Talk:Tactics and methods surrounding the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests

Broken citations

After this article was split from the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests article, some of the named references are no longer linked to the source information. Affected references show up as a "Cite error" instead of a citation in the References section. To fix this, we'll need to find the source information from all of the original citations before the split (Special:Permalink/912297542) and populate them into this article. — Newslinger talk 07:12, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I originally misread the errors, but I've resolved them by removing all of the unused list-defined references by custom script. — Newslinger talk 14:25, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

main talk page proposal: new section about "the fighters"

Please see the discussion from the main article talk page (now archived), here:

Talk:2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests/Archive 3#Intentionally miss the fighter in "Tactics and methods"

It has been proposed to include a new section on this page specifically about "the fighters" and hardline elements involved in the protests, specifically including more emphasis and detail about use of violent tactics. Please read the talk thread linked just above for some direction and ideas. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 06:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Zhenqinli: Feel free to contribute to the discussion and help with the creation of content, thanks. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 03:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, I just added Template:incomplete to point to this discussion page.--Zhenqinli (talk) 04:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Zhenqinli: Thank you. @Ltyl: Feel free to participate here, if you'd like! 65.60.163.223 (talk) 20:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, created a new section in the article for this topic, here:

• Offensive actions and "the fighters"

Please feel free to contribute! 65.60.163.223 (talk) 06:49, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

citation for Guardian Weekly (Australian Edition) ... please help, thanks!

@Matthew hk: Hello, on this page you had mentioned about an article from The Guardian Weekly (Australian Edition) and quoted a sentence about "the fighters" ...
However, I cannot seem to find that article on-line (perhaps unavailable or behind a paywall?) ... how may I add citation for this?
Can you please provide full information for citation/reference so that I can include this here?
Thank you so much! 65.60.163.223 (talk) 06:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Try The Observer, where the article at first published. Matthew hk (talk) 06:50, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Great! I found it here:

Hong Kong’s dilemma: fight or resist peacefully

Thanks you! 65.60.163.223 (talk) 07:20, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Government tactics and methods

Where would be the place to document the authorities' tactics and methods? I developed some sources on Talk:White terror. Wakari07 (talk) 18:44, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I would also like to point out, that as a fluent English speaker from the United States, the meaning of the term "White Terror" is not immediately obvious or at all clear. So I would strongly encourage clarification and disambiguation, by explaining what that means and why it is called that, maybe offering alternative translations as well if possible, etc. Thanks. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 20:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

In the Hong Kong context, all the sources I found spell it in lowercase. Veteran journalist Michael Chugani wrote in the SCMP [1] that in 2017 Hong Kong, its "historical meaning – consistenly in uppercase – of political jailings and heads being lopped off had no relevance". The 2017 meaning was "ever-shifting", potentially signifying "whatever you want". But we're 2019 now. Wakari07 (talk) 22:49, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Good point ... maybe this page needs to be divided between "Social Movement" and "Government / Police" tactics and methods. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Looking at Template:2019 Hong Kong protests, the Allegations of Hong Kong Police Force misconduct ... article overlaps with HK govt and PRC govt tactics and methods, but it would seem to me that the sources justify a complementary article that hasn't yet been started. There are plenty of sources claiming that Carrie is controlled by Beijing; that armoured cars are gathering in Shenzen just across the border on the mainland; that Beijing is trying to decide what tactics X, Y or Z to use to stamp out the protests and why it would lose either by Carrie resigning or by her staying in place. There's plenty of speculation that a repeat of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre is being considered, but would be realpolitik-ally and economically unwise (independent of the criminal nature of mass murder). Concrete sourced actions by the HK police could go in summary form in the new article, minimising redundancy and leaving the issue of whether or not they count as misconduct to the misconduct article. The name of this article is extremely long! I guess the new article could maybe be Governmental tactics and methods opposing the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests? where "governmental" is defined at the beginning to include both the HK and PRC governments and exclude foreign governments.

I see that about half the main text of International reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests is about PRC "reactions". The "reactions" sections for international events articles usually list blabla by politicians "We condemn this terrible event and are terribly unhappy." PRC "reactions" could mostly probably be listed as part of systematic PRC government "tactics and methods", which is a lot different to empty rhetoric. So editors of that article would, it seems to me, have to accept that a big part of the PRC section in that article would be transferred to the new article. I'm not an active editor on the HK protest pages - so this is just a suggestion that might help. Boud (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

The section on aggressive tactics

has been shortened. The details of the events have been moved to a new page here. And there is a discussion on merging the page with International reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests Ltyl (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

deletion of Shanghaiist citation

@Ltyl: Why do you believe that Shanghaiist is not a reliable source? What is that based on?

Also, in the very same edit, you removed quoted content from another citation that you didn't like (and gave no explanation for that action in the edit summary). That information helps to give background to the back-and-forth issues at play. Please don't remove content simply because you disagree with the perspective, thank you. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 20:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

"Violence, vandalism and arson" section needs a lot of cleanup ... please help! : )

Okay, I spent a fair amount of time working to cleanup and fact-check the "Doxxing and shaming campaigns" section, but the Violence, vandalism and arson section still needs a lot of work ... Readability updates and fact checking would be nice, but also, right now it appears as mostly a laundry list of random events, without even mentions of specific dates for when these incidents occurred or any related context.
Many thanks to anyone that can help with this! 65.60.163.223 (talk) 03:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Source 213 (Malay Mail) leads to a spyware website (and the description of the source contradicts the content on Wikipedia); also, is Wen Wei Po considered a WP:RS? Yny501 (talk) 20:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

The reason why I'm adding this is because Zhenqinli has made a lot of additions to the article recently, of which at least some are helpful additions. However, I am a bit concerned about the mass addition of material that is bizarrely all marked as minor edits, and about the quality of some of these sources. For example, about the Celine Ma incident, I have seen alternative descriptions of what happened, so I would like the editor or others to make a clarification, and also be aware about using minor edits. Yny501 (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Zhenqinli: sorry for not pinging you earlier, I just wanted to ask you about the direction you think this page is going in as you have contributed a lot but sometimes I have some concerns about some of the edits. What do you think about this version compared to when I added the above comment? It seems slightly better in my opinion.

Jumping over turnstiles

@Simonm223: - It may not the most important strategy per se, but it is still an important way for people to pressure and boycott MTR, thus it is among one of the tactics and methods used, and a display of civil disobedience (as they intentionally violated the law). All major Chinese newspapers (even the CCP ones) mentioned about these.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] It was given due weight (only one sentence), and I think it is fine to include it in the article. OceanHok (talk) 12:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

OceanHok that's the thing though, per WP:RGW, Wikipedia doesn't exist to tell people, "this is important for you to do." If this tactic has not had any WP:LASTING significance, it's probably not WP:DUE inclusion. This article set is over-stuffed with a lot of content that is basically WP:CRUFT material important for the participants but not for the general reader. And ask this question: which will a reader be more likely to care about: allegations of police brutality, protesters throwing petrol bombs, or an argument about fares with the MTR? Simonm223 (talk) 12:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

You have a point. I will wait to see whether more mainstream press (or at least SCMP/Free Press) write about jumping over turnstiles given that there is a lack of coverage from English sources about these incidents. Maybe I can include it in the article about MTR, though I may deal with it later. OceanHok (talk) 13:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I just want to be clear that my concern is not the language of the sources; while Chinese isn't my first language, between my small ability in it and use of a translator I can generally get by with Chinese sources, and Wikipedia is not restricted to English sources. Ming Pao is certainly a WP:RS regardless. However not everything a WP:RS discusses is WP:DUE and that's where my concern lies. Simonm223 (talk) 13:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

But it is just one sentence which already adheres to the WP:DUE principles when compared with the more "significant" tactics. If RS recognized these as a legitimate form of tactics/methods done by the protesters, we should recognize it as well. OceanHok (talk) 14:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

And WP:DUE weight is judged by RS, and turning over turnstiles have become another intense point of conflicts between the protesters and their opposers.[10][11]. It definitely meets WP:DUE now that I have found out more about it. OceanHok (talk) 15:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Being reported on in an WP:RS may not be sufficient to meet WP:DUE if it's just trivia. Simonm223 (talk) 15:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Which is a statement I disagree with. Just because it is relatively minor in the grand scheme of things does not mean that it is trivial. There is a big difference. OceanHok (talk) 15:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Here's how you show it's not trivial. Demonstrate there's been an impact on MTR. Then we discuss how the action affected the world. Simonm223 (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done. I strongly disagree with how you positioned "trivia". Your standard of it is unreasonably high if you need it to affect things in a significant manner. I do uphold the view that RS judged due weight. We ourselves do not judge due weight just by observing its significance through subjective lens. OceanHok (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

FWIW you did precisely what I was asking for. I'd actually just spotted this source [12] but hadn't had a chance to do anything with it when you'd inserted the Ming Pao source. But as for whether my definition of WP:DUE is too strict - we're dealing with a situation where protest actions are popping up daily and this desire to include everything is actually significantly hampering readability. All these endless article splits don't create a clear, cohesive view of what happened in Hong Kong nor do they give us WP:10YT perspective. People said, "you should jump turnstile." is trivia. The MTR thought they could solve the issue of turnstile jumpers by hiring veterans who they believe (possibly erroneously) don't speak Cantonese demonstrates that this protest action (turnstile jumping) had an impact (idiotic statements from the MTR director). Simonm223 (talk) 17:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

in general, I think a lot of editors who haven't much previous experience with handling current events on Wikipedia would be well advised to review WP:10YT and keep that guidance close to their heart. Simonm223 (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC)