Jump to content

Talk:2014 Hong Kong protests/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Umbrella Revolution

Is this name getting much coverage in HK English-language media, or elsewhere? I've only heard it mentioned in passing in British/American news sources. I'm not sure that wikipedia should be referring to it as such, yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasAndrewNimmo (talk • contribs) 15:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The term has received extensive coverage in Western media sources. (Some examples: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] and [8]) Inthefastlane (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Could the reason this "Umbrella Revolution" has such coverage here be that it is fake? Just another in a long line of US backed Color Revolts? For this is almost carbon-copy of many other 'up-risings'. As with Syria, first the 'Free-loving' protester take to the streets - to wait for the an over-reaction by the powers-to-be. Next, if things are running to plan, the US will table its 'concern' at Human Rights outrages in the MSM and at the UN. Given this, will Wikipedia class this as a Color Revolt?

78.147.81.109 (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd recommend familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia editing guidelines before you make any further Wikipedia edits. Inthefastlane (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, that was quick! And yet, just what have I said that goes against the rules? For while my general tone might not be to certain editors liking, does not history indicate that the "Umbrella Revolution" have much in common with the Color Revolts? 78.147.81.109 (talk) 20:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

P.S: And, given that "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground or a vehicle for propaganda", I recommend that the whole Umbrella article be totally rewritten to reflect a balanced (non-US centered) POV.

78.147.81.109 (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

My post was quick, but it wasn't as quick as your original post, which, to any serious editor, was soapboxing. Of course nobody is stopping you from adding material that reflects the pro- Chinese government narrative, but given your unsubstantiated (and, frankly, fringe) theories that the Umbrella Revolution is fake and a product of foreign intervention, I would recommend that you thoroughly familiarize yourself with Wikipedia editing guidelines before making any Wikipedia edits. Inthefastlane (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the article does need more perspectives/reactions coming from the pro-China/anti-occupy side, for a balanced article. Lasersharp (talk) 01:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Inthefastlane's IP is likely linked to the student movement in Hong Kong. Dark Liberty (talk) 04:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

FYI that 遮打革命 has been used by multiple Chinese media also. [9] [10] [11] For those who don't know, 遮 is a Cantonese term for "umbrella", 打 means hit, and 遮打 is the Chinese transcription for Chater Road, a nearby road in the district. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 09:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Since I have no interest in pushing a pro-Chinese government narrative, Wikipedia should avoid putting out anti-Chinese information. For the history of Color Revolts has been well substantiated and, frankly, is far from a "fringe" concept. Check out the time-lines of the Syria Revolts and Umbrella Revolutions - they match!

92.16.155.181 (talk) 22:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC) .


The phrase "Umbrella revolution" is already coined to protests of 2007 in Latvia against corrupt government who wanted to sack chief of national anti-corruption office. See http://lettonica.blogspot.com/2007/11/umbrella-revolution.html Avellano (talk) 08:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia and recently, I have noticed that a number of edits have tried to avoid using the word 'Umbrella Revolution'. But as a matter of fact, this term has been widely used, see http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/hong-kong-protests/umbrella-revolution-protesters-scuffle-rivals-hong-kong-n217381. Also, there has been a number of edits suggesting that Scholarism and Hong Kong Federation of Students are the leading figures, but the fact is that especially in Mong Kok, people claim there is no leader. Maybe we need to have a discussion on this matter. --Umbrevolution (talk) 04:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, "it's also been discussed on talk page with consensus about not using the autonomous phrase." I haven't been able to find this discussion. Maybe ηoian could point this out?zzz (talk) 05:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
The discussion on autonomous is in the NPOV section by Dark Liberty which started on 4 October, which unfortunately has not had much replies. It is important to have discussion on it if you do not agree with removing it out, or to find a middle ground. There has been a good amount of edits on it on the page already if you look in the history about the usage of autonomous from before October 4. I'm open to discussing it with others. With regard to the usage of the Umbrella Revolution, there are 2 places where this is discussed on the talk page. Here, and the rename section. Umbrella Revolution as a term is mentioned in the article. However, it should not be put on the infobox, nor be the title of the article. A vote was made on the usage of Umbrella Revolution as the name of the article and this was rejected. There should be no reason why the name of the article and the name of the infobox be different. Furthermore, as mentioned in the first question in this section, Umbrella Revolution is mostly used by western sources (NBC being an example). Washington Post, among MANY OTHER western sources (yes SCMP even had editorials on this) even stated the protesters do not want to use the term Revolution (I added a source in the infobox). Yes, the umbrella is a symbolism that is mentioned in SCMP and other HK Media, but it is not what protesters want as the primary title for the movement. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
That is not a discussion. User Darkliberty has been blocked , and only you replied. No one except you and one blocked user is not a discussion. Multiple users have inserted the word autonomous, and no argument has been used to remove it.
Also, if " The protesters claim that no single group is the leader" (your preferred choice of words in the infobox) then, by definition, they have no leader, and are autonomous.zzz (talk) 05:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Having no single leader is not the same as autonomous. Multiple leaders != autonomous. I think we disagree on the meaning of the word. Also, just because Dark Liberty has been blocked does not mean that the argument in that section is any less valid. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Incidentally, I am open to using better terminology/words to describe the fact that protest subfactions are acting against one another and that there is no clear leadership on the protests themselves on the ground as of this Sunday (day 8). I believe there is still some political leadership as the Federation of Students are negotiating with the government. The thing is that the protest at the beginning was not leaderless. Edit: No complaints about what is currently on the page "The protest is now led by people themselves with no single person/body leading the protest."ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I repeat, you replying to a blocked user is not a discussion. And, regardless of the word used, "The protesters claim that no single group is the leader" = they don't have a leader, by definition. "claim" is not required. zzz (talk) 05:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Was it my fault no one else replied? Dark Liberty was not blocked at the time. Also I edited my above post to say I have no qualms about the current phrasing of "The protest is now led by people themselves with no single person/body leading the protest." You can have leaders of subfactions (which there are). That is different from being autonomous. You are saying no single leader implies don't have a leader implies autonomous. I'm saying no single leader != no leader(s) != autonomous. Rather no single leader can have no leader or it can have multiple leaders or it can have a mix of both. It's not a black/white spectrum of having a leader or being autonomous. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC) (p.s. Sorry about the computer science logic-ish wording with caps earlier, wasn't supposed to convey internet yelling or anything like that)
I think the current wording is fine. I didnt see the caps. I was just objecting to "the protestors claim". Thanks zzz (talk) 05:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Apologies then, I thought you were talking about using the term autonomous. I had no objections to removing protestors claim. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I also think that the current wordings are good enough. The fact is, even though members of Scholarism and HK Federation of Students have tried to take control, no one is listening to them. One example is that on 27 Sept 2014, the Federation asked people to go but no one listened, and some even set up a new occupation area in Mong Kok which is in total contrast with their initial thought. This is the moment when the 'Revolution' began and their leadership stepped down, and this is what i mean by 'autonomous'. Re the use of the word 'Umbrella Revolution', you are right that this is coined by western media. But as you may see from various sources, especially those in the venues, most protest participants have agreed to use the word 'umbrella revolution'. Even the Federation and Scholarism said that they are not having any 'revolution', as they are NOT the leaders, credibility of their words are thus not strong enough to convince a change in the name of this campaign. --Umbrevolution (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the common name is 'Umbrella Revolution' - it is impossible to argue otherwise. The reservations of the leaders of some HK organisations is explained in the article ("Names" section), and has little or no bearing on the global and local popularity of the name. zzz (talk) 00:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I've seen Umbrella Protests, HK Protests, Occupy Central, all kinds of names that are not Umbrella Revolution being used in the media. Umbrella Revolution is a subset of the names. Many factions have rejected it. Just because some factions don't or some overseas media (NOT all overseas media use it) use it does not mean that we should have it predominantly in the infobox, especially when it doesn't match the title of the page. Furthermore, Umbrevolution is a single purpose editor who has been constantly pushing to expand the usage of the term 'Umbrella Revolution' on the article. You can clearly see this in the opinion stated by UmbreRevolution: "most protest participants have agreed to use the word 'umbrella revolution'". This is an opinion as there are many sources which don't use it. UmbreRevolution even admits that Federation, Scholarism are opposed to it. There are sources which show Occupy Central is opposed to it. When there is clear evidence that the naming of the protests is very divided, we should not be making the sole name in the infobox one of the names that many groups have rejected. This POV pushing needs to stop. Also I removed the image UmbreRevolution added because the editor is clearly not neutral/uninvolved with the naming situation. He/she could have simply printed a poster and taken an image.
"it is impossible to argue otherwise" There are sources and citations in the Naming section, you are willfully ignoring the fact that there are many names and saying it is impossible to argue otherwise. How is this not POV pushing? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 08:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Lastly, as Umbrevolution has uploaded pictures of the HK Protests which is marked as 'own work', along with what I feel is a history of POV pushing, I consider him/her to have a conflict of interest. As a new editor, he/she should take a look at WP:COI in order to better contribute to the article. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 08:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • We can't call it revolution because nothing will change. China is quite stable. Western media has already stopped reporting the event, at least in Germany. After all, it just not a big deal to be called revolution. --
It seems that this debate over the term "Umbrella Revolution" is destined to be a subject of contention and edits war on wikipedia in perpetuity, like many other politically sensitve subjects. There are clearly two sharply opposed ideological positions on whether usage of the term is desirable. However, an encyclopedic entry simply has to factually report on the publicly known information about the subject. Wikipedia lacks legitimacy, authority, and relevance when that standard is not upheld, and at the moment I write, the first sentence of this entry referencing use of the term "outside Hong Kong" is unacceptably sophomoric, as any political scientist would agree. The term Umbrella Revolution, whether you like it or not, is what this is going to be referred to in the history books. Moreover, the term is widely used by native Hong Kongers in the streets protesting at this moment. Statements of two protest leaders have been too broadly interpreted as "rejecting" the term. Specifically, the quotes run "this is not a *colour* revolution." It's imperative that the wikipedia entry reflect the reality of usage, so any attempt to say what is being said by whom, where, has to be cited. Aureliano_no_24

2.246.4.138 (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

As of Oct 8/Oct 9, some western media has also started to rename the event as "Umbrella Movement" [12] [Occupy Central: A Hong Kong Protest Evolved From Planned Sit-In To Leaderless Umbrella Movement][Hong Kong’s “Umbrella movement” has become a war of attrition][The Umbrella Movement Belongs to Everyone Who Calls Hong Kong Home], or even suggests that the name "Umbrella Revolution" be avoided [Don't Call Hong Kong's Protests an 'Umbrella Revolution']. I think it is reasonable to describe the event as "Umbrella Movement". Chansiuon (talk) 03:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I have referred to your links and it seems that those articles are a bit biased - those articles are written by pro-Beijing camp writers and as a matter of fact, they are afraid to call it a "Revolution". Thus it's better to keep the name. --1.36.209.129 (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Triads

@dk: I'm not saying Triads weren't involved. I'm saying having them grouped with the rest of the participants under the same subheader is disengenious because it implies they are colluding or related when there is not solid evidence (only accusations) that they are. Their presence could have been spontaneous or random, not necessarily pre-meditated. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 19:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't imply collusion with other anti-Occupy groups. They are rightly grouped under anti-Occupy since their actions were anti-Occupy (ie. shouting down Occupiers and tearing down their tents), how are they not being anti-Occupy? _dk (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The section "Investigation on organized crime use" was removed by user Underbar_dk. The reasoning is that he is "a bit concerned about this section completely referencing the biased apple daily" (seems to be comment in deletion). Now if the party owns 500 sources and true HK sources is down to 1 or 2 left, you are talking about a media monopoly held by one political party. You don't really have much more than 1 or 2 sources to balance the article. Benjwong (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It is true about the monopoly. If at all possible, other sources should be added, though. I may look into it. zzz (talk) 00:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Apple Daily has terrible journalistic standards, regardless of its stance. It's something else if other media outlets (for example Western ones) picked up on this as well. WP:FRINGE applies. _dk (talk) 07:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Are you sure? Apple daily is one of the greatest selling Chinese newspaper of ALL TIME. If you personally question the standard, you will need some sources. Such as another source (that is not state-run) indicating this piece was inaccurate or false. This is the goal of a balanced article. Benjwong (talk) 14:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
There's a reason it's described as a tabloid, and unfortunately sensational tabloids get the largest readership in many parts of the world. When the majority of the media (and I'm not only talking about domestic media) don't corroborate Apple Daily's claims or chooses not to repeat them, then we don't include it per WP:UNDUE. _dk (talk) 15:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
See the Wikipedia article. It makes no mention whatsoever of them making stuff up. In fact, "The newspaper uncovered many political scandals, including a former member of the Legislative Council not reporting conflict of interest in 2000, a former Financial Secretary Antony Leung for tax evasion on a Lexus LS 430 which saved him HK$50,000 (USD $6,400), and many others, leading to the convictions or forced resignations of those individuals." And furthermore "In mid 2014, private emails of Mr.Jimmy Lai were leaked to the media, exposing his secret donations of several million dollars to several prominent Hong Kong's politicians and ex-officials." Unless you can demonstrate that the Wikipedia article is totally misrepresenting the facts, the report must stay, as far as I can see. zzz (talk) 15:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
As long as the story is properly attributed, as it is, there is no problem. The totalitarian media monopoly means that other media outlets don't cover stories like this. A BBC Newsnight report has shown a similar story on Monday. zzz (talk) 15:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
@Benjwong: I remember the zh:陳健康 case many years ago. The episodes that you mention led to follow-up investigations that were reported by other media, but this is not the case here. Are there other media outlets who corroborated this report? Apple Daily wouldn't even say where they got their information from!
@zzz: BBC's story is about the bused in crowd-for-hire, which is wholly different from actual triad mobs. There is no "totalitarian media monopoly" in Hong Kong, only perceived self-censorship. You may be thinking of Mainland China's media landscape instead. _dk (talk) 15:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
It is a different story, true. Involves a bus of "protestors", tho. There hasn't been time for other media orgs to cover it, I wouldn't have thought. zzz (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
If they'd ever made up something this big before, it would surely be mentioned in the Wiki article. Assuming they haven't, then this would have to be the first time. So they have to be given the benefit of the doubt! Just because they also do celebrity gossip or whatever - so does the Guardian! zzz (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I think you've underestimated the WP:systemic bias here on English Wikipedia. That the Wiki article doesn't have it shouldn't be an indication it didn't happen. The Chinese Wikipedia article I linked above talks about Apple Daily paying the husband of a suicide victim to photograph him hiring prostitutes, creating a media storm. Look, the Triads may well have been paid by some Chinese government agency, but I am just asking for some better sources for an extraordinary claim like this. (WP:EXTRAORDINARY) _dk (talk) 16:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
No, that's fair enough, then. That's all I needed to know. It's way too extraordinary. I don't understand how the English article gets away with being so blatantly promotional and biased, it must get very few editors, I guess. zzz (talk) 16:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I mean, they probably have paid Triads, like you suggest, but not busloads. zzz (talk) 16:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
What may have happened is they deliberately conflated the BBC story with the Triad rumours, to sell papers. I'll put the BBC story back in External Links. zzz (talk) 16:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Or better still, leave it there. It is interesting. zzz (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Just added some source from CNN and SCMP. So this is a legit topic discussed internationally. Benjwong (talk) 17:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
CNN and SCMP talked about how much money they were offered (a good start), but not who paid them. _dk (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I am adding more sources. But please try a different perspective. Sources struggle to pinpoint exactly who called in the tanks 25 years after the 1989 Tiananmen incident. Within 24 hrs of this triad incident, one source already found out the ministry of security is responsible, two sources within a week. IMHO these investigation and sources are a wild success. Certainly as more sources are available, they will be added. Benjwong (talk) 01:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I also came to object to the reinsertion of the section entitled "Investigations on organized crime use". It's not just dk who removed it, I also deleted it once. The material, what little there is that can be substantiated and that has been reported reliably, is already in the body of the article. Apple Daily, whilst being a top-selling newspaper, has all too frequently indulged in the worst tabloid excesses that it ranks up there with The Daily mail. Add to that, like The Epoch Times in its aim to destroy the Communist Party, Apple Daily and its proprietor are actively fomenting this uprising, hoping to turn it into a riot at best and a bloodbath involving the military at worst. Let's first disabuse ourselves of the notion that Apple conducted any sort of objective "investigation". In this case, it's simply publishing what its chums in the underworld wanted it to publish – these triads want to be known and feared, after all, and this exposure by Apple is not the least bit undesirable. It's a recruitment ad for the Sun Yee On and Wo Shing Wo, complete with their "price list". The section should be removed in its entirety. -- Ohc ¡digame! 01:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Your focus seems to be very anti-Appledaily and Epoch times (which wasn't even used). BTW there is worldjournal, bbc, yahoo, rfa, cnn sources used there also. Is interesting that you see it as a recruit list. I was thinking this mainland style of violence governance should be seriously highlighted in the most obvious manner. The ministry's punishment is so systematic you can put it in a nice table format for everyone to see. I can get rid of the table and leave the paragraph in. Remember when you are deleting this whole section, you are not telling the whole history in full. Is censoring even if that might not be your intention. Benjwong (talk) 05:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we should keep the section, but delete the parts about who paid the triads and the price list, until more sources are available. Lasersharp (talk) 01:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it needs to be a short summary at most, not a detailed section. zzz (talk) 01:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
It's not for us to speculate, and the only thing incontrovertible is that Triad leaders are paying the triads. These guys don't like being messed with, yet their operations in MK have been brought to their knees. They have mouths to feed, and like any employer who doesn't pay their staff, they will have resurrection in the ranks if this is not cured pronto. Now with the numbers of occupiers and the serious crimes unit of the Police out in force in MK, nobody is scared of them any more. The Apple article attempts to restore that balance by reminding us that the triads are there and who they are. -- Ohc ¡digame! 03:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
The triads are probably not strong. But the ministry can make them strong and above the law. Benjwong (talk) 05:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
OC, I understand your concerns, but there are RS sources talking about the triads situation (CNN/BBC), so the section should be kept but reworked, not completely deleted. Lasersharp (talk) 03:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Don't dispute that, but there are already plenty of mentions about the triads in the Chronology. Ben went waaaay over the top with his section. I'd actually prefer it to be integrated with the body of the article. Also, as a slightly related issue, in view of the general quality/reliability of Apple Daily reporting, and Jimmy Lai's close involvement, Apple has become a primary source and an advocacy site. I feel that citations to Apple must be limited to [relevant and notable] opinions expressed by the journal. -- Ohc ¡digame! 03:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
There is a rfa source there pointing out the Taiwan News agency with more or less the same exact contents as Appledaily. You could have used more of that source, and less of Appledaily. Naturally Appledaily was the first to report this in such depth, so it will be the most used source. Also I find your reliability/tabloid comment inaccurate. This particular news piece was frontpage. They have other Apple divisions for tabloids, and this was never in those sections. Also your advocacy comment goes both ways. You can say a state-run source is an advocate of anti-OC, so don't use those sources. I'll wait for any further comment before restoring it. So far the investigation tells you who was involved, for what compensation and potentially who's responsible. Is worth including. Benjwong (talk) 05:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't see the state-run sources being used in the same way as Apple is being used. But the weight of the triad thing is completely over the top. -- Ohc ¡digame! 06:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Speaking as someone with a slight pro-China bent, I think we should keep the section but mark it as possible speculation until it's covered by Western media. As unreliable as Apple might be, it is still technically news - we're not really in the position to condemn it - and should be given about similar weight as the PRC newspapers (which we do frequently cite as sources) in the interest of NPOV, though it should be given less weight as well as a single-sourced claim.   Remorseless Angel   讲  15:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm triad. Dark Liberty (talk) 07:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Just to mention, the above "triad" has been blocked indefinitely. RGloucester — ☎ 14:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
👍 LikeGood, thanks. Not just a triad, but a vandal and troll too. -- Ohc ¡digame! 14:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I have moved the section to the Oct 7, made it more vague. The first section is worded straight from Bloomberg, so it should be international enough. Benjwong (talk) 03:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Background2

I found out the following resources : Cole%7Cfirst=J. Michael%7Cdate=June 25 (2014), Sunflower Leaders Denied Entry into HongKong{{citation}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link). I think the fact that HK have became quite arbitrary to exclude politically involved visitor, such as the sunflower movement leaders, it relevant.

"[...] student activists and Sunflower Movement leaders Lin Fei-fan (林飛帆) and Chen Wei-ting (陳為廷), as well as Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌), an associate research fellow at Academia Sinica, were denied visas to enter Hong Kong to attend events at the end of June. The trio and other individuals associated with the New School for Democracy were hoping to attend democratic seminars in Hong Kong held to coincide with the 17th anniversary of Hong Kong’s handover to China.
In a Facebook entry on June 24, Lin wrote that they had hoped to join the seminars to show their solidarity for Hong Kong activists involved in Occupy Central and the unofficial referendum on universal suffrage. Besides their shared democratic ideals, many people in Hong Kong had expressed their support for the Sunflower Movement’s three-week-long occupation of the Legislative Yuan in March and April this year, Lin wrote, and they were hoping to reciprocate the kindness."

Yug (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. I added the info in the "Chinese govt and media" section. zzz (talk) 01:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Background

I've been looking at the start of this section (up to the subsection "Standing Committee decision on electoral reform"), and its a complete mess. It contains 2 references, [1] and [2], however most of it is copied directly (word-for-word) out of the latter one, while being deceptively referenced to the former. Not being an expert on constitutional matters, I can't see any way of salvaging it, so I will delete it instead.

For reference, here it is:

In the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984, the governments of the United Kingdom and China agreed that Hong Kong would revert to Chinese control in July 1997 and stated the basic policies under which the city would be governed after the handover. Under the principle of one country, two systems, Hong Kong would enjoy a high degree of autonomy, except in foreign and defence affairs for 50 years after the transfer of sovereignty.[1] Annex I of the treaty states the Hong Kong's leader, the Chief Executive, would eventually be selected by election or through consultations and the legislature would be chosen through elections.[3]

The Hong Kong Basic Law was drafted in accordance with the Joint Declaration and details how the former British colony would be governed. Socialism as practised on the mainland would not be extended to Hong Kong. Instead, the territory would continue its previous capitalist system and way of life for a period of 50 years after 1997. Hong Kong would retain responsibility for its own domestic affairs including, but not limited to, the judiciary and courts of last resort, immigration and customs, public finance, currency, and extradition.[1] Articles 45 and 68 of this constitution prescribed that the Chief Executive would eventually be elected through universal suffrage.

If an honest NPOV background history cannot be written for this article, it is fine to just direct the reader to the "main" articles, as is presently the case.

The BBC ref is not in fact used, as far as I can see, and in any case, more refs would be required for it to be remotely worthwhile.

According to the Manual of Style, untitled sections before the first subsection are not recommended anyway. I think the article is much better now without this. zzz (talk) 18:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Referencing problems aside, the information contained in these paragraphs are important as the interpretation of the Basic Law is the flashpoint in the current protests. Some background of the relevant passages and the political situation in HK should be included. _dk (talk) 07:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes. my problem was with the use of quotations without quotation marks being attributed to the wrong source.zzz (talk) 14:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

RM (October 2014)

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved although if the proposed name becomes the clear common name, another RM may be appropriate in the future. Number 57 17:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


2014 Hong Kong protests → Umbrella Revolution – Rather than the generic WP:NDESC title that we currently have, I believe we should use the proper name commonly used in reliable sources "Umbrella Revolution". This title is widely used. As an example, one can see these two articles[13][14] articles from The New York Times, this article from Bloomberg News, this article from The Guardian, this article from The Huffington Post, this article from CNN, and this article from Slate. There is no justification for retaining a WP:NDESC title when an unambiguous proper name is used across the news media, and I believe that this term is "Umbrella Revolution". RGloucester — ☎ 16:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC) RGloucester — ☎ 16:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

well HKP has 10,100,000 google hits; UR has 7,620,000. not much of a consensus there. I sense the nomenclature is political !? 198.24.31.117 (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
"Hong Kong protests" could refer to anything. "Umbrella Revolution" is a proper noun, and is used by reliable sources. RGloucester — ☎ 17:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
well, civil unrest in 2014 is pretty specific. is there a protestor that calls themselves a revolutionary? could calling them one be a political act? 2 states; one solution could be the slogan. 198.24.31.117 (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
This strikes me as WP:OR. Can we follow the sources, please? RGloucester — ☎ 17:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
oh really, I seem to recall many protestors being interviewed in reliable sources: is there a single one that says revolution? or are they calling for strict adherence to Hong Kong Basic Law? do you have sources other than outsiders editorializing? is not this name a POV framing to suit one party, that flouts One country, two systems. 198.24.31.117 (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
your source NYT says: "Hong Kong Protests Are Leaderless but Orderly" [15]. 198.24.31.117 (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it does. It then goes on to talk about the "Umbrella Revolution" as the name for these protests. RGloucester — ☎ 20:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment In any case, I think we should retitle the article into something more specific. Either "Occupy Central protests" or "Umbrella Revolution" is better than the unspecific name we currently have. As a Hongkonger I can say that we have protests every weekend. The Chinese-language media uniformly calls it the Occupy Central movement or protests (佔中行動/佔中示威). _dk (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Only English-language sources matter for discussions of title naming. I favour Umbrella Revolution, as it has really caught on in English-language media over the past few days, as shown. RGloucester — ☎ 17:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid taking opinions of those either from Hong Kong or from China would violate WP:Neutrality and would have a conflict of interest, even if you were in favor of the term Occupy Central. Dark Liberty (talk) 02:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm thinking of the many people that might hear the term "Umbrella Revolution" in passing and not know what it is; they should be able to find an article under the same name on Wikipedia. See Commonly recognizable names CatanOverlord (talk) 19:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Not exactly sure what you mean. Reliable sources refer to these protests as such, as so to should we. That's what our guidelines and policy state. It doesn't really matter why. Names like "2014 Taiwan protests" are examples of what is called a WP:NDESC title. These are only used if there is no commonly used proper name for an event. There was in the case that you mention, and there is here. That's why we use the common name. RGloucester — ☎ 20:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm changing my vote. Also, what happened to applying WP:POVNAME? Is the proposed name colloquial, discouraged by POVNAME? --George Ho (talk) 04:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
There is nothing "POV" about it, as I said, unless "Umbrellas" have some kind of subversive significance in Chinese mythology. This name is not colloquial, it is used by thousands of reliable sources, including reputable newspapers, as I've demonstrated. Anyway, even if it was "POV", POVNAME states "In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue". RGloucester — ☎ 05:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
That's not an adequate justification for ignoring the commonly-used name by reliable sources. We have guidelines on this matter. RGloucester — ☎ 22:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank for the links to the guidelines. I did some Google searches to see if there was a dominant name. Here are the results:
  • “2014 Hong Kong protests” 8 thousand
  • 2014 “Hong Kong protests” 1.6 million
  • “Umbrella revolution” 0.8 million
  • 2014 “Hong Kong protests” – “umbrella revolution” 1.5 million
So at least for me, "Hong Kong Protests" is currently the dominant term. That's not to say "Umbrella Revolution" is not an important term, but we are acknowledging its importance with the redirect.--Nowa (talk) 23:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Google searches are not useful here. "2014 Hong Kong protests" can refer to any other protests in Hong Kong in the past year, and there have been plenty. What's more, articles that use "2014 Hong Kong protests" may well also use "Umbrella Revolution", as you demonstrated with your last search, because "Hong Kong protests" is descriptive, whereas "Umbrella Revolution" is the name of those protests. There are tons of false hits. Reliable sources are calling it these events the "Umbrella Revolution", and describing the Umbrella Revolution as "Hong Kong protests". Just as we should do. I've provided reliable sources, whereas you have not. RGloucester — ☎ 23:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Just to clarify, the search term 2014 “Hong Kong protests” – “umbrella revolution” looks for pages that refer to the current “Hong Kong Protests” without using the term “Umbrella revolution”. Here are a few examples from the past week: Washington Post, New York Times, NPR, Straights Times, BBC--Nowa (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
More and more sources are using the term now[16][17]. Notice that they describe the "Umbrella Revolution" as "Hong Kong protests". This is essential. One must realise that "Hong Kong protests" is descriptive, whereas the proper name for the protests is "Umbrella Revolution". RGloucester — ☎ 23:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I would agree that more and more sources are using the term “Umbrella Revolution”, but I still don't see any evidence that it is the dominant term. But, having said that, we don't need to agree. We can each have our own opinion.--Nowa (talk) 00:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Google searches are very relevant, there is even a pillar about it. As a software analyst with some familiarity with the Wikimedia Foundation and the the code of Wikipedia, Wikipedia would be some would say, as active, data-driven and crowd-sourced through every link and search that exists on the internet. basically, Wikipedia is completely driven by Google searches. Dark Liberty (talk) 03:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
What is a "revolution" or not is determined by reliable sources, not by our own WP:OR. Reliable sources call it as such, presumably in reference to the colour revolutions (i.e. Orange Revolution), which were not "revolutions" necessarily in the traditional sense. There is nothing "non-neutral" about the proposed title, unless "umbrellas" imply some kind of subversion I'm not aware of. RGloucester — ☎ 02:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep name I don't think the term will be known by people a few years down the line, and more than likely it will be described as 2014 Hong Kong protests in history textbooks. We should use the correct nomenclature for historical events. Umbrellas and Sunflowers would be as they perceived it; just as we can't title events based on some failed marketing campaign. If the Islamic State called themselves the Sons of Ra, are we going to listen to them? Dark Liberty (talk) 02:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Er, no. I listen to "reliable sources", like the ones I provided above. I certainly don't use a crystal-ball to divine what these events might be called down the line, as that'd be a bit of violation of Wikipedia guidelines and policies. RGloucester — ☎ 03:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
You're going to condone murder by the Islamic State and then self-title them Sons of Ra, like the coronation of Napoleon? Dark Liberty (talk) 03:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I'll call them "Sons of Ra" if they are most commonly called "Sons of Ra" by reliable sources, but that's neither here nor there. RGloucester — ☎ 03:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
So the sources that state Islamic State are not reliable if Sons of Ra were a more popular term? Dark Liberty (talk) 03:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I really don't understand what you're getting at here with this queer hypothetical. If the majority of reliable sources use a term for an event, we use that term per WP:UCN, barring some rare exception. RGloucester — ☎ 03:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Although your opinion is in the minority, that has no bearing on the title of the article, and I think your opinion should be considered. Although, for example, Sons of Ra would be in the perspective of the Islamic State, and that cannot be used even if most sources (Arabic) would describe it as such. Dark Liberty (talk) 03:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
What bringing up irrelevant comparison to an irrelevant, nonrelated topic? Can we just compare this article to 2014 Taiwan protests? --George Ho (talk) 03:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
You've hit the nail on the head, Mr Ho. That's because there is no "2014 Taiwan protests". It is a redirect to Sunflower Student Movement. RGloucester — ☎ 03:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
When this discussion is closed, I'll propose the move request on that article. --George Ho (talk) 04:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
No need, it already redirects to Sunflower Revolution. Dark Liberty (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I meant, renaming it to "2014 Taiwan protests". --George Ho (talk) 04:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, that's not going to happen because, as you'll find out, Wikipedia isn't exactly the most objective source on recent historical events; you'll find more opposition there in that article than there is support. Dark Liberty (talk) 04:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
The idea of "2014 Taiwan protests" or "2014 Hong Kong protests" is absurd at face-value, not even bringing WP:UCN into play. There have been plenty of different protests throughout the year in both Taiwan and Hong Kong. Which specific protests are we talking about, huh? That title doesn't provide the reader with any information at all. What's more, it fails WP:UCN. We use the proper names. We only invent WP:NDESC titles when there is no proper name. There is a proper name, so we don't invent anything out of thin air. Reliable sources uses these names, so too do we. Calling that article 2014 Taiwan protests would be like referring to 2014 Ferguson unrest as 2014 American unrest. RGloucester — ☎ 04:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
What? Ferguson is a city, but I guess non-US readers won't know what "Ferguson" refers to. Also, what about WP:CRITERIA, another section of WP:AT policy? How and why is "Umbrella Movement" (never mind) recognizable, natural, precise, concise, and consistent, especially in a long term? --George Ho (talk) 04:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I have linked all the criteria. The present title is not "precise", as it could refer to any protest during the year in Hong Kong, and there have been plenty. The present title is not concise, as it does not instantly divulge that it is referring to what is now called the "Umbrella Revolution". The present title is not "natural", because it is an artificial construct used for descriptive purposes only. My point, Mr Ho, was that "2014 Taiwan protests" can refer to any protest in the year 2014 in Taiwan, which is a fairly large place. It is completely non-specific and imprecise, and essentially means nothing at all. Naming that article as such would be the same as naming the Ferguson protests as "American protests". It does not adequately define the scope of the article. Regardless, "Umbrella Revolution" meets all the criteria. Firstly, it is the most commonly used name. Secondly, it is precise: there has only ever been one Umbrella Revolution. Fourthly, it is natural: this is the name that arose organically during the protest, and which has come to dominate the headlines. Fifthly, it is concise: it instantly tells the reader what it is about, just as does Orange Revolution. RGloucester — ☎ 05:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
However, any other Hong Kong or Taiwan protests must meet WP:notability. If there is one notable event about protests of the year, then we shall treat it as such. Maybe we could add just a month name to disambiguate protests, like "March 2014 <whatever> protests". I see you live in UK, which occupied Hong Kong until 1997 handover to China, and I wonder if you are directly involved in a campaign in or outside HK. --George Ho (talk) 05:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Aiya! Assume good faith. WP:PRECISE is an article title criterion, don't you agree? RGloucester — ☎ 05:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, so you want to connect the two protests due to analogy rather than make this an encyclopedic entry. I see. Dark Liberty (talk) 03:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Not yet As the media either use 'HK protests' or 'Umbrella Rev' interchangeably right now, I would recommend waiting until a consensus is reached by the press as to what they are calling this. Lasersharp (talk) 05:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
There is a consensus. If they use "HK protests", they used it as a description of what "Umbrella Revolution" is, not as a proper name to refer to the events. Furthermore, the present title is extremely flawed, as I've demonstrated. RGloucester — ☎ 05:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
You know what? Maybe it's time for you to take a short break from this. I see you focusing on the content of this article, so why not solely fix content issues then? As for consensus, they said, "not yet". Don't you see? --George Ho (talk) 05:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I respect your opinion, but IMHO, after doing a search of recent news stories about this event, there are still a lot of reporters using only the HK protests name to describe the event, without referring it as Umb Rev. Lasersharp (talk) 05:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now -- The name "Umbrella Revolution" is certainly widely used but is not clearly the most commonly used term for the event. Until a clear and persistent majority expands beyond lines like "some have dubbed the movement the “umbrella revolution”" there's no reason to make a change. We have the fortune of being an encyclopedia here, not a news source, and thus our focus is on long term notability. We can wait and see if this is a term that will stick, like Orange Revolution, or fades away.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not the common name yet. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Sources? RGloucester — ☎ 13:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now, as per above. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Not yet I certainly agree with RGloucester that the name is gaining currency with both the English speaking and Chinese medias, but that in itself is not surprising, the media likes names optimized for soundbytes and Umbrella Revolution fits the bill. I also agree that the naming is reminiscent of the color revolutions, and that there are obvious parallels, but this early in the protests it remains to be seen whether any lasting changes to HK society or electoral process will be effected. Remember that the western media is pro-democracy (a bias I share) and is also quite anti-Chinese in general, so making this out to be a David-and-Goliath-style toppling of an authoritarian mainland decree is pushing a sort of POV. The name "Umbrella Revolution" and the comparison to the Color Revolutions furthers that agenda. While the current title is admittedly boring, it has the benefit of being free for the moment of any particular systemic bias. If and when this particular series of protests results in unconstrained universal suffrage in Hong Kong and thus guarantees itself a place in the history books as something different from the many, many pro-democracy protests Hong Kong has had before, we can make the change. Until then a redirect seems sufficient.Eniagrom (talk) 08:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Failed movements are just as notable as successful ones. This is a false proposition. Regardless, that's WP:CRYSTAL and not at all appropriate. RGloucester — ☎ 12:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I think you're misunderstanding WP:CRYSTAL. Saying let's wait and see what happens before we rename an article because a term currently in vogue may not satisfy WP:LASTING isn't a violation of that. And beyond even that, the reality is that the term Umbrella Revolution has a very definite POV, which when dealing with politically sensitive topics such as this one should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. I do not oppose a move in principle, I just oppose one now. There are no deadlines at WP, and I do not feel like you've made a good case for the urgency of this move. Why is moving it now rather than in two weeks when the dust settles so important?Eniagrom (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Because falsely constructed titles like the present one here feel disgusting in my mouth, and also because they do not adequately reference this particular event. Proper names are preferred to false constructs, and this is the proper name. RGloucester — ☎ 15:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
This sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and while I empathize, I still feel WP:POVNAME and WP:NDESC apply for now. Eniagrom (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
It would only be "I don't like it" if it wasn't backed by policy. For example, WP:UCN and, yes, WP:POVNAME. I provided many sources to that effect. In fact, POVNAME supports my argument, it does not hinder it. Whilst I don't agree that "Umbrella Revolution" has any POV, even if it did, POVNAME says that we should use the most common name even if it contains some elements of POV. Your comments on the success or failure of the movement are irrelevant. As an example, the Orange Revolution ultimately failed at the 2006 parliamentary elections, but that doesn't mean that we now rename it as "2004–2005 Ukraine protests". We use the common name, as described by reliable sources. Proper names are preferred to constructed WP:NDESC names. RGloucester — ☎ 16:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Letter removed

There was an edit that removed all the links to the letter to Xi Jinping. Arguably the most important thing that happened politically on that protest day. Why was it removed? Benjwong (talk) 18:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I think, because it counts as being from a primary source. I restored it at first, but then I changed my mind & deleted it again. Has it been mentioned in the media? zzz (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Ok I'll grab some NYtimes etc international source. Benjwong (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b c "Hong Kong's democracy debate". BBC. 23 September 2014. Retrieved 28 September 2014.
  2. ^ "The Joint Declaration – ANNEX I". Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau.
  3. ^ "The Joint Declaration – ANNEX I". Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2014_Hong_Kong_protests/Archive_2&oldid=1140249469"