Talk:Umbrella Movement

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2019 and 20 March 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tanguangyao88.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 October 2020 and 12 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Conghuiw. Peer reviewers: Hollystevenson4, Liuxi39.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

2014 Hong Kong protests under a different name?

Isn't this basically re-starting 2014 Hong Kong protests under a different name? Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 02:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Also. Why was an article about a current event concerning living people started without any references? (My first two references are free, but after that I start charging $ 280 an hour, billed in six minute blocks. )--Shirt58 (talk) 02:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I've redirected it. This is a fork, clearly, and this title must redirect to the main article as it's an alternative name for the protests. RGloucester — ☎ 15:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Lede needs cleanup

Former disambiguation page has become an article. Therefore, cleanup is needed. --George Ho (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Original research?

I wonder why the article is tagged as original research. --George Ho (talk) 15:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I can think of a reason: is the definition of "Umbrella Movement" referring to the participants rather than the protests supported in reliable sources? From what I see, most sources consider the terms "Umbrella Movement" and "Umbrella Revolution" as equivalent (except for the nuance in the terms themselves), both meaning the current protests. _dk (talk) 10:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

No note or message was left to explain the motive for the tag. However, I suspect that it may have had something to do with which groups were to be included within the list of members. To that end, I put an image and have tried best to cite all the other stuff. I'm sure there are images out there that prove various politicians also setting foot within the occupation sites to participate in discussions etc. To me, it just seemed a logical but slightly artificial line between the two, permitting us to separate the actions from the organisational aspects. If we were to treat them as one and the same, what would be the best way to deal with all the material and all the aspects of the actions and organisations? -- Ohc ^¡digame! 12:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with splitting off content from the main article. However, I would prefer this article to be named something like "Organisation of the Umbrella Movement/2014 HK protests", specifying that this article is about the occupiers; and then Umbrella Movement redirecting back to the main protest article. _dk (talk) 12:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I tagged the article but couldn't write out my reasoning. In my concept, the "Umbrella Movement" is another name of the protest, which is [erroneously but commonly] called "Occupy Central" otherwise; I believe this is the most common usage of the term. Calling the partipants the "Umbrella Movement" does in fact make me feel uncomfortable unless sources say it is accepted and used by many, and at this moment there is insufficient source to support this usage in my opinion. That is, instead of saying ' the "Umbrella Movement" is taking place in Admiralty ', can we say ' the "Umbrella Movement" is occupying Admiralty '? --Jabo-er (talk) 16:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

By definition, a "movement" is not "one event", but an organised group of people and organisations. "Revolution" is simply "one event", whereas "movement" refers to the people that participate in the revolution. RGloucester — ☎ 16:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The distinction isn't too fine, and there is some conflation, IMHO. I'm with RG. That's the rationale for my taking up the namespace with this article. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 13:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Sources

• "Q&A In Hong Kong, a passionate but mostly peaceful campaign for democracy". latimes, 12 December 2014
• Mallonee, Laura C. (6 October 2014). "Artists Mobilize to Capture Hong Kong’s Umbrella Movement in Pen and Ink". hyperallergic
• Pennington, Kathryn (27 November 2014). "The Hong Kong Umbrella Movement - Some Lessons for SA". SA Good News.
• "Hong Kong, une révolution artistique et numérique". Slate, 07 December 2014.

Help with a draft article

Hey guys, I was wondering if any of you would be willing to help work on a draft at AfC, Draft:2015 Hong Kong protests. When I'd come across the draft it'd only had a handful of sources and covered about 2 protests, both of which had a pretty low attendance in contrast to what was expected. I was (and still am) worried that if I'd accepted it to the mainspace it'd likely be merged into this article or the one for the 2014 protests. There's been a third protest that's been better attended, but I'm still somewhat worried that it'd just get nominated for AfD or be merge/redirected, which would make it harder for it to be accepted later on. Anyone willing to help flesh out the article and add more sources? I do think that as the year progresses there will be more coverage and it'll warrant more coverage later on, but I'm just worried that it might be considered to be too soon since in its current state this article could probably be summed up in a paragraph here. This is pretty much a cut/paste of what I posted elsewhere, since I wanted to make sure that I get a lot of potential editors coming in. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Excessively shortened text and names - but this is not twitter!

I disagree with user:Sirlanz who with pretext to shorten text currently is acting as a vandal: in English even front-line user-friendly New York Times doesn't call some foreign professors, for example, "Tai" instead "professor Benny Tai". As well as "Chu", "Chan" etc. The professors must be called according their dignity or at least with first and last name, or with "Mr.". And even if young reporters of New York Times would use slangs it is not pretext to call professors like "Chan", "Chu", etc in Wikipedia. PoetVeches (talk) 18:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

After introducing subject, WP does not go forward repeating over and again the full name (and honorific, too?) throughout the article. Try Donald Trump. sirlanz 23:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

So what was the outcome? Was the pre-screening overturned?

Should be in the introduction. Tuntable (talk) 23:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 2014.10.25 Hong Kong protests Admiralty 18.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 2014.10.25 Hong Kong protests Admiralty 19.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:37, 22 September 2022 (UTC)