Contents

Talk:2014 Hong Kong protests: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 04:57, 20 October 2014

Old topics on this talk page are automatically archived by MiszaBot after 30 days of inactivity. To view inactive discussions, please see the archive pages. Once an archive reaches 70K in size, a new one is automatically created.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2014 Hong Kong protests article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 31 days

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Hong Kong C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hong Kong, a project to coordinate efforts in improving all Hong Kong-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Hong Kong-related articles, you are invited to join this project.Hong KongWikipedia:WikiProject Hong KongTemplate:WikiProject Hong KongHong Kong articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Hong Kong To-do: edit history watch purge Attention needed (60) ...needing expert attention (4) • ...without infoboxes (23) Collaboration needed Recommend topic Improvement needed GA-Class articles (59) • B-Class articles (287) Cleanup needed C-Class articles (1,002) Image needed (347) Destub needed Start-Class articles (5,372) • Stub-Class articles (6,709) Deorphan needed ...orphans Page creation needed Requested articles Miscellaneous tasks ...maintain popularity • ...assess the un-Class (408) • ...assess the un-Importance (1,296) China C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Sociology: Social Movements C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the social movements task force.

Talk:2014 Hong Kong protests\Edit guide

"Poster for the 'Umbrella Revolution' with slogans including "The Hong Kong Federation of Students cannot represent me" and "Do not believe the leftards, beware of dispersal tactics".

Can someone confirm that translation? Is there actually a Cantonese direct equivalent of "leftard"? 2601:9:6700:A51:81CD:DDAE:529B:B857 (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact a direct translation does not exist, but this is what most protesters agree as seen from online forum/Facebook --203.145.79.57 (talk) 04:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The word is contraction of『左』(left) and『膠』(glue, plastic, but colloquially retard). If you speak Chinese (I guess you don't if you're asking for confirmation) there's a more in-depth explanation here. Eniagrom (talk) 10:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there is a connection to 2014 Ferguson unrest. I think it should be included. Here are several references [1] [2] [3]--Nowa (talk) 06:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a Hong Konger, I think (though not 100% sure) most of Hong Kong people do not know what Ferguson unrest is. However, it may be good to put it under "Foreign media". -Hijk910 (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. See this reference. "Instead, the gesture is a result of training and instructions from protest leaders..."--Nowa (talk) 00:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a gesture to show that the protesters are unarmed. Rimsky.cheng (talk) 08:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I have added within the chronology section. I have also appended dates as sub-heading, as I found it difficult otherwise to follow the sequence of events. Fellow editors might want to check to ensure that the events are under the correct dates and make any necessary corrections. - Mailer Diablo 10:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a universal sign, not based on Fergason. Even the supplied ref says that some observers said it was "reminiscent" of Fergeson, but the article texts says it "mimics" Ferguson. That is not the same thing at all. Legacypac (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is Ferguson? Nobody cares about it, it is none of our business and has nothing to do with the situation in Hong Kong. Why does the US media invent such nonsense? The "hands up, don't shoot" gesture is an old, universal sign, please delete these absurd claims and stop spreading misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.47.31.166 (talk) 04:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this even coming up again? I thought I already explained how that confusion spread and provided evidence there's no connection. But it got deleted?Karolle (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this name getting much coverage in HK English-language media, or elsewhere? I've only heard it mentioned in passing in British/American news sources. I'm not sure that wikipedia should be referring to it as such, yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasAndrewNimmo (talk • contribs) 15:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The term has received extensive coverage in Western media sources. (Some examples: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] and [11]) Inthefastlane (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could the reason this "Umbrella Revolution" has such coverage here be that it is fake? Just another in a long line of US backed Color Revolts? For this is almost carbon-copy of many other 'up-risings'. As with Syria, first the 'Free-loving' protester take to the streets - to wait for the an over-reaction by the powers-to-be. Next, if things are running to plan, the US will table its 'concern' at Human Rights outrages in the MSM and at the UN. Given this, will Wikipedia class this as a Color Revolt?

78.147.81.109 (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia editing guidelines before you make any further Wikipedia edits. Inthefastlane (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was quick! And yet, just what have I said that goes against the rules? For while my general tone might not be to certain editors liking, does not history indicate that the "Umbrella Revolution" have much in common with the Color Revolts? 78.147.81.109 (talk) 20:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S: And, given that "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground or a vehicle for propaganda", I recommend that the whole Umbrella article be totally rewritten to reflect a balanced (non-US centered) POV.

78.147.81.109 (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My post was quick, but it wasn't as quick as your original post, which, to any serious editor, was soapboxing. Of course nobody is stopping you from adding material that reflects the pro- Chinese government narrative, but given your unsubstantiated (and, frankly, fringe) theories that the Umbrella Revolution is fake and a product of foreign intervention, I would recommend that you thoroughly familiarize yourself with Wikipedia editing guidelines before making any Wikipedia edits. Inthefastlane (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article does need more perspectives/reactions coming from the pro-China/anti-occupy side, for a balanced article. Lasersharp (talk) 01:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inthefastlane's IP is likely linked to the student movement in Hong Kong. Dark Liberty (talk) 04:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI that 遮打革命 has been used by multiple Chinese media also. [12] [13] [14] For those who don't know, 遮 is a Cantonese term for "umbrella", 打 means hit, and 遮打 is the Chinese transcription for Chater Road, a nearby road in the district. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 09:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since I have no interest in pushing a pro-Chinese government narrative, Wikipedia should avoid putting out anti-Chinese information. For the history of Color Revolts has been well substantiated and, frankly, is far from a "fringe" concept. Check out the time-lines of the Syria Revolts and Umbrella Revolutions - they match!

92.16.155.181 (talk) 22:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC) .[reply]

The phrase "Umbrella revolution" is already coined to protests of 2007 in Latvia against corrupt government who wanted to sack chief of national anti-corruption office. See http://lettonica.blogspot.com/2007/11/umbrella-revolution.html Avellano (talk) 08:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to Wikipedia and recently, I have noticed that a number of edits have tried to avoid using the word 'Umbrella Revolution'. But as a matter of fact, this term has been widely used, see http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/hong-kong-protests/umbrella-revolution-protesters-scuffle-rivals-hong-kong-n217381. Also, there has been a number of edits suggesting that Scholarism and Hong Kong Federation of Students are the leading figures, but the fact is that especially in Mong Kok, people claim there is no leader. Maybe we need to have a discussion on this matter. --Umbrevolution (talk) 04:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, "it's also been discussed on talk page with consensus about not using the autonomous phrase." I haven't been able to find this discussion. Maybe ηoian could point this out?zzz (talk) 05:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion on autonomous is in the NPOV section by Dark Liberty which started on 4 October, which unfortunately has not had much replies. It is important to have discussion on it if you do not agree with removing it out, or to find a middle ground. There has been a good amount of edits on it on the page already if you look in the history about the usage of autonomous from before October 4. I'm open to discussing it with others. With regard to the usage of the Umbrella Revolution, there are 2 places where this is discussed on the talk page. Here, and the rename section. Umbrella Revolution as a term is mentioned in the article. However, it should not be put on the infobox, nor be the title of the article. A vote was made on the usage of Umbrella Revolution as the name of the article and this was rejected. There should be no reason why the name of the article and the name of the infobox be different. Furthermore, as mentioned in the first question in this section, Umbrella Revolution is mostly used by western sources (NBC being an example). Washington Post, among MANY OTHER western sources (yes SCMP even had editorials on this) even stated the protesters do not want to use the term Revolution (I added a source in the infobox). Yes, the umbrella is a symbolism that is mentioned in SCMP and other HK Media, but it is not what protesters want as the primary title for the movement. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a discussion. User Darkliberty has been blocked , and only you replied. No one except you and one blocked user is not a discussion. Multiple users have inserted the word autonomous, and no argument has been used to remove it.

Also, if " The protesters claim that no single group is the leader" (your preferred choice of words in the infobox) then, by definition, they have no leader, and are autonomous.zzz (talk) 05:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having no single leader is not the same as autonomous. Multiple leaders != autonomous. I think we disagree on the meaning of the word. Also, just because Dark Liberty has been blocked does not mean that the argument in that section is any less valid. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I am open to using better terminology/words to describe the fact that protest subfactions are acting against one another and that there is no clear leadership on the protests themselves on the ground as of this Sunday (day 8). I believe there is still some political leadership as the Federation of Students are negotiating with the government. The thing is that the protest at the beginning was not leaderless. Edit: No complaints about what is currently on the page "The protest is now led by people themselves with no single person/body leading the protest."ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, you replying to a blocked user is not a discussion. And, regardless of the word used, "The protesters claim that no single group is the leader" = they don't have a leader, by definition. "claim" is not required. zzz (talk) 05:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Was it my fault no one else replied? Dark Liberty was not blocked at the time. Also I edited my above post to say I have no qualms about the current phrasing of "The protest is now led by people themselves with no single person/body leading the protest." You can have leaders of subfactions (which there are). That is different from being autonomous. You are saying no single leader implies don't have a leader implies autonomous. I'm saying no single leader != no leader(s) != autonomous. Rather no single leader can have no leader oritcan have multiple leaders oritcan have a mix of both. It's not a black/white spectrum of having a leader or being autonomous. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC) (p.s. Sorry about the computer science logic-ish wording with caps earlier, wasn't supposed to convey internet yelling or anything like that)[reply]

I think the current wording is fine. I didnt see the caps. I was just objecting to "the protestors claim". Thanks zzz (talk) 05:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies then, I thought you were talking about using the term autonomous. I had no objections to removing protestors claim. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that the current wordings are good enough. The fact is, even though members of Scholarism and HK Federation of Students have tried to take control, no one is listening to them. One example is that on 27 Sept 2014, the Federation asked people to go but no one listened, and some even set up a new occupation area in Mong Kok which is in total contrast with their initial thought. This is the moment when the 'Revolution' began and their leadership stepped down, and this is what i mean by 'autonomous'. Re the use of the word 'Umbrella Revolution', you are right that this is coined by western media. But as you may see from various sources, especially those in the venues, most protest participants have agreed to use the word 'umbrella revolution'. Even the Federation and Scholarism said that they are not having any 'revolution', as they are NOT the leaders, credibility of their words are thus not strong enough to convince a change in the name of this campaign. --Umbrevolution (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the common name is 'Umbrella Revolution' - it is impossible to argue otherwise. The reservations of the leaders of some HK organisations is explained in the article ("Names" section), and has little or no bearing on the global and local popularity of the name. zzz (talk) 00:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen Umbrella Protests, HK Protests, Occupy Central, all kinds of names that are not Umbrella Revolution being used in the media. Umbrella Revolution is a subset of the names. Many factions have rejected it. Just because some factions don't or some overseas media (NOT all overseas media use it) use it does not mean that we should have it predominantly in the infobox, especially when it doesn't match the title of the page. Furthermore, Umbrevolution is a single purpose editor who has been constantly pushing to expand the usage of the term 'Umbrella Revolution' on the article. You can clearly see this in the opinion stated by UmbreRevolution: "most protest participants have agreed to use the word 'umbrella revolution'". This is an opinion as there are many sources which don't use it. UmbreRevolution even admits that Federation, Scholarism are opposed to it. There are sources which show Occupy Central is opposed to it. When there is clear evidence that the naming of the protests is very divided, we should not be making the sole name in the infobox one of the names that many groups have rejected. This POV pushing needs to stop. Also I removed the image UmbreRevolution added because the editor is clearly not neutral/uninvolved with the naming situation. He/she could have simply printed a poster and taken an image.

"it is impossible to argue otherwise" There are sources and citations in the Naming section, you are willfully ignoring the fact that there are many names and saying it is impossible to argue otherwise. How is this not POV pushing? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 08:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, as Umbrevolution has uploaded pictures of the HK Protests which is marked as 'own work', along with what I feel is a history of POV pushing, I consider him/her to have a conflict of interest. As a new editor, he/she should take a look at WP:COI in order to better contribute to the article. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 08:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• We can't call it revolution because nothing will change. China is quite stable. Western media has already stopped reporting the event, at least in Germany. After all, it just not a big deal to be called revolution. --

It seems that this debate over the term "Umbrella Revolution" is destined to be a subject of contention and edits war on wikipedia in perpetuity, like many other politically sensitve subjects. There are clearly two sharply opposed ideological positions on whether usage of the term is desirable. However, an encyclopedic entry simply has to factually report on the publicly known information about the subject. Wikipedia lacks legitimacy, authority, and relevance when that standard is not upheld, and at the moment I write, the first sentence of this entry referencing use of the term "outside Hong Kong" is unacceptably sophomoric, as any political scientist would agree. The term Umbrella Revolution, whether you like it or not, is what this is going to be referred to in the history books. Moreover, the term is widely used by native Hong Kongers in the streets protesting at this moment. Statements of two protest leaders have been too broadly interpreted as "rejecting" the term. Specifically, the quotes run "this is not a *colour* revolution." It's imperative that the wikipedia entry reflect the reality of usage, so any attempt to say what is being said by whom, where, has to be cited. Aureliano_no_24

2.246.4.138 (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As of Oct 8/Oct 9, some western media has also started to rename the event as "Umbrella Movement" [15] [Occupy Central: A Hong Kong Protest Evolved From Planned Sit-In To Leaderless Umbrella Movement][Hong Kong’s “Umbrella movement” has become a war of attrition][The Umbrella Movement Belongs to Everyone Who Calls Hong Kong Home], or even suggests that the name "Umbrella Revolution" be avoided [Don't Call Hong Kong's Protests an 'Umbrella Revolution']. I think it is reasonable to describe the event as "Umbrella Movement". Chansiuon (talk) 03:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have referred to your links and it seems that those articles are a bit biased - those articles are written by pro-Beijing camp writers and as a matter of fact, they are afraid to call it a "Revolution". Thus it's better to keep the name. --1.36.209.129 (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this information should be inserted into the body:

Methods:

• Occupation
• Nonviolent resistance
• Civil disobedience
• Demonstrations
• Sit-ins

Stated Goals:

• Universal suffrage
• Resignation of Chief Executive CY Leung
• Immediate withdrawal of the decision on political reform by the National People's Congress Standing Committee

Dark Liberty (talk) 05:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about including into the body text?

Methods: Color Revolts (US backed protests)

Neo-con goals:

As in Syria, to turn protests violent. (This would guarantee a crushing response from the ruling Party and undermine the country's international standing)

84.13.14.146 (talk) 10:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the move request was: not moved although if the proposed name becomes the clear common name, another RM may be appropriate in the future. Number 57 17:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Hong Kong protests → Umbrella Revolution – Rather than the generic WP:NDESC title that we currently have, I believe we should use the proper name commonly used in reliable sources "Umbrella Revolution". This title is widely used. As an example, one can see these two articles[16][17] articles from The New York Times, this article from Bloomberg News, this article from The Guardian, this article from The Huffington Post, this article from CNN, and this article from Slate. There is no justification for retaining a WP:NDESC title when an unambiguous proper name is used across the news media, and I believe that this term is "Umbrella Revolution". RGloucester — ☎ 16:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC) RGloucester — ☎ 16:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

well HKP has 10,100,000 google hits; UR has 7,620,000. not much of a consensus there. I sense the nomenclature is political !? 198.24.31.117 (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Hong Kong protests" could refer to anything. "Umbrella Revolution" is a proper noun, and is used by reliable sources. RGloucester — ☎ 17:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

well, civil unrest in 2014 is pretty specific. is there a protestor that calls themselves a revolutionary? could calling them one be a political act? 2 states; one solution could be the slogan. 198.24.31.117 (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This strikes me as WP:OR. Can we follow the sources, please? RGloucester — ☎ 17:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

oh really, I seem to recall many protestors being interviewed in reliable sources: is there a single one that says revolution? or are they calling for strict adherence to Hong Kong Basic Law? do you have sources other than outsiders editorializing? is not this name a POV framing to suit one party, that flouts One country, two systems. 198.24.31.117 (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

your source NYT says: "Hong Kong Protests Are Leaderless but Orderly" [18]. 198.24.31.117 (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does. It then goes on to talk about the "Umbrella Revolution" as the name for these protests. RGloucester — ☎ 20:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In any case, I think we should retitle the article into something more specific. Either "Occupy Central protests" or "Umbrella Revolution" is better than the unspecific name we currently have. As a Hongkonger I can say that we have protests every weekend. The Chinese-language media uniformly calls it the Occupy Central movement or protests (佔中行動/佔中示威). _dk (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only English-language sources matter for discussions of title naming. I favour Umbrella Revolution, as it has really caught on in English-language media over the past few days, as shown. RGloucester — ☎ 17:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid taking opinions of those either from Hong Kong or from China would violate WP:Neutrality and would have a conflict of interest, even if you were in favor of the term Occupy Central. Dark Liberty (talk) 02:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of the many people that might hear the term "Umbrella Revolution" in passing and not know what it is; they should be able to find an article under the same name on Wikipedia. See Commonly recognizable names CatanOverlord (talk) 19:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral Oppose - Why do the media use "Umbrella Revolution"? The whole article discusses protests, not the whole campaign. Unfortunately, Sunflower Student Movement should have been just "2014 Taiwan protests". I don't know which interests the Western media more: Taiwan, a small island across Taiwan Strait; or Hong Kong, a tiny state of China? --Gh87 in the public computer (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly sure what you mean. Reliable sources refer to these protests as such, as so to should we. That's what our guidelines and policy state. It doesn't really matter why. Names like "2014 Taiwan protests" are examples of what is called a WP:NDESC title. These are only used if there is no commonly used proper name for an event. There was in the case that you mention, and there is here. That's why we use the common name. RGloucester — ☎ 20:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing my vote. Also, what happened to applying WP:POVNAME? Is the proposed name colloquial, discouraged by POVNAME? --George Ho (talk) 04:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing "POV" about it, as I said, unless "Umbrellas" have some kind of subversive significance in Chinese mythology. This name is not colloquial, it is used by thousands of reliable sources, including reputable newspapers, as I've demonstrated. Anyway, even if it was "POV", POVNAME states "In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue". RGloucester — ☎ 05:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep name I think what we have right now is fine. Umbrella Revolution redirects here so people will find this article if they search on that name.--Nowa (talk) 22:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an adequate justification for ignoring the commonly-used name by reliable sources. We have guidelines on this matter. RGloucester — ☎ 22:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for the links to the guidelines. I did some Google searches to see if there was a dominant name. Here are the results:

• “2014 Hong Kong protests” 8 thousand
• 2014 “Hong Kong protests” 1.6 million
• “Umbrella revolution” 0.8 million
• 2014 “Hong Kong protests” – “umbrella revolution” 1.5 million

So at least for me, "Hong Kong Protests" is currently the dominant term. That's not to say "Umbrella Revolution" is not an important term, but we are acknowledging its importance with the redirect.--Nowa (talk) 23:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google searches are not useful here. "2014 Hong Kong protests" can refer to any other protests in Hong Kong in the past year, and there have been plenty. What's more, articles that use "2014 Hong Kong protests" may well also use "Umbrella Revolution", as you demonstrated with your last search, because "Hong Kong protests" is descriptive, whereas "Umbrella Revolution" is the name of those protests. There are tons of false hits. Reliable sources are calling it these events the "Umbrella Revolution", and describing the Umbrella Revolution as "Hong Kong protests". Just as we should do. I've provided reliable sources, whereas you have not. RGloucester — ☎ 23:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the search term 2014 “Hong Kong protests” – “umbrella revolution” looks for pages that refer to the current “Hong Kong Protests” without using the term “Umbrella revolution”. Here are a few examples from the past week: Washington Post, New York Times, NPR, Straights Times, BBC--Nowa (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More and more sources are using the term now[19][20]. Notice that they describe the "Umbrella Revolution" as "Hong Kong protests". This is essential. One must realise that "Hong Kong protests" is descriptive, whereas the proper name for the protests is "Umbrella Revolution". RGloucester — ☎ 23:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that more and more sources are using the term “Umbrella Revolution”, but I still don't see any evidence that it is the dominant term. But, having said that, we don't need to agree. We can each have our own opinion.--Nowa (talk) 00:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google searches are very relevant, there is even a pillar about it. As a software analyst with some familiarity with the Wikimedia Foundation and the the code of Wikipedia, Wikipedia would be some would say, as active, data-driven and crowd-sourced through every link and search that exists on the internet. basically, Wikipedia is completely driven by Google searches. Dark Liberty (talk) 03:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - As stated by RGloucester, there are many WP:RS that use the name Umbrella Revolution plus this name is vague and doesn't go in depth with the protests. There are many protests in Hong Kong and that may seem misleading. Then again this is an opinion but I feel that the name Umbrella Revolution is more appropriate--Acetotyce (talk) 00:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Not Yet We don't know if this is even a revolution just yet. The current name has the advantage of being NPOV. Legacypac (talk) 02:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "revolution" or not is determined by reliable sources, not by our own WP:OR. Reliable sources call it as such, presumably in reference to the colour revolutions (i.e. Orange Revolution), which were not "revolutions" necessarily in the traditional sense. There is nothing "non-neutral" about the proposed title, unless "umbrellas" imply some kind of subversion I'm not aware of. RGloucester — ☎ 02:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep name I don't think the term will be known by people a few years down the line, and more than likely it will be described as 2014 Hong Kong protests in history textbooks. We should use the correct nomenclature for historical events. Umbrellas and Sunflowers would be as they perceived it; just as we can't title events based on some failed marketing campaign. If the Islamic State called themselves the Sons of Ra, are we going to listen to them? Dark Liberty (talk) 02:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no. I listen to "reliable sources", like the ones I provided above. I certainly don't use a crystal-ball to divine what these events might be called down the line, as that'd be a bit of violation of Wikipedia guidelines and policies. RGloucester — ☎ 03:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to condone murder by the Islamic State and then self-title them Sons of Ra, like the coronation of Napoleon? Dark Liberty (talk) 03:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll call them "Sons of Ra" if they are most commonly called "Sons of Ra" by reliable sources, but that's neither here nor there. RGloucester — ☎ 03:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So the sources that state Islamic State are not reliable if Sons of Ra were a more popular term? Dark Liberty (talk) 03:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand what you're getting at here with this queer hypothetical. If the majority of reliable sources use a term for an event, we use that term per WP:UCN, barring some rare exception. RGloucester — ☎ 03:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although your opinion is in the minority, that has no bearing on the title of the article, and I think your opinion should be considered. Although, for example, Sons of Ra would be in the perspective of the Islamic State, and that cannot be used even if most sources (Arabic) would describe it as such. Dark Liberty (talk) 03:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What bringing up irrelevant comparison to an irrelevant, nonrelated topic? Can we just compare this article to 2014 Taiwan protests? --George Ho (talk) 03:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've hit the nail on the head, Mr Ho. That's because there is no "2014 Taiwan protests". It is a redirect to Sunflower Student Movement. RGloucester — ☎ 03:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When this discussion is closed, I'll propose the move request on that article. --George Ho (talk) 04:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No need, it already redirects to Sunflower Revolution. Dark Liberty (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I meant, renaming it to "2014 Taiwan protests". --George Ho (talk) 04:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's not going to happen because, as you'll find out, Wikipedia isn't exactly the most objective source on recent historical events; you'll find more opposition there in that article than there is support. Dark Liberty (talk) 04:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of "2014 Taiwan protests" or "2014 Hong Kong protests" is absurd at face-value, not even bringing WP:UCN into play. There have been plenty of different protests throughout the year in both Taiwan and Hong Kong. Which specific protests are we talking about, huh? That title doesn't provide the reader with any information at all. What's more, it fails WP:UCN. We use the proper names. We only invent WP:NDESC titles when there is no proper name. There is a proper name, so we don't invent anything out of thin air. Reliable sources uses these names, so too do we. Calling that article 2014 Taiwan protests would be like referring to 2014 Ferguson unrestas2014 American unrest. RGloucester — ☎ 04:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What? Ferguson is a city, but I guess non-US readers won't know what "Ferguson" refers to. Also, what about WP:CRITERIA, another section of WP:AT policy? How and why is "Umbrella Movement" (never mind) recognizable, natural, precise, concise, and consistent, especially in a long term? --George Ho (talk) 04:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have linked all the criteria. The present title is not "precise", as it could refer to any protest during the year in Hong Kong, and there have been plenty. The present title is not concise, as it does not instantly divulge that it is referring to what is now called the "Umbrella Revolution". The present title is not "natural", because it is an artificial construct used for descriptive purposes only. My point, Mr Ho, was that "2014 Taiwan protests" can refer to any protest in the year 2014 in Taiwan, which is a fairly large place. It is completely non-specific and imprecise, and essentially means nothing at all. Naming that article as such would be the same as naming the Ferguson protests as "American protests". It does not adequately define the scope of the article. Regardless, "Umbrella Revolution" meets all the criteria. Firstly, it is the most commonly used name. Secondly, it is precise: there has only ever been one Umbrella Revolution. Fourthly, it is natural: this is the name that arose organically during the protest, and which has come to dominate the headlines. Fifthly, it is concise: it instantly tells the reader what it is about, just as does Orange Revolution. RGloucester — ☎ 05:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

However, any other Hong Kong or Taiwan protests must meet WP:notability. If there is one notable event about protests of the year, then we shall treat it as such. Maybe we could add just a month name to disambiguate protests, like "March 2014 <whatever> protests". I see you live in UK, which occupied Hong Kong until 1997 handover to China, and I wonder if you are directly involved in a campaign in or outside HK. --George Ho (talk) 05:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aiya! Assume good faith. WP:PRECISE is an article title criterion, don't you agree? RGloucester — ☎ 05:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so you want to connect the two protests due to analogy rather than make this an encyclopedic entry. I see. Dark Liberty (talk) 03:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• More sources for the Umbrella bit, not surprisingly.[21][22][23][24][25][26] I'm sorry, fellows, but this is what this event is called. RGloucester — ☎ 04:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Not yet As the media either use 'HK protests' or 'Umbrella Rev' interchangeably right now, I would recommend waiting until a consensus is reached by the press as to what they are calling this. Lasersharp (talk) 05:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a consensus. If they use "HK protests", they used it as a description of what "Umbrella Revolution" is, not as a proper name to refer to the events. Furthermore, the present title is extremely flawed, as I've demonstrated. RGloucester — ☎ 05:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? Maybe it's time for you to take a short break from this. I see you focusing on the content of this article, so why not solely fix content issues then? As for consensus, they said, "not yet". Don't you see? --George Ho (talk) 05:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your opinion, but IMHO, after doing a search of recent news stories about this event, there are still a lot of reporters using only the HK protests name to describe the event, without referring it as Umb Rev. Lasersharp (talk) 05:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now -- The name "Umbrella Revolution" is certainly widely used but is not clearly the most commonly used term for the event. Until a clear and persistent majority expands beyond lines like『some have dubbed the movement the “umbrella revolution”』there's no reason to make a change. We have the fortune of being an encyclopedia here, not a news source, and thus our focus is on long term notability. We can wait and see if this is a term that will stick, like Orange Revolution, or fades away.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Not the common name yet. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources? RGloucester — ☎ 13:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now, as per above. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Not yet I certainly agree with RGloucester that the name is gaining currency with both the English speaking and Chinese medias, but that in itself is not surprising, the media likes names optimized for soundbytes and Umbrella Revolution fits the bill. I also agree that the naming is reminiscent of the color revolutions, and that there are obvious parallels, but this early in the protests it remains to be seen whether any lasting changes to HK society or electoral process will be effected. Remember that the western media is pro-democracy (a bias I share) and is also quite anti-Chinese in general, so making this out to be a David-and-Goliath-style toppling of an authoritarian mainland decree is pushing a sort of POV. The name "Umbrella Revolution" and the comparison to the Color Revolutions furthers that agenda. While the current title is admittedly boring, it has the benefit of being free for the moment of any particular systemic bias. If and when this particular series of protests results in unconstrained universal suffrage in Hong Kong and thus guarantees itself a place in the history books as something different from the many, many pro-democracy protests Hong Kong has had before, we can make the change. Until then a redirect seems sufficient.Eniagrom (talk) 08:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Failed movements are just as notable as successful ones. This is a false proposition. Regardless, that's WP:CRYSTAL and not at all appropriate. RGloucester — ☎ 12:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're misunderstanding WP:CRYSTAL. Saying let's wait and see what happens before we rename an article because a term currently in vogue may not satisfy WP:LASTING isn't a violation of that. And beyond even that, the reality is that the term Umbrella Revolution has a very definite POV, which when dealing with politically sensitive topics such as this one should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. I do not oppose a move in principle, I just oppose one now. There are no deadlines at WP, and I do not feel like you've made a good case for the urgency of this move. Why is moving it now rather than in two weeks when the dust settles so important?Eniagrom (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because falsely constructed titles like the present one here feel disgusting in my mouth, and also because they do not adequately reference this particular event. Proper names are preferred to false constructs, and this is the proper name. RGloucester — ☎ 15:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and while I empathize, I still feel WP:POVNAME and WP:NDESC apply for now. Eniagrom (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would only be "I don't like it" if it wasn't backed by policy. For example, WP:UCN and, yes, WP:POVNAME. I provided many sources to that effect. In fact, POVNAME supports my argument, it does not hinder it. Whilst I don't agree that "Umbrella Revolution" has any POV, even if it did, POVNAME says that we should use the most common name even if it contains some elements of POV. Your comments on the success or failure of the movement are irrelevant. As an example, the Orange Revolution ultimately failed at the 2006 parliamentary elections, but that doesn't mean that we now rename it as "2004–2005 Ukraine protests". We use the common name, as described by reliable sources. Proper names are preferred to constructed WP:NDESC names. RGloucester — ☎ 16:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

I re-included the goals of the movement, but not the methods, we're not sure if it will sustain as non-violent. I hope it will turn violent soon, as that would guarantee a crushing response from the Communist Party and severely cripple Beijing's international standing, who knows, a new arms embargo? Dark Liberty (talk) 04:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What the fuck, man. _dk (talk) 07:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some Wikipedians want to watch the world burn. --benlisquare_T•C•E 08:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it would be wonderful, american stock exchange would suffer immediate cardiac arrest — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.43.238.10 (talk) 10:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To "severely cripple Beijing's international standing, who knows, a new arms embargo" - sound like a policy aim of the US neo-cons. Do not agree? Check out the events that led up to many of the 'Color Revolts'. Why is it that they all have a certain sameness as to events and timelines? 84.13.14.146 (talk) 10:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you are the only one shifting hard the POV in favor of another term as of October, with the rest of us with rather lukewarm support, I would like to inquire why you are in favor the phrase, and is trying so hard using logical fallacies in order to justify support for this phrase. Remember, I am not in favor of any neologism for any article. And do not give me "I'm helping Wikipedia". I want to know why you desperately do support the phrase at this stage, in favor of all opposition.

"The idea of "2014 Taiwan protests" or "2014 Hong Kong protests" is absurd at face-value, not even bringing WP:UCN into play. There have been plenty of different protests throughout the year in both Taiwan and Hong Kong. Which specific protests are we talking about, huh? That title doesn't provide the reader with any information at all. What's more, it fails WP:UCN. We use the proper names. We only invent WP:NDESC titles when there is no proper name. There is a proper name, so we don't invent anything out of thin air. Reliable sources uses these names, so too do we. Calling that article 2014 Taiwan protests would be like referring to 2014 Ferguson unrest as 2014 American unrest." -RGloucestor

here is your argument repeated, and here are the problems: 2014 Taiwan protests and Hong Kong protests are both valid, not absurd, as you would think unfortunately, and most readers would agree. Are intelligence agencies aware of every single protest that occurred during the year? I doubt it. And Calling 2014 Ferguson riots as "American unrest" would be equally as absurd.

Cheers, Dark Liberty (talk) 06:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because constructed titles are not preferable, natural ones are. The present title is an un-natural aberration, just as "2014 Taiwan protests" would be. When a natural, common, and precise title exists, there is no excuse for using such a construct. RGloucester — ☎ 12:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean that 'Umbrella Revolution' is an un-natural construct - agree. For what costly and high-profile PR firm came up with this MSM-friendly spin? 84.13.14.146 (talk) 11:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I recall a WP policy somewhere that the external links should not just contain links to news stories? Should we delete these redundancies in this section? Lasersharp (talk) 07:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, particularly if they are redundant with the references.--Nowa (talk) 12:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor added a link from Globalresearch.ca under EL section, which I'm not familiar with. Is this source a reliable source? Lasersharp (talk) 05:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the site is maintained by Michel Chossudovsky. I will keep the link in EL section for now, unless someone can sort this in the reaction section.

Per wp:bold I’ve changed the lead image from "Tear gas"to"Cell phone vigil". My reasons are:

• "Cell phone vigil" is more emblematic of the notable nonviolent, social media driven nature of these protests.
• "Tear gas" is a publication of Voice of America and is therefore per se propaganda.--Nowa (talk) 12:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would violate POV on the basis of the points you mentioned. Dark Liberty (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tear gas image is hardly propaganda. Restricting the image in China is a form of propaganda/censorship. either image is fine and both should be in the article somewhere. Legacypac (talk) 18:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tear gas image is much more symbolic.Lmmnhn (talk) 14:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There hasn't been a huge amount of tear gas. I think the present pic better presents the non-violent nature of the protests, which has been a defining characteristic. zzz (talk) 14:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any polls about the public support/disapproval of either the protest or China's decision on the 2017 elections? I see the value of taking some representative views, but without the polls, it is very hard to put in context. I have searched myself and could not find any.LedRush (talk) 14:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a reference Wall St. Journal--Nowa (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Someone could just as easily insert a poll from Beijing to counter the statement. We should wait for a new Gallup poll. Dark Liberty (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that the University of Hong Kong fabricated a poll to say that only 27% of Hong Kongers support the protestors?LedRush (talk) 01:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No matter how you judged my first post, but the article still needs a section depicting the general opinion of mainland Chinese. --2.245.121.108 (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't think their opinions are relevant here per One-Country, Two-Systems. Dark Liberty (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May be difficult to get in a military-dictatorship state; NPR interviewed a few people yesterday, and while their opinions varied and were interesting, it is not possible to do a proper sampling for such a poll. We could always reference the NPR report, but it would have to be clear the onesie/twosie nature of the report.HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We can include information on how those from Hong Kong not involved in the protests feel about the events and how it may have adverse effects on the economy, but those from China, their statements carry very little undue weight here, because China's government promised to grant Hong Kong autonomy. and excessive quotations from state tabloids aside from the White House visit should be removed some time in the future. Dark Liberty (talk) 17:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only until 2047. --2.245.121.108 (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Chinese CCTV interviewed Hong Kong people who didn't protest (it should be clear that most people didn't protest). Owners of restaurants don't care about democracy, they cared about their own interest which is money. Because there were less tourists and little structure in the city, restaurants only had half of the customers compared to a normal day. So they were mostly against the protests. You may say that CCTV is Chinese propaganda and doesn't count as a source, but our Western media isn't quite neutral either. --2.246.4.138 (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is welcome that editors in Hong Kong take an active role in this article. I encourage all parties to ponder what Wikipedia is about before editing. Intrinsically, we shouldn't even allow people in China to edit (or talk) the articles.

Mr. Leung, or whatever his name is, is quoted to have considered holding talks with the protestors. Secretary of State John Kerry stated that China should resolve the crisis through dialogue, rather than militarization. Joshua Wong, then in turn, refused to hold talks with the Hong Kong government.

If we want the movement be credible, or at least, portray the movement as it is as editors should, we should avoid the refusal of dialogue, which I believe to be a mistake. There are a lot content here of that in the eyes of Americans, which Wikipedia caters to, that is viewed as either dubious or rather, not credible.

That being said, Self-advocacy generally is not allowed on Wikipedia, and portraying the protestors as too positive such as a "high degree of organisation, politeness, tidiness" severely undermines the movement's ability to succeed, as readers generally make their own conclusions on Wikipedia articles.

A democratic movement should embody the principles of democracy, and because Wikipedia is a democratic means of conveying information, we should keep POV edits to a minimum, and honesty, rather than dishonesty.

Dark Liberty (talk) 01:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The civility section is not POV. Google any search terms like "Hong Kong, clean, protests". The fact that the protesters have been tidy has received an extraordinary degree of media attention which is certainly worth mentioning. I also find it disingenuous that you seem to be presenting yourself as some outside observer with little interest in the matter, or as a sympathiser with the protests. You have been making a lot of critical reverts and abrasive edit summaries which subtly push a different worldview. Two users have already reverted your hitherto unexplained blanking - please stop unilaterally blanking sections of the page which are well-sourced and NPOV. Citobun (talk) 02:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it is not POV, but appears in multiple sources. Yesterday I noticed that the same editor had blanked large sections including material I had added about Chinese censorship - ironically - sourced to the South China Morning Post, with the edit summary explanation "Global Times is not a credible source". I restored some of the material today, assuming an honest mistake. Now, an IP and the same editor have repeatedly blanked sections, within minutes of each other, again. zzz (talk) 03:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the IP and this user have both used the same distinctive phrase in their edit summaries, "improper synthesis". Somebody might need to review WP:SOCKPUPPET. Citobun (talk) 03:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the rest of the "Chinese government and media" section from yesterday, as no reason was given for its removal.zzz (talk) 03:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship is what China does. Wikipedia is not a marketing campaign, and as you will discover. Having a logistics section amounts to self-advocacy, and trying to target me will find you in a very bad position within the Wikipedia community, despite our mutual agreements on most issues. Dark Liberty (talk) 12:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you have no rationale for blanking the logistics section. It is both NPOV and well-sourced. You've now violated the three-revert rule, by the way. 208.103.235.34 (talk) 12:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't insist to put "Umbrella Revolution" in the Infobox because the Infobox title should be the same as the article title. You may put it elsewhere in the main text if you like.

Also please don't remove this relevant external link from a RS. STSC (talk) 08:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• US Openly Approves Hong Kong Chaos it Created

We are in no business of putting op-eds in the external links section. _dk (talk) 08:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a relevant article by the Centre for Research on Gabalization. When time allows I'll put its content into this article's main text. STSC (talk) 08:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You were removing locations of protests in the info box & claiming they were shut down (with no references). zzz (talk) 09:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're just sitting in an armchair somewhere in Europe, if you don't have any access to live local news and don't know what's happening on the ground then don't argue. STSC (talk) 09:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you live in Europe? Citobun (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The so-called "Centre for Research on Globalization" is not an RS, and is known for being a fringe conspiracy site. It is the personal mouthpiece of Michel Chossudovsky. RGloucester — ☎ 04:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently its "rife with anti-Jewish conspiracy theory and Holocaust denial." Nice. User STSC was also repeatedly inserting it on Occupy Central with Love and Peace. zzz (talk) 04:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't edited wikipedia in ages, but the article has areas where there are NPOV failures (edit: attempted to fix Day 3's content). Even when citing from SCMP, it frequently only includes quotes from one side of the story. There's also the fact that sources which may present another POV are not (imo) included in chronology. Ex. BBC/SCMP are both (imo) pro-occupy (SCMP depending on if the article is an opinion piece). But that aside, given the contentious nature of this event, it's important that everyone try to remain neutral whenever possible.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 11:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

.

I second this request. I would like to ask as editors to stop labeling the movement as autonomous. Being autonomous would imply that the movement has already reached a critical mass as in tiananmen square. There are at least two logical fallacies that would imply as a result, that would mean that the movement no longer adheres to its core tenet of nonviolent means, and second, it means it has spiraled out of control. And yet, recent edits conflict with this statement, and state that Joshua Wang is leading the movement. Slow down the editing if you are from Hong Kong. I know this sounds counterintutitive, but it will be cooler heads that will determine the outcome of the movement, and it has nothing to do with Wikipedia.

Comment: "Another anti-occupy spokeperson Chan Ching-sum stated that occupying the roads is nothing about democracy; it's to destroy Hong Kong people's daily li[ves]." I would hardly believe that the movement is to destroy Hong Kong people's daily lives, but rather to force a hand through economic means so that the government of Hong Kong would have to cooperate. Dark Liberty (talk) 12:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Yes I doubt it is true as well, I think he may have meant to "criticize the tactic of occupying roads as not promoting democracy, but getting in the way of people's lives." ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 12:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This section is for removed content, for reference:

(Logistics section)

"Numerous stations were set up by the protesters as a base for food and water distribution, waste collection and medical care. Hong Kong Red Cross also provided medical service from their premises in the heart of the Admiralty protest."

Hong Kong Demonstrators are Disciplined, Slate Magazine

US Openly Approves of Hong Kong Chaos it Created, Global Research

Dark Liberty (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The reason I removed it is because I feel it would be better elsewhere in the article instead of a 2 liner section. There are also other organizations than just the HKRC providing logistics, not sure why specifically they were singled out. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 13:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It became a two liner section because someone removed the rest of the section by calling it "marketing", despite it being referenced with reliable sources. Merely reflecting what the media has said isn't advocacy, people. _dk (talk) 13:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do not talk here. Dark Liberty (talk) 13:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On what authority do you give these commands? _dk (talk) 13:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, are you freedom-lovers not concerned as to why 'Dark Liberty' is allowed to give out his orders?

78.147.81.82 (talk) 13:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Before we get into an edit war, my 2 cents on the organization section: Yes it deserves a mention, but the current wording/length makes me feel like we are giving undue weight to it.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 13:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Addon comment: The article also includes narratives from the anti-occupy protests, not just occupy. I'm more in favor of shortening the section and then merging it somewhere into a previous section, either on background (something like 'occupy organizers planned to clean up in the morning') or chronology. Also, there was some news articles I read in SCMP today about barricades that had to be disassembled to let emergency ambulance through, so I'm not sure if 'cleanest' still applies. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 13:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot only give light to the violence without showing what the protests themselves are like, especially when they are covered by reliable sources. I'm open to rewording, but not outright removal. The removal of barriers for emergency vehicles was negotiated and ultimately agreed to by the protesters. _dk (talk) 13:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's undue weight. The subject of cleanliness has been the specific subject of countless international news articles. Citobun (talk) 13:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: When you make a movie, the best thing to do to sell your movie is to tell people how you made your movie. This is a classic in the Hollywood book. Logistics, or anything related to logistics, in my opinion, does not pertain to encyclopedic standards. Leave the article be, we should all add information on Day 2 3 4 5 6 etc. so that no one has a conflict of interest, and if we have a future discussion, it should be on say, a discussion on October 12. Dark Liberty (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's one thing if people are referencing themselves, but that section is sourced from Slate and BBC. Unless you are alleging that the Occupy protests is manufactured by Western media, your removal by saying this is "marketing" amounts to censorship, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. _dk (talk) 13:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't censor, China censors. Look what censorship did to the country. You virtuous individuals need to realize that just because editors removed something doesn't mean they are opposing you, On the contrary, they are following what editors should do during an important event. Dark Liberty (talk) 13:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My point remains that there should be some coverage about the behaviour of the protesters themselves as frequently noted by the media. _dk (talk) 13:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• My 2 cents: I think this section should be kept since it is well-sourced, but the language should be as neutral as possible. Right now I think the section could use some balance, such as criticism to the organization of the protests, and internal disagreements between the different factions. Lasersharp (talk) 03:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dark Liberty has removed the organisation/logistics/civility section numerous times in the face of reverts from several users over the past 24 hours:

1. [27]
2. [28] (from an IP)
3. [29]
4. [30]
5. [31]
6. [32]
7. [33]
8. [34]

He or she is also behaving in a disingenuous and disruptive way by making numerous "extreme" political comments in an attempt to appear to sympathise with the protesters and ostensibly to give them a bad name...?

• I hope the protests turn violent so Beijing's international standing is crushed
• Mainland Chinese opinions don't matter
• we shouldn't allow people in China to participate in the discussion
• [35]

Yet, the sum of his/her edits amounts to pushing the opposite worldview.

• ironically, censoring a section on Chinese censorship

And generally behaving incivilly:

• accusing user of ""sponsorship"
• "do not talk here"

And it goes on. Stop it with the dishonesty and the disruption, please. Citobun (talk) 13:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

these two users from presumably Hong Kong are especially militant towards American supervision of the edits, and should probably be restricted from editing for a period of time, which echoes their convictions in an almost religious fervor. Democracy comes through consent. If you can't even establish basic consent among editors, how can the movement succeed? I am opposed to contentious conduct. If you don't want me to be present on the article, Goodbye. Dark Liberty (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and you talked in an Archives section where you're not supposed to discuss there. Dark Liberty (talk) 14:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the page history. I haven't even touched the page in almost 12 hours. And now look at the frequency of your own unilateral blanking of NPOV, well-sourced text in the face of disagreement from numerous other editors. Talk about pot calling the kettle black. Citobun (talk) 14:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The removal of a well-known reddit.com marketing campaign section is not NPOV, it is fact, and I have done as any editor should have done. Goodbye. Dark Liberty (talk) 14:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the blind of this supposedly well-known reddit campaign. Care to show a link?_dk (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revolution News! is being used as a source. Is there any evidence that it meets wp:rs?--Nowa (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have noticed a sprinkling of information throughout alleging US is funding the protests. The sources cited—Revolution News as you mentioned, and Zero Hedge as another example—aren't looking great, though. Doesn't look like these posts are fact-checked or run by editors, and they're basically just cross-linking / quoting each other. Writer "George Washington" in that cited Zero Hedge post concludes, "It's not beyond the realm of possibility that the U.S. egged on democracy protesters in Hong Kong," and while yes, it's not impossible, these posts seem to amount to little other than conspiracy theory at this point. Haven't found other more reliable sources speaking to the allegations on US funding, so if anyone does, please share. Karolle (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There's a source from a canadian research website about something like this iirc, also RT of course says this. Though RT isn't always reliable. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 18:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The White House has already released a press statement implying their support for Occupy, so that anti-Occupy forces would not be able to cite the funding against the United States. Dark Liberty (talk) 19:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closer to home, Wikipedia have some useful information on the number of Color Revolts that have taken place recently. Also, information is out there concerning neo-con plans for undermining counties that have since been involved in Color Revolts. While not hard evidence - does it not point to US training and funding of the protests in question?

92.16.158.81 (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-14pU0naooII/VCpiN5XHYGI/AAAAAAAAJ9U/hGTMqhqNLSQ/s1600/nancy-carl-demaward2.png

Movement's Over. Go home. Dark Liberty (talk) 10:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

US media coverage of the Hong Kong protests. Honest? Reliable?

80.41.63.109 (talk) 14:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TeleSUR, a South-American TV network, has apparently claimed that Wikileaks has "claimed" that the US has funded/organised/whatever the protests. No evidence provided. Wikileaks clearly hasn't claimed anything. If TeleSUR wants to promote themselves in this way, they can (no one will bother to sue them), but Wikipedia shouldn't be used as their promotional tool. If anyone can be bothered they should remove the 6 or 7 uses of this "reference". zzz (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikileaks is the propaganda department of Russia and China, and cannot be used as a source other than on their own article. Dark Liberty (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikileaks doesn't actually "claim" things in any case. It publishes documents from other sources. It hasn't published anything about these protests. End of story. zzz (talk) 19:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two individuals here have been very diligent here in undoing the work of several American and European editors:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_Hong_Kong_protests&diff=628249246&oldid=628248240

For example here, they removed all the stated and put back the weasel with terms as "threatened, claimed, complained" words they are so accustomed to.

They went ahead and changed the language and context of every paragraph on the article in favor Against journalistic tone. I don't really mind the changes as it is a healthy process of editing, as I can undo these good faith edits in a single second with the help of a few Wikitools. but theses (students?) edit once every minute 24/7. I would like to inquire why.

Dark Liberty (talk) 20:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: The People's Daily stated in a front page commentary on 4 October that the protests "could lead to deaths and injuries and other grave consequences."

Using the word "stated" makes it sound like a threat. I would suggest using "warned" which sounds more nature as it warned people about the grave consequences. STSC (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Stated" is a completely matter-of-fact word, devoid of interpretative overtones of any kind. "Warned" suggests a particular intention, and implies that a certain party or parties is/are being specifically addressed. This must be the first time in Wikipedia's history that the word "stated" has been described as misleading, I would imagine.zzz (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason for substituting an alternative would be stylistic, normally to avoid repetition. Given the lack of repetition, not to mention the sensitivity of the subject matter, this reasoning does not apply. zzz (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "stated" being used in such context is misleading. The "warned" just gives a warning as an intransitive verb; it does not need to address to any party at all. I know making it sound like a threatening statement is probably your intention. STSC (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not Wikipedia's job to give "warnings", especially when using other people's words. My intention is (plainly) to "state" what was stated. zzz (talk) 21:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of "state" (verb):

• To declare to be a fact.
• To make known.

zzz (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's the People's Daily that gives the warning; not Wikipedia. Wikipedia only reports the warning. STSC (talk) 22:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's WP:OR to call it a "warning", or "threat", or whatever. What is not in doubt is that it is a "statement". Here's a "warning": please stop inserting words like "uncontrollable" into the infobox. zzz (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to the source: "the Communist Party warned that there would be chaos." STSC (talk) 07:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

State is a better phrasing/term than warned imho based on my knowledge of English. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 08:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Followed by "The new commentary said [=stated that] the mayhem 'could lead to deaths and injuries and other grave consequences'" - the actual sentence in question (not the preceding one which you quoted.) "Warned that it could" would only be appropriate for an outside, foreign observer with no ability whatsoever to affect the outcome. Conversely, "stated that it would" leaves too little room for doubt. That is now pretty definitive... (as I think you'll agree). zzz (talk) 09:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a suggestion for everyone. We use my version or Noian's, with the infopanel updated, minus the External links, and all parties change Nothing except for Day 2, 3, 4, etc, and every section will be locked from editing except the Days. I'll submit this request personally if all parties agree.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_Hong_Kong_protests&oldid=628206253 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_Hong_Kong_protests&oldid=628205646

I've been supporting the movement and supervising neutrality, in which everyone generally agreed to for the few days, until you two editors came in and started changing the Article en-mass with phrases including "spontaneous movement of the masses", "People of Hong Kong", and "suspected Triads" implying that it was a unanimous movement of Good vs. evil.

Alas, Immoral actions can never be justified, no matter how noble your cause.

Dark Liberty (talk) 21:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reported already for deleting sections you don't like. I suggest you quit insulting the integrity of editors. zzz (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another solution, Dark Liberty: stop edit warring, trolling, blanking sections, pushing your POV, being disingenuous about your real intentions and and generally being disruptive. I'm surprised you haven't been blocked for violating the WP:3RR, having blanked one paragraph eight times in 24 hours. Citobun (talk) 21:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He is now. _dk (talk) 07:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spontaneous movement of masses and people of hong kong are phrases that should be changed since they aren't clear like Dark Liberty says. I'm so-so on the suspected triads in the infobox, since I'm not sure whether or not it would be better to have an other label above it to separate it from the above two groups since there's no definitive/objective link they are related. Otherwise, I'm in favor of keeping the organization section, but rewording it to be more neutral and going into details that were suggested a few sections up by another editor (Lasersharp).

(Quote: My 2 cents: I think this section should be kept since it is well-sourced, but the language should be as neutral as possible. Right now I think the section could use some balance, such as criticism to the organization of the protests, and internal disagreements between the different factions.)ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 08:25, 5 October 2014 (UT

Addon: At a minimum, I think the section should include mention of differences in opinion among different occupy groups as to protest tactics, and some mention of barricades. The section as currently written (imo) implies implicitly that the protests have little or no side impact on Hong Kong (via language emphasizing the cleanliness of the protests and barely visible trace left over in the morning). ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 08:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I have gone ahead and modified the organization section to be more concise and neutral, as well as to contain something I read on SCMP recently (can't remember which page though, wasn't an opinion piece). Furthermore moved suspected triads to others based on this opinion piece (http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1610220/hong-kong-protesters-lose-support-name-democracy) and others like it which establishes that there links between triads and anti-occupy movements aren't necessiarily objectively proven to be true. I also removed a sentence on fire chat which I feel is advertising. I believe these edits help create a more NPOV base for these sections. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 22:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that we don't want to be commercial, but all of the references I've seen regarding FireChat emphasize that this is a significant part of the protesters' communications with 100's of thousands of downloads. The current words in the article of "started to use" really doesn't reflect what the references are saying.--Nowa (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEBOLD - Please insert a useful summary of the sources. zzz (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did but there was concern about the apparent commercialism The key issue was putting in the number of downloads as an indicator of the impact. Hence wp:brd.--Nowa (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That first diff looks good, not "commercial" at all. If the deletionists don't wish to justify their objections, I suggest you put it back (and possibly edit it for brevity). zzz (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: it doesn't need editing. It should not have been deleted. zzz (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be incorporated into the information that is already there (obviously). zzz (talk) 21:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I'll go ahead and update the section.--Nowa (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose this arbitrary and unilateral decision by RGloucester to use HK English. Not all of the article is written in HK English. None of my contributions are. Before putting up templates, this should have been discussed first, unless someone wants to volunteer to copyedit the article into HK English. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Er, I beg your pardon. The article was already templated as being in "Commonwealth English" (EngvarB). I merely switched to the proper Hong Kong template, as that is more specific (and it is the same in terms of spelling). Anyway, WP:TIES applies. RGloucester — ☎ 02:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the tag, it seems unnecessary zzz (talk) 05:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, an English sympathizer pushing a POV Shift towards one of that in favor in Hong Kong, makes perfect sense. Gaming the system won't help that those who perceive the protests will markedly be not in that of bad English. Dark Liberty (talk) 03:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Public opinion towards police action" and "Hong Kong government" are both completely unsourced. I think they should be removed. They don't say anything interesting, anyway. zzz (talk) 03:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the 2 sections down instead. zzz (talk) 04:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the controversial (and trivial) cleanup, organisation section down. zzz (talk) 04:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So-so on reordering, not sure if logical neighbor order would be better (domestic reaction with chinese reaction then foreign media) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the domestic reaction & HK govt. down to avoid the urge to delete it - it is a long paragraph without a single reference, essentially a mini-blog. zzz (talk) 06:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved them up with a tag, so the Table of Contents (which seems a bit long) makes sense. zzz (talk) 06:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The domestic reaction section should highlight key reactions, not just anything generic. At the moment it doesn't divide by known groups either. It should be as high quality as international section. Let me look into it. If it isn't fixable we might have to delete it. Benjwong (talk) 05:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This edit of mine removed sections that had no sources. Feel free to find sources for them and put them back. Benjwong (talk) 04:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"At the moment of writing (5 October) no one – whether actor or spectator – seems to know how the Hong Kong Occupy Central demonstrations will end." (Forbes) This section may need balancing and/or incorporating elsewhere in the article. The title is inappropriate. zzz (talk) 06:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreedηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know that trying to remove a well-established editor from your well-orchestrated vandalism is a crime. 'You' will be stated here to address two or three editors in particular below that have 1k+ edits per account towards this article alone.

Signedzzz (talk · contribs) / zzz, who has a sockpuppet 223.16.147.12, and Underbar_dk (talk · contribs), who are presumably students involved in the protests, are systematically trying to introduce false content such as "the movement has become fully autonomous", "People of Hong Kong" as the protestors implying that every person in Hong Kong was in support of the protests, and "Triads" attacking protestors, when Triads have not existed in Hong Kong since the 90s. They have violated the revert requirement, and have used it well over thirty times in the period of 24 hours on October 4, to no effect.

Citobun (talk · contribs), who has a sockpuppet 208.103.235.34, on the other hand who takes a role of that of a mentor, and is an experienced editor on Wikipedia, has ulterior motives towards his conduct on Wikipedia, and has instructed editors on how to change the content these articles without alerting the audience towards the false content, how to file arbitration cases, and so forth.

The organization section was originally written to a high degree of sympathy towards the protestors, while maintaining neutrality. However, when you included "a high degree of organization, politeness, tidiness, and staunch adherence to nonviolence" in which no American will believe, as everyone knows from the pictures and documentaries that the protestors are sweaty, dirty, constantly littering and have not taken a shower in weeks, I included information relevant instead towards the article, such as the efforts of the Red Cross donors to help those in need, the efforts of those involved to maintain the neutrality of the protests by removing vandalism. but those edits were removed, as your double standards allow you to remove whatever these 2 - 3 editors involved and do not allow anyone else to challenge their POV.

Anyone who opposes you is considered an enemy, and you do not allow any room for anyone other than those with religious fervor and label others as vandals when it is you who is vandalizing. Unfortunately, other editors are not stupid, and those involved in Gnoming work have restored the article to its former status, even without my presence. Yet, you persist in their folly in rewriting the article towards the battle between Good vs. evil.

You are misleading Americans and anyone involved in the protests, and you are aware of what you are doing. this is very serious, and can hold consequences towards the movement in general, one in which I am not involved in.

Here are a list of Wikipedia violations you have made:

• Wholesale blanking of sections or anything, even genuinely sourced information, as opposed to blatant errors or honest mistakes
• Removal of properly sourced information and stating in the comments section that it was unsourced.
• Injection of bullshit into the article. Some examples would include: "The protesters... media coverage about their high degree of organisation, politeness, tidiness, and staunch adherence to nonviolence." and that "Triads" attacked the protestors, you may as well cite the KKK, which actually exists here in the South.
• Describing the movement as "spontaneous movement of the masses" on bold headings.
• Labeling the movement as autonomous. Being autonomous would imply that the movement has already reached a critical mass. There are at least two logical fallacies that would imply as a result, that would mean that the movement has become violent, and second, it means it has spiraled out of control.
• Writing that the entire City of Hong Kong as "People of Hong Kong" supported the protests, which is not the case. Most corporations are opposed to the protests.
• Use of multiple sockpuppet accounts and meatpuppet allies to achieve their means.
• Using warped Admins to further your cause.
• Stating that I am vandalizing. Good one. "In a room black Cats, one of the Cats declared that it was whiter than the others." Conversely, here is an example of my version of the article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_Hong_Kong_protests&diff=628209049&oldid=628143309

Dark Liberty (talk) 02:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't believe in as such a large conspiracy, I definitely believe there is sock puppetry going on, but not necessarily by one person. There are many protesters, as you said, they could just be a group of students. I want to assume good faith, but UmbreRevolution has been really pushing it. There's just so many signs that a duck is a duck. That aside, I have nothing against dk or zzz, unless it is shown they are using sockpuppets. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this section title is inappropriate. Some of the language in this post seems really...weird and awkward, not what I would have considered to be written by someone in the US.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 08:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Liberty - what do you mean by "Triads have not existed in Hong Kong since the 90s"? Of course they do. Are you not familiar with Hong Kong? Among thousands of obvious references, try this from SCMP: Triads infiltrated camps of Occupy supporters and detractors, say police. Onanoff (talk) 10:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! I see that Dark Liberty has been blocked. Good - all his other contributions were partisan and ad hominem attacks. Sadly, no doubt he'll be back wearing a different hat. Onanoff (talk) 11:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is the article about a riot? If not, what are the bunch of WL to HK riots doing there? Seems to violate WP:NPOV to me. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 03:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. zzz (talk) 03:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you guys think that Wukan protests might be a relevant see also link? This happens to be a case where a protest in China (in response to the local CCP cadre's corruption) led to the CCP allowing a democratic election for the town at the local level. --benlisquare_T•C•E 01:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The rallies in other country seems to be somewhat redundant with Foreign Reactions, and could potentially be moved there. Chinese dissent as a subcategory title seems really weird to me and unclear, imo would go better under Chinese reaction section. Neither of these really seem like 'other'. Opinions? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 08:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete the summary of the Chinese govt & media section because it is "redundant". A short summary of the main points in the article is what the WP:LEAD is for. Thank you. zzz (talk) 13:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That might be true, but we generally should not have quotes in the lead as those are the things that should be summarized and not repeated. _dk (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is definitely true, and the section is comprised largely of quotes, one of which is presented in the lead in a shorter version. It is a short summary of an important section of the article, and there is no reason to delete it. "we generally should not have quotes in the lead" is not a policy, so is not a reason to delete the summary, which is a perfectly good summary. zzz (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

State-run media in mainland China is known to be biased, and also they have been writing articles every day with stronger and softer tones. I have strong doubt of emphasizing this particular strong tone of accusing foreign intervention on the lead section.--Lmmnhn (talk) 16:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is known to be biased. And in case it isn't, it is described as "state-run". The section is not attempting to present it as un-biased. I am not aware of any Chinese "softer tones". The Chinese accusation of foreign intervention is a running theme, and is well-referenced to non-Chinese sources. zzz (talk) 16:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From what I have read on the People's Daily so far, the CCP is not very much running the "US intervention" theme this time. For example on 1 October, it only accuses the protests as『disrupting social order and harming Hong Kong’s economic livelihood』which has been the general tone so far. The strongest accusation was on yesterday/the day before yesterday which it accuses the protestors' intention of launching a colour revolution in the mainland. I hardly see any "US intervention" accusation from the largest state-run media and the Beijing officials. Therefore I still think it is very inappropriate to emphasize it on the lead section. --Lmmnhn (talk) 16:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See [36], BBC China's report on Chinese media. First paragraph of report: "Mainland media are urging people in Hong Kong to 'boycott' Occupy Central, while accusing the West of playing an 'instigating' role." It is therefore necessary to cover this.zzz (talk) 16:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Though it is not the official tone of the CCP government so far if you read the other articles on the People's Daily and news report on CCTV as I stated. It is not that important to be included on the lead section.Lmmnhn (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your reading of other People's Daily articles is WP:OR. Anyone else's reading may differ: that is why it is important to only report what RS's say. zzz (talk) 18:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't even make any logical sense zzz, your reading of BBC would then be considered WP:OR. BBC isn't necessarily a RS either, they have a POV too. If other sources contradict BBC and those sources are more official, then other sources should be used rather than BBC 216.113.168.148 (talk) 19:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another RS in overwhelming agreement with the BBC's (and my) analysis: [37] zzz (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The section of leading figures in the infobox is deleted by User:Signedzzz with the claim of being too long. However if you compared to the 2013–14 protests in Turkey it is not long at all. The figures from both sides have been all over the news and media these days and they are taking big parts in the movement so I suggest to keep them in the article. Lmmnhn (talk) 14:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]