Jump to content

Talk:2022 COVID-19 protests in China/Archive 1

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

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:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thanks for creating the article!.

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:11, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Removing phrase

"in response to measures taken by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the Chinese government..."

Mentioning the party is redundant here. The party is the one in control of the government, so it's just as factual and more concise to just replace it with "in response to measures taken by the Chinese government" and perhaps remove bias in the process (seeing the word 'communist' in particular, when the CPC is widely agreed upon to not be communist).

Don't want to edit it myself if it's unpopular so asking here. DevonianShark (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@DevonianShark: It is controversial since at the very least CCP still declares that it is a communist party holding a variant of communism. ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 16:56, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Regardless of what China calls themselves, I just think its simply not relevant to this topic at all DevonianShark (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
I've removed it. Mucube (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Renaming title?

(Reposting here since the name got moved back) @維基百科最忠誠的反對者 had redirected the page from previously COVID-19 protests in China to Anti-Dynamic Zero Policy Movement in China. While I agree that it is more descriptive, I am worried that it is a bit of a mouthful and might be unintuitive for English-speakers outside China looking to learn more about the recent events. The article itself, related articles such as COVID-19 lockdown in China, and most news articles do not mention the Chinese phrase "dynamic zero COVID", and I do not think the original title would be misleading to a native English speaker given other articles such as COVID-19 protests in the United Kingdom etc. I do however agree that the title could be renamed to something more focused, since I think that the demands and reasoning of the ongoing protests are pretty distinct from protests elsewhere in the world. I appreciate other suggestions that people might have to rename the title (or keep the current one if it works). LatakiaHill (talk) 12:57, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

This page needs a lengthy protection so that only admins can make edits. It seems this one person is causing problems (ban evasion being a perfect example). 2604:B000:B137:FF36:A951:E2F9:2B49:BBC1 (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
@LatakiaHill：First of all, I would like to thank you for informing me of this discussion. In terms of its scope, this is indeed different from other protest movements of Covid-19 in other countries (e.g. calls for the ouster of Xi Jinping、the Chinese communist government and the opening up of press freedom).But while it is my fault for not taking into account the uniformity and perception of other language Wikipedias.This incident in Chinese wikipedia page is, strictly speaking, more about the massive popular protest movement since November (it is already a separate event), although this page is combined with the Chinese Wikipedia page in the Meta-Wiki database, it is in fact a subset of the same concept， similar to the difference between the Chinese democracy movement and the Tiananmen Incident.If this page was about three years of Covid-19 protests in China, I would support keeping the name as it is. But if it is about the November protests, I would suggest creating a new page. Of course, if there are better suggestions, I am always open to them. WMLO (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

"Dismantlement of the Chinese Communist Party"

I suggest changing "* Dismantlement of the Chinese Communist Party" to "End of One Party Rule" in the goals section. I am not aware of protestors specifically requesting the Dismantlement of the Party, and if they have said so explicitly, I think there should be a citation. Παραλλάξιος (talk) 09:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Not to mention, a good chunk of the protestors are members of the Chinese New Left too. I don't think it's fair to say that they want the end of the Communist Party Genabab (talk) 10:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 27 November 2022

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.

Moved. MSN12102001 (talk) 11:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Protests against COVID-19 lockdowns in China → 2022 protests against COVID-19 lockdowns in China – There have been sporadic protests against lockdowns in China going back over the past two years, but the subject of this article seems to be the events of November 2022. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Adding 2022 would keep it focused to the current events. Would also prevent scope creep and confusion if people try to add in info from previous years down the line. --LatakiaHill (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Support Article also specifies specific date in lead sentence. Silikonz (alt)💬 02:35, 28 November 2022 (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.

Name of the road in Shanghai

I’d like to point out that the English road name on the road signs in Shanghai goes by the pingying calls the road “Wulumuqi Rd (M)”, where M stands for Middle, as seen here, and not calling it by English as Urumuqi Rd in the article. Should we change it then? SBS6577P (talk) 11:34, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Road name translations have always been a mess; think also stuff like 中山 and 陕西 and 西藏. We could take the official name and add (Chinese: 乌鲁木齐中路; lit. 'Urumuqi Rd (M)') to keep the idea, but in my opinion that’s a bit excessive. Artoria2e5 🌉 15:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

(Keep the idea of the choice of the street having something to do with the fire.) Artoria2e5 🌉 15:25, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Need for images

As of now, I am having difficulty finding fair use images for the article. If people can find or upload images covering the ongoing events, that would be very helpful to convey the current scale of protests. --LatakiaHill (talk) 06:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

To specify this request, as the current header image showing the initial protest in Urumchi is going to be deleted soon, there is a need for images/videos of the mass protests and marches in Chinese cities, and not just student vigils. LatakiaHill (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Status of the New Left?

When these kinda protests crop up, the liberalism movement in China tends to get the focus. But given that there were videos of workers singing the Internationale as well as the anthem, and workers fighting Foxconn and holding up pictures of Mao, I think New Left Maoists and other New Left factions may have a much more significant role in these protests. Genabab (talk) 06:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

That is a very good point but media coverage on the Chinese New Left tends to be pretty poor in English sadly, there are journals such as Chuang which focus on it but its likely sources like that won't be available for quite a while compared to the kind of instantaneous 24/7 updates from international Anglophone media outlets. I would add however that these protests largely appear spontaneous rather than being "lead" by anyone so the use of imagery is more likely because the imagery is just well-grounded in China. Totalibe (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

lede should reflect police clampdown

The cable news stations this morning showed empty streets now in many cities with long lines of police vehicles - so suppression is under way in a major series of operations. The lede needs to reflect this unfortunate (but inevitable) turn of events. -HammerFilmFan 50.111.216.187 (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 28 November 2022

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: Moved to 2022 COVID-19 protests in China. No point in hanging around, this is a highly visible page right now, and the most concise title seems uncontroversial.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:38, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

2022 protests against COVID-19 lockdowns in China → 2022 COVID-19 lockdown protests in China – More concise title. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:22, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Support I would go ahead and move it right now as I assume there is consensus on it. Arguably a title like 2022 COVID-19 protests in China would be even more concise. Gust Justice (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2022 (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.

Premature move

Two problems with the move made by Amakuru on 28 November 2022 at 15:38 UTC.

  1. No consensus was developed with muliple editors over several days.
  2. It was not moved as proposed. Proposed was "2022 COVID-19 lockdown protests in China"

What's up with that? N2e (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@N2e: this page is currently linked from the main page and highly visible, and we don't need to spend days arguing about the title. The title was proposed in the RM above, and there doesn't seem much controversy over it as it is WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE, and sums up what the article is about. I would recommend not starting any further RMs at this point.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
I think Amakuru could have waited a bit longer before the move just to ensure there was more concensus for it. That said, the move itself I would view as unproblematic. Gust Justice (talk) 10:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
That's the point. There was insufficient time for a move of an important page like this, and many could not therefore weigh in. I view the move as problematic. The term "lockdown protests" got removed from the name that had been agreed to just a few days before. N2e (talk) 12:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
@N2e: I don't mind giving more time for discussion if there's a good reason to do so, but so far you haven't given any reason why you think the move is problematic, other than procedural issues. WP:RM is clear that if a move is Uncontroversial, we just go ahead and move it; and so far several editors have said that it is unproblematic and compliant with our article title policy ay WP:AT. If you object to this title, please say why. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
I said why. The page had just been moved on 27 Nov, in a well participated review. Then, one editor proposed yet another change on 28 Nov, and one editor commented on it, and then you moved it to a name that was not even the name proposed on 28 Nov, and you did it without sufficient time to even ascertain the level of support/opposition. Can't just call that an uncontroversial move. Both the 27 Nov MOVE (conclusion, of many, with lots of support) and the 28 Nov PROPOSAL had the word "lockdown" as a part of the proposed name change. You should not then have closed a discussion, in mere hours, on yet another change, one day after the previous concluded MOVE and just willy nilly remove the word "lockdown protests" from the article title. Very poor process. Very poor substantively in the name you closed it as. And you did it without consensus. (consensus is not formed in a few hours with just two editors). N2e (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
I'd also suggest we all give WP:NOTBURO a read and consider whether we need to occupy ourselves debating what is a logical, concise, precise, and consistent title. We are unlikely to see much support for reverting to something more complex and wordy. - Fuzheado | Talk 16:14, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Endorse move by Amakuru. It is overwhelmingly the style of all the other articles that have come before that read: COVID-19 protests in <insert name here> when they are directly tied to pandemic response. See Protests against responses to the COVID-19 pandemic for an inventory of these, as I've also normalized the names of some other articles in the process: Israel, Germany, and the United States. Let's please move on. - Fuzheado | Talk 16:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

This seems a waste of time. The world will eventually come up with a WP:Commonname for these protests, and that will end this debate. Even the descriptive title is ephemeral. It is nearly December; if the protests continue long the title will need to be changed. And given slogans calling for the CCP to step down, and one in the Chinese version of the article saying "We want liberty, equality, democracy, and the rule of law", the scope may be expanding beyond opposition to lockdowns, which would also mean a change in description, in the unlikely event we stick with a descriptive title. HLHJ (talk) 15:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Days of week

CRau080, could you show me the MOS way to add in the day of the week? A lot of sources say "on Sunday" etc., and so it's practical as well as relevant. HLHJ (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, CRau080, that was Mucube. Mucube, would it be okay with you if we found a more concise format that included the day of the week? HLHJ (talk) 21:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
No problem, I suggest https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Magic_words#Date_and_time but I have never used it yet; note that it says the weekday is in UTC--CRau080 (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Chronological

This is a late explanation for the cleanup template. The idea is that a chronological layout would better depict the cause-and-effect of the protests, and to illustrate how the waves have different foci. For example, we have the first wave of SZ & Foxconn workers focusing on livelihood, then after the fire people (of a wider range of occupations) started going harder on wanting freedom. Artoria2e5 🌉 15:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, it's standard for ongoing events for good reasons. The earlier the section is restructured, the easier it will be. Why not just do it? It seems there are no vehement objections.
A map with city names might help give geographic sense as well (the template map has no names and doesn't even flag Shanghai; can someone add editing instructions for it in an adjoining comment?). HLHJ (talk) 02:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
A partial restructure seems to have already happened. I will just... go a bit further on it. Artoria2e5 🌉 14:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
So uh I also did a bit of the map thing. The source file is at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Data:Protests_against_COVID-19_lockdowns_in_China.map, as mentioned on the doc page of {{Protests against COVID-19 lockdowns in China map}}. Refresh takes time and honestly I don't know how frequently that's done. You do need a bit of JSON know-how to figure out the data layout. Oh and read the talk page notes. Artoria2e5 🌉 03:45, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

"White paper revolution" name?

Only one article of the three Taiwanese articles cited mentions that the title "white paper revolution" or "A4 revolution" "has become known" (by who?); the others only reference that name in the titles of the articles. Since I have not heard anyone in the mainland refer to it as this, I'm removing it for now as possible journalist sensationalism and to possibly cause citogenesis --LatakiaHill (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah it seems a bit of an exaggeration to call this "revolutionary" Genabab (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
There is a bit of hopium in the Chinese-speaking overseas community in that they call everything a "revolution". There's the White Paper one, the Whistleblower one that turned out to be a MAGA flop, &c. &c. Artoria2e5 🌉 03:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2022

erupted following a deadly fire in Ürümqi that killed ten people

Please remove deadly. Obviously a fire that kills ten people is deadly. 120.21.41.202 (talk) 20:39, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Good point.  Done Boud (talk) 23:52, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Taiwanese reactions?

I'm not sure what the proper placement for them is given the ROC's complicated status, but they seem a little strange in the spot where they're currently located. Thoughts? An anonymous username, not my real name 05:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Anti-science protests

When protests against lockdowns happened in the West they were labeled anti-science. I remember this rhetoric being used on Wikipedia as well. I think there should be consistency on this. Either anti-lockdown is anti-science or it is not. NatriumGedrogt (talk) 01:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

When protests occurred in mid-2020, the motives, the intentions, and the consequences were markedly different to a protest occurring in November 2022, multiple years after widespread adoption of mRNA vaccines in most countries. But I'm sure you were already aware of that. Either way, what suggestion do you have for modifying the article? It seems like you're just soapboxing rather than providing any useful feedback on the article, Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. --benlisquareT•C•E 02:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
The protests in China aren't anti-science, they're more anti-authoritarian and pro-democracy. Mucube (talk) 02:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Do you have any sources to back-up your theory that governments introduce restriction of citizens' movements are part of a plot to control people? Mintus590 (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
I would agree here, as the protests in China generally recognize the efficacy of masks, vaccines and lockdowns. The general purpose here is not to deny the methods; it's to question the necessity of said methods. Foxtail286 (talk) 03:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
False equivalency. The protests in Western countries were labeled as anti-science because their motives were inherently anti-science; they denied that lockdowns had any effect on the spread of COVID-19 and, in some cases, denied the existence of COVID-19 entirely. The protests in China are occurring as a result of China's zero-COVID policy, which had a detrimental effect on people during the pandemic. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Many protests in the west didn't deny the existence of COVID-19; the argument was that the lockdowns produced more harm than good. Many governments were approaching a near-zero COVID strategy until it became unsustainable. Meanwhile Wikipedia labeled all those protests as anti-science, but I still fail to see what was anti-science about that. But now that the Chinese do it, they're not anti-science? Color me shocked. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 20:00, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
You seem to be conveniently memoryholing the fact that Australia, New Zealand, Vietnam and Taiwan had a near-tenfold reduction in ICU admissions and fatalities per capita compared to third-world countries such as the United States and Great Britain, at a time when mRNA vaccines were still undergoing lengthy clinical trials and were unavailable to the general public, and that the evil Hitler lockdowns were only supposed to be a temporary measure until the mass production and distribution of these vaccines took place. This is a significant difference to a zero-COVID policy implemented in China three years after the first outbreak in Wuhan, that is set to go on indefinitely with no end in sight, because the Chinese government cannot afford losing face in admitting that their Sinopharm vaccines were inferior to the mRNA vaccines of the West. "But they're the same, bros" is a room temperature IQ take being pushed by the Fox News crowd, in an attempt to justify past actions of questionable moral defensibility, by creating a false equivalence with the ongoing events taking place in China. --benlisquareT•C•E 02:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
"They're not the same, bros" is a room temperature IQ being pushed by the CCN crowd. You see? Two can play this game. I'm not attacking you, I'm just stating the facts. So stop attacking me.
You seem to be conveniently memoryholding the fact that even after the distribution of vaccines, many countries still saw lockdowns. There were protests about these lockdowns and yet they still were labeled "anti-science" by Wikipedia. The exact same thing is happening in China, and now suddenly they are "defending democracy". WP:BIAS stopped happening a long time ago. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 13:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
There were protests about these lockdowns and yet they still were labeled "anti-science" by Wikipedia.
Can you provide article space diffs where this is the case? It's a strong accusation to claim that, somehow, Wikipedia as a whole collectively endorsed a particular POV in spite of the third-party reliable sourcing available, and it wasn't just a small scale effort by a handful of opinionated editors instead, if it indeed occurred (which I have my doubts). If Wikipedia had such a widespread POV problem, surely it wouldn't be difficult to collate evidence to demonstrate this, right?
WP:BIAS stopped happening a long time ago.
Sorry, but I can't take this seriously. 90% of the protest footage coming out of China shows dense crowds of protesters fully complying with their mask obligations; are you telling me that if I don't consider their motives and intentions to be on par with, say, a mid-2020 protest in Florida, that's a sign of systemic bias? Hell, deep in the realms of US GOP twitter I've even seen accusations that the protests in China are yet another CIA regime-change psyop because "no true freedom fighter would wear masks"; even in the COVID-skeptic realm of society people have noticed significant differences, despite coming to incorrect conclusions, and you're telling me that the two scenarios should be treated the same?
I'm just stating the facts. So stop attacking me.
What is your intention then, what is the purpose of bringing all this up? What aims and goals do you have in mind for this particular Wikipedia article, given that article talk pages are intended for improving the article? Do you want the protests in China to be labelled as anti-science within the lead paragraph? What changes do you want done in the article prose? Make yourself clear, stop hiding around in the bushes and spit it out already. If your intentions are not related to the article, then why are you even here, given that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum? There are more appropriate venues for that sort of debate, this place is not one of them. --benlisquareT•C•E 15:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
There is arguably some hypocrisy (Westerners largely see China as their "enemy" and so protests there good), but such discussions are immaterial to this Wikipedia article, because we just report what reliable sources say. If there are RS which say that the protestors are denying some established part of medical science we can mention that, but I don't think that's really what Western media is saying about these protests. Endwise (talk) 02:30, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The terms could be considered somewhat synonymous in the colloquial, but don't expect consistency here on WP. As Endwise states, we limit our editing to reliable sources, and the innate hypocricy of the vast majority of English language sources (West good, China bad) ensures that that bias will ultimately replicate itself on WP. There's no editing that out, only a larger systemic change that influences representation in the media could change that. Crescent77 (talk) 03:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2022

Please consider my edits as I tried to describe the unidentified female student of the Communication University of China, Nanjing, who was protesting alone on campus, holding a blank A4 paper. She was believed to be the first to protest by holding an A4.

change

" Nanjing

In Nanjing, students at the Communication University of China, Nanjing, gathered to hold a candlelight vigil for victims of the fire by using phone flashlights as stand-ins for candles[37] and held up blank pieces of paper in reference to the censorship surrounding the event.[38] An unidentified man took the stage to rebuke the protesting crowd, saying that "one day you'll pay for everything you did today", with students replying that "the state will also have to pay the price for what it has done".[39] "

to

Nanjing

In the afternoon of Nov 26 in Nanjing, an unidentified female student of the Communication University of China, Nanjing, was protesting alone on campus, holding a blank A4 paper. An unidentified male (believed to be her college counselor) snatched the paper from her and urged her to quit. Even without the paper, the female protester maintained her posture and continued her protest. Later, more individuals joined and stood alongside her, and the gathering evolved to a candlelight vigil for victims of the fire. Participants used phone flashlights as stand-ins for candles[37] and held up blank pieces of paper in reference to the censorship surrounding the event.[38] An unidentified man took the stage to rebuke the protesting crowd, saying that "one day you'll pay for everything you did today", with students replying that "the state will also have to pay the price for what it has done".[39] 68.40.254.187 (talk) 21:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Most of this has been done, but I don't have a source (a news article or some such) saying he was her college counselor. If you can post a source for that here I'll add it to the article. HLHJ (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! How about the edits below as the female student did continue even with her paper snatched away? also 執行校長曹國聖 was identified to make verbal threats.
On 26 November, satirical posters against the zero-COVID policy were removed in the Communication University of China, Nanjing, and in protest, an unidentified female student stood on the campus, holding a blank sheet of paper, which was snatched away from her by a university administrator (check https://zh.m.wikipedia.org/zh/%E5%8D%97%E4%BA%AC%E5%82%B3%E5%AA%92%E5%AD%B8%E9%99%A2%E7%99%BD%E7%BA%B8%E8%A1%8C%E5%8A%A8.) Without the paper, the student continued her lone protest. Subsequently, hundreds of students gathered on the steps with blank sheets of paper to hold a candlelight vigil for victims of the fire, using phone flashlights as stand-ins for candles and held up blank pieces of paper in reference to the censorship surrounding the event. A student participating in the rally, who stated he was from Xinjiang, spoke: "Before I felt I was a coward, but now at this moment I feel I can stand up. I speak for my home region, speak for those friends who lost relatives and kin in the fire disaster, and for the decease." Vice President of the University, Cao Guosheng，（https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/world/breakingnews/4138113） arrived to rebuke the protesting crowd, saying that "one day you'll pay for everything you did today", with students replying that "the state will also have to pay the price for what it has done". 68.40.254.187 (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm afraid my ability to read Chinese is very limited; thank you for providing the spelling of 曹國聖 and his title. But I couldn't find any mention of him in the link you posted. Could you post a quote of the sentences that say he was rebuking the protestors? Unfortunately, we can't use other Wikipedia articles as sources; the source must meet the WP:Reliable sources requirements. If you can post a link to the source which the Mandarin article cites, and the supporting quote for that fact, I might be able to add it. Thank you for your help! You might want to read this guide and this more specific one. HLHJ (talk) 17:20, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
two links:
https://theinitium.com/article/20221129-mainland-protes-slogans/
says"在11月26日南京傳媒學院學生拍攝的一段現場視頻中，一位女學生手舉空白紙張站在階梯前表達抗議，一位看似是校方管理者的男性上前拿走了紙張。" meaning "an unidentified female student stood before steps on the campus, holding a blank sheet of paper, which was snatched away from her by an university administrator."
https://weibo.com/n/%E4%BB%8A%E6%97%A5%E8%B4%A8%E7%96%91?from=feed&loc=at
（scroll down to 11-26 11:10 )
says"南京传媒学院常务副校长曹国圣，这样威胁他的学生：“你们一定会为今天的行为付出代价！”
meaning "Vice President of the University, Cao Guosheng, threatened the protesting crowd, saying that "one day you'll pay for everything you did today" 68.40.254.187 (talk) 00:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Can anyon comment on these sources? I will get back to this as soon as I cn, but welcome anyone else adding it. HLHJ (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
the links look genuine and citable. Freeisfree (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Is it fair to say the protests have 'ended'?

There are still demonstrations going on, even if being surpressed. This is even noted by the article. I think it's fair to keep it as 'ongoing' until all unrest has stopped. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

The early protests started in mid-November in Guangzhou. This is a weeks-scale series of protests, not a day-scale, so we should wait a week or so to see if WP:RS agree with each other that the protests have been fully suppressed. Currently, the censors are still overwhelmed, so videos of Tuesday 29 Nov night's protests in Guangzhou are still widely circulating. Boud (talk) 00:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
They are definitely still going on. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:46, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
twitter.com/whyyoutouzhele, a personal account that accidentally became a central hub/curator for information about this protest, may have what we are looking for. *If* anything big happens on that account, an RS is likely to follow up -- this Europe-based 李老师 after all just got a few big name interviews. Artoria2e5 🌉 16:17, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
If reliable sources report that the protests have died down or been successfully suppressed, then we should report than. But to do so without secondary sources saying it explicitly would be original research. DFlhb (talk) 12:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Background of protests

obvious trolling is obvious. 晚安lettherebedarklight 06:47, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please reread the discussion. What I wrote was not intended as a joke and it was not "trolling". If you disagree with something I have said, then provide an argument in the discussion. If you are not willing to spend the time to read and understand the discussion, then do not block other people from reading it.50.230.201.134 (talk) 21:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Nowhere on this page is it mentioned that the Coronavirus was created by the Biden administration and that the location of Wuhan, the central transportation hub of China, was chosen for the sole purpose of harming as many Chinese people as possible. This is the actual background of the protests, despite being censored by the Democrat-run mass media.50.230.201.134 (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 01:17, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a platform for hosting fringe theories. Reliable sources are a requirement. Just like we can't write that the Earth is flat or that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real, we can't put this. Apologies. An anonymous username, not my real name 11:36, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
What I wrote is not a "fringe theory" or even a theory, it is a statement of fact. Furthermore, as your links clearly demonstrate, Wikipedia is a platform for hosting fringe theories. You are denying the possibility of even discussing the issue I raised, when it is something that is not only fact, but something that requires an incredible suspension of disbelief to ignore.
The fictitious Fu Manchu narrative of the Coronavirus given by the Biden administration has been promoted throughout the mass media and is not censored in any way by Wikipedia either. The question that immediately arises is why China would choose its country's own central transportation hub as the epicenter of the pandemic. This question is not even grazed by Wikipedia. 50.230.201.134 (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
This is an article about a series of protests, not the origin of COVID-19. Perhaps I should've worded that differently; fringe theories are perfectly fine to discuss, but they do not arbitrarily get to take priority over the widely accepted viewpoints. Unless you can provide a source that is not your own original research, this discussion is pointless. An anonymous username, not my real name 00:29, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Biden was not president when the pandemic broke out, mind you. Pdhadam (talk) 14:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
You're right, I meant to write the Biden campaign. 50.230.201.134 (talk) 21:43, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Coronavirus was first recognised as being unique compared to other viruses in 1936, before Biden was born. So I don't understand how the Biden campaign could have created Coronavirus. Boud (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Can we convert the Prelude heading 1 to a heading 2?

Greetings. I think having the section Prelude: Sitong Bridge protest be a second level heading instead of a first-level heading (and therefore putting it in the Background section) would lead to a better page organization.

A bit scared to be bold since this is a very visible article, so looking for opinions here. Rafplayz001(talk | contribs) 14:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

if this does happen we should also remove the Prelude: prefix — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafplayz001 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Changing a header level isn't "reckless" as defined by the Be bold guideline, even if the article is very visible. Anyway, I agree that § Sitong Bridge protests should be put under § Background because that protest was carried out independently by one man who isn't really connected to the current events. Background information. ~~lol1VNIO⁠🎌 (I made a mistake? talk to me) 17:57, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
I was erring on the side of caution since I'm relatively new here (only really got back into editing this week), but I did the edit. Happy to hear approval Rafplayz001(talk | contribs) 18:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Complete timeline of protests

I thought the protests could be traced back to as early as the 2022 Shanghai COVID-19 outbreak in late April. The Beijing Sitong Bridge protest on 2022-10-13 could also be added in this article since it's directly related to the topic. Wei4Earth (talk, contribs) 23:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@Wei4Earth: No source saying so till now. ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 01:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
The Sitong protests are mentioned in RS and in the article now. The 2022 Taiwanese local elections and concurrent constitutional referendum also happened on the 26th, just before the main protests, and we haven't even got a good article to link the current economic situation in China to. 2020–2022 Chinese property sector crisis doesn't quite cover it, really. If anyone can find good RS, please add this content. HLHJ (talk) 16:06, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I began what became the omnibus Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic the day they shut Wuhan down, and more recently Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. It's a lot easier to track events from the get-go than to go back and separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. Too, "...some developments may become known or fully understood only in retrospect." (Notably in this regard, 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre, a major geopolitical event if ever there was one, does not have a timeline.) kencf0618 (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Factional and the dismantlement of the Communist Party

On account of the "merits further discussion comment" I'm making this sectio.

In addition to the above comments from Παραλλάξιος, but as a result of the videos of workers singing the Internationale (as is mentioned in the wiki page) as well as the anthem, alongside workers protesting private companies like Foxconn and holding up pictures of Mao, I do not think it is fair to say that there is a non-factional desire to dismantle the Communist Party. It seems like there is a role in the protests by the Chinese New Left and Maoists. While you *could* argue they may want to dismantle the party in the same way Indian Maoists oppose the Indian Communist Party, that would have a very different character to what more liberal protestors have in mind, not to mention that it is way too early to tell if this is the case. Genabab (talk) 13:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Echoing this as this was the main reason I was hesitant to add the removal of the CCP as a main goal in the infobox. However, this is just a built-in implicit angle of most reliable sources outside of China, and I wouldn't know how to bring in other voices without it becoming a bit soapboxy or doing original research. My personal experience says that part of what made this wave so popular was its direct and clear goal of ending zero-COVID lockdowns, something that resonated with many previously politically inactive. I think that to abstract that away by focusing on a minority presence misses the big picture. At the same time, I am also hesitant to identify say workers protesting at Zhengzhou as the Chinese New Left, as broader worker movements in China tend to draw on socialist imagery and are informed by socialist values, but do not identify with a moniker like New Maoist etc. I will keep an eye out for reliable sources that present a better overview of different/contending ideologies present in the protests. --LatakiaHill (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
I think it is overall worth considering that it is too early to tell, all things considered. These protests really started to kick off only recently. Maybe in a few days, more information will come out. Genabab (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Additionally, many sources in the article *do* have interviews with many people explaining that they are there simply because lockdowns pushed them too far, or will mention other political ideals. But to synthesize this in the article feels like original research a bit; maybe someone with more experience editing can help me. --LatakiaHill (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
In line with the sourcing suggestion made in the "Dismantlement of the Chinese Communist Party" section, I’ve added articles which say the protesters have explicitly called for the resignation of Xi Jinping and the dismantlement of the CCP. If you think that those demands are merely factional, then you need to provide sources which explicitly say that. Otherwise your argument and proposed edits constitute original research. I am notifying User:Amigao of this discussion as that user was the one who made the “merits further discussion” comment Stormandfury (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
> If you think that those demands are merely factional, then you need to provide sources which explicitly say that.
That would assume your sources show that as well? But is there anything there that would suggest this is the majority view? Or the dominant view?
Sure, some people probably agree with it, but if people are going around singing the Internationale or saying "we want to keep the Communist Party, but we want this or that" it's clearly not a hegemonic view. Genabab (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
The sources do say the protesters have explicitly called for the resignation of Xi Jinping and the dismantlement of the CCP. Just because the sources say those demands have been made by some of the protesters doesn’t make them “factional” anymore than the sources also saying the demand to end the lockdown restrictions have been supported by most of the protesters would them “hegemonic” (your word). No article that is part of the category into which this one also belongs (2022 protests) distinguishes the goals as stated in the article’s respective infobox along a majority-minority axis that you are proposing.
Once again, since you think that the demands related to Xi and the CCP are factional, you will need to provide sources which explicitly say that. Specifically, you will need to provide sources which say the role played by the Chinese New Left and Maoists in the protests proves that the Xi-CCP related demands are not factional. Failure to do either means your argument and proposed edits constitute original research. In addition, aside from your “factional” assertion being at this point unsourced, WP:ONUS stipulates that the “onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content” so the burden falls on you to get consensus for including your description of the Xi-CCP related demands as factional. Please stop reverting until you have done so. Stormandfury (talk) 22:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
So as was noted in the edits, you said to ensure consensus was reached. I am reasonably certain that consensus has been reached however, as most people who reply (from what I've seen) agree that the goal of ending the Communist Party is a factional one. And as I pointed out in the edit, even the sources that Stormandfury provided (with the exception of AP) all explicitly stated that this was a factional issue, as they all used words such as:
"*some* protestors called for the resignation of Xi and the Communist Party to be removed."
Which seems pretty defenitive, that it is a factional issue, if the majority of Western news outlets like Reuters or BBC agree that it is a factional issue. Genabab (talk) 07:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
One more time: just because the sources say those demands have been made by some of the protesters doesn’t then make them “factional” anymore than how just because they also say the demand to end the lockdown restrictions have been made by most of the protesters doesn’t then make them “hegemonic” (your word). No other article similar to this one distinguishes the goals as stated in its respective infobox in the way that you are proposing. Since you think that the demands related to Xi and the CCP are factional, you will need to provide sources which explicitly say that (and no, your personal interpretation of what other people have said on this page doesn’t count as evidence as that would be original research) Stormandfury (talk) 11:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
> One more time: just because the sources say those demands have been made by some of the protesters doesn’t then make them “factional”
That is exactly what factional means? It means that only *some* of them want that. Not all of them, which fits the defention of factional to a T.
> just because they also say the demand to end the lockdown restrictions have been made by most of the protesters doesn’t then make them “hegemonic”
Yes it does? If the vast majority, or all, of the protestors want an end to the Zero-COVID policy of China, then that means it is the prevailing view and is not factional.
> No other article similar to this one distinguishes the goals as stated in its respective infobox in the way that you are proposing.
How so? I was under the impression that something being factional means it is presented as factional. And as your sources show, it is very much a factional issue.
> Since you think that the demands related to Xi and the CCP are factional, you will need to provide sources which explicitly say that
The sources you provided say that.
> your personal interpretation of what other people have said on this page doesn’t count as evidence
Could you please quote the area where I said this? All I said is that there seems to be a consensus on this talk page that it is factional. I may be wrong but I haven't seen anyone else other than you argue that the end of the Communist party's rule is "non-factional" and supported by the majority or all of the protestors. Again, even the sources you provided disagreed with you on this.
So to summarise:
There seems to be a consensus based on the talk page that these are factional demands. Based off of the evidence you yourself provided (again, with the exception of AP news, but still..) these are overall factional demands. For example, from the Reuters source: " *Some* blamed President Xi Jinping and the Communist Party and demanded their removal from office." and the BBC source: " Some have, however, gone as far as calling for President Xi Jinping to step down." This very clearly shows that the view of the media that has reported on this topic all agree that these protests are not universally about the same thing. They have some over-arching demands, and as shown by the continued and sustained usage of descriptors like "some" and its qualification in other cases with "highly unusual" or "some *even*" (which indicates it's a radical position or not a common position, though that is up to interpretation).
With all that in mind, what reason is there to not use the word factional when pretty much everything indicates that it is, even the sources you used and when there is general agreement that that is the case. Genabab (talk) 12:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
there is no consensus for your views and proposed edits apart from the one that you made up. Some doesn’t mean factional which in any case isn’t even how you defined factionalism in the first place - the initial basis for your definition was the purported role played by the Chinese New Left and Maoists in the protests and not your newfound one which is weight of the demands of the protesters (this is why I said you have the specific obligation to provide sources which say the role played by the Chinese New Left and Maoists in the protests proves that the Xi-CCP related demands are not factional.) If you feel so strongly about this issue then I suggest you go through the process to get it resolved as our attempts to do so clearly aren’t going anywhere Stormandfury (talk) 13:59, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
> there is no consensus for your views and proposed edits apart from the one that you made up.
In what way? I don't see anyone else objecting to the usage of the word factional.
> Some doesn’t mean factional
Yes it does. That's objectively speaking, exactly what it means. It's the only thing it *can* mean. You haven't provided a reason for it...
> you defined factionalism in the first place -
I don't think you correctly understood what I said. It fits with my earlier statements. The idea there was that, there is a group within the protests that supports the new left/is part of it. Therefore, it exists as a faction. I don't see how that contradicts what I said at all.
> and not your newfound one which is weight of the demands of the protesters
Please refrain from making things up. I have only ever argued that the numbers is what would constitute a faction here. You on the other hand have provided zero reason to believe otherwise other than just saying "it doesn't mean that" and not elaborating. Which doesn't do well for your point.
> which say the role played by the Chinese New Left and Maoists in the protests proves that the Xi-CCP related demands are not factional.)
???
I hope you are aware that you are crossing two completely different lines of thought together. My previous statements about the role of the Chinese New Left are only tangientally related to this. WHich is more concerned about who wants what in the protests (primarily the end of the party's rule).
But anyways, as I stated. You have provided the evidence already. However, asking for a 3rd party seems wise.--Genabab (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
If I’m “crossing two completely different lines of thought together” that’s only because I am showing you how you mixed them up in the first place. You first used the supposed role played by the Chinese New Left and Maoists in the protests as the basis for your definition of factionalism before switching to the completely different one of using the weight of the demands of the protesters as the new basis for your current definition of factionalism. Your definition of factionalism is as clear as mud and that’s a confusion that you and not me need to clean up.
To reiterate: some doesn’t mean factional and even if it did it still wouldn’t support the inclusion of your proposed material that describes the Xi-CCP related demands as such. No other article similar to this one contains the sort of material that you are proposing. The COVID-19 protests in the United Kingdom article for example says that some of the protests stemmed from demands for pay rises and improved working conditions” but the corresponding description of those demands in its infobox doesn’t say “Pay rises and improved working conditions for healthcare workers (factions)” - it just says “Pay rises and improved working conditions for healthcare workers”
Also your request for a third opinion doesn’t appear to be valid. As I have pointed out, (User:Amigao) has objected to your proposed edit [1], so it looks like there has been more than two users who have been directly involved in this debate. Furthermore, given how that user’s edit was the catalyst for your creation of this discussion section, I think it’s only fair that they be given a chance to comment on what’s been said so far. User:Amigao, what are your thoughts on the arguments that have been raised throughout this thread? Stormandfury (talk) 00:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
> You first used the supposed role played by the Chinese New Left and Maoists in the protests as the basis for your definition of factionalism
Yes because that meant some people wanted x whereas others wanted y. Which is perfectly consistent with the criteria I used for factionalism then and now. I.e. who wants what.
> To reiterate: some doesn’t mean factional
How. You keep saying this but, that's it. How does some people wanting x and others wanting y not make those demands factional.
> even if it did it still wouldn’t support the inclusion of your proposed material that describes the Xi-CCP related demands as such
I think the demands being factional would support calling it factional.
> The COVID-19 protests in the United Kingdom article for example says that some of the protests stemmed from demands for pay rises and improved working conditions” but the corresponding description of those demands in its infobox doesn’t say “Pay rises and improved working conditions for healthcare workers (factions)” - it just says “Pay rises and improved working conditions for healthcare workers”
Then maybe it should say factional? Because it seems by defenition to be a factional issue.
It is absolutely misleading to a 3rd party if they click on this page, and see this. As they will think "oh, this means the protests are all about ending Communist Party rule." when that is only the demands made by, *some* protestors (making it factional).
>Also your request for a third opinion doesn’t appear to be valid
Then what would be the correct approach.
Also who is this Amigao? I don't see them in this thread anywhere outside of your mentions of their username. Genabab (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
It’s not about who said what it’s about who said what where. I asked you where the evidence was that the involvement of the Chinese New Left and Maoist was what made the protests factional and you couldn’t provide it, after which you changed your definition of factionalism. Like your initial argument, you’re just making things up as you go along
The point about the UK example is that what you’re asking for is the exception to the rule. There’s no other article similar to this one that divides the goals in the infobox up in the way that you are asking for. There’s no infobox which says: Goal 1 (main), goal 2 (factions). As such that is one more argumentative burden that you need to shoulder.
As I have told you multiple times now, Amigao is the user who objected to (reverted, more specifically) your proposed edits. Please do not be deliberately obtuse with this. The fact that the user hasn’t participated in this discussion section does not mean that they have not been involved in the debate. You can claim that there’s consensus for your arguments in this discussion section all you want, but the only “consensus” that the hard evidence shows is that your proposed content has been rejected (on multiple occasions) by two editors Stormandfury (talk) 22:55, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
"There’s no other article similar to this one that divides the goals in the infobox up in the way that you are asking for": There are a few, like 2021 South African unrest and 2021 Brazilian protests. But the main reason they are rare, is that many articles with {{infobox civil conflict}} don't mention goals at all, and those that do make sure that the goals are well-sourced and representative of the movement.
Zero evidence has yet been presented that the last listed two goals are representative or widespread, so they'll eventually be removed from the infobox altogether rather than appending "(faction)". DFlhb (talk) 23:12, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
I wasn’t aware of the examples you cited; as I intimated in one of my comments above i was only looking at other articles in the category (2022 protests) into which this one also belonged. I have doubts about how valid your “representativeness” standard is - the UK example shows that the nursing demands weren’t representative and yet the corresponding demands in the infobox wasn’t described as such. In addition, describing the Xi-CCP goals as factional would not be representative of either the *coverage* of the protests (a lot of which focused on the political dimension of the protest) or the content in this article (a lot of which again is focused on the political dimension of the protest) Having said that I think we can both agree it’s rare for the goals in the infobox to be divided up in the way the other user wants it to be divided and perhaps one solution down the road could be to adopt a modified version of your solution, which is to get rid of the goals section altogether, particularly as there seems to be a lot of overlap there with what is in the “causes” section.Stormandfury (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
I do agree it's rare. Removing may be a reasonable compromise; it's hard to contextualize these goals in an infobox whereas it's easy to do in the article itself. Of course I agree there's a political dimension to the protests, what I disagree on is what defines the protests.
As a thought experiment: if multiple goals define the protests, then we should be able to say:
  • In 2022, protests erupted, demanding the end of "zero-COVID" policies
  • In 2022, protests erupted, demanding the abolition of CCP one-party rule
And both need to be equally accurate, and faithful to the facts. But they're clearly not, are they? No reliable source says the movement as a whole demands that abolition, just that some individual protest have. If I run that same thought experiment with Mahsa Amini protests, all the goals listed in that infobox work perfectly; none of them feel contrived or incorrect. DFlhb (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
DFlhb, just to ensure that I am understanding this correctly, are you proposing the usage of the word factional? Or are you suggesting we remove any mentions of removal of the Communist Party in Goals?
I don't think the latter is a good idea, as Stormandfury has shown via prior citations, there are clearly reports of people who demand the end of the Communist Party's rule, even if they are very clearly a faction of the protests. Genabab (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
> after which you changed your definition of factionalism.
How.
> There’s no other article similar to this one that divides the goals in the infobox
excluding this article? Because it literally already uses the word factional for Foxconn protestors.
> There’s no infobox which says
except for this one...
> As I have told you multiple times now, Amigao is the user who objected to (reverted, more specifically) your proposed edits. Please do not be deliberately obtuse with this.
?????????????
I see that you notified them multiple times but a ctrl+f searcj for Amigao yields 0 results exlcuding your mentions of them.
>You can claim that there’s consensus for your arguments in this discussion section all you want, but the only “consensus” that the hard evidence shows is that your proposed content has been rejected (on multiple occasions) by two editors
you*
May I ask why it is that you are deliberately ignoring other opinions, including the 3rd opinion that was asked for as if they don't exist? Genabab (talk) 09:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
I am unclear on WP's defition of "factional" so I will not contest this for now, but I think there is a risk of generalizing and conflating different protests; student vigils abroad (such as those focused on in the citations; Uni of HK, Shinjuku, Paris, etc) are very different from protests in China that often focus on the specific local lockdown policies. I'm deferring to others with more experience on WP here, but I do hope that the nuances of the ongoing protests can be captured. From both personal communication and Chinese sources that unfortunately wouldn't hold up as reliable sources for English Wikipedia, there is also a growing backlash and alienation over how abstract certain demands have become abroad (as also suggested in the cited Reuters article). --LatakiaHill (talk) 20:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
it is worth considering that the sources provided, with the exception of AP, say that "some" protestors call for the end of Communist rule. Which is pretty conclusive imo Genabab (talk) 21:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

That some anti-government activists would join the protests is self-evident. The question is whether calls to end one-party rule are a defining characteristic of the protests. Sources are very clear that it isn't, so it doesn't belong in the infobox; it instead belongs in the article, and likely in the lead too. Reuters said[2], just days ago: "Down with the Chinese Communist Party, down with Xi Jinping", one large group chanted in the early hours of Sunday, according to witnesses and videos posted on social media, in a rare public protest against the country's leadership." "Rare" and one group means it's not defining. The NYT[3] said a lone activist hung anti-Xi banners and was "immediately" shouted down. The first two bullet points in "Goals" in the infobox are well-supported, but the last two are smearing the protests, unsupported by sources, and should be removed. DFlhb (talk) 03:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

the sources (such as the one you provided) clearly say the Xi-CCP demands make the protests borderline sui generis. They don’t say that’s what most of the protesters are demanding but that is a separate issue to how the sources are representing the political demands. Stormandfury (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
If it makes the protests a special case, and alongside DFLhb's evidence of these demands being "rare" and very controversial, I think factional is a more lenient view on the protestor demands. Genabab (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
DFlhb I re-read your comment and I am not understanding why you think the Xi-CCP related demands (ie the last two bullet points in the “Goals” part of the infobox) are “smearing the protests”? if anything they had the opposite effect in garnering support for and sustaining the protests. Please explain Stormandfury (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Stormandfury Because there's a big difference between protesting policies, and wanting to overthrow a government. If we put it in the infobox, we're claiming that such an overthrow is a goal of the movement, meaning, a share, widespread goal. That's just echoing the Chinese government narrative that these protests are not as a popular movement, but are instead fringe, foreign anti-government agitators. There's no need to help the government's propaganda efforts, and I think it's harmful to describe these as fundamental goals of the movement as a whole when it's not true. We should still talk about these goals in the article body, since some protesters do share them, but we shouldn't paint the entire movement by that. Would you please consider removing the last two goals from the infobox (again, not from the article body) until we can come to a consensus on this, per WP:ONUS? I think harm-reduction is important here. DFlhb (talk) 23:57, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
User:DFlhb but the argument can go the other way as well. By including the political demands in the infobox it could be echoing the alternative narrative that the protests are happening precisely due to the failures of the CCP’s system of single party rule. I’m not saying your interpretation is invalid, just that it’s not the only interpretation that’s valid. I think the worst option would be to get rid of the Xi-CCP related goals while leaving the lockdown related goal untouched as that would give readers the false impression that there are no political demands that the protesters are making. One of the causes listed in the ”Caused By” section in the infobox says *Increasing government authoritarianism and Xi Jinping's third term.* if we were do go ahead with a compromise solution to remove the goals section in its entirety, would amalgamating the extant Xi-CCP line into the causes one I just cited work? Stormandfury (talk) 01:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Stormandfury When you say amalgamate, do mean something like Single-party rule, increasing government authoritarianism and Xi Jinping's third term? I don't think that would be great; people were mostly fine with single-party rule beforehand; the cause was Xi's authoritarianism and removal of many checks and balances (and that's well sourced, so I have zero problem with it). But "single-party rule" as a cause just seems iffy. I'd support keeping that cause as it's currently written, since even protesters who oppose the government seem to complain mostly about Xi and his control over the CPC, rather than single-party rule as a whole. DFlhb (talk) 01:40, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
When you say people were mostly fine with single-party rule beforehand; the cause was Xi's authoritarianism and removal of many checks and balances (and that's well sourced, so I have zero problem with it). that clearly is just your opinion which isn’t supported by the sources, and to attempt to pass it off as such is original synthesis. What I have in mind is an amalgamation of the highlighted cause with a summary of the Xi-CCP related goals that accurately represents what is stated in the sources. None of the sources say that the people were mostly fine with single-party rule beforehand or that the cause of the protests were Xi's authoritarianism and removal of many checks and balances. What they do say instead is that the protesters have explicitly demanded the removal of the CCP and greater political freedoms/liberties. So I am thinking something along the lines of: “Opposition to the CCP, Xi Jinping and deepening authoritarianism.” I think this wording that we could settle on. We take out any mention of term single-party rule or any direct reference to China’s form of government while using wording that is more direct and forceful Stormandfury (talk) 07:17, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, that wording is fine. DFlhb (talk) 07:27, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
> What they do say instead is that the protesters have explicitly demanded the removal of the CCP
That is very blatantly not what the sources said.
Again, the sources that you yourself provided; all stated the same thing. That demands for the removal of the Communist Party were only made by *some* protestors.
Every single source you provided, with the exception of AP was able to make this distinction. And I know you might say "Some doesn't mean factional" but this is a point you made before but did not elaborate on how it doesn't mean factional. Genabab (talk) 09:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
User talk:DFlhb good stuff. I’ve went ahead and put in the changes Stormandfury (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Stormandfury, good edit. I think this was the right call.
But there is still one question. Foxconn practices still are described as factional, which makes sense, since only a faction of the protestors are responding to Foxconn. But if it is also true that opposition to the CCP comes from only certain factions then there's two more ways of doing it.
1. Remove factional from Foxconn (I don't think this is the way to do it as that would imply the Foxconn demands are more universal)
2. Something like this:
. Opposition to the CCP (factional)
. Opposition to Xi Jinping and deepening authoritarianism Genabab (talk) 19:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
if we followed your advice then nearly all the entries listed in the “caused by” section would have to be affixed with the “factions” qualifier. In addition to being the only article of its kind to contain that sort of change stemming from your proposed edits and approach, the whole thing would just look ridiculous. A consensus wording has already been arrived at and at this point you’re just beating a dead horse. Move on already Stormandfury (talk) 15:03, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
How so? Opposition to authoritarianism and Xi Jiping and Zero Covid are pretty universal in these protests.
But how? The article already uses the word factional in the way I suggested for Foxconn protestors alongside the other examples given dFlhb?
I believe that putting the demands like that together isn't very representative of what's actually happening on the ground, especially as the article explains it in that way. I wouldn't describe that as beating a dead horse.. Genabab (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Images with identifiable faces

One of the current photos (File:Washington DC Chinese student protest 20221128.png) shows clear faces of what are described as Chinese students. While this is a photo in the public domain and accessible elsewhere, platforming an image to a wider audience can be a security threat to these students if they choose to return to China. I've removed the photo for now unless someone wants to blur the faces in that image like the other ones. --LatakiaHill (talk) 15:25, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I... disagree with the decision. It's from Voice of America – the original 敌台, so whoever is in power would've seen it already. Wikipedia is hardly a wider platform than the US government's own news service. And I mean, to CENSOR the faces effectively we also need to revision-delete the pic, and you'd be hit with the same question. (The photography is a bit skewed, ugh. Video frame captures...) Artoria2e5 🌉 05:21, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Whether or not damage has been done already elsewhere is irrelevant in my view, and recent years have seen cases of non-government actors abroad taking names and faces; when I say security threats, I don't just mean the government, and there's certainly a level of accessibility that Wikipedia gives than sifting through a VoA video on Twitter for this particular frame, regardless of whether VoA is more popular or not. I'd wait until a similar image is available for use. --LatakiaHill (talk) 12:41, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

This topic has been similarly discussed over here: Talk:Mahsa Amini protests#Blur faces of any protesters shown and then a broader conversation about related image use has been continued on Wikipedia talk:Personal safety, protesters, and blurring. I would encourage others to contribute to that conversation, I think it is a relevant and valid point to take into consideration, but currently seems outside the bounds of Wikipedia's official image use policies. This could change, but more input is needed. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for directing me to this! --LatakiaHill (talk) 23:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Yeah of course! It's something I am concerned about as well, especially given China's widespread use of automated AI & facial recognition technologies, and the pace of accelerating advancements (and consequences) of this field. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 06:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Also of interest from Vice News (5min video): When 'Spreading the Word' About Chinese Protests Is Dangerous (No Faces, Please)
Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2022

The intro refers to people being "showered with pepper spray". Pepper spray doesn't work that way (see image): it's sprayed directly at the target. Please replace "showered with pepper spray" with "sprayed with pepper spray". It sounds redundant, but it's much better than "showered with pepper spray", and more formal than "pepper-sprayed". 120.21.43.198 (talk) 05:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

 Already done. Sentence was removed after request by different editor. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Protests Died Down?

As of today. they seem to be no protest's and it's unlikely we will see anymore soon. converge has also lowered about these events.

Of course we should likely wait until we have more information but from early info so far. It seems these protests have ended in a short amount of time. Cilria (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

If this is based solely on English-language coverage which tends to be biased towards events in English-speaking or Western countries, then that is not exactly a very good way to gauge the current status of the unrest on an hourly/daily basis, especially after such a short period of time. Totalibe (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Your personal perception of some sort of 'bias' is of no value here. 50.111.216.187 (talk) 14:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
lol ok --Totalibe (talk) 01:23, 2 December 2022 (UTC)


With one-party control of news in China, the blocked web, etc., it is difficult to draw any conclusions. Especially from just a day in the endless news cycle. Will need to wait, over time, for verifiable sources to support whatever is said in the article. N2e (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
@N2e: I would say that the authorities snuffed out the protests in mainland China per [4],[5],[6],[7],[8]. There were no reported protests held on Monday or on Tuesday according to international media, and Chinese state media is certainly not going to say if there were or not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. It's over except for some shouting. God protect those arrested and their families. 50.111.216.187 (talk) 14:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Recent lack of protest reporting can also be connected to increases in violent supression and police patrol. News will likely continue to be ongoing.--LatakiaHill (talk) 23:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
@LatakiaHill: Of course it could, but that would fall under WP:CRYSTAL. Right now the police are hunting down the people involved in the protests, so it could go either way. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

According to BBC it died down somewhat [9]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.4.223 (talk) 03:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

died down because the police are clamping down (as the source says). Big difference than just simply saying the protests are dying down Stormandfury (talk) 06:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I would amend the infobox to include 11/28/22 or 11/29/22 as the end date for the protestors in Mainland China, but add a line under that which says "15 November 2022 – ongoing".

So like:
15 November 2022 – 28 November 2022 (mainland China)
15 November 2022 – ongoing (abroad)
- Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
I'd say that may be premature, given that some news of the protests has been coming out with several days delay, and many protests are fairly inactive on weekdays. It's better to be outdated than to be wrong. A query mark as the end date would make sense. HLHJ (talk) 00:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Im just going by what the sources are saying, if people aren't protesting then they aren't protesting. There is no reason to keep it "ongoing" in my opinion if the sources are saying "all is quiet". Now the protests may start up again... but this we don't know, if you want to add a footnote then I see no problem in that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
All Quiet on the Western Front. kencf0618 (talk) 13:44, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
It's been like a week now with no activity. Firestar464 (talk) 05:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: English 126--Rethinking Research

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 16 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Feiqiu (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Feiqiu (talk) 05:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Timeline Page?

The main article seems to be updated with "new" protests very infrequently and if there is infact nationwide outrage in China as i am typing this why is the most recent update from a week ago when we have almost daily updates on the Mahsa Amini Protests and the Russian Invasion of Ukraine, both of those pages have their own respective timeline pages for us to keep track of it a Rookie editor of This Emporium of Knowledge, SirColdcrown (talk) 14:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

What is your question? Crescent77 (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Should we have a time line page for more indepth and frequent updates on it? a Rookie editor of This Emporium of Knowledge, SirColdcrown (talk) 17:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

As you indicated, there hasn't been much to update recently. At this point, it seems to me creating a timeline page would be unneccesary. But I'd say if you think there's value in it, go for it. Crescent77 (talk) 01:48, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

200 or 2000 students at Tsinghua?

Multiple media outlets including AFP had reported that there were 2000 students protesting at Xi’s alma mater, Tsinghua University in Beijing.[10] [11] [12] Yet this article writes it was only 200, but the source it uses for those figures is just a single Tsinghua University student. That doesn't seem like a strong source compared to professional outlets like Washington Post. And the big discrepancy in the numbers seem too large and really should be discussed on what the actual number of students at the University was. 200 or 2000? Simpleshooter99 (talk) 12:15, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request for 17 December 2022

It's for Lanzhou subsection of the article - "issued apologized" should read "issued apologies". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.91.212.222 (talk) 08:38, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done here. Thanks! ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 09:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Majority aim of the protest

I think it should be minimally emphasized that the majority Focus of the protests was largely against Covid rules. And only a small minority seemed to actually be for other purposes. Yet current readers seem to not be able to get that from current article. That the protests was mostly for covid and only a minority was for other goals.

As White house stated: (White House is being careful not to overstate the nature of the protests, noting that while there have been some calls for Xi Jinping to step down, as of now, most of the protests in the country of over one billion people seem small, localized and aimed more at the narrow goals of ending the Covid lockdowns and securing better working conditions than a loftier push for democracy.) [13] Simpleshooter99 (talk) 10:05, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I raised this point earlier. I’m not entirely sure of the bulk of the article, but I think at least the info box is in better shape. While it does make more sense to say that opposition to the CCP is objectively a factional issue within the protests, expressing that it was a partial cause of the protests as opposed to a goal of the protest is a step in the right direction I think. Genabab (talk) 06:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_COVID-19_protests_in_China/Archive_1&oldid=1167522155"