Talk:1 July police stabbing

Proposed merge of Leung Kin-fai into July 1 police stabbing
The subject appears to be notable for only one event. The media coverage on Leung's career/background is limited and the information about his career can easily be documented in the event article. Leung currently fails notability for WP:1E. Sun8908 &#8239;Talk 16:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * Mild oppose. Normally I'd agree with the WP:1E argument, but in this case the main article is already quite long, and I believe having a separate article on the life of Leung Kin-fai is a valid WP:Content fork. Deryck C. 14:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * But there are literally only two sentences about Leung's life apart from the incident. I think, if the main article is too long, the separated article should be the reactions since the section occupies a large part of the article. Sun8908 &#8239;Talk 08:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support merge, agreeing with the clear case ofWP:1E, and noting that once overlap is accounted for the combined page size is less than 100k, with considerably less readable prose. Klbrain (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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