Talk:Hong Kong Island by-election, 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Speculation

The speculative comments about Szeto Wah and a democrat vistory were unsourced, and so were deleted. It would be helpful if you could please cite your sources. Ohconfucius 12:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Useful links

F 18:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Facebook

I don't believe it is terribly relevant, and is no more than a bunch of trivia. Furthermore, one whole paragraph is sourced from what looks like a blog, which would fail WP:RS. This paragraph has been deleted. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

"The public have also criticised the use of Facebook as a lowly tactic used for things such as Freshman class presidents in schools.[1] Other remarks point to why pro-Beijing DAB has been so successful in getting their candidates elected. As they concentrate on the little problems such as sidewalk cracks, dangerous intersections and smelly garbage. These are local problems that affect the community.[1] As district council election voters weren't necessarily concerned with big issues like universal suffrage."
This was removed. Are you sure a public opinion is not allowed for this purpose? I made it clear that this was the voice of the public. How else can you present what the public if saying without quoting directly from them. Benjwong (talk) 04:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The issue is not who said it, but that the source does not appear to pass WP:RS. If any of the local/international newspapers cited this as being public opinion, we could refer to it and there would be no problem. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

Another editor disagreed with me tagging this article a {{rewrite}}, saying there has been no discussion. Frankly, I don't see what the issue is. The article is a mess, and if I don't do it, I'm pretty sure someone else will.

Now that the election is over, it wouldn't be subject to any more massive new developments. I think the article can now be cleaned up, which I'm in the process of doing. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contenders

As the election has unfolded, it now appears to me that there is an excess amount of detail of the contenders who have dropped out. I feel that they are irrelevant, and may be confusing to the reader. Unless there are objections, I would be removing the list in due course, probably once the election is over. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure do what you got to do. I thought it was odd for a rewrite tag, when there wasn't any major complaints anywhere. Benjwong (talk) 06:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion piece

I have some reservations about an opinion piece from the blog of Larry Au which someone posted as an external link. The piece is well written. However, maybe he is a well-known journalist, but the credentials of Mr Au are not evident. Also, I have grave misgivings about anyone, above all a journalist, who quotes from wikipedia as a source. My point is: Is Mr Au's blog a sufficiently reliable source to be linked to here? OpEdNews lists him as "Yet another insignificant OpEdNews author."Ohconfucius (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not too concerned over it staying or not. I am actually surprised only 1 link as such has made it here. Maybe others have some opinions. Benjwong (talk) 05:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)