> Lastly, let's just say that the survey source is highly suspect. It's commissioned by a British news agency with an institute whose CEO has been accused for t

> Lastly, let's just say that the survey source is highly suspect. It's commissioned by a British news agency with an institute whose CEO has been accused for treason and has expressed pro-succession views and has since been exiled to the UK. Now you mistake [3] for [1] too? [3] is a peer reviewed paper (just like [2]), and neither [2] nor [3] has anything to do with Reuters (the British news agency you refer to). Let me link [3] again for you: [3]https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/china-quarterly/article/total-mobilization-from-below-hong-kongs-freedom-summer/92BA12D2EEA5782B4330B0D07B389842 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/china-quarterly/arti... edit: Since max depth I'll just reply here (since you clearly also argue in bad faith). You claimed the paper had relation to a British news agency, it doesn't. So factually you are wrong, end of story.