Talk:Hong Kong Free Press

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hong Kong Free Press. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150720235434/http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?we_cat=4&art_id=151372&sid=43354957&con_type=1&d_str=20141113&fc=7 to http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?we_cat=4&art_id=151372&sid=43354957&con_type=1&d_str=20141113&fc=7

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

"Mod 83" edits
Hello. I suspect that User:Mod 83 is related to other users who have been making similar edits on this page for some time.

I am reverting the most recent edits for a couple reasons. For one, online forum discussions do not constitute reliable sources – see Identifying reliable sources. Secondly, much of the content seems to be WP:OR that is not reflected in the cited sources. Citobun (talk) 06:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I want to make it clear that the user "mod 83" is not me, "mod83" - I am the HKFP founder and have never edited this Wiki entry. mod83''' (talk) 00:15, 08 May 2019

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hong Kong Free Press. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150206124504/http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=&art_id=10130&sid=&con_type=1&d_str=20010228&sear_year=2001 to http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=&art_id=10130&sid=&con_type=1&d_str=20010228&sear_year=2001

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Irrelevant mentions of SCMP in "Background" section
The mentions about press freedom and SCMP are irrelevant (or the relevance is unclear). It seems like promotional copy to link HKFP as equivalent to SCMP, and ties to press freedom are unclear or involves a few leaps of imagination to make the links. Recommend removing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.253.135.47 (talk) 06:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There are sources that cite the dominance of SCMP in HK English news, coupled with the allegations that SCMP is subject to increasing editorial interference, as reasons that prompted the founding of HKFP (e.g. the Press Gazette reference). Citobun (talk) 07:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

April 2021
please explain how the content you are removing does not adhere to the Neutral point of view policy. Thanks. Citobun (talk) 09:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Multiple users trying to remove section on Kong Tsung-gan
Recently more than one users has been trying to remove the section on Kong Tsung-gan's use of a pen name based on accusations of referencing the Grayzone as a source and WP:UNDUE, despite being a long time stable version. These accusations do not hold. One, the sources are not the Grayzone but rather SCMP, which is a secondary source which references the Grayzone and both partially confirms and adds onto it, the Standard, which made similar accusations as the Grayzone but predate it, and HKFP itself, which partially confirmed and responded to the accusations made by the former. And two, it is not UNDUE considering that Kong is one of the major contributors of HKFP, the subject of a legal threat made by HKFP against another publication, and also the subject of a correction that HKFP had to make in response to accusations of misuse of pen name and posing as someone else. Qiushufang (talk) 07:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@User:HaeB And here I have explained why it is not UNDUE. The acccusations have relevant consequences for the reputability and history of the subject, HKFP. You mention that the claims of the Grayzone "appears to remain contested, even according to sources you cited yourself." Which part is contested and why does it need to be wholly confirmed to be included? The HKFP admitted that Kong Tsung-gan is a pen name, which is a partial confirmation, and made adjustments to their website to reflect the change, but did not confirm their identity as Brian Kern. This is in the content itself. Is there a policy on Wikipedia where the entirely of one side must be true for it not to be UNDUE? If a scientist or journalist is only partially correct or their hypothesis partially confirmed, do they get erased from wikipedia? Qiushufang (talk) 07:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)


 * These aren't impartial sources. They are all pro-CCP outlets that serve as platforms for pro-authoritarian voices and fringe figures. SCMP is not even independent of the CCP. Furthermore, SCMP and The Standard are direct competitors to the subject of this article. The whole Kong Tsung-gan media frenzy was manufactured by pro-government entities against the backdrop of similar attacks on any non-pro-establishment news media in Hong Kong. It's inconsequential and WP:UNDUE, particularly since Kong Tsung-gan is not even an important figure in relation to the subject of this article. He was just an occasional columnist among many that HKFP publishes. Citobun (talk) 01:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)


 * HKFP is not a pro-CCP outlet and it was one of the sources used since it has already responded in confirmation that part of the accusations made by the "pro-CCP outlets" are correct. Since all three sources, regardless of their bias, agree that Kong Tsung-gan is a pen name, which is the subject matter of the section, it is a majority view shared by all sides and therefore not WP:UNDUE or WP:FRINGE. WP:SCMP is considered a generally reliable source except in consideration of their owner and the CCP on certain topics which require a higher level of scrutiny. It does not automatically disqualify them in this case, since again, part of the claims, the subject of the section, as described were verified by HKFP. It is not a Wikipedia policy that all sources must be impartial. It is the tone which must be WP:IMPARTIAL when describing disputes. The description of events did not validate conflicting statements made by the Grayzone, SCMP, or the Standard which HKFP itself did not. That is why the section was not called "Kong Tsung-gan, who is Brian Kern." Considering that this is a dispute which involved the founder of HKFP, Tom Grundy, possible legal threats, a long time columnist, changes to the HKFP website itself in response to accusations, clarifications on HKFP's and public statements regarding those made by the other side, this definitely fulfills noteworthiness to not be considered undue as part of HKFP's history. Qiushufang (talk) 02:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Passage removal
should in my view be deleted.
 * What I think should be changed: The text in the version as of today 10 May which reads, "...and the goal was raised to HK$500,000. The fundraising campaign concluded in June 2015 with more than $600,000 raised."
 * Why it should be changed: The cited Guardian reference [8] does not support the first sentence fragment above, and there is no reference given for the full sentence above (and I am not aware of such a reference).
 * References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): Not applicable.

CRau080 (talk) 23:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Lightoil (talk) 04:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Update requested
Hi Wikipedians -- I have a conflict, in that I founded HKFP so I don't wish to - nor have I ever - edited this page. Nevertheless, I'm hoping to clear up an inaccuracy in the opening paragraphs. The Wiki claims HKFP was founded "to cover the pro-democracy movement" - however, the two citations attached to this claim make no reference to this, and I can attest it's not true. HKFP's intent, over 9 years, as widely stated, is to be impartial. And our content should demonstrate that we cover the full political spectrum. This kind of mischaracterisation could have consequences for us, so I would be grateful if it could be removed or updated! Am happy to provide more sources about our impartiality and coverage, if need be. Thank you. Mod83
 * ✅ per cited sources – notwally (talk) 05:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)