Talk:2019–2020 Hong Kong protests/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2019

This article is written in poor English, particularly the absence of 'the' in many places. I have a BA and PhD in Greek and Latin, and can speak and read French, so I know something about grammar. Poor English can lead to difficulty in reading and understanding a text. Could a registered user please look at this article and correct the grammatical errors? Given that all the information is current, one would have thought that it would be free of such basic errors. Hellenic18 (talk) 07:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.

Also, it's actually the opposite. Since the article is related to a current event, it will see a high-volume of edits, and so grammatical errors occur because the information changes rapidly, and the focus is more on getting the information into the article, rather than the quality of the syntax. NiciVampireHeart 10:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

15-year old girl reported dead by suicide.

https://www.inmediahk.net/node/1067856 Earlier this week, a 15-year old girl was reported dead. Within a few days, it was a confirmed suicide. Could somebody update, as I still don’t know much. Sometaintedlove (talk) 00:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I can only use google translate to read the article you cited, but it does not seem to say her suicide had anything to do with the protests. Did I miss something? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

She is dead. But no indication that her suicide is caused by the protests (no letter left behind, no last wording at IG/facebook/internet). Meanwhile, the media alleged that she was killed by someone else and throw into the sea. Either version cannot passing WP:V (and latter, WP:BLPCRIME related). Matthew hk (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

ok, more news report point to suspected murder. Apple's interview with a forensic expert. Without violation of WP:BLPCRIME, it seem it need careful wording for adding to the section. Also the section "Suicide" should change to level 3 title and add a new level 2 death to cover death and murder. Matthew hk (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Update: Covered by police. Multiple videos have surfaced, such as an Instagram story and being surrounded by plain-clothes officers. A friend reportedly found her phone, with the sim card removed. Sometaintedlove (talk) 23:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Those detail are not encyclopedic. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. May be worth to mention as death that cause people to criticize the police investigation (her death causing the protesters protested at her school (and then some of them vandalize it after releasing edited CCTV), online campaign, etc), but without firm accusation of suicide or murder. Matthew hk (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

If the article must be locked...

If the article must be locked, can there be a multinational group allowed to edit to prevent biased views. As a controversial subject, as well as a target of misinformation (across the spectrum), it is important not to lock something from everyone simply because the subject is volatile. The Introvert Next To You (talk) 03:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Articles get locked as a result of persistent edit warring. As you mention, there are likely paid editors working on this article, and surely they have autoconfirmed accounts. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected but that's not the same thing as a straight-up lock. Nor will it prevent a "multinational group" from collaborating. Just not random IPs. Simonm223 (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Length of article

Good day! This article is now over 200 kB, and people keep removing the {{2L}} tag from the top of the page. Can we have a discussion about how to trim the article, since there are now pages for months of the history? --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

2019 Hong Kong protests#History need trim a lot. Matthew hk (talk) 18:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

200KB including loads of refs, it's not long at all. If this is a "long" article we will be busy for a very long time trimming thousands of articles which are way longer. It's about readable prose and it makes this article at medium length max. Coldbolt (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Apply WP:10YT. Simonm223 (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Coldbolt. I would say there are very very notable event during the 4 months. But most of the events now circulate on police and democracy, and increasing violence. The article already forked to List of September 2019 Hong Kong protests and Allegations of Hong Kong Police Force misconduct surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong protests, which this main article need to have a reasonable length, or otherwise it would be overlapping with sub article and then sub article would seem WP:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a newspaper or Wikipedia:Too much detail. Matthew hk (talk) 21:18, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Murder omitted?

Why does the article state all deaths have been suicides while at least one was shot dead by HK police? 2A02:A459:352E:1:2484:5BA2:66FD:D1EC (talk) 11:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Apparently the protester survived, and he was shot in circumstances that suggest the policeman acted in self-defence.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

>suggest the policeman acted in self-defence

That wouldn't make it a suicide.

>Apparently the protester survived

That however changes things. I also see this checks out. Thanks for clearing this up. 2A02:A459:352E:1:2484:5BA2:66FD:D1EC (talk) 18:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Typo (esclating should be escalating)

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/2019_Hong_Kong_protests#National_Day_and_invocation_of_emergency_law

it says "Chief Executive Carrie Lam refused to give any concessions to protesters, citing the esclating violence of the weekend."

if somebody could kindly fix this typo, would be much appreciated.

 Done --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

article naming

It is my understanding that the protests are no longer related to the extradition treaty. Is my understanding correct? They are often referred to today as a Democracy movement [1] and [2]. Maybe the article should consider that in the naming? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I doubt that's a kettle of fish we want to open considering how disorganized the ongoing protests have been. It's somewhat questionable if there is a central motif beyond "dissatisfaction" at the current. Simonm223 (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree. It isn't clear what the protesters want. Given that Hong Kong has an elected Legislative Council, it's somewhat misleading to talk about a "democracy movement".--Jack Upland (talk) 20:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

It seem misleading on "elected Legislative Council", some seat are elected by a few big companies and it never considered as an universal suffrage for all seats and for the CE. Depends on media, it still mostly using the "Hong Kong protests", without description on it is anti-bill protest or "pro-democracy protest". Matthew hk (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

They never were about any treaty... that was just an excuse, and most experts and even international media agree on ot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.182.115.2 (talk) 06:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Five demands as ordered list

Any reason why the five demands are bulleted (unordered list) as opposed to numbered (ordered list)? czar 23:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I guess bBullet-ed would be better unless there is an official ordering. But I think we could discuss ordering on the talk page. Thoughts? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

There is no official ordering. Any discussion would be WP:OR. Even media had their own reported version on the order. May be sort by alphabetical order but it may affected by the wording of the first word. Matthew hk (talk) 03:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Request to remove or edit incorrect wording

According to Basic Law Chapter IV, Section 1, Article 45

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.

The method for selecting the Chief Executive shall be specified in the light of the actual situation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. The ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures.

Article 68

The Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be constituted by election.

The method for forming the Legislative Council shall be specified in the light of the actual situation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. The ultimate aim is the election of all the members of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage.

–––––––––––

These two are the ultimate aims of the Basic Law, which is NOT promised or guaranteed how soon it could be achieved . In light of these, HK government and Beijing is respecting and obeying what is written on Basic Law. One of those demands is to request universal suffrage for Legislative Council and Chief Executive elections, which is actually violating the Basic Law principle of gradual and orderly progress by using violence to force the government to accept this demand. Therefore, I request the "promised" to be removed in the article as it's misleading and actually many protesters misunderstood and misused this information as their intention which is incorrect and not rightful. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junyan Qu (talk • contribs) 01:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

References

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. It seems like your argument is based on original research or original conclusions drawn. Gaioa (T C L) 08:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

---

Reliable Sources: Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Basic_Law_of_the_Hong_Kong_Special_Administrative_Region

Basic Law from Hong Kong government website https://www.basiclaw.gov.hk/en/basiclawtext/index.html https://www.basiclaw.gov.hk/en/basiclawtext/images/basiclaw_full_text_en.pdf

Please review these sources which are all legal documents published on different government websites. Those should be more reliable than many other articles stating incorrect and misleading information regarding this topic. Please make the change as requested for more accurate wording to avoid misunderstanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junyan Qu (talk • contribs) 04:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

International reactions section

I noticed that the section about the international reactions has been shortened. But, it also has an expansion template. I know there's an article about international reactions to the protests, but why would someone remove some of the section in this article and then also call for an expansion of it? Am I missing something? — Jwarlock (talk) 00:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Please include the S'pore PM's remarks. Lee Hsien Loong said the following: “But those are not demands which are meant to be a programme to solve Hong Kong’s problems,Those are demands which are intended to humiliate and bring down the government.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.182.115.2 (talk) 06:21, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

It's definitely hard to accede to your request because it's really hard to assume good faith based on your comments here. Also, you are a great example of why it's hard to assume good faith from a certain country. Maybe just realise that sometimes news is censored in certain places and thus isn't accurate? Yny501 (talk) 23:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Rfc on including Junius Ho in the infobox of this article which use Template:Infobox civil conflict

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing after a request at WP:ANRFC. There is no consensus for the proposal in this request for comment. Participants are encouraged to open a newer RfC on a page that receives wider attention, until then the status quo of not including Junius Ho is to be maintained. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

---

Rfc on including or excluding Junius Ho in the infobox of this article , especially |leadfigures2= or other field as a suspect. Matthew hk (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

!vote

• Exclude On the basis that accusing somebody of being a suspected perpetrator of a purported triad attack is a pretty serious accusation of criminal misconduct. Per WP:BLPCRIME we should not be doing so prior to a conviction. Simonm223 (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Listing a notable and influential politician as one of many leading figures does not involve any accusations whatsoever. He is frequently on record with the media, using his own words, in strong support of police, the establishment, and against the protests. Fact. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

• Include WP:BLPCRIME wouldn't apply because he is a well-known public figure. (See: WP:WELLKNOWN) Flaughtin (talk) 02:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Flaughtin:. Man, did you read the citation and explain to me, from the citation, how do you concluded Ho is the lead figure of the government camp or triad group, just due to advocate and shake hand with possible triad? Those advocates that also a member of the de facto cabinet, which also the one of the parties leaders of the pro-government/Beijing camp in the LegCo, may more fit to the fact/accusation as "leader", such as Regina Ip. (My personal commentary: not sure most of the RTHK articles have bilingual version but this one did not have English version.) Matthew hk (talk) 08:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

We can say is a leader...which is he in real life. Flaughtin (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Please provide citation and you can use {{tq}} to quote. Matthew hk (talk) 07:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• Exclude - He's just one of many politicians opposing the protest. STSC (talk) 15:40, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• Include -- Ho is an iconic and influential pro-establishment politician. He regularly receives significant attention from the media, makes bold statements, and his involvement is notable. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Re 65.60.163.223. This violate Wikipedia:Five pillars, as well as WP:V, WP:OR. Please provide reliable source for the claim. Or a simple common sense (such as 1+1 = 2, those simple calculation) that not violate WP:Original research. Someone had boldly added President of LegCo, Andrew Leung (which also from the pro-Beijing camp of lawmaker and he made a lots of work for the camp by abusing his presidential power) into the infobox (and it seem it was removed again), which i would say it seem more "common sense" he was a leader, rather than personal opinion. For Ho, it seem entirely your personal opinion he is an important leader and merit to add to the infobox. Matthew hk (talk) 09:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Ahem. It is not my opinion or imagination that the name of Junius Ho has appeared rather frequently in western media sources. It also seems that Andrew Leung would be good to list as well, for the reasons that you stated. You had also suggested to add Regina Ip, so why not? No need to oversimply the narrative. How does limiting access to information help the readers trying to understand this? 65.60.163.223 (talk) 01:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Please kindly respect the wiki policy of WP:V or WP:OR. I consider this is a warning . Or i just ask WP:ANI to review the matter and may be a block is sufficient. Matthew hk (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

You are not at all responding to the questions that I raised. You only threatened to block me because you disagree with my vote. Matthew, this is why we have a vote! We are allowed to disagree. My vote is not so important. : ) Anyhow, I have not made disruptive edits ... and am positively contributing to the article. And yes, I am new here, but it seems like you are being rather aggressive. Please Assume Good Faith and chill a bit. This is a controversial subject, so please be civil and calm. Thank you. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• Include There is a NYT article today on the Junius Ho [3] that should provide the RS necessary to start to create a section. Certainly enough to elevate Ho's status sufficient to include in infbox. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

There are way many "villain" figure in the Lennon Wall of the protest, and the NYT source did not explicitly use the wording "leader" or some sort. But by some degree, along with the DAB chair Ms. Li and Ms. Ip, Mr. Ho is one of the "key figures" due to his notoriously image and his personal opinions. Matthew hk (talk) 12:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

For context, there is a discussion in Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Remove "suspected perpetrator" field in Template:Infobox civilian attack which waiting to be closed. Junius Ho, was a LegCo lawmaker, which media discovered that he shake hand with the white mod that attack innocent people in 2019 Yuen Long attack. This seem totally WP:UNDUE to list him as the leader of the triad group or one of the leader of antipro-government camp at all (edit: a serious typo due to auto spell check was fixed 07:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)). Accusation is Accusation , fact is fact. Accusation may still worth to mention in the main body of article, but infobox should contain only fact. Matthew hk (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

See also above discussion thread #Junius Ho and the leadership of the pro-Beijing camp. Someone had stated The actions imputed to Ho, whether with sufficient evidence to qualify as fact for Wikipedia or simply accusations, would not suggest that he was a leader.. Matthew hk (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Also here are the citations originally in the infobox. Some of them are Chinese and hope you can understand them by Google Translate. Matthew hk (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

For more context of the Rfc. the wording of the infobox was originally labelled Ho as triad gang leader, and then after the start of RfC, it was changed to pro-Beijing leader , but only contained Ho as one and only name. And then it was boldly removed by me per WP:BLP. "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. 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" and per #Junius Ho and the leadership of the pro-Beijing camp. Certainly Ho and may be more name may be reinserted depends on the consensus of this RfC. Matthew hk (talk) 07:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

So it seems that it would be fair to mention on the infobox that Junius Ho strongly supports the triad groups and their agenda (this is well documented fact). He seems to have strong political power, but if he is not a "leading figure" then what infobox field would be best to make this distinction or designation more clear? 65.60.163.223 (talk) 20:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I think we should still list him as a lead figure. He is an 'iconic' pro-Beijing legislator with his outstanding comments during the whole protest. Despite his involvement in the Yuen Long attack, we should also consider how he has strongly supported the police while opposing the protesters. He is, in my opinion at least, an important figure in this whole protest. –Wefk423 (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

That is true. "Leading figure" is not the same as "leader" ... leading figure does not necessarily imply official leadership role, it implies influence and impact, which Junius Ho definitely has and definitely intends to exert his power.

Edit: The infobox currently lists Junius Ho as "Pro-Beijing" along with other HK government officials. So because he is no longer listed on the infobox in relation to triads, maybe the issue is solved already? It seems fair to just stick with the "Pro-Beijing" designation, and leave details about triad connections to the article. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 07:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Not to be that guy, but the RFC clearly states that its main purpose is to decide on "including or excluding Junius Ho in the infobox of this article", not what his stated allegiance should be. It seems to me that the above discussion of "leading figure" vs "leader" is more relevant to the purpose of having him in the infobox. PraiseVivec (talk) 11:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@PraiseVivec: Ho was one of the pro-governemnt LegCo member, and the infobox was just changed from "triad gang leader" to "pro-government" after the Rfc. For latter role, yes he still expressed his opinion on the bill after 12 June, but he is neither DAB party leader, (the pro-government LegCo faction that brutally vote the bill during the first reading), nor the Chairman of the LegCo, that abuse his power in order to pro-governemnt in the Legislation meeting. Moreover, on the wiki policy, none of the reliable source to merit Ho as the lead figure, or he is UNDUE to be the only "non-government official" to have list in the infobox. Matthew hk (talk) 15:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I think using accurate language is important here. I do not believe the infobox ever stated that Ho was a "triad gang leader" ... he was listed as a "spirtual leader" which is very different. And it currently lists "Pro-Beijing" which is factually correct.

According to the Wikipedia page about Junius Ho, it says on the infobox that he is an incumbent member of the legislative council. The article states in the very first sentence that he is currently an acting politician. So he is either currently a politican, or he just recently finished a term. If he is no longer a politician, where does it state that it is undue to include someone for that reason? He clearly holds political power and is using it. He is one of the most outspoken people with Pro-Beijing politics, and he gets significant media attention and is influential, which is notable. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Further, the infobox does not make any claims that Ho is "the lead figure" ... simply that he is one of many lead figures listed. An important and significant difference. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Back to the question, it is according to you to list him as the one and only one "non-government official" in the pro-government side of the infobox, or according to reliable source? There is some other reliable source merit to Starry Lee or Andrew Leung, but not merited the "non-government official" leading / key figure to Ho. Either included a dozen of names of "non-government official" on pro-government side. Or none and definitively not listing Ho as the only name. Matthew hk (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Nobody is stopping anyone from adding more names to that list. If there are other public figures who similarly engage in the same type of inflammatory anti-protest and pro-Beijing rhetoric, and they are also influential and getting media attention, then why not include them as well?

@Matthew hk: You seem to know a lot about this, feel free to add others that merit mention if you so choose. That's my personal opinion about it, anyway. What do others think? Thank you. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't see anything resembling that it's a well-documented fact that Ho openly supports triad activity. He was seen glad-handing guys in white t-shirts prior to the attack. But there's been a hell of a lot of mistrust on both the pro-China and anti-China sides of this dispute and I wouldn't be willing to trust explicitly anti-China sources stating he's definitely in the know that the white-shirts A) were triad members B) were about to go and beat people up C) were doing so without provocation. (I mean the black-shirts were detaining journalists as recently as today so it's pretty clear that there's a fair bit of misbehaviour on both sides of this.) When issues surrounding a crime are unproven in a court of law, Wikipedia should not be proffering an opinion and should instead state only what reliable sources claim, with attribution.Simonm223 (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I understand you responding to what was written above but the key is not whether he openly supports triad activity - it's most likely he does. The key is whether Ho is a leading pro-establishment bootlicker figure - which I'd say he is and there are lots of sources which support that assertion. As for your claim of moral equivalency between what happened at Yuen Long and the airport, there is none. What happened at the subway station was a borderline terrorist attack while the protesters who detained the so called journalist actually turned out to be a fascist. Flaughtin (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, bottom line is that Junius Ho is a relatively powerful and influential public political figure, holding political office, and a staunch supporter of certain pro-establishment positions. He is very outspoken, makes frequent inflammatory statements which receive media attention and circulate widely, and folks of various positions also strongly react to and are encouraged by his perspectives. He obviously plays an important role in this whole on-going thing, and his participation is notable and inclusion of information about Junius Ho helps the reader to better understand the dynamics of this complex protest movement. There is no need to make any accusations about anything, just listing Ho and linking his wiki page from the infobox is enough. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 20:41, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

• Some off-topic. For Andrew Leung, original research is not required, reliable source had documented how he used his LegCo presidential power in the second reading of the bill (or abuse according to what source you read), as well as protester vandalized his portrait (oil painting) on 1 July as well as protester particularly against him this time and in the past due to his vast power as the president(chair). It is not like Junius Ho as a leader of the pro-government (pro-establishment/ pro-Beijing), a slippy slope opinion. Matthew hk on public computer (talk) 04:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment This RfC and discussion seems to be violate WP:NOTFORUM. I would be helpful if sources could be added to the proposed infobox inclusion. Maybe if this figure is tied to the protests in the RS he should be added to the infobox as related figures, rather than leader, etc. It seems this movement is widely believed to be leaderless, but certainly there are some notable figures associated with each side of it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:41, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: Not sure i am wasting my time or not. The two "!vote" include were SPA which one of them registered in July 2019 and another have all the edits around this article since July 2019. I would be happy if they ever put their citation on the table and discuss whatever that citation is supporting or not supporting the RfC. Matthew hk on public computer (talk) 04:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Matthew hk on public computer: Its likely this article is the subject of paid contributions of pro-beijing supports as well as maybe paid and/or passionate SPA accounts that are pro-hkg movement. Thus we need a clear RfC proposal to really vote on this. The talk page discussion can drag on forever. If Junius Ho is associated with the pro-beijing side in the RS he should be reflected and summarized as such in the infobox (but maybe not as leader, as there seems to be no leader, we all know XiJinping is the leader of the pro-beijing side). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I would say those SPA are overly passionate pro-protest editors. I admitted i can hardly backoff from POV due to my HK roots, and i am keep telling myself to read many sources. For SPA, SPA keep on adding personal opinion instead of content derived from secondary source, would made this article some sort of bias and OR and POV pushing. It would further ruined by cherry picking external source to try to support their point of view, but intentionally excluding other important citation that not fit to their propaganda. For example, The article should reflected the fact that at least minor (1? a dozen?) of protesters are also using force (violence, force but not physically hurting people). Vandalism from Mainland China tag team, seem relatively minor. By inspecting the article history, before 21 July, the pro-government side of the infobox were listing the pro-government parties leaders, but after 21 July, it just censored and only Ho , as an accused (spiritual) triad gang leader, remained. The wording as triad gang leader only changed by someone (not me) after the start of RFC. Matthew hk on public computer (talk) 05:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually, we SPA are obviously CIA!! ; ) 65.60.163.223 (talk) 05:05, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

References

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

General Cleanup

This might be a bit controversial, but I noticed the addition of an NBC News source talking about alienation that Mandarin speakers feel in Hong Kong. This is an opinion piece, and the author seems to have posted opinions on Chinese social media quite contrary to what is stated in this opinion piece. I am not so sure about the quality and reliability of this source. There is a more reliable source in SCMP talking about similar things, although I would suggest to use the content for that source (and paraphrasing instead of quoting in general) instead of the title because as is typical of Alibaba-owned SCMP, they guide the reader to think in certain ways with implied messaging that allows them to maintain neutrality on paper. @Zhenqinli: you added this source and related content and I think it is a relevant perspective to consider, but would you agree that there could perhaps be a more balanced source to take from? And would you consider not making every edit minor? It's kind of annoying, to be honest. Thanks.

Also, for the numbers count in the June marches, the 'scholar on-field' is a mental health scholar who counts crowd sizes for fun in his spare time. Should that be made explicit (because otherwise it implies he is a professional in this field)? Yny501 (talk)

I didn't know that the scholar on-field was not professional... If it is the case, it is kind of better to remove it. I think police figures and organizers' estimates are more important (especially when mentioned in lead). OceanHok (talk) 11:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Since HKU POP did not count the number, it had no better source but using organizer and police figures , despite both are inaccurate. The Economist, HKFP stated the criticisms of the figures. But scholar on-field or the opinion by Edward Yiu, is not reliable either. Matthew hk (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree, Edward Yiu is also not a professional in crowd counting - the AI estimate is a pre-estimate, so I guess a way to do it is include Yip (quoted in Reuters according to Chinese Wikipedia) but not put it in the most eye-catching spot. Yny501 (talk) 02:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I had spotted the wiki article Hong Kong had a citation about the criticism by Columbia Journalism Review. Matthew hk (talk) 03:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

That article is quite helpful. There is a section on Chinese Wikipedia which says "HKers are used to taking the average between the reported figures", which is sort of true, but not particularly helpful to us here. I guess there are more pressing matters to attend to before this, but in the long run something should be changed in my opinion. Yny501 (talk) 03:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, unrelated and rather minor, but is there a consensus as to use pro-democratic camp vs pan-democratic camp? It seems like halfway through the article it switches from the former to the latter, and while the two are widely interchangeable in HK it might not be obvious to the really careful reader who doesn't know the context (rare, I know). Yny501 (talk) 03:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Chinese media use pan-democratic, because their political spectrum inside this loose coalition, is pretty wide. Not sure in English media which word is more often, pan-democratic, pro-democratic, or opposition. Matthew hk (talk) 05:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Chan Tong-kai case

Would anyone be interested in working on an article about the murder case? There are 2 Chinese articles about the case already: 潘曉穎命案 and 陳同佳送台案. I don't think any of the existing article can accommodate the information adequately, but the recent developments are notable and important. I am not an expert in things about Taiwanese law or law in general, but if anyone needs translation, I can help. OceanHok (talk) 11:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• I think that the zh.wp articles can be our starting point, but we should have only one article. We can translate and integrate them into one en.wp article, and find English language sources where possible. --Ohconfucius (on the move) (talk) 07:12, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2019

please change "Large-scale demonstrations occurred on the 70th anniversary of the People's Republic of China, with an 18-year-old student protester shot by police on 1 October. Attempting to curb protests, the Chief Executive in Council invoked the Emergency Regulations Ordinance on 4 October to implement an anti-mask law" to "Large-scale demonstrations occurred on the 70th anniversary of the People's Republic of China, with an 18-year-old student protester shot by a policeman on 1 October after violently attacking the policeman. Attempting to curb protests, the Chief Executive in Council invoked the Emergency Regulations Ordinance on 4 October to implement an anti-mask law" 96.250.7.151 (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• The sentence that the above editor wants replaced is clearly accurate and consistent with WP:SUMMARY; the proposed version appears to violate WP:NPOV as "after violently attacking the policeman" is manifestly untrue, and there are no sources that back up that assertion. Further down in the body of the article, we see the accurate and sufficient detail, viz: On 1 October, violent protests occurred during the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China in various districts of Hong Kong, leading to the first usage of live rounds by police, with one protester shot in the chest by police while trying to hit a policeman with a pipe. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 21:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

 Partly done: It is not WP:NPOV to exclude the bit about the attempt made to hit a policeman, hence, added as such. qedk (t 桜 c) 15:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Would it be better to add the wording "plastic pipe"? Matthew hk (talk) 23:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I second this: there was one edit some time back where it said PVC pipe I think, and something along those lines would be suitable. Yny501 (talk) 03:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I left it out in the spirit of WP:SUMMARY, I do not mind its inclusion. --qedk (t 桜 c) 05:24, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Large inline animated GIFs

There are a couple of inline animated GIFs in this article which are very large — combined, they are about 39 MB — because they are effectively silent videos. Per the image use policy, should these not be made into links to the full animated GIFs or converted into a more compact file format? My connection can handle that download well enough, but as recently as the past year I have been in locations where downloading those two GIFs would have taken over 10 minutes. I understand and appreciate the necessity of the content in the GIFs, but including them as inline GIFs seems to be about the worst possible approach to include them. I just thought I’d post here to discuss before doing anything. --jonblatho/talk 17:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Citations messed up

There's some kind of error in some the citations on this page that need to be fixed Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Do you have examples? I am planning to add citations for some parts (e.g. will add tolerance for violence survey as citation), so I can work on that along with any suggestions you have that you can find. Yny501 (talk) 13:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2019

At where it says "Alleged police brutality on 11 August (including allegations that police bean bag rounds ruptured the eye of a medic". None of the sources given mentions that she is a medic, a fact anti-gov supporters like to mention. The only source that mentions this incident, RTHK, wrote this... "Some protesters at the airport covered one eye with masks to show their concern about a girl who was injured during police actions in Tsim Sha Tsui on Sunday night". SCMP mentioned that she is a protestor. Editors should check facts before allowing things be added on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.220.45 (talk) 12:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Therefore I wish to request to change medic to protestor per source. 82.26.220.45 (talk) 13:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• Although I don't think it's hugely significant, I remember reading an article at the time about her role. For the moment, I have added a {{cn}} tag to invite editors to find a citation. We can change it later if nobody can find an article to cite. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 16:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• On the other hand, a Chinese source said Hong Kong police said on Monday there's no evidence showing that the police shot a black-clad female protester in the eye.... TBH, it's hard to be neutral when most of these sources are shown to take sides for the protestors. 82.26.220.45 (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• If the police said it, there should be a proper source. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 19:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• So that means we could use that, which means it wasn't the police unlike what much of other news claim. 82.26.220.45 (talk) 22:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Hong Kong police say there is no evidence =/= there is no evidence. Who do you think had beanbag rounds on Aug 11? Of course it was the police who shot her in the eye. Your comments are pretty borderline. Yny501 (talk) 03:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

• I am trying to keep this neutral whilst you are blaming the police without grounds. How do you know they shot her, were you there that night? 82.26.220.45 (talk) 23:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

It's good that you're trying to keep it neutral, but it's logically obvious that if someone gets shot by a bullet that only a certain group has, the bullet would be fired by that certain group. One does not have to witness events in person to know that they happened, so I don't see how I am blaming the police without grounds for this incident. Yny501 (talk) 04:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I have changed it to "female protester". I think she was rumored to be a medic only, and most sources have used the word "female protesters" more consistently. OceanHok (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Blossoming everywhere?

Where does this quotation come from??? There are similar quotations, mentioned in passing, in two sources cited, but why are we emphasising this??? Yet another reason, dear reader, for an NPOV tag.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:31, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I have changed it to a more neutral "Protests spreading to other districts". I agreed that "blossoming everywhere" should be mentioned, but maybe not as the name of the subheading since it is from the view of the protesters. OceanHok (talk) 15:06, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

The article is well-sourced and appears about as neutral as it can get - people seeking their freedom vs. repressive dictatorship isn't going to have the same "balance" as, say, an article on whether Mars can be colonized. NPOV tag isn't warranted. 104.169.19.227 (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Lack of moderation to ensure NPOV

It seems like this Wikipedia page is being pushed by a POV brigade. I hope that the moderators involved are responsible enough to ensure the article is NPOV even though sinophobia is the latest popular fad.

Here are some major misconduct committed by the protests over the past months which are barely documented here (if at all). Please consider adding at least some of that.

1. Local businesses are being targeted and ransacked by protesters either for being from mainland China (e.g. Bank of China) or for opinions expressed in public (e.g. Maxim's restaurants). Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-49983767

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

3. Students vandalizing schools: https://www.hk01.com/%E7%AA%81%E7%99%BC/385593/%E6%B2%B9%E5%A1%98%E5%A5%B3%E6%B5%AE%E5%B1%8D-%E5%AD%B8%E7%94%9F%E8%B3%AA%E7%96%91cctv%E8%A2%AB%E5%89%AA%E8%BC%AF-%E9%BB%83%E6%98%8F%E5%A4%A7%E8%82%86%E7%A0%B4%E5%A3%9E%E6%A0%A1%E5%9C%92

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

5. General widespread vandalism happening all the time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=OIqx3YIHntc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.155.81 (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Futile.... If you cite sources, they ignore them. If you do not cite sources, they actively reject the request citing the lack of sources. This page is indeed monitored 24/7 to ensure it compiles with the set agenda. However, it also shows how wikipedia can no longer be trusted. There has been so much DOCUMENTED and serious violence perpetrated by the so called protesters, even listing them would take several hours. Who would do that only to be rejected and reverted in a matter of seconds for no apparent reason? Shame on wikipedia and the 50 NTD cent people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.5.158.152 (talk) 12:03, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't generally involve myself in political disputes. However, this page is clearly written by folks with a sympathy toward a particular side. I don't even need to mention which side it is. Why is there not a NPOV tag at the very least? Alsosaid1987 (talk) 05:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

There's a long section on "Allegations of police misconduct", featuring an external video link and an embedded GIF, but the violence committed by protesters is buried in a subsection under "Tactics". Pathetic ---Quarty (talk) 04:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree. This article is not neutral.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

To the above editors: you could start by contributing sources, preferably in number and from different backgrounds, to things you want added to the article and then try reach consensus. Try not to call editors who have actually been working on this article (so not any of you) names. For your reference, the above IP's concerns may have been founded, but more sources from different backgrounds are needed, and the actual context of the exact content that should be added should be taken into account (i.e. if it's relevant). Don't assume others are working in bad faith (so Quarty (talk · contribs) and the IP) when they're actually contributing. Yny501 (talk) 05:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Quarty also appears to be a new account, so I hope it's not a case of an SPA made for a sensitive article. Yny501 (talk) 05:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I merely pointed out the shortcomings of this article and did not question the intention of the editors. I have been contributing to the Chinese version of Wikipedia since 2015. It is you, Yny501 (talk · contribs), who should assume good faith. —Quarty (talk) 07:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the issue is the bias in the article, including a downplaying of the violence used by the protesters, a refusal to use the term "riot", and an airbrushed approach to the protesters' aims (such as their waving of Union Jacks and US flags).--Jack Upland (talk) 08:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I strongly agree! The use of violence is the key difference between a protester and a rioter. This article is very biased against China and the police. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.7.154.11 (talk) 11:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Quarty (talk · contribs): I am glad you are not an SPA: there have been many of those related to this topic, for example on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 September 21#Chinazi. As you have been contributing to Chinese Wikipedia since 2015, maybe you could try edit that or take sources from the corresponding page in Chinese and then make suggestions? Your use of "pathetic" did not help matters and definitely did not assume good faith. As for the IP's comments, I disagree with "the use of violence is the key difference between a protester and a rioter" (as well as the claims of anti-China/police bias obviously - PSA: if you make claims like that be prepared with evidence or else it's just going to get ignored) - is this backed up by sources? Finally, I am not sure what Jack Upland (talk · contribs) is implying with "protesters' aims" related to the waving of US and UK flags, so could you perhaps explain a bit more? Yny501 (talk) 13:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Regarding flags, see this. Waving a colonial HK flag is interpreted by some as wanting to return to colonialism. There is clearly a division among the protesters about this. Pictures of flag-waving protesters are being kept off this page. There is an attempt to claim that the protesters have unified aims and these aims are democratic reforms under the rubric of One Country, Two Systems. This is not accurate.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

We can add a section about pro-Beijing figures interpreting that some protesters and/or young Hongkongers want a return to the colonial era. Normally, in Hong Kong this nostalgia for British rule is perceived in the context of Hong Kong's 'decline' under Chinese rule. I don't think the flag part directly contradicts 1C2S - that is definitely the current aim of almost everyone, but it might not be the end goal, but the latter seems out of this article's scope. Yny501 (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Framing commentators as "pro-Beijing figures" is POV. I think we should note the facts and not try to spin them. I can't see how wanting "a return to the colonial era" is so different from "nostalgia for British rule". As British rule was less "democratic" than Chinese rule, anyone with nostalgia for British rule should not be called a "democracy protester". If there is diversity among the protesters, we should acknowledge that, not create a mirage.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Information about the colonial flag can be added in the tactics page. It is not central to the protest, or common as a tactic. This page is just a summary. The singing of their anthem is even more rare. Protesters disagreed on waving the colonial flag as a tactic but did not question the motive behind it. It was Rita Fan, a notable pro-Beijing figure, who was trying to guess their motives, which she attributed to "unwarranted nostalgia" to British rule. It is not fact, it is just a view. OceanHok (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, I guess I should explain why I think it's appropriate to have "allegations of police misconduct" vs "tactics" when it appears that both sides are using violence. Notwithstanding the respective levels of violence and the point of the force used, we should all note that the police - in any place - are essential to the government for ensuring law and order, and thus they are entrusted with public powers. There is no such thing as 'protester misconduct' because they are not expected to have any particular conduct beyond standard expectations of human beings in society. The police, however, are subject to rules listed quite clearly in their manuals. That manual has been changed throughout the course of the protests, and despite that police routinely violate the guidelines and rules that they are subjected to. That is why they are alleged to have misconducted themselves. At the very least the wording should not be up for debate, but I am willing to expand the 'controversies' section in protester tactics provided there are enough sources that are reliable (and preferably not all from the same background). Yny501 (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

There are definitely neutrality issues with the article. However not every editor who participates here is actually on a side of this conflict and for those of us striving for neutrality, I'd suggest that finding WP:RS that diversifies the voice of the article would be good. I realize this is complicated by the one-sidedness of corporate media on the issue; but these issues are part of the overall systemic bias problem on Wikipedia and aren't due to the actions of gatekeepers so much as the tendency of Wikipedia to rely too heavily on news media and a bias toward WP:RECENTISM across the project. I would encourage both sides of this dispute to WP:AGF. There has certainly been an influx of new participants to Wikipedia over Hong Kong. And while some on both sides appear to be in contravention of the WP:RGW ideal, many are just that - new interested editors. Simonm223 (talk) 14:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Let's talk about the sources presented at the start of the section. 5 is very similar to 1 and 4. Already covered in the article 1, 2 and 4. I also added source 6 by Jack Upland on the flag. People decrying NPOV need to provide more 'missing' information with sources. For 3, please provide an English source to avoid translation issues. starship.paint (talk) 09:38, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

No. 3 is mentioned in the subpage, List of October 2019 Hong Kong protests. OceanHok (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree that the protest should be named riot at the moment. As I see, most mainstream media hasn't named the protest as riots. Even though clashes do appear between protesters and the police forces, it is only the Hong Kong Government, Beijing, and the Chinese media sites cite it as rioting. Maybe we can put this off for some time? Huggaso (talk) 11:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

About the redirect 'Hong Kong 2019 riots' to this page

After searching at the bar in Wikipedia, found that the search result 'Hong Kong 2019 riots' still stay as a redirect. I believe it is a biased title, and if anything, can one of the admins remove the link? Thanks for the inconvenience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huggaso (talk • contribs) 11:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Please nominate at WP:Redirects for discussion. Matthew hk (talk) 12:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC)