Ivan Lam was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 13 July 2017 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Scholarism. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
This article was nominated for deletion on July 5 2012. The result of the discussion was delete.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hong Kong, a project to coordinate efforts in improving all Hong Kong-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Hong Kong-related articles, you are invited to join this project.Hong KongWikipedia:WikiProject Hong KongTemplate:WikiProject Hong KongHong Kong articles
This article is written in Hong Kong English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, travelled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Weasel quotes
"Scholarism is considered "extremist" -- Putting that in quotes suggests bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.232.41 (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was added by User:Ohconfucius ( [1] ), so only himself knows what he was thinking while adding that description. But I agree, it does looks a bit like a questionable choice, out of so many more possible objective descriptions, the one used is a a quote from Communist Party sponsored media in an authoritarian country. International Common Editor (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
since 'extremist' is usually a value judgement, I think it is fair to put it in quotation marks. Agree with above that the source also suggests there IS bias in the use of that term, since they're not an outwardly violent organisation. Kdm852 (talk) 01:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel that there is any bias in the use of the term, how it was written. It's not controversial either nor is it weasely because it's attributed. I agree it's not an objective description of the group, but the Regime isn't objective, and state propaganda often uses that label; the group knows that the state considers them extremists, but they wear it as a badge of honour. That's what the quote marks convey, and it's exactly in line with how it's used in the cited article. After the recent changes, the mention has disappeared completely. And I fail to see how the article can be said to be WP:NPOV that such a mention is omitted. -- Ohc ¡digame! 04:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
