Talk:2019–2020 Hong Kong protests/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Prolongation vs Escalation

It does certainly seem that things have been escalating in August, yet @Lmmnhn: believes that "prolongation" is a more accurate section header. I thought it might be wise to discuss this here and see if we can form a consensus for escalation vs prolongation. Simonm223 (talk) 12:09, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

The lead section states that "demonstrations against the bill began in March and April, then escalated in June." So there will cause confusion if there is another section titled "Escalation". Yes there are many escalations in a movement but it would be unwise to repeatedly use "escalation" after "escalation". Lmmnhn (talk) 12:21, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Are the protests/police getting more violent? If so, a good case can be made that the protests are escalating. It does appears as if the violence is increasing as far as the protests.[1] Are the protests getting larger in terms of attendants and/or becoming more frequent?

With the Trump/China trade war causing economic damage, China slowing down economically and Hong Kong still contributing significantly to China's economy, the protestors probably realize they have more leverage. So the escalation makes perfect sense.

On top of this, the Tiananmen Square massacre was a watershed incident for China's explosive growth of Christianity. - Asia News [2] So this ratches up pressure on the Chinese Communist Party which is trying to squelch Christianity.[3] And Christians are playing a significant role in the Hong Kong protests.[4][5] So the stakes are high and often in such situations, escalation occurs.Knox490 (talk) 14:30, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not certain what these random Youtube links or a missionary website have to do with the topic at hand; they certainly aren't reliable sources nor do they appear to speak to the topic at question here. Simonm223 (talk) 14:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

The first YouTube link I gave was from the YouTube channel run by Time magazine which is considered a reliable source and it reported on escalating violence in Hong Kong as far as the protests.[6] In short, the YouTube links I gave were not random. I chose them carefully. Like it or not, YouTube channels are being run by reliable news organizations.Knox490 (talk) 19:07, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Your argument is too loose. You gave some explanations for the first youtube link (whether valid or not), then you claimed all your youtube links were reliable and relevant? Ltyl (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

My main argument was definitely not too loose. I gave a source of Time Magazine's YouTube channel saying violence is increasing as far as the protests. The specific title of Time Magazine's video is: Hong Kong Leader Says No Need For Beijing To Intervene In Protests Amid Escalating Violence | TIME If increasing violence is not escalation, then what is? I also gave some additional ancillary arguments.Knox490 (talk) 21:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

A missionary website, the Heritage Foundation, a channel called "China uncensored" and VOA. These are one and all non-reliable sources for anything. If they said it was raining I'd check a window. And again, I question the relevance to the discussion. And I mean, I think "escalation" is the better word choice. I'd just ask you avoid using discussions of wording to insert irrelevant propaganda websites. Simonm223 (talk) 12:14, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Lmmnhn: I agree with keeping the wording of "August 2019: Escalation" especially given the numerous police station blockades in August as well as the 5 August general strike and the airport sit-ins. Perhaps we can change the language in the lede section from "Demonstrations against the bill began in March and April, then escalated in June" to something like this: "Demonstrations against the bill began in March and April. Record breaking numbers of protesters rallied in June." How does that sound? (It can be sourced, of course!) Then there is no redundancy or confusion in the wording about escalation. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 22:52, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@65.60.163.223: - Yes, this does sound better. Alternate wording I can think of is that the protest gained more attention in June due to the massive number of people in attendance. OceanHok (talk) 10:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Link to discussion on other page

I've started a discussion here about moving Chinese government reactions back to this page. Simonm223 (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Is this a joke? HKFP should not be allowed as a source

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Quoting the HKFP, which is anything but "free" must be a joke. That is not a reliable source. In this divided situation best is to rely on factual and unedited footage rather than heresay and opinion pieces from biased media outlets.

You must put aside your personal beliefs and this page has to be factual. THe initial demonstrations have now become riots. Policemen have been choked, attacked with their own batons, set on fire and beaten. This is all documented. The rioters held and abused people against their will. Again, well documented. Please do not glorify common criminals, and wikipedia editors, please do take decisive steps to stop the propaganda coming from whoever they are coming from. There is plenty of video footage and images showing what is really happening.

In addition, this is not about the extradition bill. That must also be quite clear, since it has been shelved. As a reminder, HK has treaties with some 20+ countries, to whom it is OBLIGED to extradite. These include the US and the UK, both of which prosecute people like Assange, Manning or Snowden. The proposal in question would have allowed extradition for serious crimes punishable with 7+ years of prison and only after a series of reviews at the highest level.

Also worth noting the case of Simon Cheng, who, according to the police was caught soliciting prostitute(s) on the mainland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.5.158.152 (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

All this innuendo is neither helpful nor appropriate. As already mentioned, cease your disruptive editing or you will be sanctioned. Wikipedia works through consensus, not by unilateral decisions. El_C 20:12, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

As a reference, HKFP is cited by multiple trusted and notable news media outlets, including The Guardian, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Time, BBC News, Quartz, Reuters. –Wefk423 (talk) 07:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

It's my opinion, but some HKFP articles are indeed questionable. This article made a 'collusion' claim that was not supported by the statements it cited,

https://www.hongkongfp.com/2019/07/22/servants-triads-hong-kong-democrats-claim-police-condoned-mob-attacks-yuen-long

The mainland travellers in the article below were actually attacked and beaten, but in the majority part of this article, the fact that they were attacked was obscured (with a lot of efforts, if you ask me). Rather, the fact that they were 'surrounded' was given many mentions. Why is the latter more news worthy than the former? It's beyond me.

https://www.hongkongfp.com/2019/08/13/breaking-chaos-hong-kong-riot-police-enter-airport-arrest-anti-govt-protesters/

Western media knows the boundary between false and misleading much better than the Chinese state-own media, and knows much better how to use the psychology of the readers to convey information beyond facts. On this matter, I find Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky's book Manufacturing Consent a very good reminder that we should look at media very carefully. Ltyl (talk) 11:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ltyl: I have also read some Chomsky, definitely worth the read. I am curious to ask ... what do you think Chomsky would have written about the manufacture of consent in terms of organisations like the 50 Cent Party? Would be curious to hear your perspectives about that! Feel free to reply on my talk page, if you'd like. Thanks. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 00:11, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NPA
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(Personal attack removed)I now know that you are both paid by Beijing. This is 100% Chinese propaganda. Triade (organised crime) attacked the demonstrators. Clear and simple. It was in the source. --2019OutlaweD (talk) 11:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC) You know, how? Chill, man. Let the facts speak for themselves. Do you have any comments regarding the two articles I cited? Ltyl (talk) 12:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC) Do you know that the Communist party shot down peaceful student demonstrators with tanks? While the communist partymembers were watching from behind the windows? Thousands of Chinese students died, because tanks were ordered to shoot them. At Tiananmen square in 1989. Oh and by the way, those people in black, they attacked peaceful demonstrators. it is on movie. Beijing is lying to you, (Personal attack removed) --2019OutlaweD (talk) 11:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC) 2019OutlaweD: Please, note that Wikipedia is not a forum. --MarioGom (talk) 13:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC) (Personal attack removed) --2019OutlaweD (talk) 14:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I concur that it's important to treat media critically, that's why I'm a strong proponent of liberal use of WP:TOOSOON. I know this can be frustrating during evolving events, but in order to maintain WP:NPOV we must not be an outlet for either propaganda of the black shirt colour revolution or the CCP. Rather we should comment neutrally only on what can be verified in reliable sources - and we must be careful not to let our biases cloud what is and is not a reliable source. For instance, my well-known opposition to the use of the Epoch Times as a source is not because they say mean things about the CCP but rather because they have a history of promoting conspiracy theories, have weak fact checking and rarely issue retractions. Simonm223 (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Let's end this here and now.

Unbiassed movies show that groups of whitely dressed people appeared out of nowhere started beating unarmed peaceful demonstrators and that the propaganda from Beijing is trying to make people believe that the whitely dressed people are normal travellers and that Beijing has a looooong history of paying triade members to do just this sort of thing by people dressed in white...

Source1

Source 2

Source 3

And last but not least, the police is actively walking away. The police is paid by Beijing. Why would they walk away?

So, who would voice a position like: "the people in white are peaceful travellers"?

Who would refuse to look at evidence, or look up evidence, when in doubt?

It is a short list.

Oh, and guess who also told me that the people in white were just normal travellers, victims of the terrorists in Hong Kong?

-That's right, police in Beijing!

They carefully explained that this information is everywhere on state media.

It is called propaganda.

--2019OutlaweD (talk) 15:28, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

The Sun is a tabloid. AlNews is a random vlogger. I can't speak to The Star Online as I don't know much about Malaysian news sources. But all of this has to do with the white-shirt train station riot and I fail to see the relevance to whether HKFP should be treated as a reliable source. Please restrict comments to the topic of discussion as this is not a forum. Simonm223 (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

You can literally see a horde of people in white clothes force open a shutter and charge.

What more do you need to see?

Anyway, here is the BBC. While in 2019, the police walked away and arrested no one, in 2014 the same thing happend: a group of men dressed in white attacked peaceful and unarmed demonstrators out of the blue. Police did make arrests at the time, showing 19 had known triade background. Really, to say that this is unproven, are the words of someone that has done no effort in finding out the truth and is simply (knowingly or not) repeating Chinese propaganda.

Now let's get back to constructive things and let people that are derailing the work on this page get nothing for their time.

But remember this: someone tried to get Chinese propaganda into this page and pretended to know it was all just made up, while a 10 second search on any search engine turns up 1000000 sources that say the exact opposite. With video evidence to prove it.

--2019OutlaweD (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@2019OutlaweD: You did not seem to understand the argument. I did not deny the white-shirts were triads. I did not even question the validity of the collusion allegation in this particular argument. I only stated that the allegation made in the article was not supported by the evidence presented in the same article, which makes the article unreliable. It's unbelievable I have to explain things like this. Wiki or HK protesters are not helped by --you-- (update: your comments). Ltyl (talk) 15:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

That is not what you did. You took it out of the article here and here, saying that there was no source in WESTERN media.

Who would call objective media out to be western media?

Who would re-add Chinese propaganda to this article, like here (after it had been rolled back after this edit!, and these edits), hashing out facts here,

I am going to stop going back this user's edits. It is a clear as anything.

--2019OutlaweD (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Unbelievable. Ltyl (talk) 16:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable sources that support that Black Shirts have engaged in violence, forcible confinement of mainland travelers and vandalism. There's also plenty of reliable sources that the white shirts were triad members. Both things can be true. It's fully possible for two sides of a conflict to both do bad things. Simonm223 (talk) 16:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223 and Ltyl: This is true, but it brings up the question of proportionality and WP:DUE ... 65.60.163.223 (talk) 02:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

But again, this is off-topic for the question of whether HKFP is a reliable source. The balance of evidence seems to suggest it is. However if you want a third opinion WP:RS/N can weigh in. Simonm223 (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed that it's off-topic, but I'd like to response to 2019outlaweD's false accusations for the record: All of my edits used reliable sources. If you say they were Chinese propaganda, kudos to you, you are saying Chinese "propaganda" are actually reliable. And lastly: I do not dispute HKFP in general is reliable. Ltyl (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I apologise to Ltyl for saying that I suspect the user is paid by Beijing.

However, I have shown evidence of the truth by means of a live video.

This user has not. But has added unverified information, after claiming to have researched it, but clearly did not. Around 10 second search found around 100000 sources saying the opposite.

Other users have rolled back the changes this user made time and time again. But this user keeps adding the same things.

Those things have been part of the Chinese propaganda since the very beginning and are shown to be untrue by the sources provided in the article and by the additional sources that I provided.

Assuming good faith is very difficult, knowing that this user has claimed to check sources, but has not and has added what is shown to be untrue.

But I apologise for he accusation I made of being paid by Beijing. Obviously there is no reason for me think so...

--2019OutlaweD (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Take 2

I edit the above earlier, to make things more readable.

Simonm223 said not to do so, so I am trying again.

I have to agree that my tone has not been kind, so here goes just arguing the facts. I will assume good faith in that Ltyl has not checked the facts, which is contrary to what Ltyl said, but, no matter. Let's discuss the facts here and now before we move on. So, please do not edit the article until we reach consensus Ltyl.

Here are the top 3 sources, all showing live images of a camera feed of the event.

Source1

Source 2

Source 3

If live video isn't good enough, here is the BBC. While in 2019, the police walked away and arrested no one, in 2014 the same thing happend: a group of men dressed in white attacked peaceful and unarmed demonstrators out of the blue. Police did make arrests at the time, showing 19 had known triade background. In this event, the police is shown to walk away from the scene of the crime (again by live video footage), so 0 arrests were made. However, the events have been so similar in the way it happened, and the clothes people wore and have happened time and time again that even the BBC is calling it an attack by triade members.

So, the example of demonstrators using violence on 'mainland Chinese travellers', is shown to be that these mainland Chinese dressed in white forced open a shutter and attacked unarmed, unwitting peaceful demonstrators en masse out of the blue. On top of that, the police turned and walked away. We see all this in live camera footage. And, all newspapers report the almost 100% similarity with other attacks of men dressed in white coming from mainland China, that turned out to be Triade members, leading every source I saw to believe this attack was also made by triade members.

So, can we agree to keep to the facts, and show that the example of violence that you used is in fact a smoking gun, showing mainland China to corrupt police, pay organised criminals and use violence on peaceful protestors? As the sources show?

--2019OutlaweD (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Last, but not least, There are plenty of reliable sources that support that Black Shirts have engaged in violence, forcible confinement of mainland travellers and vandalism.

There is, in fact only evidence of the black shirts vandalism. This vandalism keeps being called violence in Chinese propaganda. I am not saying that demonstrators are saints, but we see time and time again that mass demonstrations of 1,7 million people in Hong Kong are peaceful and forcible confinement of mainland travellers... come on, you mean Chinese security agent, right?

Anyway, some sources:

CBS

AsiaNews

Reuters

hkfp

BBC

Some Indian channel

The list is endless. All with live camera feed. We think of that, the lennon walls in hong kong, the human chain....

People saying that the demonstrators in Hong Kong are violent have been seeing a completely different source for their news, apparently.

It is portrayed like that on Chinese state media (=propaganda).

There is, however, an overwhelming amount of articles about violence that the Hong Kong police has used, leading to many, many charges and accusations of breaking hman rights.

But anyway, let's tick to reliable news. They are also paid by Beijing. So, we see violence paid for by Beijing and violence paid for by Beijing, but for some reason unapparent to me, this article needs to state that the demonstrators were violent, without any credible source saying that.

HKFP is showing the same as the others time and time again. Singling them out is also in Chinese propaganda, by the way.

--2019OutlaweD (talk) 07:30, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Speaking as a local who is familiar with Hong Kong news media: HKFP is indeed regarded as a reliable source. User:Ltyl, in this edit, seems to misunderstand the use of quotations in journalism. He alleges that this HKFP article makes a "collusion" claim. In fact the article makes no claim itself, it simply quotes the words of some legislators. The second article he cites indeed plainly states that the man was attacked, so I don't see what the issue is here.

Since the protests began, HKFP has been cited by many international news outlets (e.g. Newsweek, Business Insider, Vox, The Guardian, The Washington Post. ABC News, Evening Standard, Wall Street Journal – just a selection of countless links that appeared in a quick Google search). This suggests that HKFP is also regarded as a reliable source by the international journalism community.

It has been widely reported by many reliable sources that the mainland Chinese media, wholly controlled by the Chinese government, is engaging in a disinformation campaign against the Hong Kong protesters (NYT, NPR, The Independent). Yet the anonymous OP, while attacking a Hong Kong-based (uncensored) media outlet, is happy to report the Chinese government's skewed version of events without question. Citobun (talk) 09:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

About the first article, of course I understand the meaning of the quote. (Update: looking back at my original comment, I realize I did say HKFP made the claim. This was wrong. But the following argument remains the same) However, no supported evidence is given in the article. The other text quoted in the article does not include the 'colluding' charge. They did not provide link to full text of the statement. This is why I said the article was questionable. No other secondary sources said the lawmakers made such an accusation as far as I can see (e.g., BBC, RTHK). vox cited the accusation, but emphasised it was according to the report of HKFP. Guardian mentioned the accusation, but did not say it was from the lawmakers. Actually, I would say it would be foolish for a politician to make a clear-cut 'collusion' accusation. Politicians always fudge and obfuscate, to avoid possible legal consequences (among others). Unfortunately I am not able to find the original text of the statement. I'd be interesting to have a read if you have it. Ltyl (talk) 10:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

As for the second article, I did not say the article denied the travellers were attacked. I was saying it mentioned 'surrounded' many more times than 'attacked' (and actually 'attacked' was used in a very obscured location). I think it's common sense that an 'attack' is more newsworthy than 'a group of people surrounding a person', and it puzzled me why HKFP found it the other way around. In my opinion, if such a way to report the event is not manipulation, then it shows poor judgement; neither is a vote of confidence. This sort of subtle difference is exactly what I said: these media know very well the boundary between false and misleading. They use the arrangement of the paragraph, the layout of the webpage, the shades of words, to convey information beyond facts, to change the perception of the readers. Ltyl (talk) 10:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

In the wiki spirit of assuming good faith, I should add that there is another possible reason for HKFP to report it that way - to use less charged words to describe the event so that readers can react with more reason than emotion. However, I have to admit I doubt that. HKFP is not well-known for this as far as I know. But each reporter can be different. Ltyl (talk) 10:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd say that we should definitely treat HKFP as a reliable source but, per standard Wikipedia practice, should be careful to identify and attribute opinion as opposed to statements of fact. Simonm223 (talk) 12:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fujianese community, demographics, and ethnic component to protests

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

List of August 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests mentions how some "counter-demonstrations" were organized by Fujianese associations, but only in passing. I've noticed that some media coverage mentions this nuance as well; that some Fujianese neighborhoods (rather than just "mainlander" or "pro-Beijing" people) are resisting attacks by protestors. This NPR article mentions how North Point and the New Territories in general are full of these communities. Interestingly, it says: "These neighborhoods have elected pro-Beijing lawmakers, who constitute a majority in Hong Kong's Legislative Council. They outnumber the city's 'pan-democrats,'": so does this mean that the pro-establishment camp represent a majority of HK residents, and the pan-democrats a minority, or does the former only have a majority in the legislature because of gerrymandering or something? This would be important context to address silent majority claims.

The article also notes now the pro-establishment group is much less adroit organizationally, and that Beijing has little experience with grassroots (as opposed to elite) organization, explaining the relative lack of "counterprotest". This SCMP article mentions how there are 1 million Fujianese in Hong Kong, and how they are specifically organizing as Fujianese. Can we look for other sources to address the ethnic component of these protests? It seems to mirror the dynamic in Taiwan of how the pan-green camp represents Hokkien ethnic interests, while the pan-blue camp represents Hakka, indigenous, and ethnic minority interests. 俱樂部( Câu lạc bộ) ( 信𠴍( tin nhắn) ) 12:41, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

While it's certainly interesting, it might lead down a bit of a rabbit hole regarding whether regional groupings of the Han ethnicity should be treated as distinct ethnicities. Suggest proceeding with caution. Simonm223 (talk) 13:22, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there is any real ethnic group in statistical sense. However, North Point where the red shirt men existed, are used to call "little Shanghai", which in recent (10? 20 ? years) became "little Fujian". While in Yuen Long, the white shirt mob are alleged to link to indigenous New Territories people as well as triad gang. (despite after 21 July, the indigenous people had urged police to investigate as it is a shame to them). Also, many Fujianese diaspora in Hong Kong are 2nd or even 3rd generation Hong Konger, so it need a real scientific survey to account their political spectrum and their province of origin (or ancestral home). I would boldly say there is no linkage to ancestral home, but may be they are new migrants or not. Even the thugs of North Point and Tsuen Wan in the recent events are alleged Fujianese .

In general sense, urban legend had stated that DAB, the puppet party of CCP in Hong Kong, are very keen to help new immigrants from Mainland China, which they are generally poor (there is rich internal migrants to Hong Kong such as Zhang Jingchu, Gong Hongjia, or kidnapped Xiao Jianhua, but by proportion they are minority among migrants), which they are loyal to CCP and DAB. Also more urban legend on transporting elderly from nursing home and ask them to vote for DAB, which some of the elderly are borderline mentally disable (but their voter status not yet cancelled.

However, these background info are difficult to dig out source to prove they are fact,(may be there are some published opinions on newspaper). So, i would say no on including background "ethnic" info of the protesters and counter-demonstrators . Triad linkage may be included as it is a sourced accusation by the local critics and academician . Matthew hk (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

That makes sense. Simonm223 (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Added info for yesterday's gathering

As you may know, there was a #metoo gathering yesterday at Chater Garden. I added some info onto the page, you're welcome to make some edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LKRandom (talk • contribs) 07:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

May be added to List of August 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests instead? Matthew hk (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2019 (UTC)