Talk:2019–2020 Hong Kong protests/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2019

That riots happened is beyond dispute. This page is being hijacked by people promoting thier pro-protester agenda and hiding facts on purpose. I propose the following changes to be made:

- the word 'riot', riots, rioters included everywhere whwre protesters are mentioned

- the damage caused by rioters included

- bombs discovered and likned to rioters included

- the reaction of Singapore PM included

- support by taiwan and the us mentioned 183.182.115.2 (talk) 06:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ToThAc (talk) 07:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

They have been provided on this very same talk page and promptly ignored. Please see the archives. Anyone reading major news sources knows everything listed above is true. Even well referenced, similar edits have been undone in SECONDS by bots or bot-like human beings.

IF I provide sources (again) from BBC, SCMP and ABC, will you accept those and update the article accordingly?

You know what? Here are some sources for you: 

Without any effort, here are a few reliable sources. First, the ABC/BBC calling these riots.

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

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

Hong Kong protest march descends into violence https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-49949548 Quote: "The weekend saw riots over the mask ban"

Then some random links. Some others may include policeman's throat being slashed, etc. I am just too lazy to find all those. let's start with the below:

Local businesses are being targeted and ransacked by protesters either for being from mainland China https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-49983767

Protesters beating other civilians and allegedly making death threats http://www.thestandard.com.hk/section-news.php?id=212525&sid=11&sid=11

Subway stations repeatedly vandalized https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3032094/severely-vandalised-mong-kok-and-kwun-tong-stations-among

General widespread vandalism happening all the time https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=OIqx3YIHntc

Homemade bomb used for the first time during Hong Kong protests: Police https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asia/hong-kong-protests-police-homemade-bomb-mong-kok-11998870

Finally, the UN definition of terrorism and terrorists: 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.

Source: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-and-crime/article/3031895/we-cannot-tell-world-hong-kong-grooms-local-terrorists — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.5.158.152 (talk) 12:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

The term "riot" is not universally agreed on, so the usage of this word should be treated with extreme caution. There are loads of sources calling them simply "protesters" or "marchers" as well. "Protesters" is a more neutral term than "rioters" and we should stick to it for the time being. OceanHok (talk) 13:03, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Nothing in this world is "universally" agreed upon. What has been happening in HK meets the definition of rioting, and certain acts that of terrorism as well - this is according to all major English dictionaries. This should be more than enough.

This article should not be based on your opinion or that of the group you represent, rather plain facts. That is it. Rioting is rioting, terrorism is terrorism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.5.158.152 (talk) 16:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

the word 'riot', riots, rioters included everywhere whwre protesters are mentioned; the damage caused by rioters included

• It is now undeniable that some of the latest violence can be labelled as "riots", and the word can be included specifically where these are supported by reliable sources (by these, I would specifically exclude any media controlled by the CPC regime), but to do as you suggest would clearly be in violation of WP:NPOV. Specific damage, where supported by reliable sources, could be mentioned as examples of "rioting" where these are notable and in the context of the article. I would invite you to suggest appropriate wording and link each of these to one or two relevant reliable sources.

bombs discovered and likned to rioters included

• We could in theory mention that the police claim to have found bombs, but this assertion is highly contentious due to the fact that the vast majority of the population have completely lost trust in the police due to fake news and fake denials of police in spite of abundant manifest evidence.

the reaction of Singapore PM included

• The international section in this article is minimalistic, and I would argue that it is not important enough in the context of this article. I would suggest you make that suggestion at Reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong protests. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 16:16, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Great, so we agree on the rioting part, finally. Obviously there were peaceful marches, but almost always they ended up in rioting and burning down of stations, shops, etc. Policemen were brutalized at the airport and set on fire elsewhere. The list is just too long. Some of these acts would fall under the category 'terrorism' - for the definition, please see the link above. By no means do I claim all protestors would fit the bill, but again, read the definition... I am sure you are very well aware of the facts.

As for not trusting the police, that is the opinion of some people, but certainly not the entire population. There have been sizable rallies supporting the government, and so far there have been no evidence to show any set-up or the like. Think of the eye-girl. Any proof? Last I checked she was fighting NOT to release her records. It is possible she was hit by a so-called 'protester' instead of the police. Or the case of Simon Cheung, although that's partially mainland related. Contrary to this, when I refer to riots and potential acts of terrorism, those are all documented. Please think of the attack on the through train... or throwing objects on railway tracks. Or of the paralyzing the airport. Destroying key infrastructure, etc. All in the name of political goals... this meets the criteria outlined above.

If you are suggesting that the bomb incident(s) were fabricated, that is a very serious allegation that you should perhaps report to the appropriate place. You cannot base the article on your opinion or allegations. HK is divided and this article is very one-sided, often distorting the truth and further 'adding oil' between the two camps. It also gives a false image of what is really happening.

As for the international section: again, one sided. The Singapore PM is an important regional figure who made an input that is relevant and should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.5.158.152 (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• That the HK police force has any credibility left has ceased to a matter of my opinion. Spiked reports that The City University ELAB survey report published on 12 August 2019 found that just under half of Hongkongers now have zero trust in the police. It's a very serious problem, catastrophic even. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 16:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Great, so before we completely deviate from the original objective, let me respond to your survey claim, which, as expected is completely useless in judging the general opinion of the population. It was conducted on-site, meaning they asked protestors and rioters of their opinion and not the ordinary HK resident (as you implied).

Here is a quote: "As of August 4, the team has conducted a total of 12 onsite surveys, with a total sample size of 6,688 respondents."

It is the same as if you went into an STD clinic and projected the test results to the entire population. It is simply not representative. It can be accessed here: https://sites.google.com/view/antielabsurvey-eng

I ask someone not involved to make the appropriate changes originally requested, keeping the quoted sources and additional information in mind. Thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.5.158.152 (talk) 17:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC) 

With the requested sources provided, still waiting for any changes to be implemented. Is anyone even surprised?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.5.158.152 (talk) 18:16, 20 October 2019 (UTC) 

Please be patient. Whether or not the article is about a current event is irrelevant; requests are always reviewed in no specific order. ToThAc (talk) 02:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

There are now two mentions of "rioting" where these have been backed up by citations from reliable sources. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 17:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

It should be unacceptable to use double standards when it comes to such a sensitive and politically charged topic. In a below discussion you are fine with leaving mere rumors untouched (inviting editors to find "reliable sources"), yet are unwilling to make changes that reflect reality and are supported by countless very reliable sources. 

Therefore I still propose the following changes to be made:

- all instances of rioting listed, broken down by day and location. The list is very long indeed, but reliable sources are plenty. I suggest the use of SCMP and the use of a dictionary for the definition of what constitutes rioting

- the damage caused by rioters included (economic damage estimates as well)

- bombs discovered and linked or possibly linked to rioters/terrorists included

- any other acts that by definition may be classified as terrorism listed, as per UN and dictionary definitions

- the reaction of Singapore PM included - a very influential and regional leader

- support by taiwan and the us mentioned

And finally: the title of the article should also be changed. Precedent dictates this, see the article on the 2019 Indonesian protests and riots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.5.158.152 (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• You have an inflated sense of Singapore's importance don't you? The Lee Dynasty is not particularly important in international relations - Singapore isn't even a Middle power. As for your other points, there are no calculations of damage caused by 'riots' (your words), and according to your logic we should also include all the damage the pro-Beijing side has caused to human life and property, as well as economic activity (e.g. the closure of Yuen Long on 22 July). Yny501 (talk) 03:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
•  Note: I've closed this edit request; multiple editors have disagreed with a number of the requested edits. Please gain consensus before re-opening. NiciVampireHeart 18:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources have been provided by multiple people, yet they are being ignored - while mere urban legends are included. Anyone who follows the news knows that the above listed items, without exception, have been confirmed true and correct and are also well documented. They are also very much relevant and precedent from other articles would dictate that they be included. 

This page is beyond controversial and manipulative. At this point I am not even hoping for any changes that reflect reality as I have lost all trust in Wikipedia.

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 09:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Suicide claims again

The infobox claiming that there have been at least 10 suicides seems to be WP:SYNTH. One source seems to list 9 suicides, but the details are spare and the source is at best. I'm still discomfited with any explicit claim that something that can be as multifaceted as suicide should be linked causally to a political movement in an infobox. Simonm223 (talk) 11:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Simonm223: These claims are dubious. Some sources claim some link between a suicide case and the protests, but these are often pretty weak. For example, there is one case where the person was known to participate in the protest but never said that the suicide was because of the protests. Assuming that any suicide committed over these months by anyone who participated in the protests should ring alarm in terms of reliability. I think we should assess the sources available both for the count and the suicides section and clean up (adding in-text attribution, removing, etc). --MarioGom (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

For the time being I'm deeply tempted to blank the infobox on that issue. Simonm223 (talk) 16:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think it should be removed.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

At the current state it seem it to be removed and add note to redirect people to read the mainbody instead. I still considered at least 2 people were using suicide as a kind of their own demonstration. Matthew hk (talk) 00:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I support that, with a wikilink to redirect people to the appropriate section. --Cold Season (talk) 16:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Even the reference 16, regarding 8 suicides, on the article is not a reliable source. The media website simply just quoted Joshua Wong Facebook statement and screen-shot without any evidence to prove the suicides are factual and relevant to the protest. Also 5 of those individuals listed as suicides were only named as their surname like Mr. or Ms. which could hardly be trustworthy. There are a number of irrelevant suicides including Christy Chan were misused on purpose to link to the protest in order to create more threat and hates to the public. Please respect the individuals who have passed away and not to make up stories for any political purposes.

https://zh.wiki.x.io/wiki/%E9%99%B3%E5%BD%A5%E9%9C%96%E6%AD%BB%E4%BA%A1%E4%BA%8B%E4%BB%B6 https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

Junyan Qu (talk) 11:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I think a sensible option would be leaving a link to the suicides section, with a text reading "some suicides". Or blank it. --MarioGom (talk) 11:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Junyan Qu: In Chinese language newspapers of HK, the reporters all have the full name of people who committed suicide. Some of the newspaper censored the name as it was not an essential info. So did wikipedia, some wiki editor quote policy and guideline (Wikipedia is not a monument) that censor the name , but it is not the reason to judge these people did not existed . We don't publish their name, but they existed. The only problem is, more and more apparently suicide and unlike earlier case that they left death note / last wish or their own last demo by posting their suicidal protesting message in their internet social media (and in turn reported by media), more recent case are loosely linked to the protest, and yes, the 15-y/o Miss Chan case was one of them. But i also stated her case may mentioned in alternative wording (that were used by the media) at #15-year old girl reported dead by suicide. Matthew hk (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for using alternative wording if they are not actually relevant to the protest. I am not claiming they can't be trusted if no full names provided. However it should be from reliable sources stating the location, name or surname or more details to prove it's actually a factual news and related to the protest. More importantly the reference 16 is just a website quoting a Facebook statement and screen-shot without the details to tell if those are in fact existed; also the last four individuals are not found on any of those references from 17-21. Therefore the reference is poorly sourced. They don't publish their names or some more details and you can assume they are existed and linked to the protest? Really Wikipedia? The 17-21 references are actually more reliable sources by providing time, location and details of the case. And I have no complaint about it. As Wikipedia highlighted:

Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junyan Qu (talk • contribs) 06:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@Junyan Qu: Your argument is very weak. There is clearly RS to point out that some people shown anti-bill slogan right before their suicide as their own suicidal demonstration. Just please google yourself (and before that, use VPN if applicable, you can't search anything in Baidu BTW). The concern of infobox and the section of this article, rather, are some people found dead without leaving dying wish / letter, and they dressed like protester, or rumoured that they had participated the protests weeks before. The latter case should not included, but your argument seem a blanket exclusion of all suicide. Matthew hk (talk) 03:36, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Matthew hk: lol your emotion declared you've lost objectivity and impartiality on this topic. And your logic is fairly hilarious and ridiculous. Why do I need to Google myself? Any of those suicides should have its own reference otherwise should be removed without discussion. I can search Baidu and Google without the need of VPN btw; and you don't need to label me for whatever reasons. As I mentioned earlier, I only target at the reference 16 which is poorly sourced and I agree the rest of those references are fine regarding the suicides. If you Google and found some other articles can support reference 16, please list them all as references. "your argument seem a blanket exclusion of all suicide" please do not misinterpret my statement in such a way to mislead other contributors as a way against me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junyan Qu (talk • contribs) 2019-10-31T06:08:49 (UTC)

• Can an admin please revert this edit. The consensus here firmly supports linking section Suicides from the infobox without a definitive number given, and leaving it to prose to explain the details. I agree that unambiguously assigning "at least 10" suicides to the protests is a BLP problem. The prose addresses this by explaining details around the suicides, and there seems to be no real support for the "at least 10" assertion. FWIW, I am coming here from WP:ITN because there is an open Removal nomination for this article.130.233.2.235 (talk) 11:07, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

This is a BLP Violation and frankly WP:SYNTH. I'm shocked that otherwise respectable editors think it's appropriate to include a causal link between suicides and a political incident on the basis of tabloid reports. Simonm223 (talk) 16:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

BLP refers to living persons, not dead persons. Am I missing something? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

BLP protection extends to the recently deceased. I suggest you check with WP:BLP/N if you are disinclined to take my word for it. Simonm223 (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Request to remove or edit incorrect wording about promise in the Joint Declaration

from the article "which include investigation into alleged police misconduct and resumption of democratic reforms that were promised in the Sino-British Joint Declaration"

Thank you for editing previously to change "promised in Basic Law". However changing to Sino-British Joint Declaration is just jumping from one incorrect information to another. The Joint Declaration did NOT promise any form of democratic reforms. In fact the declaration did NOT mention any democracy, democratic or suffrage. It does mention election three times, while none of those were related to universal suffrage or democratic reforms. Hong Kong is now operating exactly the same as the document declared since 01/07/1997.

Sino-British Joint Declaration 3.4 The chief executive will be appointed by the Central People's Government on the basis of the results of elections or consultations to be held locally.

Annex I The government and legislature of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be composed of local inhabitants. The chief executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be selected by election or through consultations held locally and be appointed by the Central People's Government. Principal officials (equivalent to Secretaries) shall be nominated by the chief executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and appointed by the Central People's Government. The legislature of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be constituted by elections.

References: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Sino-British_Joint_Declaration

https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%201399/v1399.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junyan Qu (talk • contribs) 02:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia can't accept your own interpretation on primary source. Matthew hk (talk) 04:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Own interpretation? The Joint Declaration did not say it promises anything. That's simply a pure fact. Can Wikipedia be responsible and respect the primary source? Or you may provide any quote to prove if I missed or misunderstood any points in the document. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junyan Qu (talk • contribs) 06:07, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR, WP:Primary source, WP:RS, also may be read reliable explanation of Hong Kong Basic Law. Matthew hk (talk) 06:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

That's very problematic, as neither of the sources for that sentence mention the Joint Declaration!!! As far as I can tell, neither of the sources talk about democratic reforms being promised by the Joint Declaration, the Basic Law, or anything else. Unless anyone can explain this, the claim should be removed. It's not even original research; it's original rubbish. And just another justification for an NPOV tag on this page.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Jack! That's the point! The Declaration did not mention promise, guarantee, should or will have democratic reforms or universal suffrage. Thank you Matthew to raise the Basic Law but I thought we are talking about the Joint Declaration here. Anyway, these two documents are widely discussed on this topic. The Basic Law did mention that it's Basic Law ultimate aim to have universal suffrage. However, to say either Basic Law or Joint Declaration promised democratic reforms is actually a misinterpretation, simply because the fact that it is NOT written there. Ultimate aim is not a promise per se. By the way Jack, if that sentence is discussing about a legal document, it should quote the original and provide reference as in which chapter mentioned that to support that single statement in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junyan Qu (talk • contribs) 09:39, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I think Sino-British Joint-Declaration is not really directly related to the promise. I do think that legal wordings should be used more precisely, but it is still true that protesters are unhappy with the stagnated democratic development, because the "ultimate aim" is still universal suffrage by 2047. I think it is better to change the wording to which include investigation into alleged police misconduct and resumption of democratic reforms that have stagnated after the 2014 Umbrella Revolution. The 2 RS we have right supporting the statement actually did not explicitly say universal suffrage is guaranteed by the Joint-Declaration as well. OceanHok (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Do we have a source that says democratic reforms have stagnated?--Jack Upland (talk) 23:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes and don't waste other people time by asking no sense. an article in June by The Economist. Documented their reporting on HK people response to 2014 protests and 2014–15 Hong Kong electoral reform (and so called https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/%E5%85%A8%E5%9B%BD%E4%BA%BA%E6%B0%91%E4%BB%A3%E8%A1%A8%E5%A4%A7%E4%BC%9A%E5%B8%B8%E5%8A%A1%E5%A7%94%E5%91%98%E4%BC%9A%E5%85%B3%E4%BA%8E%E9%A6%99%E6%B8%AF%E7%89%B9%E5%88%AB%E8%A1%8C%E6%94%BF%E5%8C%BA%E8%A1%8C%E6%94%BF%E9%95%BF%E5%AE%98%E6%99%AE%E9%80%89%E9%97%AE%E9%A2%98%E5%92%8C2016%E5%B9%B4%E7%AB%8B%E6%B3%95%E4%BC%9A%E4%BA%A7%E7%94%9F%E5%8A%9E%E6%B3%95%E7%9A%84%E5%86%B3%E5%AE%9A )Matthew hk (talk) 07:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

In fact, democratic development have regressed after the Umbrella Revolution with all the DQ cases. Sources seem to point out that the reason why they are asking for reforms is that Beijing is encroaching their freedom, NOT because people are unsatisfied with the stagnation of democratic reforms. But this is still true nonetheless because the government really have made no effort to restart conversation about a new democratic reform. OceanHok (talk) 07:35, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Matthew hk: I think you are off topic. It's acceptable to say "which include investigation into alleged police misconduct and resumption of democratic reforms" and you have the source to support this statement. However it's NOT promised by either Joint Declaration or Basic Law. Thus, please remove that bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junyan Qu (talk • contribs) 2019-10-31T03:00:32 (UTC)

It seem you are off-topic here. Yes, it is problematic for writing a sentence with "And" to joint not so related topic, but your originally asking " resumption of democratic reforms that were promised in the Sino-British Joint Declaration". Basic law article 45 had stated universal suffrage and RS had stated the reform in 2014–15 Hong Kong electoral reform is not an universal suffrage. (See the Economist article and other RS new reporting on "831" ruling by the National People's Congress.) And it is all yourself to ask for change for wording From Basic law. Before you start any edit request, please provide reliable source and don't misdirect other editor to write to even wrong wording. Matthew hk (talk) 04:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Initially it was promised in Basic Law which is incorrect; therefore I requested to change. Now it's changed to promised in Joint Declaration which is incorrect again. The statement is simply saying a legal document promised something, then why we don't refer to the original primary source? All your references cannot prove the statement that the promise is existed in those two documents. Why you are rambling about something seems like relevant but actually not supporting the promise? In a nutshell, I request to remove "promised in the Sino-British Joint Declaration" as it's not the fact written there. Do you agree that is not promised in the Sino-British Joint Declaration if you really went through it? Please refer to these two RS below even these have been provided multiple times. And they are sufficient enough as legal documents to declare themselves. This has been pointed out by some other contributors here.

Yes, this is clearly false and not supported by sources.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Sino-British_Joint_Declaration

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Basic_Law_of_the_Hong_Kong_Special_Administrative_Region — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junyan Qu (talk • contribs) 05:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Independent

please change ((Independent)) to ((The Independent))

 Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Deaths are disputed in my opinion.

I think the (All suicides) tag next to deaths should say that this is disputed by various groups with significant evidence that there has been foul play by various groups in Hong Kong which have led to some non-natural deaths.

examples: Chan Yin-lam https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/education/article/3033257/15-year-old-hong-kong-girl-found-dead-sea-had-walked https://www.hongkongfp.com/2019/10/16/protesters-demand-cctv-footage-tiu-keng-leng-school-following-death-15-year-old-student/

Alleged Protestor Death https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/10/hong-kong-authorities-deny-protester-death-claims-after-police-raid https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3026439/hong-kong-protests-officials-attempt-sixth-time-debunk

[Anonymous, 8 Nov 2019, 3:39pm] Someone should add the new death in the carpark: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3036833/hong-kong-student-who-suffered-severe-brain-injury-after — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.64.143.13 (talk) 07:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Theprussian (talk) 11:08, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

"31 August" death obvious rumour than have concrete evidence. For Chan case, it seem you are talking about the same issue that already raised in #Suicide claims again. It had no point to start another thread. Please reply over there. Matthew hk (talk) 12:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

At least one IP and probably some other users have raised concerns about the inclusion of 'urban legends'. I think we should try balance the suspicious evidence with the fact that none of it is really decisive in any way, and then perhaps reduce the weight of these allegations, or else we will just get saddled with WP:POV accusations all day. Yny501 (talk) 13:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223: I don't see any "consensus" here for your version, and I fail to see how a figure WP:SYNTHed from a disparate bunch of news articles regarding individual suicides is better than a Guardian article which states that Since June, protesters have tracked at least nine cases of suicides that appear to be directly linked to the demonstrations. feminist (talk) 14:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

It's deeply inappropriate to use tabloid media to link a suicide causally to a political movement per WP:BLP protections in general. Simonm223 (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I have reached out to WP:BLP/N about this serious violation of WP:BLP. Simonm223 (talk) 14:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for starting the RfC below. As you can see, of the 8 comments so far, you are the only one that holds your position on this matter. The next most sympathetic one suggests the number 4. Everyone else believes that fatalities should not be in the infobox at all, or if it is, it should be indeterminate. This is at least the third Talk section to reach such a conclusion. Can you please revert your edit.130.233.2.235 (talk) 09:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• The issue is that listing only suicides as deaths in the infobox implies it is known for certain that there are no non-suicide deaths, which is not the case (and which isn't what the Guardian says at all.) The deaths figure in an infobox is only there to be used when we have some concrete number for the total deaths, which none of the sources provided remotely provide; given that the overall death toll here is still completely uncertain, I don't think we can put the suicides there right now. They can be covered in the article (where they can be addressed as one small facet of a developing story where much is still unknown), but putting them in the infobox carries implications of certainty with regards to the death toll (or lack thereof) that the sources don't provide. --Aquillion (talk) 07:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

LEDE

It appears the lede does not comply with lede length rules. See MOS:LEADLENGTH. ThanksJtbobwaysf (talk) 04:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Please don't capitalise headings. It scares my cat.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

United States Congress supporting protesters

There seems to be a edit war regarding the inclusion of US into the infobox under support. United States Congress passed a bill "in support of Hong Kong protesters" [1], this was the direct statement of the bill. Yet users @Nice4What: and @Citobun: have removed the US from support saying this is symbolic and not a real support. Here is my argument, if this is not a real support then how come you didn't remove China from support? China did not provide any real support to the Hong Kong Gov neither as far as I know, only verbally supported. Exactly like the US congress did. I'll be waiting for your arguments, meanwhile I reverted back to the old state and it should remain per the sources until a conclusion is reached on its removal. KasimMejia (talk) 10:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

If saying "support", so why not UK? The discussion on sanctioning HK-based professional with UK passport, is scheduled to be discuss after Brexit. But for this matter, may be yet another Rfc is needed. Matthew hk (talk) 11:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're trying to say about UK. As for an RfC, the inclusions of equal sides is a matter of neutrality rather than opinion and can be easily manipulated per POV's also see WP:DEM. KasimMejia (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Since the "reaction" subpage had recorded quite a many foreign government response , so it is the matter of RfC to decide to draw a line of inclusion. Also, it seem misleading to add to infobox without any explanatory footnote. The law also apply to US soil or company that do business with US only, so it is very different from financial support or military support. If you draw a line on moral or legal "support", that would be way many countries should be listed on the infobox. Matthew hk (talk) 11:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I really don't understand what you mean by: "The law also apply to US soil or company that do business with US only" please try to better explain your sentences. As for "moral" which I guess you mean "verbal" support. There is support in terms of legislature by the US congress, that is non armed support but officially declared support. Meanwhile for China, there is no source which states China is neither verbally nor militarily supporting HK Gov. China only criticized the protesters, which is not a support but WP:OR. KasimMejia (talk) 11:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Symbolic support is misleading and changes nothing on the ground. "Support" in these infoboxes typically indicate arms support. Mind you that I'm reverting again because you need to reach consensus prior to inclusion (WP:ONUS). Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 15:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

"5 demands" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 5 demands. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Welcome Protesters New Town Plaza.gif

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

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

• CUHK.AttackedbyPolice.191112.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

"protesters accused the police have intentionally obstructed the paramedics from delivering Chow to a hospital as soon as possible." - not true

the article cited did not accuse police of blocking paramedics from delivering Chow to the hospital. the rumored accusation from the actual article itself include: 1. "that Chow was fleeing from police tear gas" 2. "that Chow was fleeing from officers chasing after him" 3. "pointing guns and batons at people on the scene as Chow was undergoing emergency treatment" 4. "that police had pushed Chow and he fell" and... 5. "blocking ambulance access to Chow" - should not to be confused with blocking the ambulance carrying Chow from going to the hospital - as the current article could mislead someone into believing. I also suggest that we either include all these rumors or include none. It is not our business to conduct OR. "all rumors" refers to ones that the police had responded to - obviously they were widely spread and therefore the police directly answered them during the press. it is also neutral. as we are not picking sides. it is also factual that these are indeed widely spread rumors that had gain public attention. It should also be noted that during the early days, the most widely spread rumors were built on the theory that he had direct contact with police. The ambulance theory was only popularized after Link REIT (owner of the car park) publicly released the video footages. And therefore, by only reporting the rumors about ambulance, we are actively engaging in OR by filtering which rumors is the leading theory on this week's social media. Therefore, either we stick to only the known facts, or we report all leading rumors and let the readers decide for themselves. 192.0.235.66 (talk) 11:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a collection of rumour. Rather, it may worth to wording as media and protesters accused for X, which is the main theme of Y demonstration on day Z. Matthew hk (talk) 11:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

This is why I said the other rumors should be listed as well. On the day of his death announcement, the prevailing outcry was "blood debt must be repaid in blood", "murder" and "revenge for Chow". The reason why they are calling for blood is because, at the time, the prevailing rumor was that the police directly caused him to fall - the tear gas theory was cited in the article itself as well. This is also why the article segment here was originally called "police-related death". Without including the remaining leading rumors, it would be difficult for the readers to understand why the protesters are immediately demanding blood or why the violence erupted at the time that it did. If we decide to report his death and the riots that came from it, then we should not shy away from reporting the fact that protesters are indeed accusing the police of "murder". 192.0.235.66 (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I mean, the rumour need to be extremely brief as wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not newspaper. Matthew hk (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Are there multiple reports (multiple incidents) of police not allowing ambulances to get through? If so, we can create a section on this and provide more indepth coverage. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The problem of this protests, would be everyone have a phone. So there are many "reporting" that summarize online source but may be timestamp not that right. May be there would be some better chronological coverage a few weeks later, but it should be placed in List of November 2019 Hong Kong protests. Matthew hk (talk) 20:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I mean coverage in W:RS. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

It depends WP:RSN to decide "news reporting" that keep on speculate or commentary the released CCTV footage, are really RS or not, even thsoe commentary are published on newspaper. Matthew hk (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Article urgently needs clearer data on who is responsible for violence

The question of violence is crucial in this affair. People are basing their opinions on random videos of violence. This article badly needs a better answer to the question of *who* is committing the violence. A body count, basically, of the injuries and worse committed by each side. Rollo (talk) 14:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

From what source would you draw these clear numbers? It's an ambiguous situation. This is a case study in why encyclopedias should not be news aggregation platforms. Simonm223 (talk) 14:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I believe encyclopedias should be places to find data quickly. This particularly information is crucial, it is at the heart of the article's subject. I looked for the information. I could not find it, let alone find it quickly. Rollo (talk) 15:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Historical data perhaps. To-the-minute blow-by-blows of everybody's least favourite ultranationalist arsonists vs brutish parody cop clown show the frustrating ongoing situation in Hong Kong? Nah. Simonm223 (talk) 15:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

But the fact that it is frustratingly complicated is exactly why we need to begin cutting through the fog! The infobox is already framing the events as a "civil conflict", with details for each side. That is as it should be: it is indeed a conflict, and every conflict in history has its casualty figures. Same for natural disasters: the figures may move up and down as they are confirmed or discounted, but they exist. What do you respond to someone who breathlessly forwards a gory video on social media, if not with facts? This article is a failure until it clarifies such basic information. Rollo (talk) 16:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS Simonm223 (talk) 16:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. Rollo - in the near future, historians will piece together in a scholarly manner what is happening in HK today. There will be round-table conferences and so on to separate the wheat from the chaff, as it were. It's a very fluctuating situation on the ground now, and even reliable sources in the news may get it wrong, with hindsight. Wikipedia can wait. 104.169.16.115 (talk) 18:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

831/Death of Chan Yin-lam

While I am fully aware that all the "floating corpse" cases and police beating people to death were WP:RUMOR, they do have an impact on the protests. The protests that followed both incidents is mainly driven by protesters' intention to know the truth (thus all the demands to have both MTR/HKDI to release the CCTV footage), instead of merely condemning police brutality or stuff like that. I will say that a whole page dedicated to it is WP:UNDUE but I believed that a very slight mention is justified. OceanHok (talk) 15:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

No, absolutely not. This page is getting ridiculous, allowing literal collections of rumours just because bargain-basement online "newspapers" mentioned them after they became the latest social media barrage from paranoids on the ground. Rumour has no place in an encyclopedia. Take that nonsense to Twitter if you must share it somewhere. Simonm223 (talk) 15:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I don't need you to teach me what to do and I certainly don't find it helpful when you are dismissing a constructive discussion with such an arrogant attitude. The crux of the issue I wanted to raise through the discussion is the spread of "fake news" or "unverified rumors" from both camps and how they ultimately drove the protests forward. That's why I did not put it in the police allegation section and intentionally included a statement from a professional analyst. It is true that rumor has no place in Wikipedia, but the consequences of what a rumor can bring to the protests and its real-life impacts definitely have a place. So this discussion is not about "nonsense" or whatnot. OceanHok (talk) 16:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

This is sounding awfully like you want to include WP:OR at this point. Simonm223 (talk) 16:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

No, I ain't.[2][3][4][5][6]. And the two specific incidents I have mentioned are just examples with the most visible consequences (MK police station being besieged for nearly an entire month and HKDI being smashed.) OceanHok (talk) 16:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Let's look for sources that mention how fake newes is fuelling the war. It's so prevalent that I'm sure some will show up if they haven't already. In the meantime, let's keep cool and hold the insults, please. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 17:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

um, war? ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.16.115 (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

First war in history fought entirely within one city by an incompetent police force who believe themselves to be the stars of an action movie on one hand and a bunch of crazed disorganized arsonists on the other and zero actual armies. Simonm223 (talk) 19:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

where is this war? you can't possibly mean the riots/protests in HK, because that is most certainly NOT a "war" - nor will you find a Reliable Source that states so — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.18.238 (talk) 02:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

i agree that her death should be included in the article, not because i think the rumors are true, but because many protesters asserts it to be true and use it as justification for their violence. its like saying i don't think Saddam Hussein had nukes, but I do believe the USA uses it as justification for the invasion. 192.0.235.66 (talk) 04:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

interesting london incident

here is something in london with an RS https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/11/china-condemns-attack-hong-kong-justice-secretary-london-191115025641028.html seems related Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, should be included. Violent protests are spreading beyond Hong Kong.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on reliability of Hong Kong Free Press

There is a noticeboard discussion on the reliability of Hong Kong Free Press, especially with regard to its reporting on the 2019 Hong Kong protests. If you are interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Is the Hong Kong Free Press a reliable source?. — Newslinger talk 11:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Correct spelling

Under the "Objectives" heading, there are 2 instances of misspelling.

Comparison of changes:

Initially, protesters solely demanded the withdrawal of the extradition bill. Following an escalation in the severity of policing tactics against demonstrators on 12 June and the bill's suspension on 15 June, the objective of the protesters has been to achieve the following five demands:[61]

Complete withdrawal of the extradition bill from the legislative process: Although the Chief Executive announced indefinite suspension of the bill on 15 June, reading on it may be quickly resumed. The bill was "pending resumption of second reading" in the Legislative Council. The bill was formally withdrawn on 23 October.[62] Retraction of the "riot" ̶c̶h̶a̶r̶a̶c̶t̶e̶r̶i̶s̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ characterization: The government originally ̶c̶h̶a̶r̶a̶c̶t̶e̶r̶i̶s̶e̶d̶ characterized the 12 June protest as "riots". Later the description was amended to say there were "some" protesters who rioted. However, protesters...

MBabcock87 (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

No, those aren't misspellings. Those are British English spellings. Simonm223 (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Which hospital?

Why's it necessary to identify the hospital where some people have died? It seems to be recentism and violate WP:NOTNEWS. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 13:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Why aren't you applying the same consistency to those that fell to their deaths, but only focus on the person that got hit by a brick? If done so, perhaps, I would be less inclined to revert such changes. --Cold Season (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't male a right, my friend! -- Ohc ^¡digame! 19:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Very well. [7]--Cold Season (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

1st murder committed by protesters/anti-ELAB confirmed

70 year old man argued with protesters that then threw bricks at him, hit his head and knocked him out, life threatening injury, it is now confirmed he is dead. 77.216.111.51 (talk) 23:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Partially Confirmed The original incident that caused his injury has been confirmed by HK gov't. Source is HK Gov't: https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201911/14/P2019111400047.htm . HK gov stated at that time his condition was "life in critical danger" (危殆) and the gov't identified suspect(s) as rioter(s) (暴徒) . 192.0.235.66 (talk) 04:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Nope. The 70-yo cleaner was serious injured by pro-government side "team kill" , when pro-government side throwing bricks to the protester. According to RS citing footage of the scene. Matthew hk (talk) 05:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

are you sure that it was "team kill"? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faL-qGfuC5k 192.0.235.66 (talk) 05:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

here is the same video but better quality, identifying the attacker wearing black. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sppzI_BDb-8 . i m not suggesting these videos should be included in the article, as that would be OR. however, i think the HK gov't announcement should be included, as the injured man was working for the gov't at the time and therefore the gov't's official announcement on the event must be given the most weight.192.0.235.66 (talk) 05:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

HKG govt is not a WP:RS in this case as it would be WP:PRIMARY. Same goes for ChinaDaily content above on this talk page. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Additional Source SCMP has reported on the attack. https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-and-crime/article/3037601/elderly-hong-kong-man-clings-life-after-hit-head-brick 192.0.235.66 (talk) 05:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Additional Source Apple Daily (Taiwan) has reported the man is diagnosed "brain stem death (brain dead)" (腦幹死亡（腦死）). https://tw.appledaily.com/new/realtime/20191114/1663289/ 192.0.235.66 (talk) 05:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Those look like RS (at least the SCMP, as I cant read the other one). But it does not confirm any "murder" text. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Read the apple daily source. no murder text as well. reported that the police has classified the case as "傷人案" or literally 'injuring case' or 'wounding case', which is as reported in scmp. robertsky (talk) 11:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Old man was injured and later he died, that is still murder even if unintentional that is manslaughter. Anyone claiming its team kill has to ignore video in source I posted, where you can see brick hurled from direction of protester hitting old man. This is first death that is murder with clear causation documented in Hong Kong related to protests. BTW I didn't notice in wiki article about protesters attacking mainland Chinese students, residents and tourists along some Taiwanese that spoke Mandarin, Japanese was also attacked. 77.216.111.51 (talk) 13:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• As a note, there is WP:BLPCRIME. As i commented on the content for the taxi driver, one side accused he is a perpetrator for making Vehicle-ramming attack, another side (and the taxi driver) himself accused it was just accident. Since there is no court ruling yet (and may be never, also WP:Crystal), and we can't use firm word for accusation, may be stating the 70-yo man was injured and that's all. Matthew hk (talk) 14:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

So 70 year old man is just injured and that's all? So you're denying that he died after being hit by a brick from a protester? 77.216.111.51 (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

BLP crime would apply the second Wikipedia listed any specific living person as a suspect. However "a protester", if allowed by WP:RS (not self-published cell phone footage) would not be a protected person under BLP as it refers to one person out of a large group. Simonm223 (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Frankly the idea that WP:BLPCRIME would prevent us from saying the 70 year old man died after being struck by a brick during an altercation with protesters is bizarre to say the least. WP:V applies. But there's no BLP protection for an annonymous rioter. Simonm223 (talk) 19:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Confirmed The victim has been confirmed dead.

SCMP report: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/society/article/3037622/hong-kong-protests-tear-gas-fired-city-begins-fourth

CNN report: https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/14/asia/hong-kong-protest-elderly-man-dies-intl-hnk/index.html 192.0.235.66 (talk) 20:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Simonm223, you are increasingly bending policy to your side. WP:BLP also applies to recently dead person. For WP:V, multiple RS source indicated that in the incident both protesters and anti-protesters are throwing brick, and conflicted on the "opinion/fact" that which bricks injured the cleaner. Since we are not law enforcement (neither did journalist on interpreting live footage), we should not firmly turn accusation to fact. Matthew hk (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

References

• A brick was thrown at the victim by a black-clad and masked protester according to the sources and video. Please don't keep hiding this. STSC (talk) 03:24, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Tsuen Wan Death is Original Research

The article current reported the death of a black-clothed man in Tsuen Wan on November 13th. However, why is this reported in this article? The news source did not report the man was engaging in protest nor was there any police presence. The police classified the death as "not suspicious". Given the relationship to protest is not being alleged by the source reference, the inclusion of his death here would constitute WP:OR. If anyone believe the death is related, please provide WP:RS or WP:PRIMARY, such as a police announcement or witness claims or assertions from his family etc.

Also, Apple Daily (https://hk.news.appledaily.com/local/realtime/article/20191113/60264041) claims that there was indeed a witness who saw the man falling while driving in the area. However, it is not clear if she saw the man jump off the building or she merely saw the body after it had fallen to the ground. But, aside from the article title is called "War against Brutality: Black-clothed youth....", there is no actual mention that the death is in any way related to protest. (I am not sure if Apple Daily is considered RS, as the reporting here really seem like fake news - appears to accuse police brutality in the article caption but not actually saying it in the article?????? The man is later reported to be 30 yr old, so the reporting of "youth" in the title seem somewhat... bad journalism)

Anyways, I think the death should be excluded until an actual RS makes direct assertion that it is related. 192.0.235.66 (talk) 04:14, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Removed, thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:43, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Identifying an opinion

Protip: If a newspaper says, "appears to be," "looks like," "could be," or any other similar conditional construction, it's an opinion and should be excluded. Simonm223 (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

See also, "protesters claim." Simonm223 (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to add that since the statement in Wikipedia may result in something we are not expected, adding content should be with catious. Mariogoods (talk) 02:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Since this discussion was started right after the edits by OceanHok (talk · contribs) involving the man killed by a brick thrown by a protester. OceanHok is continously trying to spin the information... I will analyze the sources (quotes):

• The attack occurred on Wednesday, a day when protesters were attempting to stop non-protesters from clearing streets of bricks and other impediments to traffic. The victim was struck during what, from a video, appears to have been an attack initiated by the dead man’s peers against a group of protesters in Hong Kong.

• Senior Superintendent Chan Tin-chu said the attack happened at around noon as a group of residents tried to clear bricks from the roads. [...] “Those in black first threw metal rods and bricks at the residents while Luo was believed to have used a mobile phone to film the scene. Then someone in black darted forward and threw a brick at his head,” Chan said.

• Police said more than 10 people were clearing bricks on Lung Wan Street when they were attacked by more than 20 masked protesters clad in black, RTHK reported.

Stop trying to frame the Sheung Shui clash as something that the local residents initiated, whereas sources are inconsistent in this and you are trying to present inconsistent claims as fact. Secondly, the only thing that may be concluded from these sources is that local residents were trying to clear bricks from the street and protesters tried to prevent this. --Cold Season (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

"The confrontation between the two groups started when local residents were clearing bricks from the street and protesters were trying to prevent this" already implies that the protesters started the fight (by "responding") and suggested that the counter-protesters played a passive role in the attack, which is wrong as per the sources you have provided. Either you include both sides, or remove both altogether (as both amounts to nothing but opinion). The best way to go is to remove the entire sentence, as hurling bricks is more than sufficient to explain the incident. OceanHok (talk) 16:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

The locals were clearing bricks (this is not in dispute) and the protesters prevented this (this is also not in dispute) as was presented in the prior revision. Your change of the info, that is, claiming that the locals were the ones that initiated the attack is baseless, as sources are not consistent herein. Any implication is your own. --Cold Season (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

That's because the wording you use is overly ambiguous while at the same time, manage to create a cause-and-effect relationship that is disputed. "Any implication is your own" is a irresponsible statement. Linking the two undisputed incidents together is disputed. Besides, it is not really inconsistent. The source suggests that the fight, according to the video, was started by the local residents, while they acknowledged that the fight, according to the police, was started by the protesters. And for something as controversial as this, the sentence you write is over-simplifying the incident, and therefore, is WP:UNDUE. I will have to admit that the version I have written earlier suffered the same problem because the police account was not included. A compromise I can make is that we either include both sides or remove both of them. I personally will remove both of them because they are unneeded details anyway. OceanHok (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

(1) My wording is as basic as can be: The confrontation between the two groups started when local residents were clearing bricks from the street and protesters were trying to prevent this.

Your wording is not and added the element who attacked first: The conflict started when local residents attempting to clear bricks from othe streets attacked the protesters setting up a roadblock.

(2) You mean, according to Asia Times who watch the footage... the police who also watched the footage. The only issue here is the initiation of attack, which is already completely absent in the first wording and therefore not an issue. Your wording presents one perspective of who attacked first as truth. --Cold Season (talk) 17:39, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Alright, I have thought a while about a new wording The confrontation between the two groups started when local residents were trying to clear bricks from the street and protesters were trying to prevent it. Your choice. --Cold Season (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

This would be my counterproposal: On 13 November 2019, a group of protesters who were setting up a roadblock in Sheung Shui clashed with a group of local residents who were attempting to clear the bricks. The clash saw both groups hurling bricks at each other. The second sentence is then deleted. This retains what you have (the two undisputed facts) without making any controversial connection. OceanHok (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

The sources, for as far as I see, do not support that the clash occurred when protesters set up the roadblock but revolves around the clearing of bricks whereupon they clashed. The confrontation between the two groups happened when local residents tried to clear bricks from the street. There, it almost can't be shorter. --Cold Season (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

References

HK police shot by arrow at PolyU

https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/hong-kong-policeman-hit-in-leg-by-arrow-during-operation-to-disperse-protesters

https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3038096/hong-kong-officer-shot-arrow-police-deploy-water-cannons — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.0.235.66 (talk) 09:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)