Talk:South China Morning Post

message: Where did some of the readership stats in this article come from??? I would like to see an audit trail. 
novacatz 10:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I somehow doubt the statistic of a vast majority of readers being in senior management positions. It seems as if students now account for a majority of SCMP readers due to school subscription programmes and such. However, these young readers may as well be undocumented, so it might be hard to come up with an exact figure. --Lapin rossignol 14:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, I see the author noted that the statistics provided were valid as of 2003. Well then, I hope someone comes up with more recent data. Most secondary-school students I know are regular readers of SCMP (and they're local school students, not ESF/int'l). --Lapin rossignol 14:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Referring to the editorial team, the article says it's a "seasoned team of professionals" that frequently breaks news. Can it be more specific as to how many employees there are? What is the percentage of locals versus Westerners? Also, the article may consider including a few awards that the newspaper has recently won. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortechina (talk • contribs) 11:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mentioning of employees?  

message: South China Morning Post an English language publication. The depiction of Chinese, pinyin, IPA, and Jyutping is unnecessary and clutter. Chinese is often helpful for terms derived from Chinese, or China-centric topics often rendered exclusively in Chinese. However, in this case, the Chinese is a translation of the English, so its inclusion here is unwarranted. See Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Use_other_languages_sparingly. Readers interested in the Chinese characters should click on the Chinese version of this article. --Jiang 08:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Chinese in this article 

message: User:Zeyfah added a quote from Jack Ma which I removed from the article. I feel that the quote is non-specific to this situation, and its relevance therefore is questionable until a reliable source brings this quote into play. On a second point, if we agree to keep this quote, it should be from a reliable source that makes the connection to this acquisition/ownership. -- Ohc ¡digame! 14:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: this aged poorly, huh? 2604:3D08:778A:2400:20C4:779E:C1A4:88E6 (talk) 04:25, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  love the government, but never marry it 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on South China Morning Post. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140416044525/http://advertising.scmp.com/marketer/07.05.12_scmpreader.html to http://advertising.scmp.com/marketer/07.05.12_scmpreader.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080218121424/http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=&art_id=11891&sid=&con_type=1&d_str=20010702&sear_year=2001 to http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=&art_id=11891&sid=&con_type=1&d_str=20010702&sear_year=2001
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150206124504/http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=&art_id=10130&sid=&con_type=1&d_str=20010228&sear_year=2001 to http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=&art_id=10130&sid=&con_type=1&d_str=20010228&sear_year=2001
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/BRE85J0O6/US-HONGKONG-CENSORSHIP
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201153107/http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=21&art_id=123612&sid=36775620&con_type=1&d_str=20120620&isSearch=1&sear_year=2012 to http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=21&art_id=123612&sid=36775620&con_type=1&d_str=20120620&isSearch=1&sear_year=2012
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120703090330/http://www.isunaffairs.com/?p=8020 to http://www.isunaffairs.com/?p=8020
*Added  tag to http://www.abcbookworld.com/view_author.php?id=2010
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Multiple users ( and myself) have objected to the removal of the logo by User:MarchOrDie. It isn't redundant as it isn't even the same as the masthead. Citobun (talk) 01:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, the logo should be used in the infobox, especially since it does not appear in the masthead of the newspaper in the image. Kdm852 (talk) 06:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Two. But you need an actual reason to keep it. Do you have one? This isn't difficult. --MarchOrDie (talk) 06:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for calling me a "wanker" on my talk page, very mature. I have provided a reason. The logo is graphically distinct from the masthead. Citobun (talk) 06:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome; that was absolutely a wanker's move and a very poor show. Please don't do it again. It being "graphically distinct from the masthead" is not a reason for including it. Do you have one? I presume you do, as you have reverted twice to restore it. What is the reason we cannot live without it? --MarchOrDie (talk) 06:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please review the policy at Wikipedia:Civility and stop name-calling. You've said the logo is "redundant" and should therefore be removed. I am saying it isn't redundant. The logo and the masthead are graphically distinct from one another. They are composed of different graphical elements. Citobun (talk) 06:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't call you a name, I criticized your behavior which I stand by. What you did was a wanker's move. If you prefer not to be called out for making wanker's moves, the remedy is not to make them. It is redundant as the two logos are largely identical and there is no support in policy or practice to carry multiple versions of a company's branding. We are not here to advertise them, and one version of their logo is enough. Again, why would we need two? Or, by your logic, why stop at two? If I can find other versions, ought they to also be included? --MarchOrDie (talk) 06:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Three people disagree with you on this. Give it up. Citobun (talk) 06:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Do they? How interesting. If they are unable to give a reason for their disagreement, their opinions are worthless as we do not operate on headcounts, but require intelligent argument. Any going? --MarchOrDie (talk) 06:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Citobun, for opening this discussion here. As I pointed out in  MarchOrDie's talk page, I also agree that the logo and the masthead are actually different. MarchOrDie, you mentioned multiple times why a logo of a newspaper should be included. I believe newspaper companies are also companies, and that we should not treat it differently with other articles. Even if the scanned newspaper includes a logo, there's no reason to not include a different company logo file to the infobox. If according to your suggestion, then Microsoft also has an image of the building with the logo on it, should we also remove the Microsoft logo as well? This is also about consistency – if we had to remove logos because they are "redundant" and "not useful", there is going to be a lot of work (other newspaper articles has the same situation, and you simply removed the logo from one article The New York Times) and it will be a mess in the future. –Wefk423 (talk) 10:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of logo 

message: https://www.hkcnews.com/article/34027/褚簡寧-michael_chugani-34027/ states:
* Alex Lo: 盧綱
* Yonden Hlatoo has a romanized form (雲丹・拉圖), so he doesn't have a Chinese name
WhisperToMe (talk) 01:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes on Chinese names 

message: Please indulge me why the New York Times is not a biased source, considering every media company in the world reflects certain political views. The BBC,CNN, even WSJ are all politically aligned with the Anglo Saxon world and are Pro-Western media. Any media outlet that holds different point of views is labeled "propaganda," and warned not to be trusted yet no one seems to notice or care about the blatant double standards. Allegations are not proof, yet you people want to add weight to that claim by placing it in the lead section. When I read it, it makes me think SCMP is propaganda outlet, which it isn't but you made it look that way. If I wanted to know more about the Palestine-Israel conflict I could pay attention to Israel media outlets, but then I would be fed pro-Israel side of things. Vice versa, if I pay attention to Palestinian media, I would be fed pro-Palestinian side of things. You don't understand that the New York Times is not invulnerable to biases too, especially when China is a threat to American military and economic supremacy? The sinophobia is clear as day. 
″Since the change of ownership in 2016, it has been alleged to be on a mission to promote China's soft power abroad.[9] According to critics, it is moving away from independent journalism and pioneering a new form of "propaganda".[9]″
EndRacismNow2021 (talk) 15:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: EndRacismNow2021, the passage that you are blanking doesn't "label" SCMP as propaganda. It mentions allegations that the paper is used to promote China's soft power abroad. This is supported by numerous references in the body of the article, including several pieces in The New York Times, which is considered a reliable source acceptable for use on Wikipedia. Please review Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. There are citations which are not "op-eds", such as this one. Citobun (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

text: Much of the article is about SCMP's recent reputation and political stance. There are many references on this subject, so it's not undue weight to include it in the lede. You seem to be Wikipedia:Casting aspersions against me in the rest of your comment – I don't know why. I also don't see how Jeffrey Epstein, Israel, etc. are related to this discussion.  Citobun (talk) 08:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

text: Please do not attack other editors.PrisonerB (talk) 08:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing an Op-ed from the New York Times to label South China Morning Post as "Propaganda"