Talk:2018 Hong Kong bus accident

Condolences

Anon IP accused me of "spreading anti-China bias" by deleting the section on the mainland Chinese government's condolences.

As I said in the original edit summary, I don't see the point in listing these sorts of inconsequential reactions. When any disaster with a high death toll occurs, politicians all over express condolences. This accident is no different. Many Hong Kong and international figures offered condolences... if we were to add them all to the article the "response" section would balloon with what amounts to inconsequential cruft. Citobun (talk) 03:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree, empty expressions of condolence are completely unencyclopedic. zzz (talk) 03:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Citobun, I may challenge you to define "inconsequential". Responses from the central government clearly distinguish them from the condolences "Many Hong Kong and international figures". Furthermore, as I stated in the edit summary, your rationales are policy-baseless which means no Wikipedia guidelines can back your opinions.--223.104.19.131 (talk) 04:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Inconsequential... having no apparent concrete consequences. It's just a symbolic, perfunctory gesture without any meaningful implication. I don't see why this particular offering of condolences would be any different from that of any other prominent entity or person. The text is also written with a strangely soppy, propagandistic tone that is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Citobun (talk) 04:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I repeat, that, the responses you removed are from the top leaders in the central government which holds sovereignty over HK. In other words, it's not the content of these condolences that differs, but the persons who sent them. Btw, you can't call condolences "propagandistic" which is quite a weird description. And even if they are, the tone with which these condolences are written still cannot determine whether they are appropriate for Wikipedia as these condolences are the quoted content rather than the descriptive content. --223.89.144.195 (talk) 05:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I assume you are the same person as 223.104.19.131 above, as you have the same Beijing ISP? Replying from multiple IPs is a bit confusing. I find it interesting that you would accuse me of "spreading anti-China bias" considering all your edits serve to push the viewpoint of the Chinese government, contrary to our policy on what Wikipedia is not. This is an encyclopedia, not a vehicle for political advocacy. The tone of the original edit was certainly propagandistic, and it wasn't in quotation marks. If the weird tone is derived from a quotation then the condolences should be in quotation marks. And again, it is ultimately inconsequential so I don't see the point of including it simply to assert Chinese sovereignty over Hong Kong. Citobun (talk) 05:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

You are right. That IP and this IP are both me, just within a given IP range. --223.89.144.195 (talk) 06:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I apologize to you for my "anti-China bias" accusation. Hopefully you won't mind it. Yet to me your removal of mainland Chinese government's responses also in a way indicates your political views, not to mention your calling these condolences "propagandistic". Also, my mentioning of China's sovereignty over Hong Kong is only a supplement to my opinions. You probably over-interpreted it. Lastly, if we two still can't reach a consensus on this issue, we may request a third-party opinion. --223.89.144.195 (talk) 05:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

We already got a third opinion (above). The condolence section was written in an utterly bizarre, inappropriate, melodramatic and propagandistic tone, just look at it. "The General Secretary in addition adjured the Special Administrative Region Government to do their utmost in coping with the aftermath of the accident and comforting the families who were deeply traumatised by the death of their loved ones." Is that encyclopedic? Objecting to adding this meaningless fluff doesn't suggest a damn thing about my political views. The issue lies in political agenda editors crying "anti-China!" at anything that doesn't support the party line. This content is goofy, unencyclopedic, and objecting to it doesn't make me "anti-China"! Citobun (talk) 06:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Location map

Can anyone make a map indicating the location where the accident occurred? I suppose it's quite necessary to show the readers the location within Hong Kong. --223.104.19.131 (talk) 04:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)