Jump to content

Talk:2014 Hong Kong protests/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2014

There's a constantly updating blog about HK protest written by a University of Notre Dame political science professor that would be helpful if added to external links Blog Address: http://victoriatbhui.wordpress.com Rosacastillo (talk) 04:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done:

We can't add some blog written by someone not notable. Perhaps read WP:EL about blogs. --George Ho (talk) 01:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Wind Turbines

I know we need RS and all that, but still, this is pretty cool, Wind turbines at the Admiralty study center.--Nowa (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, it seems to me that "relevance, importance and notability" are all relative to the theme of an article. For this article which seems to focus on the events and political activity, perhaps not, but for an article on "life in the protest zones", perhaps so.--Nowa (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Still waiting for more RS. Meanwhile, here's a Vine.--Nowa (talk) 12:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Aljazeera

@_dk, Not a reliable ref. We don't include stuff that only Aljazeera reports. If something is worth mentioning, and is actually true, better sources can be found. zzz (talk) 09:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

And 3 protesters getting arrested wouldn't go in the article in any case, by the way. zzz (talk) 09:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand your hostility to Al Jazeera since I've seen nothing but stellar reporting from them (except for their evident bias against Israel), but this is not something I want to bash heads over. I also don't care enough for the 3 additional arrests to find the "better" sources, however much I might disagree with you on this matter. _dk (talk) 09:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I saw them totally make up a story about Boko Haram, once, even inventing a long speech that never happened. I'm sure they meant well, but I never trust them after that. zzz (talk) 10:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

To head off further unfounded edits about Aljazeera being only one of three media outlets covering the clashes on Nov 5, a simple search on Google News about "Mong Kok clashes" will return many sources from WSJ, SCMP, The Guardian, etc., dated Nov 5 or 6. And this does not even include the Hong Kong Chinese-language press. _dk (talk) 23:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

So far you have Aljazzeera and the Reading Eagle Newspaper. That's two. And you have a reference to an article in Quartz which doesn't mention the incident. If reputable sources cover it, why don't you use them? And, why use a source that doesn't cover it? zzz (talk) 23:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not the one who put those sources there in the first place. All I'm saying is that you will find more credible sources if you have searched for them on Google News, here. _dk (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
The person who added it has has not attempted to justify his edit. And neither have you. Yesterday he added 3 phoney references that don't mention the incident, now he's added another one. Since you apparently support his edit, and I'm being threatened about "edit warring", I suggest you remove the fraudulent reference. zzz (talk) 23:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

You're "sure other editors on this page don't appreciate their additions being sabotaged in this manner" Yeah, I keep sabotaging the article, don't I? zzz (talk) 00:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

No need to take this personally. _dk (talk) 00:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Fine. So what's the reason to include this "incident"? The only reason it was reported in Aljazeera and the "Reading Eagle" is that it's the first arrest for a while.

That is not an encyclopedic reason.

Please justify your inclusion of this trivia. zzz (talk) 00:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

We've covered clashes so far, what makes this particular one trivial? _dk (talk) 01:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

No, there needs to be a positive reason for its inclusion. The question is, what makes it relevant or notable? zzz (talk) 01:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

You mean it balances weight per WP:NPOV? Citing "notability" is getting overdone already; let's review WP:N first. --George Ho (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
George Ho, Note that when something is "cited", a link or some other indication is provided. zzz (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I'll rephrase: "notability" rules are for topics, not content. If one topic is significantly covered in many sources, that's notable. From WP:N: "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." Why using the word "notability" and not "weight" or "undue weight" or "neutrality"? --George Ho (talk) 01:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not "citing" anything except the English language. What makes the incident relevant or notable? (And not trivial) zzz (talk) 01:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Here's the essay, Wikipedia:Handling trivia, for you just in case. --George Ho (talk) 01:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Someone shines a torch in a policeman's eye, a scuffle ensues, a couple of people get arrested. End of story. Trivia. Why is it in this article? I can't think of any reason. And none has been suggested. zzz (talk) 01:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Its importance appears to be the police attempts to muddy the waters in MK, finding apparently spurious excuses to justify the use of violence against the protesters. The police have previously stated that umbrellas, goggles and other protective gear to be "offensive" in nature. Now lights from cellphones appear to have joined the list. -- Ohc ¡digame! 01:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
That would be an appropriate reason. However, unless a RS agrees with your analysis of the incident, it is WP:OR, and therefore unacceptable. Incidentally, I find your theory very unconvincing in regard to this incident. Police the world over would react similarly to having a light shined in their eye. zzz (talk) 01:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Police have started photographing the protesters that many see that as escalation and are now putting on masks to avoid identification, and I suspect the lights may also act as spoilers to the police cameras. -- Ohc ¡digame! 01:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
"I suspect": OR. It could equally well be reacting as expected to having a light shined in one's eye. What is so hard to believe about that? None of the sources provided give any indication of anything else going on, and your support for the edit is purely WP:OR. zzz (talk) 01:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
To avoid OR, we can strictly phrase what the source says. Or add certain links to "External links" section. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 01:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • That's why I haven't attempted to put any of it int the article. I've been talking to people, and reading all over the place about it. There are some mentions in the independent Chinese press. -- Ohc ¡digame! 02:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The sources provided say "Someone shines a torch in a policeman's eye, a scuffle ensues, a couple of people get arrested." Which is far too trivial for an encyclopedia. zzz (talk) 02:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
And, this is in the context of removing the protesters' announcement of the proposal to take the protest to Beijing for the summit of world leaders - an announcement which got international coverage as a notable event. (And was added by 2 editors) No Original Reasearch was required for the significance of that. zzz (talk) 03:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't need to report every punch and kick in a clash as per WP:NOTNEWS; the flashing light incident is too trivial to get mentioned. STSC (talk) 06:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
When the flashing light led to pepper sprays being used again, maybe it's not so trivial. _dk (talk) 06:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Are details before that detail not adequate enough to signify police brutality? Is explanation of police brutality not enough here? --George Ho (talk) 07:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
It's the physical clash that led to the use of pepper sprays. The flashing light is just another act of provocation like smearing at the police. If it was a laser light then it would be mentioned because it's actually harmful. STSC (talk) 07:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
If there's one thing police don't like, it's having a light shined in their eyes. A lot of fuss is being made about this, and I don't know why. zzz (talk) 07:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
To explain how more brutal police has become? Or to explain some "physical clash", or a riot or brawl that may not impact the topic? --George Ho (talk) 07:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Even using pepper sprays is just a normal crowd control activity by the police in these clashes and it becomes trivial now; it's not like using the rubber bullets. STSC (talk) 07:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
It's just a normal regular part of the police arsenal. Not worth mentioning. zzz (talk) 08:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Condense "Chronology" section?

We want to appeal to general readers interested in this topic. However, I don't like the idea of expanding the article too much. The section is an example, and it may still have some insignificant content, even when some other contents have been removed. Should this section be condensed? If not, what can we do to make this topic more encyclopedic? --George Ho (talk) 01:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

  • I agree. I think that chronology sections actually violate WP:NOTNEWS, but it has been coming along nicely with the gradual removal of instances and incidents, and the transitioning to generalised commentary. -- Ohc ¡digame! 01:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I disagree that chronology sections violate WP:NOTNEWS (I just read it). As long as only significant events are included, it's as good a way as any to organise the information - better, in my opinion. Especially for a series of events like this. I think the article structure seems fine. zzz (talk)
  • Rearranging the information into separate categories might cause a lot of constant cross-referencing, Chronologically, between the sections. Which would ultimately be counter-productive, obviously. That's my opinion, atm. zzz (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "Later that morning, protests escalated as police blocked roads and bridges entering Tim Mei Avenue. Protest leaders urged citizens to come to Admiralty to encircle the police. Tensions rose at the junction of Tim Mei Avenue and Harcourt Road after the police used pepper spray. As night fell, armed riot police advanced from Wan Chai towards Admiralty and unfurled a banner that stated "Warning, Tear Smoke". Seconds later, at around 6 pm, shots of tear gas were fired. The use of tear gas on peaceful protesters inspired tens of thousands of citizens to join the protests in Admiralty that night. Containment errors by the police – the closure of Tamar Park and Admiralty Station – caused a spill-over to other parts of the city, including Wan Chai, Causeway Bay and Mong Kok, and universities. 3,000 protesters occupied a road in Mong Kok and 1,000 went to Causeway Bay. The total number of protesters on the streets swelled to 80,000, at times considerably exceeding 100,000." The bolded one is to me not significant; remove it? --George Ho (talk) 03:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
We don't know which events in the section are significant. I see police brutality, arrests, protesters, umbrellas, media, injuries, etc. Nothing substantial or new has happened yet. --George Ho (talk) 02:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Moving it wholesale, to another page, is not an option. The question is, whether to leave it as a "Chronology" section or organise the material differently, which I'm starting to think is necessary. zzz (talk) 08:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Malware in one source?

Avast software detected malware from one of the sources. If removed, how would this affect cited information? --George Ho (talk) 06:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Habeus corpus

Re this removal: The fact that Joshua's lawyers had to invoke a writ of habeus corpus is important. Lawyers had to force the police to release him (contrast this to the PRC, where there are dark jails). The arrest and detention was part of the failed decapitation and containment strategy of the police, but achieved the opposite as it made people angry and motived more people to come out in support of the students. -- Ohc ¡digame! 17:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Art

I'm starting a new article about umbrella art, as it seems to be a very notable topic in its own right. You are welcome to contribute to User:Ohconfucius/Art of the Umbrella Movement in the usual manner. I intend to submit it for DYK, so kindly refrain from copy–pasting any content from an other existing article. Depending on how progress is, I will move it to mainspace towards the end of next week. Thanks, -- Ohc ¡digame! 12:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you rename it to "Art of 2014 Hong Kong protests" for now until consensus agrees? --George Ho (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
There is no need to be oversensitive about the name. The article is not going to be moved for another week. -- Ohc ¡digame! 13:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Potential sources

Here are some sources about online activities that we can perhaps add to the Organization section:

_dk (talk) 09:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

These look good.This is another reference that may be useful for the Organization section: Elizabeth Barber, “The Main Hong Kong Protest Site Is a Perfect Anarchist Collective”, Time, 20 October 2014.--Nowa (talk) 15:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I guess this is the place to put potential sources. If anyone here can get past Wall Street Journal's paywall, there may be stuff we can add to the "Local media" section from this article "Hong Kong Protests Reveal Chasm in Media Outlets’ Visions for City’s Future". _dk (talk) 10:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Here's a good source about the corporate control of the electoral system: [1] zzz (talk) 22:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
More RS on the anarchy [2]--Nowa (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Students gatecrashing APEC conference

I added this back, but it got deleted again.

  • It got a lot of coverage at the time, internationally.
  • It shows where Alex Chow's latest plan (of writing to the 35 delegates) developed from.
  • It is only a line of text.

I think it should be added back again. zzz (talk) 09:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I suspect you might be referring to the sentences I removed about the HKFS announcing their intention to go to BJ. I removed it because it's an announcement that has come to nothing. Instead, they are faced with a huge cold shoulder, so I've mentioned that instead. I don't think we should write about announcements per se unless they are inevitable. Anyway, they were not going to gatecrash, but have been trying to find people to set up a meeting with officials – quite different thing altogether. -- Ohc ¡digame! 09:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

No, I was referring to this sentence: "On 30 October Alex Chow and other student leaders announced that they were considering plans to take their protest to the APEC summit to be held in Beijing on 10 and 11 November." I'll add it back, since it was just one line of text, and didn't "come to nothing" - it developed into the new plan announced at the march. zzz (talk) 12:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC) Also, it's not just me that thinks it is/was a significant announcement: it was reported by RS that also think so. The announcement of his new plan makes more sense in the light of his previous announcement. zzz (talk) 12:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  • We are talking about the same sentence. I really don't see the point in having it there. Announcements are what news is all about, and we are not the news. On the whole, I think that it is better to deal with the issue from the angle of the cold shoulders they experienced – it's concrete. We shouldn't deal with it on both levels, or there is duplication. I think we ought to get rid of the rhetoric and uncertainty by stripping out what is intended, and deal with the issue in a wholly encyclopaedic, IMHO. -- Ohc ¡digame! 14:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
There's some talking at cross purposes, here. Where is/are the cold shoulders you have added? I had a look but I couldn't find it/them. zzz (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Search for the string "The HKFS, which had been hoping to send a delegation to meet with the leadership in Beijing, has been rebuffed by Tung Chee-hwa, vice chairman of the NPC, whom they asked to help set up the meetings". -- Ohc ¡digame! 14:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I searched, and it said "Pro-Beijing" section. but it's not in that section. I think it makes more sense to leave the announcement where it is for now, anyway, as it is just one line, then followed a couple of lines down with Chow's follow-up proposal. The reception it received can be covered elsewhere, without duplication.zzz (talk) 15:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Strange, as it's sitting at the end of the first paragraph at 2014_Hong_Kong_protests#Chinese_government_and_media. -- Ohc ¡digame! 01:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, probably my retarded computer. Anyway, that is a totally different plan to the one being considered ten days earlier. zzz (talk) 08:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
The underlying plan is for HKFS to state their case to and lobby the Chinese leadership. It's the same plan although the execution has been complicated by the cold shoulders all around. -- Ohc ¡digame! 14:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
The original plan was for a bunch of protesters to go to Beijing and probably get arrested, causing a big fuss in front of President Obama et al, or otherwise to arrange talks if they weren't arrested for some reason. Even getting arrested on the way there was considered a possible positive result, in terms of bad Communist PR. The plan had nothing whatsoever to do with asking Mr Tung what he thought. He is completely irrelevant to the plan. The plan has changed, now the HKFS wants to "try all possible steps in Hong Kong first." Whether Mr Tung wants to support the plan is of marginal importance at best. His is just one opinion. zzz (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I see that you've gone further and removed the bit about Tung and left behind the HKFS announcement of the intention. I strongly disagree, as I think you have it arse about face. It's not the intention in itself that's notable, but the obstacles being put in their way.

The underlying plan is for HKFS to state their case directly to the Chinese leadership. I consider this part and parcel of their thinking out loud (a transparent iterative process), and it's natural that the details have evolved. They never asked for Tung's support, only that he intermediate a meeting with Chinese leaders. I think they wrote to all the NPC deputies, and Tung's was the best publicised cold shoulder, Carrie Lam restated her view that it was futile. Rita Fan has only issued a holding reply as she is abroad, but no prizes for guessing what it will be. Of course Tung is relevant in this whole affair, the CPC leadership has un-mothballed an older statesman (who ought not to have such a high-profile role in local affairs -such as setting up a geriatric "think tank"), they need to an extent to bypass CY Leung because all he is doing is fuelling the protests. Tung's involvement is the strongest sign that the CPC don't trust CY any more. -- Ohc ¡digame! 03:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

(unindent) The CPC want to unmothball him, fine. That still leaves him as peripheral, since we don't take cues from the CPC, but rather RS. How many RS follow what he thinks? And how dies his opinion of the HKFS plan trump the plan itself in terms of importance? Hence my reinstatement of the plan, and deletion of his opinion. zzz (talk) 03:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

  • I dislike the constant references to rhetoric and stated intentions, and this is no exception. As I keep on saying, this isn't about Tung, but is an integral part of the HKFS highly transparent attempt to deal directly with BJ leadership. Tung happens to be the highest level person they asked and who has responded. Intentions and don't always crystallise. However, the machinations that surround it are highly relevant as these explain exactly why the intentions failed to crystallise. As the article stands, the facts are rather disjointed, and the reader is at a loss as to the reasons why students haven't gone to BJ, so I feel that these need to be consolidated to deliver the status and explanation. -- Ohc ¡digame! 04:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
    • After they were turned back at the airport yesterday, other than the obvious denial of rule of law by the CPC government, Alex Chow confirmed in a speech from the podium that the whole visit Beijing visit plan was as I said above – each step was deliberated and it was decided on by iterative process. All the bits of information needs either to be consolidated, or simplified. -- Ohc ¡digame! 00:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
The original plan as laid out on the 30 October has now been carried out: force the CPC to make their move, ie. prevent them from travelling, as widely predicted. Seems fairly simple. zzz (talk) 01:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Can anyone here just leave the content alone and not delete it for now? We must check sources for safety. I think people overlooked the malware situation and focused on content instead. As for the content itself, I am sure that many readers do not mind what the whole article says as long as it relates to the topic itself. --George Ho (talk) 03:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

ESCALATION of tensions

In the past 24 hours, there have been HUGE escalations of tensions reported in the social networking space, which even Yahoo News has picked up as including "broke into the city's legislature via a side door early on Wednesday, and police stopped others forcing their way in as tensions in the Chinese-controlled city escalated following a period of calm" "About 100 riot police with helmets, batons and shields stood guard outside the government building in the early hours of Wednesday" ""Police retreat!" the protesters chanted." "It was the first time protesters had broken into a key public building, defying the expectations of many political analysts who had predicted that Hong Kong's most tenacious and protracted protest movement would slowly wind down." "The escalation came in the early hours of Wednesday when a small group of protesters charged toward the legislature and used metal barricades and concrete tiles to ram a glass side door. They eventually smashed through, with several managing to get inside, according to witnesses." ""Scores of riot police, some with shields and helmets, rushed over, using pepper spray and batons to keep other demonstrators from also smashing their way in. ""Police raised red signs warning protesters to stay back as the activists held up a wall of umbrellas to defend themselves against the pepper spray." (http://news.yahoo.com/hong-kong-protesters-break-legislature-tensions-rise-again-184202740.html) 220.237.54.154 (talk) 23:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Censorship of the use of Lion dance (舞獅) and mooncakes (月餅)

Why has there been this censorship??? Someone has decided to delete my statement regarding some of the more extreme elements of Hong Kong's pro-democracy movement's use of Lion dance (舞獅) and mooncakes (月餅) to progress the movement towards a revolt. If the issue relates to sourcing, here is a source for the mooncake, with the article entitled "Corruption crackdown gives rise to a new mooncake in China" (http://www.reuters.com/video/2014/09/08/corruption-crackdown-gives-rise-to-a-new?videoId=341793657). As for lion dance, a quotation can be found here "should not let them sleep nor rest nor peace, time to beat the drums and do the lion dances around them" (http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1612900/timeline-how-occupy-centrals-democracy-push-turned-umbrella?page=all) 220.237.54.154 (talk) 04:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Because your post proposed nothing, added nothing, and contained nothing of value in terms of discussion related to improving the article. Wikipedia talk pages are not discussion forums for general chatter, nor are they sandboxes for testing and dumping content indiscriminately, nor is Wikipedia a soapbox for polemic statements. If you have a suggestion to make in relation to the article, make that suggestion; if you are merely here to talk about things, you can do so elsewhere. It is not "censorship" when Wikipedia has specific policies relating to what talk pages are for, please don't poison the well with loaded euphemisms.

Let me make it clear that when you worded your original post, you did not write anything that is useful for improving the article, did not make it clear what the purpose of your post was, and appeared to be merely writing for the sake of writing, in defiance of Wikipedia policy. May I also remind you that nobody has the right to free speech on Wikipedia - this isn't a place where you can write whatever you want, the purpose of talk pages are specifically for discussing the article itself. --benlisquareT•C•E 04:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Endorse what Ben said. -- Ohc ¡digame! 07:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Logo of Umbrella revolution

Although someone has already touched on the Art of the Umbrella revolution, in media in general, the logo for the Yellow Umbrella has become synonymous with the Umbrella revolution. You can picture this in the long lists of circumstances where students have opened up a yellow umbrella in their graduation. So there should be inclusion of either the:

I understand it is nice to have a picture of the protest itself, but you should also add a logo of the revolution, because that is how everyone identifies it right now 110.33.216.189 (talk) 08:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

"Facebook isn't reliable"

Up until now, I have shared that sentiment. Facebook itself still remains "unreliable" to me. However, since the revolution began, I have come to the firm belief that mainstream media is failing to report in a manner which gives events their due importance. The media self-censorship has become dire as a direct outcome of the protests, and news is often filtered out if it hasn't been twisted beyond recognition. There is a pretty blatant case of media editorial bias being exerted at management level (mentioned in the article), which is why TVB has been nicknamed "CCTVB". The HK people, particularly the pro-democracy protesters on the streets are now relying on alternative media as a news source. These often use Facebook as a platform for their dissemination. I believe that a free press is now under serious threat in HK, so it's time re-evaluate how we are allowed to use sources such as this. -- Ohc ¡digame! 01:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

When we have other sources that say the same thing (even Apple Daily), we would not have to resort to social media sources like Dash on Facebook, especially when Dash is not the primary source. We have already seen an instance of false information on social media damaging the movement (ie. Passion Times falsely reporting that the Internet Article 23 was being passed, leading to the LegCo break-in), I would prefer that we maintain our high threshold of "reliable sources". _dk (talk) 02:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I can indeed understand that viewpoint. But Dash isn't any old social media source. It's non-traditional media that uses the Facebook engine to send out its messages. But no, I would not consider Passion Times to be at all reliable. It's the mouthpiece of the radical group with its violent destabilising separatist agenda – incidentally the same group that attacked LegCo. The Art 23 allegation was deliberate misinformation, or (more likely) a smokescreen to incite and justify the break-in. The guys who broke in were told categorically and forcefully by Fernando that the item wasn't on the agenda, but he was pushed aside. -- Ohc ¡digame! 04:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Huffpo report. -- Ohc ¡digame! 04:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't doubt Dash as a reader, but I hesitate to cite it for Wikipedia. I still think that if a piece of information is deemed important enough, other news outlets (whether the mainstream media in HK or foreign ones) are bound to mention it. After all, I don't want to get into arguments about why we would allow Dash if it's on Facebook and not Local Press or Passion Times - better to keep them all out. _dk (talk) 05:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
That much is true. I won't press the issue of Dash, but I maintain the news item is important as it stands now. We can review it later. -- Ohc ¡digame! 06:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

{{toolong}} and Reactions of the 2014 hong Kong Protests (sic)

Per recent developments on the article (referenced in the title above), let's discuss a few points:

  • Is the article too long?
  • If so, should we split the content into sub-articles?
  • If yes, is the newly split Reactions of the 2014 hong Kong Protests a step in the right direction or should we redirect that article back to this page?

Personally I think the most problematic section is the chronology, the reactions (in the current summarised form) should stay in this page. _dk (talk) 09:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose splitting chronology – That's the body of the article, and the most important part. You don't just shove it off to a sub-article, leaving this article with no record of what happened when. I wouldn't be opposed to splitting off reactions, though. RGloucester — ☎ 14:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose splitting chronology, it's the important events. Support splitting 'Reactions'.zzz (talk) 13:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Even if the article is too long – which I don't think is the case – we should create articles about notable aspects of this movement, such as the art and the slogans. We should not split for the sake of splitting and destroy the conciseness and coherence of the article. We ought to make room for unencyclopaedic crap like soundbytes from politicians that have little to do with this. The new "Reactions" article encourages lots of such meaningless rhetoric, grandstanding, unencyclopaedic soundbytes and flagcruft. Most of the stuff therein was removed from this article because it was considered of little direct relevance. It should be simply redirected back here. -- Ohc ¡digame! 01:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Maybe we should just remove the non-notable parts of the article, while keeping important events in it. pcfan500 (talk) 06:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment What are we opposing or declaring neutrality about anyways? I haven't proposed anything. Anyways, I should tell you guys that there is an article for the Umbrella Ultra Marathon and I've nominated it for AfD, which needs more input. _dk (talk) 10:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2014_Hong_Kong_protests/Archive_4&oldid=636834281"