Talk:Apple Daily

News

You should not be putting other newspapers here... put them into the "Newspapers of Hong Kong" page. (Fuzheado 17:14 15 Jul 2003 (UTC))

Agree with Fusheado!!! Also, the description about "popular" or not is a bit subjective..........

Oops, we don't want to be unpaid tutors of undergraduate students. :P Wshun

Don't worry, they will be out of your hair in a few days. Although I do wonder whether students have ever used Wikipedians to surreptitiously help in editing their assignments.  :) (Fuzheado 05:04 16 Jul 2003 (UTC))

Is its name The Apple Daily or Apple Daily? If the is in the title then it has to be in the title here, eg The Irish Times, Irish Independent. FearÉIREANN 05:06 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

There is no such word for "the" in the Chinese language. I went to their website and couldn't find an "official" English translation. --Jiang

I believe Apple Daily is correct, though since it is a Chinese only publication (and Chinese does not have "articles") it's hard to be certain. However, all the English language press in Hong Kong cite it as Apple Daily so I think the move is a good one. (Fuzheado)

As for "corporate logo" concerns, the flag of a newspaper (ie. the newspaper name/logo seen on the print publication) seems a legitimate addition. One, it is not blatant advertising and 2) does provide a function since not everyone can read Chinese. So it at least shows the title in Chinese and the colorful look of the paper, which it is famous for. (Fuzheado)

I dont believe it is a copyright violation to use a corporate logo when describing or referring to the corporation. Certainly, if a corporation complains we can remove the offending image. Pizza Puzzle

No its a trade mark infringement, under Hong Kong law. This is a registered trade mark being used without permission. It shoudl be removed, immediately.-David Stewart 14:06 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Since I'm coming from the US, perhaps you can explain the HK law to me. In the US, this would clearly fall under fair use, under Fair Use Clause of Section 107 of the amended Copyright Act of 1976. In US law, not only is this non-commercial use, but the law explicitly allows for product comparison and news reporting, even in commercial use. If CNN does a news report about Ford's quarterly earnings, they can use Ford's logo in their graphic, without Ford's permission. See EFF's Chilling Effects for reasons why this is a good thing. Perhaps the HK law explanation would be good additions to Hong_Kong_copyright_law and Hong_Kong_trademark_law. (Fuzheado)

Hong Kong doesn't have jurisdiction over the wikipedia anyways. Pizza Puzzle

Really? You haven't read my article on Gutnick v Dow Jones, then. Jurisdiction is no boundary for internet-based torts in the common law world.

There is no fair use defence for trade mark infringement. Product comparison was only introduced as of 4 April 2003, and even then I would think you are not allowed ot use another trade mark in doing so, but only mention the other product by name. Copyright has a fair dealing exception under the Copyright Ordinance Cap 528 which is extremely limited when compared to fair use in the US - academic publications and criticism fall under it. But even if you could say that we are suing a regsitered trade mark for the purposes of academic publication, we'd still be infringing the trade mark. Wikipedia earns no profit, so it'd be damages at large - a sufficient deterrent to stop other people from doing it. And because I've now written this, if we keep them up and for example Apple Daily (a fairly litigious newspaper, represented by Deacons, one of Hong Kong's largest law firms)decides to sue, then they'd be entitle to flagrant (punitive)damages. And yes, I am a Hong Kong copyright lawyer. - David Stewart 15:10 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

If Apple Daily has an issue, they can feel free to contact the wikipedia. Pizza Puzzle

I'd hope instead that the Wikipedia acually feels compelled to obey the law and protect and respect intellectual property rights. - David Stewart 03:03 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

In this instance, no newspaper on earth unless run by imbeciles would ligitate, or be anything other than happy that they are getting coverage in a massive internationally read encyclopædia. . Wikipedia is a non-profit organisation that it not abusing the image but is simply giving the newspaper worldwide free publicity of the sort that would cost tens of millions if it had to be bought, by providing an article accompanied by a logo. Any media organisation stupid enough to take offence and treaten court action would face a public relations calamity. Anybody in PR would tell you that their advice to the company in question would be "don't be idiots". If they made an issue of it, they would open themselves up to ridicule with every rival publication and probably get themselves international coverage that would do them horrendous damage. I have worked in public relations and anyone who has would tell you that the advice would be not only not to sue, but to say "thanks for the article. Here is a better image of our logo and as much factual information as you need. Anytime you need more, call me that this number. Thank you very very much for the coverage." For they would know that the coverage would increase readership from visitor readership from people who had seen the article and then saw the newspaper and had the potential to increase native readership among those who had never bothered to pick up a copy before but might just having read about it.

I write for a number of newspapers. One of them, when they discovered they were on wiki, were not merely happy; it was mentioned at the editorial conference, with the deputy editor informing people "we have made it into a major net encyclopædia". When they discovered I contributed they offered access to any of their photographs, but as they could not release them under the GNU licence that offer could not be accepted.

The logo in this case is a clear case of fair use and any publishing house would be stark raving mad to take offence because of the positive benefits that could flow from the recognition, and the massive ridicule and damage that could result if they were insane enough to complain. Media companies more than almost anything else rely on their reputation in the business and unless run by absolute imbeciles would run a mile from making themselves a laughing stock in the industry by complaining about getting worldwide free coverage in one of the net's biggest encyclopædias. In fact any newspaper group I have dealt with would pay and pay handsomely to get an entry into a world wide publication. Your worries, David, are groundless. And as Pizza said, if they were stupid enough to complain, the image could be pulled in an instant. FearÉIREANN 03:49 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Of course Jtdir, in my heart I agree with you 100% :) Then again, I'm also sensitive to getting to the truth and learning about the implications of publishing Wikipedia on a global scale. For David, I have this: Not wanting to sound argumentative Re: Gutnick vs. Dow Jones. But, do you think the nature of the case being defamation had a crucial role in the case being pursued and ruled upon across borders, as opposed to, say, copyright or trademark? Systems derived from the English model have, to be polite, "lower" thresholds for defamation than what this American is used to. The agreed upon laws of trademark and copyright seem to have more international harmony than those of defamation. In the U.S. you must prove "intent" to do harm and "reckless disregard" for the facts. (BTW, I find the Wikipedia entries for English defamation law severely lacking, or simply missing!) (Fuzheado 03:59 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)){{subst:image source|Image:20051012 07.jpg)) Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

{{missing rationale2|Image:20051012 07.jpg

Tabloid

If you live in Hong Kong, then you certainly know Apple Daily is one the top 3 best selling newspaper. I have found someone labelled it as tabloid. It is tabloid-style, but not tabloid. The definition of tabloid is a small newspaper company, and I daresay Apple Daily doesn't fall into the tabloid category. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 07:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

These days, when someone calls a newspaper tabloid, they're not necessarily referring to its format, but its content. Tabloid papers tend be sensationalist and lack journalistic integrity and that is what is usually meant when labelling a paper tabloid. Herbert Xu 13:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

tabloid can refers to the paper format, tabloid can refers to the tabloid journalism. Company size does not matter. The Sun of UK is published by a big company. Matthew hk (talk) 11:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Use a Cantonese romanisation for Hong Kong articles

I've changed the romanisation from Mandarin (Pinyin) to Cantonese (Yale). This is a Hong Kong newspaper so the Mandarin pronunciation is fairly irrelevant. (For those not familiar with the Chinese language situation, it would be like giving the British English pronounciation for Barstow,_California at the top of its wikipedia page). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.139.235 (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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

• Apple Daily (2020-09-13).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

"Traditional Chinese tabloid"

Tabloid or not, it should read "tabloid (or newspaper) writen / typeset in Traditional Chinese script." Most people with no background knowledge will think that "Traditional Chinese" is a language, when it's not.

"Western governments"

Is the Japanese government (which has criticized the police raids) a "Western government" as used in the lead section? feminist (+) 13:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Since there is no response, I assume there is no objection to removing "Western" from the description of governments. feminist (+) 01:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

You raised a good point. No objection. STSC (talk) 13:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

"9.6 million monthly unique visitors in Hong Kong" is twice the adult population.

"9.6 million monthly unique visitors in Hong Kong" is twice the adult population of Hong Kong. I don't see this in the WSJ source. Delete? Keith McClary (talk)

@Keith McClary: People checking the website on different devices (e.g. home computer, phone, work computer, etc) would register as unique visits. The WSJ source says: "Apple Daily’s website had about 9.6 million monthly unique visitors in Hong Kong and a print circulation of more than 86,000 copies, according to the most recent filings from the paper’s Hong Kong-listed publisher." Citobun (talk) 02:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@Citobun The "archive" link does not include that. Keith McClary (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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

• Appledaily.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Fake news

As a Hong Konger, Apple Daily has proven to have a ton of fake news trying to destroy the governments reputation. Should I show examples and should this information even be mentioned? I'm new to this. 182.239.117.149 (talk) 08:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

AI generated fluff

After the site was shut down, it was bought by a Serbian DJ/blogger who turned it into a sit with AI-generated material. (according to Wired and NPR) Kdammers (talk) 17:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Alt-right

It is inappropriate to put "alt-right" in infobox. Just because some regressive liberals in the U.S. or the U.K. advocate for Islamists, they do not consider them "Islamists". The fact that Apple Daily advocates for Trump and uses racist rhetoric about the Chinese does not mean that they are "alt-right". Apple Daily is referred to by many sources as China's "liberal" media. ProKMT (talk) 07:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for the error. The fact remains though that the protesters caused permanent damage to their own cause by allowing Apple Daily to influence their thinking. Jimmy Lai also brought his oppression on himself for worshipping on Trump's alter though, and I think this article should point that fact out. WakeFan1991 (talk) 13:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I also think Hong Kong's "liberal" Apple Daily is more of a fake news representing the American far right conservatives. However, Apple Daily is not Hong Kong's conservative. In ROC (Taiwan), Taiwanese nationalist leftists use McCarthyistic and anti-Chinese racist rhetoric more than pan-Blue conservatives. A liberal in country A can support a conservative in country B, but that doesn't mean liberal in country A is a conservative in country A; the regressive liberal in the United States could support the Islamist far right, and the regressive liberal in Hong Kong could support the American far right. ProKMT (talk) 05:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Apple Daily and the Hong Kong pro-democracy camp brought their oppression on themselves by depending on a conman (and now a convicted criminal himself) like Trump to help come and save them, and it completely backfired. That said, the Chinese government ought to be ashamed of themselves for using that as an excuse to annex HK. WakeFan1991 (talk) 13:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Please remember to respect no synthesis of published materials. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 13:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, the new description of "conspiracy theories" in the second sentence needs citations. Such a claim requires proportionate use by reliable sources of high quality, saying in their own words that the publication was known for conspiracy theories. Refquotes would be helpful. I added a tag. Llll5032 (talk) 02:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I believe there are similar issues with using the word “xenophobia”, which seems to originate from a June 1, 2024, edit by User_talk:24.168.227.242 and remains in the current version.

In addition to being completely unsupported by any citations, the use of “xenophobia” is cause for confusion because it appears the user is writing as if the paper were written/controlled by non-Chinese parties, being xenophobic to/against Chinese people. As opposed to the more rational interpretation, as I initially read it: if this Hong Kong-based newspaper were described as “xenophobic”, that would imply it would be anti-West, anti-US, anti-Japan, etc.

At the risk of veering into speculation, this user’s edits seem to me politically motivated by pro-China/CCP interests to portray the paper in a negative/anti-China light.

In any case, I myself am not well-versed in Wikipedia protocols and etiquette (e.g. reverts, semi-protect, etc.) so haven’t done anything, but could the folks in this thread please take a look and take appropriate action to maintain neutrality? Thanks! Rubixmann (talk) 12:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)