Talk:2019 Hong Kong local elections

Coloring of pro-Beijing and pro-democracy parties

Currently, pro-Beijing parties are colored as red, while pro-democracy parties are colored green. Is there any reasonnot to use the blue for Beijing and yellow for democracy which seem to be the coloring scheme used by most media organizations? example --Joshualouie711^talk 00:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I concur and would say it sounds like a reasonable and more representative colour scheme. Additionally it avoids the sublte conditioning of the colours red being "wrong", and green being "right", especially when seen alongside each other. Knowsitallnot (talk) 00:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Knowsitallnot @Joshualouie711 Actually the colors Ive seen used is yellow for pro democracy and red for pro Beijing. Red is obviously communist so that makes sense. As for the pro democracy most of the parties colors are officially green. I personally don't think it needs to change. YuriGagrin12 (talk) 03:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

• My interpretation is that blue is used since the DAB is the largest party in the bloc and their colour is blue, while yellow is used to distinguish the bloc from blue. Also a reference to the "yellow ribbon" and "blue ribbon" groupings from Occupy, which isn't strictly representative of these two political stances. Every party in both blocks have their own colour, so whichever is chosen to represent the whole bloc will be problematic to many. Kdm852 (talk) 04:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I do believe that the colour that represents the pro democracy movement is green so it would make sense to represent the results for the pro democracy camp with green rather than yellow / gold that’a currently there. What do people here think? Would green like before be better or no? Coldtim2 (talk) 11:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I have changed the colour of the Pro Democracy Camp back to the light green it was before as I fear that making it yellow would not represent the true colours of the Pro Democracy Camp. Coldtim2 (talk) 2:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

All the media including CableNews, Apple Daily, now TV news, New York Times and so on have put pro-democrats yellow and pro-Beijing parties blue, although as a user who have edited most of the Hong Kong election articles with green/red colouring, I think we should follow the common practice from now on. Lmmnhn (talk) 13:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Surprised to see all our editors have evidently been sleeping on the job over the past six months. The whole thing has been a white v. black debacle. And just think how much money we can save on colour ink cartridges when we all print and distribute our Wikipedia articles. sirlanz 13:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Can you provide evidence Lmmnhn if you can I will believe support changing the colour to yellow and blue. Provide a link. Coldtim2 (talk) 14:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Ignore my above statement why not settle it with a survey? Coldtim2 (talk) 14:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Coldtim2. This appears to be a SPA. 223.141.120.177 (talk) 14:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• See [1], [2], [3], [4]. If you can find more reliable sources which uses green to represent pro-democrats in Hong Kong than the above sources then I won't object. 223.141.120.177 (talk) 14:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so there's no traction in monochrome? Red is a natural for the CCPers, obviously - instant recognition, the flag and all - but green? Let's face the fact there is no "common practice" so let's make our own. Yellow for the Umbrella Revolution is the perfect counterpoint to the natural red: yes, let's make it yellow and red. Immaculate. sirlanz 14:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

The reason for green is that the main pro democratic party in Hong Kong use green. Coldtim2 (talk) 14:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, you do not even have the slightest understanding in the conventions. See Yellow ribbon#Hong Kong. Yellow has been the symbolic colour of pro-democracy parties since 2014. Green is only the colour of HK Democratic Party, which does not represent pro-democracy camp in general. This is Hong Kong, not Taiwan or US. 223.141.120.174 (talk) 15:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

This conversation is kind of structured messily, but I agree with those saying yellow makes sense to use for the "pan-democracy" parties, considering it's what most secondary sources are using too. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 15:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

As the editor who created and edited most of the election articles of Hong Kong, red/green was evidently used to colouring pro-Beijing/pro-democrats in the past. But it has been a gradual change from the colouring since the 2014 Hong Kong protests due to the blue ribbon vs. yellow ribbon movements. It has only increasingly become a common practice to label blue as pro-government/pro-police or pro-Beijing in general and yellow as protesters and pro-democracy, and has become kind of a consensus since the 2019 Hong Kong protests, as a few of the examples by international and local news outlets shown above. So I think it is wise to follow the common practice of blue/yellow from now on. Lmmnhn (talk) 16:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Green has never been identified as the identifying colour of democrats but merely the theme for the Democratic Party who took, the article tells us, only 12% of the vote, with the remaining democratic parties campaigning under a variety of banner colours. There are only two colours unifying anti-Beijing forces: yellow and black - see "yellow wave" in [5] today. On the pro-Beijing side, red has for decades been the stand-out colour but blue and white certainly bear clear associations in the Hong Kong context now, though probably less well-recognised internationally. So our best communication would be yellow/red. sirlanz 22:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I guess I can agree then that yellow and blue are the colours of the democrats and pro Beijing respectfully. Coldtim2 (talk) 02:10, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I oppose a changing the red for pro-Beijing. The colour carries instant recognition of its association with China and the Communist Party. Blue has no such connotation whatsoever outside of Hong Kong and is not even consistently used across the pro-Beijing spectrum. So what we seem to have now is consensus on yellow for democrats and no consensus on pro-Beijing, so the latter must stay red. sirlanz 02:38, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Should this be the map instead? https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/11262/production/_109824207_hk_election_district_map_comparison2019_map640-nc.png as opposed to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Hong_Kong_local_elections#/media/File:2019_Hong_Kong_District_Council_Election_Results_(By_camp).svg Coldtim2 (talk) 04:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I do agree with you sirlanz that red should be the colour of the Pro Beijing Camp as it does better represent the communist party and Beijing. Until a majority of the people here in the talk page support changing the colour of the Pro Beijing Camp to blue, we should keep it red. Coldtim2 (talk) 05:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I am asking that the colour of the Pro Beijing Camp be Changed from blue back to red as outside Hong Kong blue isn't very well recognised as representing the Pro Beijing Camp plus red better represents the communist party and Beijing. Coldtim2 (talk) 05:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Yellow/blue goes together as it is the socio-political and cultural war been going on in the daily life of Hong Kong between "yellow ribbons" and "blue ribbons" from choosing restaurants to dine in to electing candidates into offices. To suggest that pro-Beijing camp is associated with Beijing therefore it has to be red is neglecting the dynamics of the pro-Beijing camp as they are described not just as "pro-Beijing camp" but also "pro-establishment camp" (Chinese: 建制派), "pro-government camp" (Chinese: 親政府派) with their ideologies encompassing conservatism (which is traditionally associated with "blue") and pro-police (dressed in blue and therefore the "blue ribbon movement"). There is more than "pro-Beijing therefore red" rationale on the argument. Lmmnhn (talk) 11:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 19:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Table headings word convention

Re 2019_Hong_Kong_local_elections#Results_by_district Ahh I see the English verbage or table headings has been changed now for clarity. Additionally, general "control" is better than "camp control". Camp is not common, and quite particular to HK, the former being far more universal language. Thank you! So much better and more readable! Knowsitallnot (talk) 00:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Map of the winning party by constituency: Broken?

The map shows everything in grey for me. Syced (talk) 05:56, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind, now I see colours in the middle of the map. Syced (talk) 06:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Number of seats by camp

According to South China Morning Post, the pro-establishment camp only has 60 seats, while the pro-Democracy camp has 347 pan-Democrats seats and 45 pan-Democracy friendly independent seats, which amounts to a total of 392 seats. Should there be a correction in the summary of results which indicates that the pro-Beijing camp has 62 seats? Gandalfett (talk) 15:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Bias?

I feel like the sudden change from Pan-Democracy to Pro-Democracy could be seen as a bit of bias and a way to skewer the narrative,from what i have seen every other Hong Kong elections the Pro-Democracy/Pan-Democracy parties have been listed under Pan-Democracy i feel like suddenly changing the term midst the current political climate is a attempt to change the narrative

The Pro-democracy banner is from the merger (or more accurately, the cooperation) of the old Pan-democracy and the Localist camps from the last election. So the "camp" as it stands in the current climate is more than just the Pan-democracy parties, hence the name. I don't see a problem with that. Clcpang (talk) 16:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

The idea of adding "pro" to the term is just a poor understanding of English. The prefix is otiose. A democrat stands for democracy just as a socialist for socialism, etc. They should simply be described as democrats. sirlanz 22:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

No, Clcpang is right: it reflects the terms used in Hong Kong. Wikipedia shouldn't add its own terminology. The same applies to the colour scheme used (yellow/blue). Enzomich (talk) 01:54, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Post Election Events

I feel that there should a section in the 2019 Hong Kong Local Elections dedicated to the post-election events such as how there has been no reporting of the results by the state-owned Chinese media and how this might change the future of Hong Kong. So anything that already exist on the post-election outcome could be moved into this section. Coldtim2 (talk) 04:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Vote and seat summaries

Why do the percentages of vote and seat summaries in the tables at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Hong_Kong_local_elections#Vote_summary add up to much less than 100%? Enzomich (talk) 12:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Because it doesn't include the independent candidates --Hkfreedomfighter (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Please add your user info to your question so we know who is asking the question. Coldtim2 (talk) 12:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Emblem of Hong Kong (Black Bauhinia with wilted petals variant).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Re: Citobun's claims of Obfuscation

Citobun Please explain what you mean by obfuscation. In your later (minor) edits you basically acknowledge that there are some issues with the NPOV. Furthermore I idenfied OR problems in the subsection, in particular phrases like "pro-Beijing Mandarin-speaking male" was not even mentioned in any of the articles cited. Thomaslam1990 (talk) 03:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I also noticed that a Newsweek paper/citation was retrospectively added by Ohconfucius @05:37, 9 July 2020 vs Green Bot's @01:26, 7 July 2020 in order to support that particular phrasing. SCMP or other more credible newssource for instance did not adopt the said phrase. Why have you done this? Thomaslam1990 (talk) 05:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

You keep changing references to "pro-Beijing" assailants to obtuse and bewildering terms, mainly "white-shirters". You have done this across multiple articles now. Citobun (talk) 07:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: I have opened a discussion at ANI. Citobun (talk) 09:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Emblem of Hong Kong (Black Bauhinia with wilted petals variant).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• FelixChung2019 (cropped).png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)