Talk:National People's Congress decision on Hong Kong national security legislation

Criticism

@CaradhrasAiguo: I think we should include the criticism that has been formulated in HKFP, as it was already cited right before. Please discuss this matter here before undoing so that you can explain your position better. Not adding the criticism part is not compliant with WP:POV. I also modified it to remove the non-neutral parts. What I don't understand is that: " Joshua Wong, Nathan Law, and Marco Rubio should not be cited in the lede and especially not without WP:ATTRIBUTION". We are not referencing what's inside the article, but the article itself. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 03:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the purported concern expressed in HKFP that the legislation bypasses LegCo has already been noted, and I left that as is. It alone is sufficient as a balance in terms of NPOV.

Law and Wong, as "pro-democracy" activists, have been noted in their refusal to condemn violence. WP:FRINGE mandates that Wong's opinions be relegated there, to the fringe. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 03:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@CaradhrasAiguo: I don't think it qualifies as fringe. You can type "refusal of condemning violence" in google and find that it is pretty widespread among activists. I'm not saying it's the "right behaviour", be mindful here, but this is far from being WP:FRINGE. Dismissing his statements as WP:FRINGE only displays your personal opinion on the subject. Please think carefully before using politically loaded terms. I want to re-insist on the fact that this person has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, and in the light of that, even if you and I disagree with the refusal of condemning violence, he cannot simply be relayed to the fringe because of that. Please read carefully about Joshua_Wong before making any other statements that could be perceived has a judgement of him. (Opinions expressed as facts). PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Wong was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2017, before last year's innumerable violent incidents. The award itself has long lost its credibility after Kissinger and Obama became recipients (not to mention Liu Xiaobo's well-documented support of the illegal U.S. wars of aggression in Afghanistan and Iraq), please stop referencing it as if it held any modicum of validity in argument. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Please adhere to WP:YESPOV and stop stating opinions as facts. Also avoid talking about individuals and events that are unrelated and unreferenced in the HKFP article we are talking about. "illegal U.S. wars of aggression" is a very simple, ill-informed way to talk about the intricate subjects you are referencing. I think your case regarding WP:AGF is dropping eveytime you write here. I will try to find a way to resolve this dispute other than by interacting with you because I don't think you are willing to discuss this in a WP:NPOV manner. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@CaradhrasAiguo: I agree that the legislation bypass is already stated in the sentence before. But it is a cold explanation of what it is actually doing. Here, we have the chance to add reactions to this legislation bypass. I find it very arbitrary and politically charged to refer to someone as an extremist, it is a fine line to thread in my opinion. I want to quote WP:BIASED: "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.". The first sentence didn't give a viewpoint on the subject, it simply stated it. The second and third sentences serve as a reference to a viewpoint on it. If you have another reference that has a different viewpoint than this one I would be glad to accept that as a fourth sentence and concensus on the matter. Thank you. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 05:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, what? Marco Rubio is an extremist? He's a politician! I don't think it was wise of you to call him an extremist, even if you and I strongly disagree with his views. Please refrain to express your personal opinions here. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 05:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The forum I linked to with Wong being a key participant is straight from the horse's mouth. There is no fine line to thread about violence against non-violent civilians, with Deutsche Welle noting Hong Kong's pro-democracy activists so far have been unwilling to condemn the violence. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 05:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh wow, you're going all in with your (Redacted) accusations. I'm finding it harder to WP:AGF, so please WP:DBF. I found his explanation very credible in the forum, he seemed a very poised person. May I add that he was nominated for the nobel peace prize? Do you see any terrorists being nominated for that prize? PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 06:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you will need to bring other people here in order to make me change ideas on the subject. @Coffee: Think you can help here? PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 06:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I won't make any statement about what I feel regarding this being in the lead, but I do not think it is remotely correct to refer to Wong, Law or Rubio in the way that you did (and such statements are not remotely backed up by our articles on these individuals nor the reliable sourcing behind them). @CaradhrasAiguo: You're bordering on defamation of living persons, which is unacceptable on talk pages as much as it is on our articles. Back up your claims with reliable sources, or refactor your comments immediately (per WP:BLPTALK). @PhysiqueUL09: My recommendation here is to take this to our dispute resolution noticeboard. For future reference, also review WP:CANVASS. (I don't think you would have known what my views on this would be, and I don't think this qualifies as canvassing, but I still want you to keep that policy in mind since you're new here.) — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Coffee: Oh thanks for the WP:CANVASS reference. And no, I was asking for your help about the accusations made here. I was not very clear as to what I was expecting of you probably :p. I simply notified you because you have been very helpful to me recently and I wanted you to see the discussion and help me take the right decisions according to WP policy. Thank you very much again, that's exactly the answer I was expecting actually... Very helpful and neutral, thank you very much! PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 07:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Coffee: One last thing, what should be done if the statements on living persons are not retracted? I never had to deal with such a situation, and it frankly scares me because of WP:BOOMERANG. But I don't want to bother you with stuff I could handle on my own, so feel free to just point me to the right direction if you want. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 07:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@PhysiqueUL09: Per WP:BLPTALK, I have removed the offending statements using the {{redacted}} template. You may feel free to use this method as well when you see such contentious or defamatory claims not backed up by reliable sources about living persons on any non-article page, and on any article you may simply remove the data (per WP:BLPREMOVE). But, I would recommend that you report such issues to WP:ANI if a user is persistent in violating BLP so an administrator can ensure it is properly stopped. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 17:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I have opened a dispute resolution request for this subject. [1] PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 20:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

ATTN EDITORS: - This is now on the DRN. Please do not continue the conversation on this page at this time, if you do, it will be hard for the moderator of the dispute to keep up and have to keep going back and forth between pages. Please wait until a moderator opens up the conversation. Thanks, Galendalia (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC) _{DRN Volunteer}

There is a case at the DRN regarding this page.

This message is to inform interested editors of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding Criticism. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. Any editors are welcome to add themselves as a party, and you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "National_People's_Congress_Decision_on_Hong_Kong_national_security_legislation". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Galendalia (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC) (DRN Volunteer)

Requested move 23 May 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved as moot (new article has requested name). (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

---

National People's Congress decision on Hong Kong national security legislation → Hong Kong national security law – Amended proposal boldly: proposer had left blank so moving first two bullet points into it

1. As per Wikipedia:Article titles: Use commonly recognizable names
2. Current title "National People's Congress Decision on Hong Kong national security legislation" is already an arbitrary abbreviation of the longer draft title, which is not used anywhere by the media

End of amendment by me, 94.21.219.127 (talk) 05:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC) Proposer is Rinbro (talk) 03:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

1. "Hong Kong national security law" and "national security law" is used by mainland Chinese media, HK media, HK government, US media and UK media. It is a neutral term used universally.
2. It is the English equivalent to the Chinese abbreviation "國安法"

The only other appropriate term is the "Hong Kong national security legislation" which is used by the Chinese government, US government, also by the HK government and some media. It carries the same neutral denotation of "Hong Kong national security law" and the use by the HK government shows that it is basically interchangeable. I prefer the "Hong Kong national security law" as it is more commonly searched on Google. Rinbro (talk) 03:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE. 94.21.219.127 (talk) 05:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Hkfreedomfighter (talk) 08:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
• Not move untill it is not law, it is new law, that is a bill, Article 23. Wait for till enacting (or not) by LegCo, then enacting by Carrie Lam, I suppose. Would LegCo enact the bill? May the whole article to be merged as a new section to Article 23? If it it the same topic? PoetVeches (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your vote. For your information, this legislation is different from Article 23 in that it bypasses LegCo. Rinbro (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rinbro: You're right, I first was puzzled. But it's neither a legislation yet, see what CNN's Asian producer Steven Jiang explains: "China's National People's Congress voted to approve a decision to enact a highly controversial national security law in Hong Kong" ([[2]] ). So, Beijing Parliament approved only a decision. Then more low level Beijing committee starts to develop the new law, or a bill, which would be approved by China Beijing Government in future and written directly in Hong Kong Mini-constitution, but Carrie Lam's and Hong Kong LegCo approvals would be not needed. But anyway, Hong Kong Gazette must say at least a few words about the Beijing legislative actions, I suppose. So, I was puzzled, but was right when said not move. PoetVeches (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support The current name is not cited anywhere in the media and it makes it harder to find. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 01:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support move but also suggest adding a hatnote to distinguish this from the National Security (Legislative Provisions) Bill 2003, which was also commonly referred to as "national security law / legislation" (Source: 1, 2, 3) --Dps04 (talk) 05:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Neutral. I was the editor that created this article. At the time there had yet been any universal English translation for this bill in news articles, that was why I simply used the official name in the agenda. Would happily support a common name if there was to be one. On a side note, this is not yet a law so the amended title should not be national security "law" unless the title change takes place after 28 May. -- NYKTNE _(talk) 09:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• @NYKTNE:May we wait for until it will be just called in English words: "A bill is first published in the Gazette before it is introduced into the Council. It has to be given three readings for its passage by the Council. " ([[3]])? Currently I found first time LegCo calling it as "NPC's deliberation on the draft decision on establishing legal system and enforcement mechanisms for HKSAR to safeguard national security" ([[4]]). A bit long title too, I suppose. So, probably, we have to monitor Hong Kong Government Gazette for official title. PoetVeches (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• @PoetVeches: It is an entirely sensible proposition to which I would be more than happy to give my full support. -- NYKTNE _(talk) 18:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not sure whether I specifically support the proposed new title, but the current one is definitely too long and not a common name, so I do support changing it in some way. Glades12 (talk) 14:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support SEO can be improved effectively since the shorter term is a common phrase used by general media. We should wait until 28 May, after the draft is passed (it will definitely anyways.) Modernmore (talk) 14:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support Present title is incredibly awkward and renaming would be in line with Macau national security law Jorge1777 (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC) strike sock-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Jorge1777: Please note that the Hong Kong equivalent of your example should be the National Security (Legislative Provisions) Bill 2003. -- NYKTNE _(talk) 09:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support as per above. Current title is excessively verbose and the proposed title is more concise and accurate. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above. The current title is too long and prefers commonly used title over it. but wait after the law has passed. 114.125.249.55 (talk) 21:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support as per above. The current title is pretty much unsearchable in its current form. Threedotshk (talk) 01:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support as above. — RealFakeKimT 07:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, but rename differently: the decision authorises the drafting and enactment of a National Security Law; it is not itself the law. Either the law will successfully be enacted, in which case the decision to enact it should have a separate article (i.e., this one), or it won't be enacted, in which case the ultimately frustrated decision to enact such a law won't in fact have been the law itself! If this article is to be renamed, it should be renamed to something like ‘Hong Kong National Security decision’. If the law is not in the end implemented, perhaps a redirect from ‘Hong Kong National Security Law’ to this page would be appropriate—but if there is to be a law, the decision to enact it and the law itself must be distinguished. Docentation (talk) 14:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: It's easy to conflate two similar issues: Umbrella Movement and Umbrella Revolution; the Regime likes to deliberately conflate the notions "Chinese" with "Chinese", although it's not so easy to conflate concepts with their oxymorons – socialism and socialism, which the CPC deliberately coins terms to mean the clear opposite of how the term is defined. It's also important not to conflate the decision in some rubber-stamp parliament and the law in the territory itself. Right now, it's a NPC decision, similar to the 2014 NPCSC Decision on Hong Kong, which provides the framework for such a statute in Hong Kong. A clear distinction needs to be made between the NPC move and the law itself, which hasn't yet been enacted. Until such time that it is one and the same, the article should stay in a separate namespace from the "Hong Kong National Security Law". -- Ohc ^¡digame! 06:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Hello, do you mean we should create the page after HKNSL is enacted and separate information of draft and after voting? Modernmore (talk) 08:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for now: It was ok for 831 Decision to have its own article because it was only part of the electoral reform, but the decision the NPC is going to make on 28/5 is basically the same as the "law" they are going to enact, meaning that a separate NPC decision article doesn't really seem that necessary. I think we should have an overview article named "Hong Kong national security law" about Beijing's and HKSAR's push to enact a NSL in HK (in both 2003 and now) and the subsequent opposition and impacts, keep the Article 23 NSL article, and then move the content we have in this page to a separate article when we know the upcoming "law"'s official name. But before that, I think the page can keep the current title or be moved to 2020 NPCSC Decision on Hong Kong national security legislation that reads slightly better in my opinion (and stays consistent with 2014 NPCSC Decision on Hong Kong). OceanHok (talk) 16:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support —Herobrine303 (talk) 01:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support - Article needs to be shortened. BigRed606 04:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - too early. Might be better to discuss after it to be passed. This decision is not going to be written into Annex III. It is a national level decision not directly applied to HKSAR and has only symbolic meaning. If NPCSC passes one in Annex III, it's going to be affected, while the decision only gives such a possibility. If it got passed, it can be moved to Hong Kong Basic Law Annex III-14 (cf. Hong Kong Basic Law Article 23) 2020 impelling on Hong Kong national security legislation (impelling = zh. 推进, the official usage). --173.68.165.114 (talk) 05:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)--173.68.165.114 (talk) 07:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • False Please do not confuse two law, per below comment. Modernmore (talk) 07:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - This is not the Hong Kong national security law but an order to ask Hong Kong to comply the article 23. You can't have "The HKSAR shall legislate national security law according to the Basic Law as soon as possible" as an article of HK national security law, just like you can't write "the Constituent Assembly should legislate a constitution of Nepal" in the Nepalese constitution. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 05:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• @173.68.165.114: I agree that the law and decision are different, but was that why you put the header about the factual accuracy of the article being in dispute? I think the article does a reasonable job of distinguishing the two at the moment—is there anything perhaps that you think should be changed? Docentation (talk) 16:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Docentation: Yes. One problem is when discussing the HKBA's view on the bill, the article focus too much on Article 23, which is talking about the law, instead of on Article 18, which is talking about the bill that promoting the passing of the law. The writing about HKBA sounds as if the NPC is legislating the the national security law for Hong Kong and inserting it directly to Annex III, at least to those readers not familiar to this subject (e.g. Modernmore), which is why I put a disputed tag on it. Indeed, the article should demonstrate the reader the concern from HKBA in detail, the nature of the bill to promoting the legislating of the law, the fact that it's still unsure who (HKLegCo or SCNPC) will eventually legislate the law is still uncertain.
  • Probably the more concerning one is "commonly referred to as the Hong Kong national security law" with sources doesn't indicate that. This sentence without any scare quote can mislead a low of people by itself. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• • The national security law is a different law to Article 23. The congress has asked the Hong Kong government to push forward the legislation of Article 23 while commencing the national security law. This one is aimed on pass protestors inflicted by extradition bill protest and the promotion of Hong Kong Independency, which covers an even braoder area of activities and subversion compared to Article 23. While the national security law focuses on upholding the Chinese government's regime, Article 23 aims at the subversion of the Chinese Communist Party. There are overlapped provisions withing two drafts, but we should not confuse them as the same bill. Modernmore (talk) 07:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I don't know what you are talking about here, of course national security law is not article 23, nor is it the same as this bill. Both article 23 and this bill are promoting the legislating of a national security law. Article 23 asks HK to legislate it asap but HK decided to violate it, so this bill authorize the SCNPC to legislate if HK still choose to delay indefinitely. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Rinbro: None of your source has called this bill the national security law. Please give some genuine source before promoting a move. HK national security legislation is more related but still not the topic. Bill on Hong Kong national security legislation would be a less controversial title. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Update the law is passed. Modernmore (talk) 07:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • The law has not even been legislated yet. The bill is passed. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support. The main subject of the article is the law itself, not the decision. The decision sets the scope of the eventual law, but it's only a part of the process through which it will be enacted. Squirist (talk) 12:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's only a decision. There isn't a Hong Kong national security law now. --DRIZZLE (talk) 08:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Per comment directly above and various other comments: this is the decision that China deems itself allowed to interfere and make such a law, it is not the law itself. The article already at Hong Kong national security law is about the legislation and such. This is such a misguided move proposal. Kingsif (talk) 19:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Mostly Support per the fact that the current title is WAY too long and unwieldy. Alternatively, I could also support a title of "NPC Hong Kong Security Law Decision" or something similar, to address the concerns of some of the other editors here. Goodposts (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - There's a problem here. Since this move was proposed, a page with almost identical name to the one proposed has been developed (National Security Bill (Hong Kong)). So this proposal kinda becomes moot, because all the previous votes and reasoning here don't apply in the same sense. If this proposal is enacted, I believe it would now be a merge, rather than a move. Consequently, I think this proposal has to be closed without action and a new proposal for either a merge, or a rename of this article to something else, should be considered. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  In proposal of a new name, I would like to suggest that if we decide to keep the current name, 'legislation' should be still be changed to 'law', to keep consistency with other Hong Kong related articles on the national security law. Interchanging words only creates even further confusion. Consistency in titles should be kept. Using 'legislation' here was something we made up anyway - that is not the official title, nor what is used by the media. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Chinese news reaction

I have added an article that describes the response by the Chinese state-run media in the Lead. I think it might not be the best place to put this, but I saw no appropriate place to add it. Please discuss or move to a subsection. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@PhysiqueUL09: I moved it to the ‘support’ section, since it describes support for the decision. Docentation (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Art. 23, constitutionality, the Bar Assoc., etc.

I accidentally forgot to include an edit summary on my latest edit of +284 bytes. The following is the rationale. Article 23 itself is merely an article of the Basic Law; it does not require ‘approval’ of the LegCo. A bill submitted in completion of the constitutional requirements of Article 23 requires a vote in the LegCo in accordance with the usual procedures. Hence I have changed the reference to Article 23 to refer instead to the 2003 bill, and then pointed out that the bill purported to be in compliance with Article 23 of the Basic Law. I have also made more explicit what exactly is the difference: the proposed law is not to go through the LegCo. Finally, ‘can’ is unclear: we do not know, as yet, whether or not the proposed enactment of a national security law by inclusion in Annex III will be constitutional or not. Of course, it would be one thing for a few legal experts to make this remark, or perhaps a LegCo member or two; however, given that the Bar Association has raised this question, I think that there is a sufficient prima facie case to the contrary to remove ‘can’ and the concomitant air of definitiveness, and then to point out that the constitutionality of this procedure has been disputed by the association.

Relatedly, I also included a more detailed account of the association's remarks in the ‘Domestic responses’ section. I should be grateful if someone would point me to a Wikipedia policy concerning whether I ought to have capitalised ‘the association’ (obviously I shan’t here, because this is a talk page, just as I shall continue to use curly quotation marks except in articles in line with policy). More importantly, however, I am conflicted as to whether to include it within the ‘opposition’ section, or whether to include at the start. I suppose in a very literal sense that the Association has opposed the decision, which is the present title of the article, on the grounds that it purports to authorise an unconstitutional procedure to enact a law. On the other hand, it does not in fact oppose the idea of a law of this type concerning national security, which is in the end why I referred to concerns and left it at the start—it seems that the article will soon be renamed at any rate. Docentation (talk) 14:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@173.68.165.114: hello—I've numbered my remarks here just because there are a lot of separate issues; numbering of course has a certain legalistic connotation of hostility so I should just like to attempt to dispel any apprehension of imminent discourtesy on my part. These remarks concern my edit of -1513 bytes. (1) on the distinction between the HKBA and members: thank you for adding Lawrence Ma's views; I think most people understand that an association speaks for all its members, but in editing I retained the reference. (I think we should go by the extent of coverage.) (2) NPOV: I do not think that I "wr[o]te one-sided opinion only". NPOV of course dictates that both the HKBA and DOJ's views should be included. That is what I did. (That is also what you did!) (3) Article 158 of the Basic Law: Obviously neither the HKBA, nor the DOJ, not in fact anyone else other than the courts of the HKSAR and the NPCSC have the power to legally bindingly interpret the Basic Law, i.e. to make rulings. That is entirely distinct from the expression of a considered view as to what the correct interpretation of the Basic Law (or any other law) is. The HKBA would hardly purport to be the court; it merely has made a remark on what the court should do. Similarly the DOJ in saying that they are of the view that Article 23 does not include national security within the limits of the HKSAR's autonomy is not pretending to be the court or the NPCSC. Article 158 is neither here nor there. Nobody is saying that the HKBA's view is right just because the HKBA said so, or that the HKBA has some jurisdiction as a court. (4) Quoting Article 18(3) I agree that we should leave the question of whether national security is within the scope the authority Article 18(3) grants to the NPCSC to the reader. However, there is no point in quoting bits that are not the subject of the controversy, so we should limit what we quote to precisely that. (5) State of emergency condition in 18(4) of the Basic: Presumably we should not cover the a state of emergency condition in detail, because (as far as I know) neither the HKSAR government nor the CPG have relied on that condition. If you have any reliable sources showing that the HKSAR government and/or the CPG have in fact said that the region is in a state of emergency and therefore that they are relying on that condition to enact laws by inclusion in Annex III then obviously they should be included and I encourage you to do so. Since none of the sources cited refer to Article 18(4) I have removed any reference to it. (6) Defence, foreign affairs, other matters outside lims. of autonomy of HKSAR: That of course leaves the other condition, which is when a law relates to "defence and foreign affairs, as well as other matters outside the limits of the autonomy of the Region". I think we should quote this in whole (which is what I have done). I do not think we need to quote the remainder of Article 18(3) as a whole—it breaks up the text, and there is no legal dispute as to the first sentence of Article 18(3). Of course, we should also cover views on the interpretation of this condition e.g. from the DOJ/HKBA—then of course the reader will be able to decide having been informed of the main arguments in the dispute. (7) "Manner of reference to Article 18: as you say, I think we should leave the reader to decide whether Article 18 actually authorises enactment by inclusion in Annex III or not. I don't think that leaving in the phrase "article 18(3, 4)…authorises the enactment of a national security law" is compatible with allowing the reader to decide: it implies that clearly Article 18(3) or Article 18(4) (or both!) actually do authorise it. (8) Minor CE quibbles: quite apart from NPOV, I think that the sentence I complain of in (7) suffers from another flaw: it seems to imply that Article 18(3) was written specifically with this law in mind. Of course it may in fact authorise it, but that's as a result of an application of the general principle given by Article 18, which is quite distinct from the article deliberately and specifically authorising this particular law. Another point: usually one would refer to ‘Article x’, not ‘the Article x’. Docentation (talk) 09:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@173.68.165.114: on Article 23—since that isn't really the subject of the proposal to move the article—the reason I mentioned it there is because that's the basis of the HKBA's argument. There's no other reason in the Basic Law to regard national security as within the HKSAR's autonomy—that's it. So I think it's reasonable to leave it there. Of course, if we were just to leave it there, that might create NPOV problems. So that's why I also left the DOJ's response: Article 23 only allows national security legislation but doesn't include it within the limits of the HKSAR's autonomy. Given the DOJ thinks the argument is sufficiently plausible to merit a response, I think it's reasonable to leave the mention of Article 23 as purported evidence that national security is within the limits of the HKSAR's autonomy there. As for the mention above, I think it's just useful historical background. Do you think people might get confused between the two? Docentation (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@173.68.165.114: also, one more thing (sorry to throw such a wall of text at you!). I'm not sure it's really the case that ‘it's still unsure who (HKLegCo or SCNPC) will eventually legislate the law.’ Do you have a good reliable source for that? Also, if it is, there is still the possibility that the NPCSC will directly legislate and then include the result in Annex III—and that itself has been the subject of debate which should be covered. Would you agree that the coverage of the dispute at least is accurate? I'd be entirely happy with some sort of addition to say something like: ‘The national security law may be enacted through the LegCo or by inclusion in Annex III of the Basic Law without reference to the LegCo.[source] The constitutionality of the second method of enactment has been disputed [blah blah blah—HKBA/DOJ argument].’ Docentation (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Translation of the decision draft with underlines

In the current revision of the article there is a section titled "Content" with a translation of the decision draft "with notable passages underlined".The citation for it is a news site, Ming Pao, that has the full text of the draft in Chinese. I see problems with this. The translation seems to have been made by Wikipedia editors and the additions of underlines also added by Wikipedia editors and both are WP:UNSOURCED. It is fine to have a translation, but it needs to be cited to a reliable secondary or primary source that has a translation. For all we know this translation was made by Google translate. There perhaps is an official translation some where that we should cite. It is also fine to have underlines, but those too need to be cited. Who said these parts are notable? Allowing these in the article invites WP:POV content. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll replace it with a summary drawn from the translation by China Law Translate. Docentation (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Nice!, Thanks. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Richard-of-Earth:@Docentation: Hi, there, I think there are two problems with the section Content, first, English translation was from WordPress China Law Translate, that is blog (see Wikipedia:Blogs as sources), second, I read the info on BBC and put the info also in the section ("The details of the new legislation were kept in secret, even Hong Kong's Chief Executive Carrie Lam not seen that, until the new law was published only in Chinese language"), that is, if the draft was kept in secret, so it adds strange sense, how the leak on WordPress appeared, so I propose to delete the text from China Law Translate, or change this with leak of draft from official newspapers (I didn't read Ming Pao or Apple Daily as I cannot speak Cantonese) if there are present. Postscript. Personally I added in the section info from BBC, so I may be biased a bit, because I want to save my, and delete your:) PoetVeches (talk) 19:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@PoetVeches: first, the translation is of the decision to enact the law, not the law itself. It's just a very long procedural motion. The decision was released by the NPC and available in Xinhua etc. quite soon after its passage. The CLT translation was not based on an unsourced leak: the text it was based on had already been published. Second, CLT isn't a blog—many websites that aren't blogs use Wordpress, e.g., topically, HKFP. Third, if you want to add information from the BBC, it would be helpful to integrate it into the existing body of the article, instead of adding on a new and frankly redundant section. Docentation (talk) 11:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Docentation: I see your point, but, I believe China Law Translate is blog, because there in notice on the website that every body may edit the texts even without registration (see About [5]). By the way, then, I think, I will just add the reference to the Xinhua, then info will be proper referenced! PoetVeches (talk) 15:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Factual accuracy dispute: what exactly is being disputed?

Hello @173.68.165.114: I think it would be good to resolve whatever issues caused you to put up the factual accuracy banner. If it's about the use of the term "national security law", the specific bit you complained about doesn't appear in the article any longer. If it's about the possibility of enactment by the LegCo instead of by Annex III, I am not really sure whether this is an issue because I haven't seen any source—the DOJ, NPCSC, Chinese media, international media—suggesting it might go through the LegCo instead of being enacted under Article 18(3) of the Basic. If it's about mentioning Article 23, I think it's relatively clear in the text that Article 23 is the basis of the HKBA's argument, but that not everyone (for example, the DOJ) agrees with them. I don't want to remove the template if there actually is a dispute, but I'm not really sure what exactly you'd like to change; I tried to clarify things here. I don't mean to be presumptuous, but if there is no dispute the we really ought to remove the template, so as to avoid confusing people—especially since it's not at all obvious on this talk page what exactly you're disputing, and the only remarks about it are under the proposal to move the article. Of course if there is something in dispute I shan't remove it. Docentation (talk) 13:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• I listed two concerns in my previous reply to you. This article should include only concerns over the seven points themselves instead of concerns over future enacting of a national security law, which is also a current news trend. I think the problem is primarily solved by now: I just moved HKBA's concern over article 23 to Hong Kong national security law. At this specific moment, I cannot see any misleading thing. If no misleading information get added to the article, I think the tag can be removed. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 21:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• Ah I see—I have no objection to your most recent edits, and I'm glad we could reach consensus. Although I imagine we have rather different political views it's very good to be able to follow NPOV and write good Wikipedia articles (and ensure that the article doesn't conflate the decision and the law—good bit of pedantry there!); I think the article is better off as a result of our discussions. Also, thank you for creating the new article. Perhaps the article or Trump's response will even make it to the news page. Docentation (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

PLA commander moved

@Docentation: From what I understood in the article, the commander was referring to the upcoming protests. It is true that the last statement is in support of the law though. The title might have thrown me off. Can you comment here on your interpretation of the statement? Btw, I don't think it qualifies as a minor change if you changed the text I wrote. Thx PhysiqueULO9 (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@PhysiqueUL09: hello. I suppose in retrospect I perhaps oughtn't to have done that. I thought of it as two minor changes: first, one for concision, second, one to move it. I think that to a certain extent these remarks are aimed at protesters. However, two considerations motivated the move. First, similar remarks have been made and nothing has been done in that connexion. Second, it is uncertain whether this really relates to the protests, or whether it's just usual blather at a moment of tension from government functionaries of the sort familiar to us all over the world, whereas it is certain that the remark concerned the protests. Third, given the first two factors, I think that if there were to be some mention of this in the protests section, it should be some analyst saying ‘ah actually these chaps are threatening the protesters’. So I think that at most it relates equally to the protests and the law, and so the, let’s say, ‘expected value of the ratio’ between its relevance to the the law and protests is going to be more than one to one. Sorry to be so terribly convoluted—perhaps I should've written something here first. Docentation (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Docentation: I see... It is true that the purpose of the statement is unclear. In my opinion it was intended as some kind of threat to the protesters. But there are only implicit links between the statement and the protests in the article. We can't be attributing intentions, but looking at the title, it seems like the author tried to do exactly that...It really is a good edge case of wikipedia reference mechanics and logic... Hum... PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@PhysiqueUL09: I think the CNN headline isn't actually trying to do that. There's no reason for CNN not to say that if that's their interpretation. I did in fact find a link indicating that the PLA were directly threatening protesters…but it was from the Daily Mail, so I'm not really inclined to use it. Anyway, since there is uncertainty, I think we should leave it there for now. Maybe later if there's something clearer indicating a threat to protesters we could add that to the protest section, and then leave another sentence in the support section saying the PLA support the law. Docentation (talk) 23:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Docentation: ok, good call. And also, there seems to be concensus regarding WP:DAILYMAIL lol did not see that coming, as I am not from the UK. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 23:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@PhysiqueUL09: yes, I'm inclined to agree with that policy…we should only use them if we can't find other sources, but I am not really sure that their interpretation of the PLA's remarks is that trustworthy without corroboration. Apropos of nothing at all, do you know what's happening with that DRN? (If there's more, we can discuss it there—just curious.) Docentation (talk) 23:49, 30 May 2020

Well I left a note earlier today saying it's been a while and the other person did not answer... At all... Like he doesn't care about anything other than being right and making a point. We'll see how it resolves. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 03:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The actual text of the new law

It would appear much less biased if Wikipedia could refer to the actual text of the law rather than opinions of people who are biased against Beijing and would be negative no matter what the law actual said. A link to the text of the new law would be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.3.185.107 (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@42.3.185.107: This article meets WP:NPOV standards for now as consensus was reached on harder points. It is supposed to be a neutral article that only refers to information on the outside and does not take a standpoint. If you have any issues with neutrality please point them out directly in a constructive comment. It is not the responsibility of the editors to decide what is worthy of being here or not. The way I see it, whenever I find a new relevant article on the subject I include it. Be it good or bad. The problem with the Chinese government is that they have very few... Read here none... reliable (non-propaganda) news outlets to explain their motivations. Tweets from the spokesperson can't be included. Do you see where I'm going here? The only thing available about this is negative. And by the way, if you'd informed yourself before commenting here, you'd know that the law doesn't exist yet. It's to be drafted after the order was given (which makes no sense in a real democracy btw).... Care to give that link to the new law please? I will add it if it is from a reliable (non propaganda) source. *Look at global times in [6] PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 03:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

This was discussed above. There was a translation, but it was unsourced, so it was removed. We need a citation to an official translation if we are to include it in the article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

( It would appear...) My mistake, I assumed that the law had actually been written judging by how many people in the news (on both sides) were telling me what was in it. A great part of the problem with issues like these is that you westerners opine that any information that disagrees with your viewpoint is not reliable and is mere propaganda. Only pundits that support your viewpoint are deemed reliable. Hong Kong needs some improved security; maybe this law will provide it. The first bit of fighting was at a largely peaceful demonstration, where a fringe attacked the police. The police responded to the thrown bricks, sharpened rebars &c. with tear gas. The tear gas also hit the non-violent protestors. Since then things have escalated. The government hid in her bedroom, possibly literally. I have seen, in person, businesses torched because they were owned by people from the Mainland and shops that sell to Mainland tourists smashed and ransacked. While outside others are smashing traffic lights and pulling down bus stop signs. Is it democratic to terrorise an ethnic minority? What do I say to frightened 9-10 year-old students of mine? This violence was not what democracy was supposed to be.

I trust that we will get the text sometime and that you will use it, rather than pundits hot air, in this article. I also hope that the Mainland government will consult HK people and include responsible safeguards. There seem to be no realistic alternatives.

Link to the actual (English) text

https://www.chinadailyhk.com/article/135392

I have been amazed by all the people, on both sides, telling the world what is in the law, when they have not read the actual bill. Anyway, the actual text is now published and in the link above. Please keep this page to the actual facts of the case and not the yellow-peril prejudices of many westerners. A comparison with similar laws in other countries might go a long way to making the page neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.64.92.219 (talk) 2020-07-01T02:11:49 (UTC)

Asking about merge

Will we discuss merge with Hong Kong national security law or save this article as independent so far? Then if somebody feels to merge, propose that here on talk page. PoetVeches (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Hong Kong protest against proposed national security law on 24 May 2020.jpg
• Joint meeting held by 17 Hong Kong District Councils, 6 June 2020.png
• Protest against national anthem bill and proposed national security law in Hong Kong, 27 May 2020.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)