Jump to content

Talk:2014 Hong Kong protests/Archive 6

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

Retain "Umbrella (whatever)" in infobox?

Umbrella Revolution and Umbrella Movement are mentioned already in lead prose. Why (re-)adding either in the infobox? The infobox already says 2014 Hong Kong protests, a different take from Chinese Wikipedia. --George Ho (talk) 01:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

  • We are not limited by space nor the need to be unique. We summarise and recap plenty of stuff in the infobox. The infobox is a proper and the perfect place for such a nickname, which many would argue is the common name for the protests. OTOH, if the article is moved, there would be no need to display "2014 Hong Kong protests" anywhere. -- Ohc ¡digame! 02:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Sadly, the move request is closed, and Wikipedia has been essentially railroaded by stupid titles for the umpteenth time. There isn't much to be done for this rubbish. RGloucester — ☎ 02:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
You've done enough, haven't you? Now why don't you go away and wait for developments of recent news? --George Ho (talk) 03:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I shall be back, don't you worry. It may be in quite a while, but I'll be back. RGloucester — ☎ 03:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I changed from Revolution to Movement because, according to recent RM, it's more common and accurate than Revolution. I have also changed the section title. --George Ho (talk) 05:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment - There's only one title per article and per infobox which is "2014 Hong Kong protests" for this article, anything else in the title field should be removed. STSC (talk) 10:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Same thoughts. One of the alternative names was added to encourage another RM. Even when removed, another RM must be prevented. --George Ho (talk) 15:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Now both Umbrellas are in the infobox. For now, if you want Umbrella, both Umbrellas should be used in infobox for now. That way, people will clearly see three names in both prose and infobox. Moreover, this will increase people's critical thinking and chances of debate. I think one name in infobox is enough. Two is company; three is a crowd. --George Ho (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Both Umbrellas have been removed from the infobox, but prose is enough. By the way, umbrella movement article has been created. Take a peek and read for yourself. --George Ho (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Now that the article seems largely stable, can someone help with archiving the citations using webcite? Thanks. -- Ohc ¡digame! 07:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Photos to migrate

Lots of great free photos to migrate here and here. And video hereVictor Grigas (talk) 04:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Too many details?

Even with art of the Umbrella Movement and Umbrella Movement, I am still concerned about details of this event. I'm not saying the event is not significant or important. In fact, there is not much impact on Hong Kong government or Chinese government. Protests in HK haven't led to riots or unrest yet. I can't tell which parts of "Chronology" section should be removed. I see tear gases, arrests, beatings, triads, etc. None helped the national government change its mind; they interfered the lives of Hong Kong and worsened matters. We are reaching New Year's Eve in twenty-six days. --George Ho (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Umbrella Movement}}

There's an edit war happening at the template about how much it should contain and whether too much is too ugly. We need more eyes to monitor and mouths to discuss. _dk (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I warned both participants about violating three-revert rule. Also, I've taken this to the WP:3RRN. --George Ho (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Confirmation of motive for Triads' role

Tacit admission by gang boss of rationale for Triads' involvement in the protests. -- Ohc ¡digame! 07:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

More like tacit admission by gang boss that they do what China tells them to do, without explicitly mentioning the protests. _dk (talk) 07:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I see the distinction, but it amounts to the same thing. ;-) -- Ohc ¡digame! 07:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I am reminded today that reading Traditional is quite painful for us young'uns. Still, I'm wondering how trustworthy this is - this sounds like something that Western media, and BBC in particular, would be jumping on in a heartbeat. Having it restricted to a news source from Taiwan (not even close to being unbiased) seems a bit suspect to me. (Then again, that might just be the nationalist in me talking). ↢ RemorA ↣ 14:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Umbrella Ultra Marathon

Recently nominated for deletion; there was no consensus to delete. The article may be mergeable as a fork of this article. George Ho (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm... not bad; I haven't had a thought of it. Can you do that boldly? --George Ho (talk) 00:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm a bit busy this weekend. If you can see where it fits, and how to merge it, then it's fine for you to do it by me. Could leave 24h for comments, though. -- Ohc ¡digame! 01:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I think this article has too much information and details as addressed in other talk sections and merging the two together would put it over the edge. I think the Umbrella Ultra Marathon should be an article all of it's own — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aangell123 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Who is leading pro-democracy protests?

There are three versions for the infobox in regard to pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong:

  1. Previous revision said, "No single group is leading the protest."
  2. Another revision said, "Pro-democracy activists, no unified party to command."
  3. Another revision says "Umbrella Movement" as if it's a leader, an organisation, or something.
  4. Most recent revision adds "Umbrella Movement", but it also includes "No centralised leadership in protests".

Which of the three works best for you? --George Ho (talk) 02:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Putting "Umbrella Movement" in the infobox as one party to the protests makes sense. However, the lead sentence needs work - you can't have 'Umbrella Movement' as a synonym, and then link to another existing article, since that implies that it is a separate topic, and so is not a synonym. There should be a link to Umbrella Movement somewhere in the lead, but it shouldn't be bolded and listed as a synonym. Darx9url (talk) 06:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I accordingly tagged one portion as a "contradiction". You can help rewrite if you want. --George Ho (talk) 06:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
darx9url, I added another version to help reconsider your comments. --George Ho (talk) 07:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with putting pan-democracy parties and other organizations into the infobox. In fact, the only organization had really commanded in the movement would be the Hong Kong Federation of Students, Scholarism and Occupy Central with Love and Peace. The others are mainly doing a supporting role. Lmmnhn (talk) 11:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Lmmnhn, too much minute information in the infobox only gives rise to trivia. Let's limit the infobox to the parties that are actually on the ground, and leave the party politics out of it. _dk (talk) 11:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I removed the pan-democratic groups. What about the opposing side? --George Ho (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
We ought to do the same for the opposite side, if nothing to preserve some sense of consistency and reduce clutter. In truth, all except the government and "the movement" (principally the student groups) have played but minor roles. -- Ohc ¡digame! 23:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Reputation of "Asia's finest"

I Think Everyone Here Deserves a Barnstar

The Special Barnstar
Despite having our own opinions about the matter - whether for the movement or towards the mainland - this article is proof that everyone can put aside these differences, come together, and create a high-quality article that states facts succinctly with minimal bias.

I'm probably misusing Barnstars here, but after the whole mess with GG, it's really refreshing to see such a hot potato issue handled with civility and even-handedness as it is in this topic. Though I'm still new and probably unqualified to say this, I feel that everyone that has contributed to making this article what it is now deserves recognition for that.

You guys are awesome. Kudos and Mars bars. ↢ RemorA ↣ 12:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The article too long?

If the article is truly very long, how can we resolve the article's length? --George Ho (talk) 08:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't agree that it's "truly very" long. It seems about the same length as, eg. Surrender of Japan (just mentioning, because that's by far the best article I've read/edited lately). There's nothing to panic about, and I've actually been thinking the best thing would be to remove the tags. That's not to say that further rationalisation shouldn't happen, of course. zzz (talk) 09:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Why was it tagged as "very long"? There must be a reason; otherwise, it can be misleading. --George Ho (talk) 09:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I think it's shrunk quite a bit since then. zzz (talk) 09:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
According to WP:LENGTH, an article larger than 60kB likely should, and if more than 100kB almost certainly should, have some material spun out to a daughter article, by moving the information from a section to a new article, leaving a short summary in it's place, and a "main:XXX" tag pointing to the daughter article. This article is currently >160kB, so it should have one or two sections spun off to new articles. Since Eventsis the largest section, I think it should be spun off to it's own article (Timeline of 2014 Hong Kong protests?), leaving behind a short summary and a table showing a timeline of events. Darx9url (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I believe that the 100kB benchmark is for prose length. The article is currently at under 70kB, so the concerns may be a bit exaggerated. There may indeed be parts of this that can now be moved to sister articles, but I have major reservations about hacking up the article and ejecting large chunks to a timeline article. -- Ohc ¡digame! 09:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
agree with Ohc, I think the article's fine as is. Lasersharp (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

RfC closure

Hi everyone. I just made an overdue close to the RfC here. Formerip (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

So far, "Revolution" has not yet happened

To constitute Revolution, a government must change. Lately, we'll see a separate article about "Umbrella Revolution" as "Umbrella Revolution Movement" has been since. The protests has nearly ended, even when Mong Kok protesters protest through mobile, so this should be a lesson for those who want to change the title. --George Ho (talk) 06:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

"Revolution" in the modern sense has nothing innately to do with regime change. Regardless, you don't decide whether "revolution" is appropriate, RS do. However, I'm satisfied with the Umbrella Movement article. RGloucester — ☎ 06:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Which source is reliable? The press has used Revolution just to market its articles, not for good causes. --George Ho (talk) 06:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
As for who decides, per one talk page, an original research may be allowed in discussions, not articles. --George Ho (talk) 06:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
You don't get to determine whether the press cares about marketing articles or helping good causes. RGloucester — ☎ 06:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
You know what? Have it your way. I'm waiting for others' comments. Now if you'll excuse me... --George Ho (talk) 06:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't have it any way. I'm not disputing that the title should be left alone. I'm disputing that the reason is because the use of "revolution", in this case, doesn't fit your particular definition of the word. RGloucester — ☎ 06:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the concensus that 'Umbrella Revolution' should not adopted as the title. However, this decision is based on naming conventions. Your understanding and interpretation of the word revolution has no role in it; in other words, if Umbrella Revolution was deemed to be a more appropriate title per naming conventions, it should be used, despite the definition of revolution. By the way, I believe we should retain the title Umbrella Revolution in the lede paragraph. --Jabo-er (talk) 01:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Police department

suggest to include section to discuss the action of Police, both positive and negative. Prodigyhk (talk) 02:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Second phase?

Why were not many readers aware of the second phase of protests this year? Why wasn't I told about this? --George Ho (talk) 06:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The new protests logically cannot be in this article, given that this article is titled "2014". I'd start a new article, if I were you, as this one is too long to be expanded. RGloucester — ☎ 06:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I am not a great writer. I can create short biographies and write about fiction, but that's it. Can you create 2015 Hong Kong protests then? --George Ho (talk) 06:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
You are asking me to create a lot of articles, these days. RGloucester — ☎ 06:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I've made a stub, for you. RGloucester — ☎ 07:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

This is no "second phase", it's an underwhelming march (by the protestors' own account) that Hong Kong gets every weekend (every month or so if we're talking one of comparable size). I'd argue it's not even notable enough for its own article, let alone being called the "2015 Hong Kong protests". _dk (talk) 09:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Quite possible. I only made it at Mr Ho's demand, as he is my lord and saviour. If there is an issue with the title, which there may well be, please take it to that talk page so it can be dealt with promptly. RGloucester — ☎ 15:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Why is this article written in British English instead of Hong Kong English?

This makes no sense. See {{Hong Kong English}}. British English and Hong Kong English mostly retain the same spellings, so little would be necessary to change in the article apart from replacing {{British English}} with {{Hong Kong English}}. I think there might be some more words in Hong Kong English not present in British English, but as I said, it appears that they mostly use the same spelling. Dustin (talk) 19:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You're right, as far as I know, and in any case per WP:TIES it should be in Hong Kong English to begin with. I've gone ahead and changed it, if anyone has a problem feel free to revert. —Nizolan (talk) 17:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
In fact looking at the archives it looks like User:RGloucester already tagged it as Hong Kong English, which was then removed as "unnecessary", and someone then later incorrectly tagged it as British English. I don't have the patience to look up the diff where that happened, but it doesn't seem to have been discussed, so I think this is really just a rectification reflecting the article as it already stands (Commonwealth English). —Nizolan (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 14 February 2015

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. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


2014 Hong Kong protests → 2014–15 Hong Kong protests – I noticed this edit by User:George Ho at Template:Anti-government protests in the 21st century, and was wondering if it really makes sense to treat the 2015 protest as a separate thing. Since they are part of the same overall civil conflict should this article not be moved to 2014–15 Hong Kong protests and extended to cover more recent events? I note that the claim the protests ended on 15 December 2014 is not cited in the infobox. In the body of the article, we find that "On 15 December, police cleared protesters and their camps at Causeway Bay with essentially no resistance, bringing the protests to an end", which offers two citations, but the one I can view (the BBC one) doesn't say that the protests were brought to an end, merely that CY Leung claimed that they had been. —Nizolan (talk) 12:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC) — Quick amendment: just noticed the #Second phase? discussion above. Hopefully this can serve as a more thorough discussion. —Nizolan (talk) 12:36, 14 February 2015 (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.

Article still too long?

Ever since the protests ended months ago, I have started to recognize the difference between article's length and the topic's importance. So far, elections and politics are far more important than some protest by masses. Even with subpages, like Umbrella Movement, I think more condensation is needed. The "October 2014" section is still too long to me. There might be still unimportant details. --George Ho (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

"Thugs?"

"Despite numerous incidents of intimidation and violence by triads and thugs, particularly in Mong Kok, and several attempts at clearance by the police, suffragists held their ground for over two months."

"Thugs" is a pretty loaded word. Could it be changed to something less politicized and one-sided, maybe "vigilante," "assailant," or "government forces?"

GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 01:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

You, are an idiot. I remember that you were banned and that I helped ban you. 108.65.249.149 (talk) 09:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Help with a draft article

Hey guys, I was wondering if any of you would be willing to help work on a draft at AfC, Draft:2015 Hong Kong protests. When I'd come across the draft it'd only had a handful of sources and covered about 2 protests, both of which had a pretty low attendance in contrast to what was expected. I was (and still am) worried that if I'd accepted it to the mainspace it'd likely be merged into this article or the one for the Umbrella Movement. There's been a third protest that's been better attended, but I'm still somewhat worried that it'd just get nominated for AfD or be merge/redirected, which would make it harder for it to be accepted later on. Anyone willing to help flesh out the article and add more sources? I do think that as the year progresses there will be more coverage and it'll warrant more coverage later on, but I'm just worried that it might be considered to be too soon since in its current state this article could probably be summed up in a paragraph here. I'm going to post this at the main article for the UM as well to get more people to come in, if there are any that check that talk page and not this one. I'll probably post this at the Hong Kong WikiProject as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

About what are the protests?

Reading the article, protests are more likely about fighting against reforms on Hong Kong elections. Or about what are the protests? --George Ho (talk) 04:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 89 external links on 2014 Hong Kong protests. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Lead section (2016)

The lead section is too long. The protests lasted for a few months, and that's it. There is too much information in the lead. Therefore, it should be trimmed. --George Ho (talk) 23:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Never mind. Guess I'll leave the intro as is for now. --George Ho (talk) 01:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2014_Hong_Kong_protests/Archive_6&oldid=1144070584"