this 3974:talk 3960:talk 3945:talk 3924:talk 3913:and 3891:talk 3883:wait 3860:talk 3845:talk 3825:talk 3764:talk 3744:talk 3729:talk 3700:talk 3677:And 3632:talk 3602:talk 3544:talk 3538:. — 3525:talk 3510:talk 3486:SCMP 3464:talk 3439:talk 3419:talk 3401:talk 3386:talk 3367:talk 3346:talk 3331:talk 3303:talk 3288:talk 3273:talk 3252:your 3240:talk 3200:talk 3183:talk 3161:talk 3136:talk 3107:talk 3089:talk 3083:. -- 3056:talk 3034:talk 3024:and 2988:talk 2976:and 2944:talk 2911:talk 2897:NPOV 2887:talk 2869:aka 2855:talk 2832:talk 2810:talk 2806:Ltyl 2790:talk 2740:talk 2716:talk 2695:talk 2674:talk 2657:talk 2640:talk 2621:talk 2600:talk 2558:(as 2541:talk 2495:talk 2478:talk 2460:talk 2356:talk 2332:talk 2309:talk 2288:talk 2255:talk 2217:talk 2197:talk 2176:talk 2162:talk 2156:. -- 2127:talk 2109:talk 2103:. -- 2071:talk 2045:talk 2022:talk 1980:talk 1842:632 1827:836 1754:273 1739:403 1724:333 1679:483 1634:561 1604:717 1589:464 1574:425 1559:389 1544:869 1514:295 1499:231 1484:597 1476:Iran 1469:560 1454:208 1203:246 1042:256 1022:Byte 802:Join 510:(23) 473:edit 4989:any 4853:in 4845:in 4762:me. 4679:doi 4646:in 4620:doi 4571:doi 4516:or 4135:any 4039:not 4020:six 3878:law 3652:by 3600:★ ( 3265:not 2938:. — 2734:. — 2584:to 1839:632 1824:836 1751:273 1736:403 1721:333 1676:483 1631:561 1601:717 1586:464 1571:425 1556:389 1541:869 1511:295 1496:231 1481:597 1466:560 1451:208 1406:144 1200:246 1039:256 923:Low 834:Low 721:Low 443:Low 338:Low 213:Low 5300:: 5288:) 5246:21 5240:— 5217:). 5188:) 5157:21 5116:) 5047:21 5024:) 5005:21 4980:) 4960:21 4901:21 4887:, 4879:, 4867:, 4799:) 4748:21 4685:. 4675:58 4673:. 4667:. 4661:— 4642:A 4626:. 4607:— 4577:. 4561:— 4536:, 4532:, 4528:, 4524:, 4491:) 4470:) 4443:21 4418:, 4390:, 4376:) 4348:21 4307:) 4274:21 4247:, 4211:21 4194:) 4148:) 4086:) 4051:) 3976:) 3962:) 3947:) 3926:) 3893:) 3862:) 3847:) 3827:) 3766:) 3746:) 3731:) 3702:) 3662:21 3634:) 3546:) 3527:) 3512:) 3496:. 3492:, 3488:, 3466:) 3441:) 3421:) 3403:) 3388:) 3369:) 3348:) 3333:) 3305:) 3290:) 3275:) 3242:) 3202:) 3185:) 3163:) 3138:) 3122:- 3109:) 3091:) 3079:, 3071:- 3058:) 3036:) 3020:, 3016:, 2972:, 2968:, 2946:) 2913:) 2889:) 2875:RM 2857:) 2838:) 2834:• 2812:) 2796:) 2792:• 2756:. 2742:) 2718:) 2697:) 2689:. 2676:) 2659:) 2642:) 2623:) 2529:— 2507:→ 2497:) 2480:) 2462:) 2446:, 2442:, 2434:, 2379:. 2334:) 2311:) 2290:) 2199:) 2178:) 2164:) 2154:}} 2148:{{ 2138:- 2129:) 2111:) 2091:, 2083:- 2073:) 1982:) 1854:17 1794:20 1746:G7 1691:37 1391:29 1305:19 1230:18 1155:26 1140:31 1052:20 804:, 614:• 138:: 5284:( 5184:( 5112:( 5020:( 4976:( 4942:. 4829:( 4821:( 4795:( 4722:. 4692:. 4681:: 4635:. 4622:: 4586:. 4573:: 4487:( 4388:] 4384:] 4372:( 4334:( 4303:( 4190:( 4082:( 4013:. 3972:( 3958:( 3943:( 3938:: 3934:@ 3922:( 3917:: 3909:@ 3889:( 3858:( 3843:( 3823:( 3762:( 3742:( 3727:( 3698:( 3683:: 3679:@ 3646:: 3642:@ 3630:( 3604:) 3591:) 3587:( 3542:( 3523:( 3508:( 3482:: 3478:@ 3462:( 3437:( 3417:( 3399:( 3384:( 3365:( 3344:( 3329:( 3301:( 3286:( 3271:( 3238:( 3232:: 3228:@ 3198:( 3181:( 3159:( 3134:( 3128:: 3124:@ 3105:( 3087:( 3077:: 3073:@ 3054:( 3032:( 2986:( 2980:. 2942:( 2909:( 2885:( 2853:( 2849:– 2830:( 2808:( 2788:( 2738:( 2714:( 2693:( 2672:( 2655:( 2638:( 2619:( 2493:( 2476:( 2458:( 2452:: 2448:@ 2440:: 2436:@ 2432:: 2428:@ 2403:) 2399:( 2330:( 2307:( 2286:( 2195:( 2174:( 2160:( 2144:: 2140:@ 2125:( 2107:( 2097:: 2093:@ 2089:: 2085:@ 2069:( 2006:( 1978:( 980:. 935:. 846:. 812:. 733:. 455:. 421:. 350:. 245:. 225:. 118:: 86:. 56:. 42:. 20:)

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index