Talk:Human rights abuses by Hong Kong police

NPOV
Although this is a very substantial new article, I do feel that it is not NPOV, pretty much by its very premise. It seems to me that this article is blatantly against the Hong Kong police, and even though there might have been human rights abuses, theres always more then one side to a story and I do not feel that it has been addressed. I am debating whether I want to nominate this page at VfD because of the neutrallity issue. --Gpyoung talk 03:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Put your countet-fact and show it instead only moaning of NPOV if you think there is no abuse of human right by Hong Kong Police - I beg you won't find anyway.

I dont think you understand the concept of NPOV. An article an not be used to promote a political agenda. True or not, that is what this article is doing. Perhaps it will be better to include your content/research in the Hong Kong police article as a section titled something like "Alleged human rights abuses by the Hong Kong police". I have listed this article on Votes for deletion so these isssues can be considered by the community. --Gpyoung talk 03:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The information presented here is so well-documented, and many of the case had even gone through legal process. If you disagree with those external information source, and simply think these NGOs (or I) have a political agenda, show your evidence - I wonder do FACTS itself have NPOV issue? Is some sort of censorship here. --RageAgainstWhiteWash 03:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Quote from one external link in the page, from NGO Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor:
 * Among the cases revealed in the past two years by the Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC), 8 police officers have been clearly found to have assaulted suspects or innocent members of the public. All eight got an entry in their record of service about their respective assault. Four were given advice whilst another one was reprimanded. And that is all the "punishment" they received.
 * If you beat me up on the pavement, I guess you will be charged of GBH or assault instead of just having an additional entry in your personal record. This doesn't not apply if you're a police officer in Hong Kong, of course.--203.218.82.226 03:44, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

This is not about whether or not there are instances of abuse. It is perfectly alright for you to note those, but you have to do it in a fashion that is NPOV, that means you have to give the other side as much credence, even if you dont believe their story. Quotes and statments from the HK police denying the behavior should be included and the article should make it very clear that the abuse is not undisputed fact, but allegations; it does not. --Gpyoung talk 03:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I have revised and reformatted the content, including Judgement Summary from the Court of Final Appeal which ruled against HKP. Well, if you think CoFA is a POV body, then WHO is NOT POV? --203.218.82.226 05:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * IF you think it is still POV, please make CONTRIBUTION instead of COMPLAINS --203.218.82.226 05:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Im sorry, I still think the very premise of the article is POV and there is very little that could be done to fix that. I would recommend, as I have before, merging it into Hong Kong Police as a seperate section. --Gpyoung talk 05:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Its unfair to me - you are asking me to prove myself innocent for being guilt of POV. NPOV has become a magic tool to surpress any topics which dislike by one --203.218.82.226 05:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

If the article is POV, please add the views from Police and Government. It is a pity if such an article be removed. -Hello World! 15:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Move the topic
I propose to move the topic to Human Rights in Hong Kong. As I found it's rather too narrow to discuss only the Police-related issues and often being attacked by those who care the reputation of HKP.--RageAgainstWhiteWash 05:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, moving this content to another article will suit it well, but again, it does have to be made NPOV. Once again, I am not saying this because I care about the Hong Kong police, I am saying it because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, its article have to be fair and balenced and provide more then just one side of an issue. In order for this to be NPOV, only the facts must be stated and ALL the facts must be stated, not just the ones that make the Hong Kong Police look bad. If you look at the VfD page, almost everyone there says that this is a POV article. Do you really believe they are all out to get you and protect the reputation of the HKP? --Gpyoung talk 20:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Human Rights in Hong Kong. This article, even simply by the way it was titled, is obviously POV. --- Hong Qi Gong 01:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)