Talk:Hong Kong Police Force/Archive 1

Nazi logo
Khdfyh9t added Nazi logo over the HKPF's logo (I'm too green to know what to do about it).

jermdeeks 20:16, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I've reverted the image (clear your browser's cache), protected the image, and banned the account as one created solely for the purpose of vandalism. Func( t, c, @,) 20:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

No references
The fact that this article cites no references that I can see holds it to B class, it is otherwise a very good, informative article.--SGGH 14:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC) Ach. I find it amusing to edit this page.

firearms
What models of firearms are used by the HK police?

They still use the good old revolver.......S&W Model 10 i think --124.177.179.74 00:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * And last week when I was talking to an officer on the street I noticed that his revolver still bears the stamping RHKP on the grip! Still using ROYAL Hong Kong Police firearms obviously.Tom M. 09:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Similar to the case of bank notes and coins issued before 1997 bearing the image of QE2 still in circulation. Medals and ribbons conferred by the British Souvereign before the re-unification are still authorised for wearing on uniform. As regards firearms - S&W Model 10 Heavy Barrel for normal uniformed duties. Colt Detective Specials (1970's variant)by detectives, to be replaced by SIG Sauer P250 Dcc (9mm) in mid 2007. Glock 17s are used by special units. Other firearms currently in use are H&K MP5s (both full-auto and semi-auto), Colt AR15s, Remington 870s, Knights Armament M4s plus a number of different sniper rifles. (WilsonC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Rhongkongpolicelogo.png
Image:Rhongkongpolicelogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Wrong equipment
Hong Kong police don't use Beretta and Walter pistols. I have deleted your mistakes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.17.193.160 (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Royal HKPF
The Royal crest should be added to the history section. 70.51.9.25 (talk) 07:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It has been deleted, in accordance to the discussion topic above.Made in Hong Kong (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Police regions and districts
Is there any list of the police regions and districts? 61.18.170.114 (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is one in the Chinese version (named 警區).Made in Hong Kong (talk) 06:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

hong kong police not the 2nd police force in the world
The first police force was in London 1829. The police force in Adelaide (South Australia)was formed in 1838,six years before Hong Kong in 1844. The Adelaide Police Force is listed as the third in the world.Luke noah (talk) 11:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Reputation of "Asia's finest"

 * "Did Hong Kong’s pro-democracy protests really change anything?". Quartz article --  Ohc  ¡digame! 09:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Ithaca 37
Any source that the HKPF uses the Ithaca 37 shotgun? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KuronoX (talk • contribs) 15:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hong Kong Police Force vs. Hong Kong Police
User:Stoatmonster has been edit warring, asserting that the "correct" name of the police is the "Hong Kong Police" while providing no evidence whatsoever. Meanwhile the force's own website reads "Hong Kong Police Force". Rather than continuing to edit war please find a consensus here. Citobun (talk) 11:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Not "edit warring", just asserting --Stoatmonster (talk) 13:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Royal Hong Kong Police Corruption in the 50's and 60's
A very sad and sorry part of the history of the Hong Kong Police Force has been omitted.

"During the 1950's and early 1960's all brothels, opium dens, gaming halls and heroin dealers paid a fixed share of income to senior Chinese detectives in the Hong Kong Police, who in turn maintained a staff of collectors and accountants to divide revenues among the Division's officers and constables on a seniority basis. Following a Hong Kong government investigation of police corruption in the mid-1970's, some forty Chinese officers in the colony's police fled into exile taking over $80 million in cash assets, an average of $2 million each."

It is significant due to the degree, and nature, of the corruption that it was identified by Dr McKoy as being level 5.

McKoy describes level 5 corruption, "The fifth and final stage of police corruption involves a syndication of all organized crime activity by a tightly-structured group of senior police officers. Unlike the individual variety of police criminality that occurs at stage four, stage-five corruption is hightly formalized and often involves a strict system of profit-sharing according to rank"."

This topic is also covered at another wiki site called 'Independent Commission Against Corruption (Hong Kong)'.


 * I have corrected this omission and have included further detail to lend context to the post-war reputation of the Force.Stoatmonster (talk) 05:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hong Kong Police Force. 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/20090402124106/http://www.police.gov.hk/hkp-home/english/history/history_01.htm to http://www.police.gov.hk/hkp-home/english/history/history_01.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402103955/http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asiapacific/hong-kong-protest/1599574.html to http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asiapacific/hong-kong-protest/1599574.html

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) 12:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hong Kong Police Force. 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/20150226135308/http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=30&art_id=152198&sid=43512011&con_type=1 to http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=30&art_id=152198&sid=43512011&con_type=1

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) 17:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * HK 1950年代 Sai Ying Pun 西邊街七號差館 Des Vouex Road Police Station 前西區警署 Western Police Station.jpg

"Emergency Unit (Hong Kong)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Emergency Unit (Hong Kong). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. だ＊ぜ (talk) 10:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Not News
Some editors do not seem to be aware that WP is an encyclopaedia and not an executive news summary. Material added to the page should serve the purpose of a general snapshot of the subject and it should be such that it will stand the test of time, i.e. not be merely topical but provide a general picture of the subject's evolution over time and to include major highlights only. An example of excessive detail in the nature of news is widely criticised stop-and-search operation at Admiralty. Nothing of a historically important nature flowed from that event and, notwithstanding it being seen as an affront to fundamental human rights, it is so insignificant as to be certain to be completely forgotten in no time. Hence, I am now deleting that particular paragraph and shall be attempting other pruning for the reasons I have just explained, plus the fact that the subject of this article is the Force, not the protests, where more detail would be reasonable. sirlanz 14:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * See this, . — MarkH21 (talk) 14:51, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, MarkH21. It's a well-written description. While I agree that every entry should not be of a topical nature, and that we tend to give a greater emphasis to more recent events, I'm especially drawn to the 'test of time' argument. If people understand aesthetics or 'frame of reference' (history) fully, they'll know either one or the other concept is dynamic and constantly evolving. It's not often easy to judge whether a contemporaneous account of event would 'stand the test of time', but I understand sirlanz's rationale behind his action., perhaps you could educate yourself too - I believe it would make you a better editor. — pageseditor (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

See this explanation and WP:NOTNEWS for why not everything that is verifiable belongs in an article. This article is about the HKPF as a whole, but reporting individual allegations gives WP:UNDUE weight to those events in the entire article. Furthermore, those allegations are already covered (and those not already there can be covered) in the article on Controversies of the Hong Kong Police Force which is prominently linked in the article, as well as being covered in the articles on the protests themselves.A brief mention or overview of the allegations is more appropriate here than details on all of the allegations. You can also add the details to the History of Hong Kong Police article. The “History” section of this article should really just be a summary of that. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I disagree that the events in question are WP:NOTNEWS. You have a deleted a great deal of relevant (and correctly cited) information about the topic (clearly marked as 'recent developments') which is not covered elsewhere (including in the linked pages that you mention). The well-documented behavior of the organization in question is evidently relevant to the topic and, also, likely to stand the test of time argument, as these specific events have dramatically changed the perception of the organization by the people it is intended to serve (I can provide citations of this if needed). The argument that well-documented and widespread allegations against individuals in a group do not reflect on the group as whole is misguided. Thus I am reverting to previous copy, though leaving the events in question within your new structure (within a subhead of 'history') — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utensil97 (talk • contribs) 08:30, October 7, 2019 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the link name is a bit confusing, but I wasn’t saying that the events are not news - rather the policy that WP does not report news events. But anyways, my main point was that we have undue weight given to the recent events because they are in too much detail relative to the content in the rest of the article (for instance, it wouldn’t be due weight to have two paragraphs about the HKPF shooting a child in the main Hong Kong article, right?). This notion of “undue weight” is an English Wikipedia policy. Yes, the HKPF’s role and behaviour in these events should absolutely be mentioned here. However, it should be given as a summary that is significantly shorter relative to what it is now, just as the earlier history of the HKPF is summarized. If some of the material is not covered in the focused articles, then we can certainly add it there.
 * Does that make sense, ? — MarkH21 (talk) 08:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. While I agree with your points in general, I don't think they apply to this case. First, the 'viewpoints' expressed here are widespread and accepted, and thus, I would argue, their relative weights are appropriate, or as the guidelines point out, 'if a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts'. There are a vast number of references to these events and their interpretations, from which I have selected just a few. Further, your comment about relative detail is very misleading. The rest of the article is extremely detailed, down to the various model numbers for each item of equipment issued to officers, the number of new scooters recently requisitioned, and the _many_ paragraphs on the minutiae of their uniforms. Are you suggesting that such information should be devoted multiple paragraphs and tables, while the SINGLE paragraph on the shootings of two children should be quickly summarized? Utensil97 (talk) 11:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Right now, the current events surrounding the 2019 protests have an undue prominence relative to the entire history of the HKPF. The sections with existing corresponding articles should be briefly summarized. It’s misleading to show a reader that 50% of the notable history of the HKPF is from its first 150 years of existence and 50% from this year alone, with much more detailed coverage of what’s happening now.Take the New York City Police Department, which has had countless controversies and incidents of police brutality, for example. It has its many controversies separated into the article New York City Police Department corruption and misconduct because those incidents are not fundamental to understanding what the NYPD is as an organization.I agree that the detail on the HKPF uniforms and other minutiae are a bit excessive and should be trimmed (here the NYPD article is also a good example). But the 2019 protest details are also excessive, especially in consideration to its current prominence relative to the rest of the history of the HKPF. The summary of controversies surrounding the protests should also probably go in the “Controversy” section, with just a short few sentences in the “History” section. If you look at other articles about organizations with recent controversies, you’ll find the same. If it helps, I can do the summary and move that I’m describing and have in mind. Then we can iterate and tweak it. — MarkH21 (talk) 20:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I summarized the content, preserving the biggest points, and re-organized History of Hong Kong as well. If there are allegations missing from the Allegations of Hong Kong Police Force misconduct surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong protests article that were formerly here, please do add them there. — MarkH21 (talk) 06:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The implicit assumption, that we should treat all historic periods for an organization with similar weight (for a hundred year history, each decade should get a sentence or some such), simply does not hold up. It seems somewhat obvious (and I don't mean this as in insult) that different periods have differing relative importance in the history of an organization. The importance of the past ten years for the HKPF comes specifically in its radical departure from its earlier history, during which it was in fact considered by the majority to be 'Asia's finest'. The point is, exactly, as you point out, that the HKPF is NOT the NYPD, with a long history of controversial behavior. Rather, the events of the last decade mark a significant and noteworthy departure from its history (and one with highly significant ramifications for the population, not to mention the larger project of democracy). This is why the 'Recent Developments' section (though I did not create it) made sense to me a home for such detail, where the intuition is that these events will in fact be defining for the organisation, and thus stand the 'test of time'. With that said, I certainly agree that the level of detail in other parts of the article is excessive and should be trimmed or removed. I would also suggest that the parts of the article marked as needing 'additional citations for verification', should be trimmed or removed if such verification is not forthcoming.Utensil97 (talk) 09:14, 9 October 2019‎ (UTC)
 * Sure, the weight is not uniformly distributed across its history. However, the HKPD has had a history of controversial conduct, such as its well-publicized corruption issues in the 1950s-1970s. The due WP:PROPORTION of the current events is naturally something open to discussion. However, the content covered in this article should still be a summary of details presented in the other article(s) by the policy at WP:PROPORTION and guideline at WP:SYNC, since there is a main "more detailed" article (whether it is History of Hong Kong, Controversies of Hong Kong Police, or Allegations of Hong Kong Police Force misconduct surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong protests).As for trimming the other details, yes I might get around to it. Feel free to do so as well. — MarkH21 (talk) 09:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Clearly the significance of contemporary events is not always obvious, but at WP we have the luxury to add first and prune later. Detailed sections can one day be reduced to perhaps a single sentence, or combined with other material to make a general point. But to reject too much too quickly smacks of partisanship. WP can allow a little excess, pro tem, and settle in due course. Onanoff (talk) 18:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Whitewash in the name of NPOV
I wonder who is responsible to judge what is NPOV in this page. It is outrages that a non-Chinese who has no local knowledge, Necrothesp, acting as a (pretentious English) judge on ruling what is NPOV and what is not.

Necrothesp, you're not Chinese, you're not Hong-Konger, you have no local knowledge on this topic so it is entire inappropriate for you to judge what is NPOV in this page or what is not.

Or should I say now English don't care about human right abuses in other places because they simply locked terrorist suspect in their own home without trial. Sort of British version of Guantanamo Bay, huh?


 * Wikipedia articles can be edited by anyone in the world. Race and nationality should be irrelevant. Local knowledge can be helpful to someone editing a topic, but the editorial guidelines are very clear that the actual content *must* be based entirely on verifiable third party sources. The material that was removed was not well-sourced and amounted to nothing more than a lengthy rant about police brutality. If police brutality is as common and widespread as was written, simply provide some reliable, independent sources to substantiate this claim. However, if you're simply looking for a platform where you can express your disapproval of the police you should just create your own web site. --Lee Hunter 29 June 2005 15:59 (UTC)


 * I really think you should examine Wikipedia's policies and aims before you instruct me as to what it is appropriate for me to edit and what is or is not NPOV. It is not necessary to have local knowledge to know what is and is not a rant. Neither is it necessary to have local knowledge in order to copyedit an article in my own language - you are reverting everything because a few revisions do not conform to your own political views. -- Necrothesp 29 June 2005 16:46 (UTC)

By your passage, it is clearly seen that you're not an objective person. Therefore no wonder, you make such comments in feedback to someone who disagrees (or disapproves in your own words, maybe), and 'edit' some wordings in the page of the Hong Kong Police Force.