Jump to content

Talk:2019–2020 Hong Kong protests/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Requested move 4 September 2019

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved, per WP:SNOW. El_C 08:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests → 2019 Hong Kong protests –

This was opened as a result of the suggestions by Matthew hk and others in the above discussion that the name be changed.
The important rules here are WP:CRITERIA and WP:COMMONNAME:
1)Recognizability - 2019 Hong Kong protests is more easy to recognise since the protests are no longer about the extradition bill, which is now only briefly mentioned in most coverage of the demonstrations.
2)Naturalness - 2019 Hong Kong protests is the name people are more likely to be looking for, since the user is less likely to know that the protests were originally related to the anti-extradition bill.
3)Precision - There have been no other really major protests in Hong Kong this year, and any minor ones that are notable can be dealt with via a hat-note. The protests are no longer solely about the extradition bill, and it is only mentioned as background in reliable sources at this point.
4)Conciseness - 2019 Hong Kong protests is 23 characters including the spaces vs 45 for the present title.
5)Consistency - other Hong Kong protests have been listed as "Year" Hong Kong protests (e.g., 2014 Hong Kong protests) and this would be consistent with them.
6)Common Name - a GNews search for "2019 Hong Kong protests" returns 93 results, whilst one for "2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests" returns only 17 GNews hits. (Remember that Google's estimate as to the number of hits is normally a wild over-estimate and you have to page through to the last page of results to know what the actual count is). There are other ways of assessing what the common-name is but they would all likely return the same result.
As such this should be moved to 2019 Hong Kong protests FOARP (talk) 07:38, 4 September 2019 (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.


another suicide today?

I have seen rumors on Twitter of another suicide today by a 27 year old woman.
Any reliable news articles about this yet?
Also, one of the citations is broken on the infobox for suicides section. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 22:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I found this mention: "On 4 September 2019, a female protester jumped out of the window and died when the police is at the door to arrest her."
Source: Why are the protester in Hong Kong not holding back and looking forward to burn with the government
Is there better English language information than this? Thanks. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 03:20, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

"blossoming everywhere" ... some references

I cannot add the citations right now, at least until the page is unlocked. [Edit: Page now unlocked & citations added!] 65.60.163.223 (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Propose to temporarily blank the 'confrontational tactics' section in the Tactics and methods surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong protests page

Reason: that section was intended to be a summary of the Criticism of the 2019 Hong Kong protests page. Now the page is in an AfD discussion, and I believe it has not been changed much for a while. However, the section in the Tactics and methods surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong protests is still being updated. Therefore, the two things are quite different already at the moment. In the AfD discussion, it appears some are assuming the summary section is still an accurate representation of the full page, which I believe has led to wrong conclusions. Therefore I propose to comment out the said section for now.

If I don't receive opposing opinions, and the AfD on the Criticism of the 2019 Hong Kong protests page does not reach a conclusion, I will comment out that section in a few days. Ltyl (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, it looks like discussion on deletion has closed.
About this section: Tactics and methods surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong protests#Confrontational tactics ... you don't get to blank/delete that content, because you don't "own" it ... we all make contributions. Why not make further improvements there?
If you want to propose that it be removed, then I think you need to put a tag/banner at the top of the relevant page making a proposal for removal of content, along with a discussion thread on the relevant Tactics and methods page. That is the process as far as I know. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 21:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
I am not sure about which template to use, but here is the general section about it: WP:Template messages. Maybe a more experienced editor can assist. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Adding and deleting sections happens all the time. I'm not proposing to delete the whole article. Ltyl (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Right, but what I am saying is: please don't delete or blank the Confrontational tactics section. There is no reason to do so. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 00:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Now that the 'criticism' page has been deleted. We can discuss how to merge the content with other pages including the main page. Ltyl (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Reducing unnecessary details

@Citobun: Please discuss here first before revert changes. Thanks. Ltyl (talk) 22:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ltyl: I responded under the heading "Behaviors of Ltyl". Citobun (talk) 22:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
@Ltyl: You seem to be edit warring and removing important context. You're going to end up getting yourself blocked or banned. Careful now!! : ) 65.60.163.223 (talk) 00:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Behaviors of Ltyl

Per WP:BRD cycle I would like to remind you that if you add something and I revert it, you should not revert mine and discuss it here. I would insist that by summary style, wordings should be concise, and my Some protesters also attempted to doxx and cyberbully police officers and their families and uploaded their personal information online better sums up your Some protesters also attempted to doxx police officers and uploaded their personal information online. NYT reported that personal information of officers and intimate photos of their family members were repeatedly posted on a Telegram channel named 'Dadfindboy' with language "[b]y turns facetious, juvenile, cruel and profane in tone". As of 28 August 2019, the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data (PCPD) had transferred hundreds of cases of cyberbullying and leaked personal data to police for investigation. which is talking about exactly the same thing without the numbers (which are details that are already mentioned in the tactics page).

While I tried to assume good faith for the most part, your actions (adding the word "alleged" to everything even when it is not true while assuming everything the police said is true, merging the criticisms page here without consent... Please ensure that you maintain a neutral point of view. OceanHok (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe a good faith edit would find the original text an accurate summary. "attempted to doxx"? Meaning what? No actual doxxing happened? It's blatant WP:POV push. I respected the wording and did not change it, but provided more information, which is exactly what a good-faith edit shoud be doing. Regarding WP:BRD, please don't forget the other part of the guideline "Consider reverting only when necessary".
Your way to invoke WP:SUMMARY is selective and borderline abusive. Look at this text: Some chanted slogans, such as "Hong Kong people, add oil", "the five core demands, we will accept nothing less", and "liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times"; and sang songs such as "Sing Hallelujah to the Lord" and "Do You Hear The People Sing" Is it not a waste of space to list the slogans? See also the allegations of police misconducts, which was added by you if I'm not mistaken. It is full of excessive details. I would be happy to apply the WP:SUMMARY guideline to trim it down for you, if you feel so strongly about this policy. Ltyl (talk) 14:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
You should know that the allegation of police misconduct page was also discussed in the AfD discussion. There are proposals on removing/merging that page too. Yet, you took the liberty to merge the page into the main page without reaching a consensus. It's hard to say that was a 'good faith' edit too. Regarding merging the criticism page, I was merely merging the section on 'confrontational tactics' in the 'tactics and method' page. As this section is not in dispute, I don't see any problem at all, certainly not more problematic than merging the allegation of police misconduct page. Ltyl (talk) 14:42, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
'Please ensure that you maintain a neutral point of view' - Thanks for your advices. However, do remember to examine our own behaviours first before giving advices, let alone accusations. Ltyl (talk) 14:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't really understand what is happening ... you can't just comment out a whole section – Tactics and methods surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong protests#Confrontational tactics – and then merge it into the main article like that without some discussion? ... I was editing and improving that section yesterday, fact-checking, etc. As I mentioned on the talk page for the section about "Confrontational tactics" ... it still needs a lot of work, but there is no need to blank it out like that and then claiming in the edit summary that it was "temporarily commented out in light of the discussion." Also, to say that this section is not in dispute is untrue ... again, please refer to the discussion on the talk page. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Before making accusations please at least make some efforts to understand what is going on. I made the merge first. OceanHok took issue with the merge and reverted it, and claimed that, before the AfD discussion reached a consensus, the material should not be added. I don't agree. But since there are disagreements with that part of contents at the moment, I decided to comment out the 'Confrontational tactics' for the moment. You are wrong on the sequence of the events. Ltyl (talk) 17:22, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree that content should not be merged before the AfD discussion has reached consensus. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 17:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
There is no need to blank out the section ... it is actively being improved upon. It more seems like you were trying to protect from further changes or scrutiny ... nothing about it is so controversial that it deserves to be blanked. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
AfD discussion is going on. Some including yourself want to delete the article. It's a bit disingenuinuous to say otherwise here. (Update: The separate 'criticisms' page is untouched. Everyone can see it. I believe it is good practice to leave the 'criticism page' there alone to represent what I wrote - the 'confrontational tatics' section no longer accurately represents what I wrote before.) Ltyl (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
@Ltyl: That sounds a little bit like you are seeking retribution / revenge for your POV. : ) Just saying. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 17:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm feeling out the accepted standard of writing WP:SUMMARY. You can hear whatever you want, but in the end, whether it's POV has to be seen from what I write. Ltyl (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
When I was talking about summary style, what I am saying is that for some (arguable more notable/significant) tactics (e.g. human chain/Lennon Wall) only have passing-by mentions, thus giving the doxxing campaign extensive coverage would be WP:UNDUE. Your argument is pretty much WP:OTHER and if you are really having a issue on the police's misconduct page, go ahead and nominate it for AfD to see whether it will stay or not. I have no clue what your third point is when you said that I "took the liberty to merge the page into the main page without reaching a consensus", because I am not the one who split the page out, so I don't know what your problem is. OceanHok (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Maybe you were not the one to split it out, but that's not the question here is it? You added the allegations of police misconducts back to the main page after some editors proposed to delete the page in the AfD. It's a rather blatant effort to circumvent discussion, if you ask me, even if I try hard to assume good faith. So it is a bit hypocritical to lecture others about 'good faith'.
This is the diff showing your edit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019_Hong_Kong_protests&diff=prev&oldid=913517136
Your charge now has become WP:UNDUE, not WP:SUMMARY any more. Please make up your mind on your opinions before making accusations next time. I see no point of responding if you don't know what your opinion is. I don't see it as WP:UNDUE. Hundreds of doxxing cases, and they are on-going. Human chain was used only once. How is the former WP:UNDUE? As for the allegations of police misconducts, I would not propose the page for AfD, as I'm not trying to push [WP:POV]]. However, obviously the section on the main page can do with some trimming. I will get on to it Ltyl (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
@Ltyl: For clarification: one person had made a comment about deletion of the article about police misconduct, but that is not a formal proposal. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
We are talking about good faith edits. There was multiple comments about merging or deleting many pages. Ltyl (talk) 21:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
You are funny. If you think we only need to slap the links of the subpages here without summarizing it, then we can delete this main page altogether. I would like to clarify that no one has made a formal proposal to delete the allegations page and you are the one who kept mentioning it in the AfD nomination of the criticisms page, though I would like to remind you that the section/page is created based on a consensus (see talk page archive 2). OceanHok (talk) 05:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Many of the "details" Ltyl has edited are basically essential context, without which certain passages would make no sense, or make critical sections (like the one on police violence) overly vague by removing details of violent incidents. I note that the same user created the now-deleted WP:POVFORK page Criticism of the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests. There would appear to be a political agenda at play here, contrary to Wikipedia policy on neutrality. Citobun (talk) 22:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

3 people missing from the night of the 31 August Prince Edward MTR station police attacks?

Any reliable sources that have covered this? Thanks. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 04:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

It was covered in Hong Kong Connection as a well known rumour. But not at fact level. Public fear of that rumour that caused many event which merit to include the rumour in wikipedia, but wording need to be careful. I don't trust HKFP on reporting someone as the relative of the alleged victim. Matthew hk (talk) 06:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Flags

We had a previous discussion about the waving of UK and US flags. I think there's no longer any debate.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: Nope. Please read WP:CONSENSUS. that thread consensus would be flags are notable to mention but no consensus yet for photo. Matthew hk (talk) 06:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Please read WP:NPOV.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Section on protesters aggressive tactics added to Tactics and methods subpage

see Tactics and methods surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests and Talk:Tactics and methods surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests

A bit long. May need to replace it with a summary and move the content to a separate page. Ltyl (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I gave it a quick look ... some of it could possibly be trimmed as a few of the things mentioned are already noted in other sections on this page. Anyhow, I will give it a closer look in the next few days. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 19:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Some the events are buried quite deep in the cited sources. Therefore it might not be obvious that they are indeed there. I would recommend reading the cited sources carefully before you delete something. Ltyl (talk) 19:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I have no intentions of deleting any citations. But, for example, doxxing is already mentioned here:
Tactics and methods surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests#Online activism
Anyhow, I will give it a more in-depth look in a couple of days. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Given the scale of doxxing and the shaming campaigns, I think it deserves a prominent place. Ltyl (talk) 20:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
The page is called "tactics and methods", but right now it seems like a detailed documentation of what has happened during the protest, which I do not agree. I think when you write it, you can look at the allegations of police misconduct page. For instance, in the "Unlawful use of force" section of the police allegations, in what instance do they hurt innocents, or in what instance when police fired canisters of tear gas on empty roads, or in what instance the police beat journalists, are not mentioned. OceanHok (talk) 04:37, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Agree that it could be summarised better, similar to other sections, as mentioned by OceanHok. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 04:54, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Update: Content moved to separate page. The section condensed. Ltyl (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

138,692 bytes only now. It can be considered condensed. -- hoising (talk) 01:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Potential article on the art of the movement

For those interested in working on such an article: I created a draft with the links from the initial discussion on such an article and added others that I have found since this was abandoned. -- Ohc ¡digame! 10:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately I am too busy to be able to help with this, but it's great that you've created a draft for the topic.
Here are more links:
Hope that helps! Thanks again everyone! 65.60.163.223 (talk) 19:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm kind of curious how this will be due an independent article separate from the tactics article - my understanding is that most of the art consists of either copies of previous protest art projects or graffiti. This article section has already been vulnerable to a lot of WP:NOT bloat. Is this something where substantial neutral sources can be found or will it just be another POV fork running PR for the protesters? Simonm223 (talk) 19:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I support having an independent article split out. There are more Lennon Walls/artworks (poster arts)/Cantonese memes/songs than ever before when compared with the Umbrella Revolution, and there is an extensive list of information in your draft, and perhaps more. OceanHok (talk) 12:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Cato Institute index

The Cato Institute is well known as a right-wing advocacy group with little reliability for accuracy. Their freedom index is not a useful measurement of anything resembling freedoms. Please do not include it; it's not WP:DUE inclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 13:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

<redacted> yes you are correct. There doesn't appear to be any direct relevance. 80.111.44.144 (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Removed dates from history titles

The history section of this article is too much in proseline and lacks narrative focus. I have removed the dates from the headings in the history section and moved one of the titles down 2 paragraphs. Yes, I should have done it all in one edit instead of spacing it over 4. Nevertheless, I suspect that many edge cases exist in the history section that should be moved up or down a heading. As tempting as it is to divide the protests by months, I think the topic would benefit from being tied together in a narrative. Rockphed (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

(no title)

In the info-box for parties on the pro Beijing the listing of triad groups is no longer "alleged", why is this the case as the cited sources for their involvment has not changed and I don't believe there is any proof of definitive involvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.135.123 (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion about recent edits to this page at WP:ANI

I opened a discussion about recent edits to this page at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Citobun (talk) 01:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Screenshot

@Simonm223: - Per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE the current image we have is absolutely decorative that serves absolutely no purpose at all in the allegation section. The current image in the Prince Edward station is definitely relevant. If your WP:NPOV issue is with the word "chaos" then go ahead to change it. If your issue is with the word "stormed" then you should not change it given this is how RS described the incident. OceanHok (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I challenge your assertion that the image you replaced is purely decorative. It shows police using tear gas, and the context in which they used it. I think that's a critical piece of maintaining a neutral perspective on the charged issue of police violence in Hong Kong. Simonm223 (talk) 13:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
It is decorative in this section about police allegations. I don't need a photo telling me that the police is using the tear gas properly. This belongs to the history section up above. If the point of having an image is to supplement the text, the Tsuen Wan image does not suffice. It does not enhance my understanding of this section about police allegations. The Prince Edward incident is a more impactful incident and the screenshot is more relevant to the topic. Given the significance of the Prince Edward incident, ignoring it when we have an usable screenshot is also WP:NPOV. OceanHok (talk) 13:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I find it unconvincing that police use of chemical dispersal against protesters is not a contextualized exemplar of the section subject. Perhaps some other opinions would be good. Simonm223 (talk) 13:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

When to add the year to dates in the text

I am very new to this story (9/14/2019) since I avoid the news in general. As my time allows, I hope to make a few adjustments to improve and clarify some English usage.

Since this is already 'a story for the history books,' I am thinking it would be wise to add the year to each date in the text.

But before I do, is there a WP policy for that?

Comments welcome, of course. 

- - Ray Birks [forgot to log in] RayBirks (talk) 17:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
May be MOS:DATE? Since the article title had year 2019 in it, i hope the protest would not last until September 2020. So far it is pretty obvious to understand. Matthew hk (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


RfC:Change title

NO CONSENSUS

There is no consensus to change the title. The article has changed significantly since the RfC started, and editors have proposed various section titles such as "Censorship and propaganda", "press releases", "government reporting", "disinformation", "Censorship and disinformation", and "influencing efforts" that have not gained consensus.

The section was moved to a new article at 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests#Censorship and condemnation (permanent link) which is now titled Reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong protests#Censorship (permanent link). There is no prejudice against opening a new discussion to discuss the section title.

Cunard (talk) 01:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

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.

I am prepared to change the section title Censorship into Censorship and propaganda. However, "propaganda" may be suggestive because it is often used as derogatory term which may discredit Chinese media’s every report are totally propagation. The reason why I change the title is for presenting current changes (such as Sina Weibo allows the topic appear but must maintain an official view) Should we change the title or not, or we have better choices?Mariogoods (talk) 22:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

A less emotionally charged term may be "press releases" or "government reporting". But there may be other kinds of disinformation or opinion changing attempts you want to cover. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
How about the term "disinformation" ?? And maybe just making it a separate section, as that is different than censorship, though the two are clearly related and connected in various ways. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 05:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I believed that censorship and propaganda can't be separated.Mariogoods (talk) 06:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Then how about "Censorship and disinformation" ? 65.60.163.223 (talk) 08:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
The related section has been greatly changed. Maybe it is time to close this.Mariogoods (talk) 12:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
How about we treat pro-China POV RSes just like we treat anti-China POV RSes and not try to wall them off as "propaganda" as if Apple Daily was a bastion of journalistic honesty beside Xinhua. Simonm223 (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Firstly Apple Daily isn't "anti-China" it's stance is pro-democracy. There is a difference - subtle, but significant nonetheless. On top of that your suggestion would violate Wikipedia policy; WP:PUS and WP:RSP are pretty clear. By way of illustration treating Apple Daily on the same level as Xinhua would be like treating the Der Sturmer/Daily Stormer with Deutsche Welle. Flaughtin (talk) 02:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I would say "Censorship and disinformation" may be more NPOV. Apple Daily may be not a good reliable source for their articles quality (i can found lots of bad example for their reporting, but would be off-topic), but in the other hand, those Chinese sources are state-owned, and in turn the state was owned/controlled by the party. There is a serious COI for those sources as well as people by common sense can verified their reporting as disinformation (by using sources other than Apple, such as Stand News, Western media, or even more neutral to pro-establishment media: HKEJ, SCMP, etc.), such as false caption, did not show the full video footage of the incident, etc. There opinions and editorial may be worth to report in this wiki article, however. Matthew hk (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
WP:PUS and WP:RSP is clear you can cite outlets like Apple Daily, but state run ones like Xinhua aren't good for anything aside from citing the views of the government of mainland china. Flaughtin (talk) 02:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
By the CUHK survey of creditability (citizens as the interviewee of the quantitative survey), Apple Daily had quite a low score, it just like Daily Mail of Hong Kong. Yes they had full teams of journalists to live broadcasting events, but sometimes they also add speculations and their personal opinions into it. Thus, it can only be used sometimes as citation for fact and chopping speculations . But yes, compare to Mainland which all the media are controlled and owned by the Party, you can't really use them due COI and POV. Matthew hk (talk) 08:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes that is what I am saying. Use Apple Daily but put Xinhua and other Mainland Chinese state run sources on the blacklist. Flaughtin (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Xinhua was not blacklisted in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (WP:RSN). However, as i remembered Daily Mail had be credited as not reliable in WP:RSN. The point is, both Apple and Xinhua need to be used carefully. The former due to their quality of journalism and sometimes tabloid journalism, the latter most often a propaganda. Some off-topic, if the section was named as "Censorship and disinformation" , TVB should/may be added to the section. They even failed to report the full slogan of today Ad of Li Ka Shing. Meanwhile, RTHK had more neutral POV despite funded directly by the HK government. However, for not violating WP:OR, such criticism of Chinese state-media and TVB (or by sarcasm, CCTVB), should citing criticism made by external secondary source , but not criticisms written by wiki editors themselves. Matthew hk (talk) 07:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I personally find propaganda more neutral than disinformation. To me 'disinformation' = 'false information', propaganda = selectively amplify certain information (may include false information). An even more neutral phrase would be 'influencing efforts'. Ltyl (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
I am sure International reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests#Censorship and condemnation was the original section and I support closing the discussion. Mariogoods (talk) 08:47, 1 September 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.

Article length and automatic archiving

I have put the {{2L}} tag on this long article, but it keeps getting removed. Also, the talk page does not seem to automatically archive. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

It had bot to automatically archive. Just the two RfCs are added hidden code to prevent archiving, as they somehow need a closer. Matthew hk (talk) 02:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Comment - Pinging @Citobun: and @Hoising:. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
As mentioned in my previous edit summary, there's only about 6,000 words of readable prose. It would not seem to meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Article size for being too long. It has already been split up in to several separate pages. Citobun (talk) 02:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Suicide should not count as death

I don't see any reason why only this event counts suicide as death in the infobox. If you Google e.g. "iraq war suicide" you shall find plenty of cases but none of them is mentioned in the related Wiki article's infobox. The 5 (all suicides) might have just given a wiki reader without any background knowledge of the event the impression that these 5 are extreme radicals such as suicide bombers. A boundary should be set up between radicals and those suicided due to anxiety disorder caused by the event. --Fkj (talk) 14:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The "Death(s) 5(all suicides)" in the infobox does sound like they were suicide bombers for their "revolution". STSC (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Partially agree. As the suicides did make an impact in the movement so I would prefer to put it "0 (8 suicides)" Lmmnhn (talk) 08:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I think that would be very confusing. Why do we need this section of the infobox anyway? What does "injuries" mean? If someone got a sprained wrist from throwing a rock, is that an injury? This isn't a war (so far), and shouldn't be treated as one.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
At least 2 suicides were part of their own demonstration. One have banner on the roof of Pacific Place. Another wrote her dying wish and 5 demands on the wall next to the place that she jumped off. It may confusing, but at least two knew their last word would be photographed and published by media. It just the same with somebody burn themselves as demonstration. The other 3 may be removed as we don't know how many suicide are affected by protests but the root cause was their own emotional problem. You can change the infobox wording to 2 deaths by "suicidal demonstrations" or similar wording. Matthew hk (talk) 09:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand the logic of that.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Then what is the different between suicidal bomber and "suicide as demonstration"? In specific, there is live TV coverage for the Pacific Place case that he announced the 5 demands and then jumped off of the roof. Matthew hk (talk) 11:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
If people have committed suicide and if unimpeachable reliable sources have said that it was in protest of the extradition bill / police violence / etc. then it certainly should be included. But a note: recently deceased people (generally within the last 6 months at least) are protected by WP:BLP and those standards apply to them just as if they were alive. So when I say unimpeachable, I don't mean Apple Daily. Simonm223 (talk) 11:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I think the question is why is it in the infobox?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Here's a WP:BOLD suggestion. Let's delete the infobox. Simonm223 (talk) 12:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I can't really find the citation for the total number BTW. I think i heard Nabela Qoser had made a statement in a program of RTHK. For individual case, Headline Daily had the photo of the "suicide as demonstration" , despite not quote all the word from her statement, still stated 死者墮樓前在梯間牆壁上寫上反對《逃犯條例》修訂字句…據網傳照片顯示，死者墮樓前拍下字句並上傳至Instagram. Matthew hk (talk) 15:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
'topick, another news sub-domain by Hong Kong Economic Times Holdings, only stated 近月社會受《逃犯條例》修訂事件影響，發生多宗輕生事件. Matthew hk (talk) 15:08, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Start date of the movement

The infobox shows that the start date of the protests is on 31 March, which is stated by some media. However there are much more media outlets show that 9 June is the start date of the protests as it was the beginning of the massive consecutive protests which lasts until today. I originally put 31 March as the start date but now I think it is more accurate to use 9 June as start date. Lmmnhn (talk) 08:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

It is not relevant what outcome in zh-wiki. This is en-wiki. Some source count from June, some source count from March or even earlier. But June seem more relevant as from June the protests was non-stop weekly and daily events. Matthew hk (talk) 07:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Change short description?

The current description, "Demonstrations against the extradition bill proposed by the Hong Kong Government", is not accurate to the scope of the demonstrations anymore - it has escalated far beyond the extradition bill. While the extradition bill was indeed the spark of the movement, the title has already been amended to reflect the expanding scope of the demonstrations - and such the short title should be, too. Perhaps "Pro-democracy demonstrations sparked by a proposed extradition bill in Hong Kong" would better reflect the current situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mount2010 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose For a few reasons: while the heavy-handed police response may have changed the scope of the protests they were the initial casus belli for this conflict. Furthermore, "pro-democracy" is somewhat NPOV problematic as it assumes: 1) democracy does not exist within socialism, 2) the situation that the protesters intend to create would be intrinsically democratic. These are both positions that may be open to dispute, and as such we should avoid such characterizations in Wikipedia voice (though, of course, if reliable sources call the protesters, "pro-democracy" we can make mention of that characterization). However, should these protests continue with any significance throughout September and a clear locus supported by high quality reliable sources emerges, I'd not oppose revisiting that issue at that time. Simonm223 (talk) 12:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

History of the 2019 Hong Kong protests

  • Support split -
Article is close to 200kB, and parts of it should be split to a new article entitled History of the 2019 Hong Kong protests, similar to History of Australia.
Other sections of the article need to be trimmed dramatically, since they now have sub articles.
Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Vehemently oppose This is a protest ongoing since the spring, not a country that was founded over 100 years ago. Just do some cutting. I mean the last time I trimmed down one of these HK articles I managed to excise 32k bytes and so far have only had two small sections reinserted. So there's definitely room to neutrally edit. Simonm223 (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Oppose The history section need to be trim to 400 words. If people want more detail , then it is the function of the List of early 2019 Hong Kong protests, List of September 2019 Hong Kong protests etc. (themselves need trim). This is encyclopedia , but not meant for book length. Matthew hk (talk) 08:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I don't know what's up with all the trimming and "the article is too long" comments, there are hundrerds of articles longer than this one (in terms of readable prose). It's a very clear article actually and we don't need to treat it as if it is a country indeed. Coldbolt (talk) 16:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The "history" of the 2019 HK protests is the core of the article. The background, the objectives, the tactics, the suicides, the police misconduct allegations, the impacts, the domestic reactions, the PRC/international reactions - these all add useful depth to the article, but (to various degrees) they're peripheral compared to the protests themselves. It's true that the article is getting very long. Some of the sections with sub-articles could have the leads of those sub-articles compressed - with consensus on the talk pages following WP:LEAD - and the corresponding summary text in this article could then be correspondingly reduced to more or less match the lead in the sub-article. That will require work, WP:AGF, WP:RS, WP:NPOV as usual in those sub-articles individually. Boud (talk) 01:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • ALT1 - Support split of "Impacts" section. My feeling is that probably the major section in this article that could best be split off into a separate article with a very short summary remaining here is the "Impacts" section. The Impacts are something that we don't really know much of yet (by definition, we only know short-term impacts so far); right now both of the sub-sections are quite long compared to any other sub-section in the article; and it's the sort of the thing that a reader could reasonably expect to be a separate article to "the protests" themselves. Boud (talk) 01:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Wouldn't that be WP:TOOSOON then? OceanHok (talk) 12:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, it's WP:TOOSOON to create an impacts article. We can keep the short-term impacts here in the protests article until it becomes clear that they did more than quashing this piece of legislation. Simonm223 (talk) 12:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

NYT source

Nice new NYT source [1] with commentary on the divisions. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:46, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Trying to improve the suicides section

I made a start but I don't think it's quite there yet. Looking for feedback. Simonm223 (talk) 18:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Totally agree with your edits, we cant create a false causal relationship. If multiple WP:RS creates such causal relationship, we can state for example 'SCMP & WSJ stated that John Doe committed suicide as the result of the bill'. I doubt we will find such sources, but open to the possibility. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:40, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
@Jtbobwaysf: I had given source in Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests/Archive 6#Suicide should not count as death, despite i admit the topick department was inferior business division of Hong Kong Economic Times Holdings. Not sure their wording in their flagship Hong Kong Economic Times. Matthew hk (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Chinese government and media

Should we change the section name to "Mainland China reaction (including the same section in reaction page) since mainland Chinese also taking some actions against the protests (no matter if they are "brainwashed" and there are realiable source supporting this)? Mariogoods (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

What would you want to add? I don't really think stuff like spamming the national flag is that relevant - random displays of so-called patriotism are effectively government-enabled forms of voice in China that are used to muddy the debate; basically I would say any physical action in the real world would be relevant, but not online stuff - China's internet is literally cut off from the rest of the world's, so it's not really meaningful to refer to it. Yny501 (talk) 00:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
I believed that the stuff should be added and it deserved at least one sentences. It gained support from Chinese media, and it may be the unique methods against protesters. Mariogoods (talk) 03:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, what stuff again? Are you referring to the online flag stuff (I really don't know how to describe it in English)? If you think it's a meaningful method, by all means add it. I just didn't think so. Yny501 (talk) 03:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Triad groups in the infobox

Dino245: I have appended (suspected) to Triad groups in the infobox (diff). Is there any reason for the reversion? (diff). Adding (suspected) or an equivalent is more consistent with the body of the article and sources. The corresponding passages in the body seem to be stable for a while after a lot of discussion, so I think the infobox should be consistent with that. The body of the article states (emphasis added by me):

Subsequently, the protests have continued throughout the summer, escalating into increasingly violent confrontations involving the police, activists on both sides, suspected triad gangs, and local residents in over 20 different neighbourhoods throughout the region.

While a standoff between the protesters and the police occurred in Sheung Wan, white-clad groups, suspected to be triad members allegedly supported by pro-Beijing lawmaker Junius Ho

Most of the cited sources seem to be consistent with this. Here is a sample of the first ones.

There has been widespread speculation that the attackers belonged to triads - the name given to organised criminal networks that operate in Hong Kong, and are also known as the Chinese mafia.
— BBC

Some politicians and activists have linked Hong Kong's shadowy network of triad criminal gangs to political intimidation and violence in recent years, sometimes against pro-democracy activists and critics of Beijing.
— ABC / Reuters

T. Wing Lo, an organized crime expert at the City University of Hong Kong, said the scale of the attack indicated that it was likely organized by a triad that, with the promise of payment, rounded up people in the rural area to participate.
— Associated Press

Hong Kong's opposition Democratic Party is investigating attacks by suspected triad gangsters on train passengers on Sunday, after a night of violence opened new fronts in the political crisis now deepening across the city.
— CBC / Reuters

A week before suspected triad gang members attacked protesters and commuters at a rural Hong Kong train station last Sunday, an official from China’s representative office urged local residents to drive away any activists.
— Reuters

Note that other sources that present do not add something like suspected or equivalent, usually do so by quoting declarations attributed to individuals. --MarioGom (talk) 10:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I think just some activists they kept removing the word "suspected" with no reason. STSC (talk) 11:19, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I have added it back (diff). --MarioGom (talk) 12:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I agreed due to infobox nature and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 160#Remove "suspected perpetrator" field in Template:Infobox civilian attack, it should add suspected triad wording for it. For full WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME policy, may be "white-shirt" mob may be more neutral, but without many info. Just some flexibility for this current affair to use "suspected triad gang" is fine, as it was widely used in media despite there is no court ruling yet. Matthew hk (talk) 20:41, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Riots vs. protests. please use the dictionary

(no-admin close) WP:NOTAFORUM. Please provide WP:reliable source such as news article to prove the incident/events were widely described as "riots". Matthew hk (talk) 12:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

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.

This page is a prime example for showcasing Wikipedia's faults. What's been going on for the past weeks is nothing but rioting by all standards. Please use merriam webster or another dictionary for clarification of terminology.

To reflect this, the article should be revised accordingly. Incidents of violence perpetrated by rioters should be included and listed in a bullet point form. Some are: setting policemen on fire, bewting them semi conscious. Same for passers-by who disagreed. Vandalizing government buildings. Bomb manufacturing allegedly linked to them. Endangering the safety of the transportation system by burning down stations, throwing objects on tracks. Damaging the economy at large (number of jobs lost, etc) Vandalizing private businesses, breaking into banks. Trying to seize police firearms and seizing other equipment.

Further, hkfp should not be allowed to be used as reference as it is absolutely biased towards the protesters/rioters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.182.114.41 (talk) 10:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a source for anything you've stated?Everett3 (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
What part of that do you think is untrue?--Jack Upland (talk) 05:29, 7 October 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.

Add the new anti-mask law as a cause for the outbreak of protests

The new anti-mask law has sparked lots of controversies and considered as another 惡法 after the extradition bill, which has caused public outrage and fuelled the protests. Therefore, I hereby suggest to add the new law as a cause for the outbreak. Doh951 (talk) 12:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

As usual, please provide a Reliable Source to support this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.22.69 (talk) 14:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

60 year old cab driver died in mob brutality

(non-admin close) WP:NOTAFORUM. It is a big no-no to spread misinformation on wiki article, so far no WP:reliable source to say he is dead. Instead, RS claimed the taxi driver had used his taxi to perform vehicle-ramming attack and it was reported that the protester attack the driver as revenge. Thus, WP:BLPCRIME, WP:NPOV also apply on both side. There is a big no-no wording for claiming "mob brutality". Matthew hk (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

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.

A 60 year old cab driver has been reported to have died in hospital after suffering multiple injuries due to beaten up by protestors in Hong Kong. Hari147 (talk) 12:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Hari147: Where is the source? --MarioGom (talk) 12:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, this is a hoax spread in a forum. No reliable sources supporting the claim. --MarioGom (talk) 14:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
There seems to be no news report on it so far. It is possibly a fake news. Will update soon if this is true. Hari147 (talk) 15:41, 7 October 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.

Peaceful protests vs Rioting vs Acts of terrorism. Know the difference

This article needs serious overhaul, since as it stands right now it is a PR outlet for the rioters - with even the talk page censored. Appropriate changes referring to "protestor" violence are reverted and deleted within minutes.

There are reliable sources calling these acts rioting, even terrorism. Let's start with rioting. Dictionary definition from merriam-webster:

Definition of riot

1a a violent public disorder specifically : a tumultuous disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons assembled together and acting with a common intent

b public violence, tumult, or disorder

riot verb rioted; rioting; riots

Definition of riot intransitive verb 1 to create or engage in a riot 2 to indulge in revelry or wantonness


Articles from trusted international sources calling events in HK rioting:

ABC: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-01/violence-flares-hong-kong-after-china-70-anniversary-parade/11565024 Hong Kong police shoot teenage protester as riots wrack city on China's National Day

BBC:

1. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-49944441 Title: Hong Kong: Transport paralysed in clampdown on rioters

2. https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-china-49944445/hong-kong-protesters-return-after-friday-rioting Title: Hong Kong: Protesters return after Friday rioting

3. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-49949548 Title: Hong Kong protest march descends into violence

Quote: "The weekend saw riots over the mask ban"


Let's have a look at the definition of terrorism, and whether the acts perpetrated by the mobs fit it (Merriam-Webster):

Definition of terrorism

the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

Definition of terror

2 : violence or the threat of violence used as a weapon of intimidation or coercion a regime that rules by terror

especially : violent or destructive acts (such as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands


Terrorism references from recognized sources:

https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-and-crime/article/3031895/we-cannot-tell-world-hong-kong-grooms-local-terrorists

Title: ‘We cannot tell the world Hong Kong grooms local terrorists’ says government source, with officials wary of devastating consequences label might cause

Quotes:

"Violence meets definition of ‘terrorist acts’ according to local and international laws"

"The sources pointed to Cap. 575 United Nations (Anti-Terrorism Measures) Ordinance, first enacted in Hong Kong in 2002 in line with a UN resolution after the September 11 terror attacks in the United States, that spells out terrorism related offences.

The section defines a “terrorist act” as an action that causes serious violence against a person, serious damage to property, endangers a person’s life, creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public, seriously interferes an electronic system, or seriously disrupts an essential service, facility or system. He said protesters had met that definition, causing serious disruption at Hong Kong International Airport on August 12, leaving almost 1,000 flights cancelled , while the city’s rail network was still partially paralysed after protesters began vandalising stations.

The UN act also categorises terrorism as actions or threats intended to compel the government or an international organisation, or to intimidate the public, and made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.

A “terrorist” is defined as a person who commits, or attempts to commit a terrorist act."


In light of the above and Wikipedia contributors' common strive for being non-biased, people who committed terrorist acts should be referred to as terrorists instead of "protestors". People who partake in rioting should be referred to as rioters.


The terminology is only the tip of the iceberg. This article really needs some serious looking into by someone who is not affiliated to the events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.5.158.152 (talk) 14:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Petition to rename article

(non-admin close) Please use WP:RM process. Matthew hk (talk) 16:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

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.

This article's name implies that the protests are peaceful, which is a blatant lie. They are riots, they have thrown Molotovs, they have brutally beaten innocent people, they have expressed reactionary ideology, they raided buildings and set then on fire. FashBasher9000 (talk) 15:41, 8 October 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.

Reactions

There needs to be a reactions section that details the reactions of the PRC PR machine. Interesting article in verge today about this [2]. For example the NBA managers tweet, then the firestorm about the response to it. Plenty of notable players and coverage sufficient to build a section in the article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I have added the NBA incident. I also merged the reactions into one main section, with a few sub-sections (no change to content other than the NBA add). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf: Ideally it should be added to Reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong protests too, since these sections are supposed to be a summary of the full version. --MarioGom (talk) 07:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
@MarioGom: I have added over at that other article as well. Probably the reactions summary on this article should be trimmed. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

International incidents related to the protest - NBA and Hearthstone

I think there should be an article outlining the international incidents related to HK protests. SYSS Mouse (talk) 18:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia have article about Reactions of the protests. I believed it belongs to boycott section in "Mainland China reactions" section. Feel free to add it.Mariogoods (talk) 03:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2019

while police was accused colluding by intentional slow action.[52] Subsequent police operations and alleged misconduct prompted a general strike and a city-wide protests on 5 August. Change to: "while police were accused of collusion by their intentional slow action. [52] Subsequent police operations and alleged misconduct prompted a general strike and city-wide protests on 5 August." Hellenic18 (talk) 07:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done NiciVampireHeart 10:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

New article

Should we created a new article aimed to describe boycott and pressure against notable pro-protests figures? Mariogoods (talk) 09:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Just briefly explained in Tactics and methods surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong protests. Matthew hk (talk) 12:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
That section has not been updated since August though, and the boycott action escalated quite a lot in September. OceanHok (talk) 16:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
So edit it then. With reliable sources. Following WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. Simonm223 (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes plz Falcon of the wikis (talk) 05:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Cause in infobox

Should we change the content to Diverse (see causes of the 2019 Hong Kong protests)?Mariogoods (talk) 09:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

The 5 demands still mainly point to democracy not puppet state of CCP. People still participate the demo for supporting U.S.' Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act. Matthew hk (talk) 22:16, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2019–2020_Hong_Kong_protests/Archive_6&oldid=1017254242"