I have restored [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_Hong_Kong_protests&diff=630928997&oldid=630924090 the section] about the $14,000 and the local media responses. Please discuss before deleting. [[User:Benjwong|Benjwong]] ([[User talk:Benjwong|talk]]) 13:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I have restored [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_Hong_Kong_protests&diff=630928997&oldid=630924090 the section] about the $14,000 and the local media responses. Please discuss before deleting. [[User:Benjwong|Benjwong]] ([[User talk:Benjwong|talk]]) 13:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
*It wasn't deleted, but moved to the chronology section. Now it's duplicated. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">[[User:Ohconfucius|'''<span style="color:#000000; background-color:#EEE8AA"> Ohc </span>''']]</span></small>[[User talk:Ohconfucius|<sup>''¡digame!''</sup>]] 13:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
*It wasn't deleted, but moved to the chronology section. Now it's duplicated. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">[[User:Ohconfucius|'''<span style="color:#000000; background-color:#EEE8AA"> Ohc </span>''']]</span></small>[[User talk:Ohconfucius|<sup>''¡digame!''</sup>]] 13:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
::Wow you call that duplicated? The edit was reduced to nothing. [[User:Benjwong|Benjwong]] ([[User talk:Benjwong|talk]]) 21:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
== Online activities ==
== Online activities ==
Revisionasof21:11,25October2014
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 article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
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
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
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
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
"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".
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]
Connection to Ferguson Protests “Hands up don't shoot”
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 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 Diablo10:19, 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]
Umbrella Revolution
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]
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?
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.
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]
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!
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 ‡rontiers05:17, 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 ‡rontiers05:24, 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 ‡rontiers05:29, 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 ‡rontiers05:40, 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]
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 ‡rontiers08:07, 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 ‡rontiers08:15, 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
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]
Archived Content
this information should be inserted into the body:
As in Syria, to turn protests violent.
(This would guarantee a crushing response from the ruling Party and undermine the country's international standing)
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
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. Number5717:51, 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, 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]
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]
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]
NeutralOppose - 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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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.
Nonviolent Movement?
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]
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]
RGloucestor
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.
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]
External Links
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]
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.
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]
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]
Public Reaction section
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]
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]
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]
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]
Goal of Universal Suffrage
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.
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]
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]
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.
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]
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]
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 ‡rontiers11:42, 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 ‡rontiers12:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Archived Content
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."
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 ‡rontiers13:11, 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]
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 ‡rontiers13:19, 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 ‡rontiers13:23, 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]
Edit warring
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:
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...?
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]
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]
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]
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?
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]
POV pushing every 2 seconds
Two individuals here have been very diligent here in undoing the work of several American and European editors:
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.
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]
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]
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]
Proposed Solution
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.
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.
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]
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 ‡rontiers08:58, 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 ‡rontiers22:50, 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]
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]
Arbitrary/Undiscussed decision to switch to HK English
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 ‡rontiers02:11, 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]
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]
Remove sections
"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 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]
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]
"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]
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:
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 ‡rontiers07:56, 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 ‡rontiers08:21, 7 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]
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. --benlisquareT•C•E01:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Other Activities" section
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 ‡rontiers08:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
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]
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]
Compare it to the vast majority of infoboxes in Wikipedia and it is way too long. It is controversial to specify who the lead figures are, so it is best to let readers decide, by reading the article. Providing a list of names you have selected provides no information other than one POV. zzz (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't provide any additional information. It's just a list of the leaders of the groups already mentioned above. zzz (talk) 14:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The list of leaders may ultimately be a matter of opinion. But China should definitely not be removed from the box. The Russia/Ukraine comparison does not apply here. The protest here is with the Chinese policy; the Ukraine protest was with their own government, not a foreign govt, which would have made no sense. zzz (talk) 14:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's an infobox, its purpose is to extract relevant information from the prose. It's uncontroversial, for example, to state that the leader of the Hong Kong government is CY Leung and it's important to put it in the infobox since the people on the streets calling for his resignation. Finally, to prevent another edit war, we should discuss and determine what is the consensus here and not just declare something should be excised for fear of controversy. _dk (talk) 14:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; as I said, it is mainly just a point of presentation. However, one (no, make that two) of the leaders mentioned does not even have his own WP article, and is not mentioned anywhere else in this article. It can't be right to present him at the top of the page as an important figure, imo. zzz (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed " Lester Shum (Deputy Secretary-General of Hong Kong Federation of Students)", since there's no need to have 2 from the same org, (and it was this item that was enlarging the box most of all). And I removed the leaders of anti occupy groups because they are not mentioned in the article, or notable. zzz (talk) 15:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And now, someone has added "Non-centralised leadership, these people do not lead the event but they led the 'Occupy Central with Love and Peace' protest which has partially led to this Revolution", which it's hard to argue with, thus extending the box to ludicrous and unjustifiable proportions once again. I propose removing the controversial and unhelpful list of names entirely. zzz (talk) 17:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is too long. I think people are a bit confused about the term 'Lead Figures', this term imo is fine and does not need such a long disclaimer. Lead figures is not the same as centralized leadership. The infobox is intended to provide information at a glance, it DOES NOT need TWO disclaimers about decentralization given the section above it already has it. ηoian‡orever ηew ‡rontiers17:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, people are confused - they see it as misleading. And they will continue to see it as misleading. The only solution is to remove the list of names, which would not detract from the usefulness of the box. zzz (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of confusion, the field "Parties to the civil conflict" is not very stable since "Chinese government" keeps being added and removed. My initial understanding of the field is that it refers to the actual people on the ground, while zzz says it should include who the protesters are really protesting against. This should be discussed as well. _dk (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Chinese govt was added last night by another editor, and I think it should be kept. The HK govt answer to their bosses in Beijing, so it is logical to include both. zzz (talk) 18:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
HK govt are no more "on the ground" or relevant than China govt - less relevant, in fact, since it is central govt policy that is being protested. zzz (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Their bosses have kept their hands off and have repeatedly said things to the effect of "we trust the Hong Kong government can handle this themselves". It is important to keep One Country Two Systems in mind with its promises of high autonomy when we're talking about HK. _dk (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The reason they need to say things like that is that they are the ultimate authority, not the HK govt. The validity of One Country Two Systems is what is under dispute (in the protests, I mean - I don't think we need to be trying to settle it for them on this page!) zzz (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with dk, HK government is the one making decisions. The HK police is the one being criticized. Federation of Students asked for CY Leung to resign earlier in the protests. PRC government has nothing to do with handling the protests. There is no substantial difference between their statements and other international/foreign statements. 216.113.168.148 (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Images on the page
Per WP:OR, WP:NPOV, potentially WP:SPA, WP:COI, I suggest that images uploaded by UmbreRevolution be replaced whenever possible by non-original work (ex. from media, public domain) or uploaded by a more neutral, uninvolved editor (preferably established editor per WP:SPA). I feel there is POV pushing going on in the article by a subset of editors who are attempting to portray their view of the protests (lack of leaders, rejecting the leadership, saying the Student Federation doesn't represent the protesters, which incidentally, does not show up as the dominant narrative on SCMP or other media portals) as the singular situation happening on the ground. The reality is much more complicated. ηoian‡orever ηew ‡rontiers17:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What a long list of accusations. To address the main one (?), any free-use picture is likely to have been taken by an editor. It is not WP:OR - this policy is completely irrelevant with regards to the authorship of photographs. zzz (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying we shouldn't have them, I'm saying there would be more reliability of the images if they were not uploaded by UmbreRevolution, ex. replaced with images from more reliable or more neutral sources. ηoian‡orever ηew ‡rontiers19:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A number of edits have been made in regard to the leading figure of this campaign/protest. I am not sure whether the current version is good or not, because in the article it already states that this is NOT Occupy Central with Love and Peace. And as a matter of fact, the participants do not regard them nor the Federation of Students as leaders, shall we still keep this section? Thanks. --Umbrevolution (talk) 18:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem as I see it is in the infobox, where there is a long list of supposed leaders. I believe this list should be removed (as I have proposed above), and many editors feel the same way. The only argument for keeping it is that on 2013–14 protests in Turkey there is a similar list (which is irrelevant). This list should be removed, to improve the clarity of the infobox. (I haven't checked the article for other WP:UNDUE mentions of "leadership", yet). zzz (talk) 18:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, leadership != lead figures. Like I stated. Umbrerevolution has been pushing for the POV that there are no leaders, and therefore has a COI in removing the section, not for clarity, but for POV pushing. SCMP and other media has consistently covered these organizations and when they make statements they are covered. They are Lead Figures. This is different from leadership. ηoian‡orever ηew ‡rontiers19:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They were lead figures, as everyone agrees. I completely agree with Umbrevolution that for some time now, they have been sidelined and their instructions have been ignored. This has been commented on in RS's.zzz (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If they are being ignored by everyone then why is the lead figures still prominently in the media today?
There has been consistent POV pushing by Umbrevolution to push one subfaction of the protesters who don't follow the established leadership figures. It was reported that protesters who complained about lack of leadership, true. At the same time it was reported the number of protesters in the same area number in the hundreds. Ignoring the fact that not all of the protesters have the same beliefs as Umbrevolution, even if we counted all of these protesters as having the same opinion that the lead figures don't represent them, this is a small portion of the protesters that showed up in the first days when the lead figures did. Where is the proof that the majority of protesters reject the leaders? That there is none? All I see is likely self made posters uploaded by Umbrevolution, who has an ulterior motive to upload those pictures and asserting it represents everyone.
"OCCUPY CENTRAL NIGHT NINE: Full coverage of the night's events"..
"About 60 protesters are planning to stay overnight outside CY Leung's office. Outside the Legislative Council building, about 80 students are resting or sleeping on the ground."
"Causeway Bay: Numbers remain strong at Causeway Bay this evening, with around 200 people remaining at the Hennessy Road protest camp. "
Hi. I will admit I haven't specifically researched this issue (I am relying on a few passing references I've seen, backed up by Umbrevolution's first-hand knowledge - I see no reason not to WP:AGF rather than WP:BITE), hence my lack of actually citing RS's, as you have done. Didn't the protestors ignore Benny Tai's request for them to leave a protest site at some point (I'm sure I read that somewhere, and other persuasive examples - also see Umbrev's post above explaining when the split first began). None of the sources you supplied here seem to address the question. The original leaders are in the talks now, sure, but if and when the talks break down and these same 'leaders' advise the protestors to give up and go home for their safety, I very much doubt anyone will listen. zzz (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That Noian is probably a leftard as what he said is heavily biased, you criticizing umbrevolution of being a new account, but can't someone join our team just because he feels engaged in? you said that he has conflict of interests,what can he earn them by saying that there is no leader? instead for me it seem that you are promoting the three trios, federation and Scholarism in orde to gain political asset. i thus delete the lead figures as this is what majority thinks.stop hijacking--124.217.139.2 (talk) 04:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Noian is a right-wing advocate, from my experience of reflecting upon his contributions, zzz. Do not accuse editors of rather non-good faith. Dark Liberty (talk) 10:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Triads
@dk: I'm not saying Triads weren't involved. I'm saying having them grouped with the rest of the participants under the same subheader is disengenious because it implies they are colluding or related when there is not solid evidence (only accusations) that they are. Their presence could have been spontaneous or random, not necessarily pre-meditated. ηoian‡orever ηew ‡rontiers19:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't imply collusion with other anti-Occupy groups. They are rightly grouped under anti-Occupy since their actions were anti-Occupy (ie. shouting down Occupiers and tearing down their tents), how are they not being anti-Occupy? _dk (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The section "Investigation on organized crime use" was removed by user Underbar_dk. The reasoning is that he is "a bit concerned about this section completely referencing the biased apple daily" (seems to be comment in deletion). Now if the party owns 500 sources and true HK sources is down to 1 or 2 left, you are talking about a media monopoly held by one political party. You don't really have much more than 1 or 2 sources to balance the article. Benjwong (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apple Daily has terrible journalistic standards, regardless of its stance. It's something else if other media outlets (for example Western ones) picked up on this as well. WP:FRINGE applies. _dk (talk) 07:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? Apple daily is one of the greatest selling Chinese newspaper of ALL TIME. If you personally question the standard, you will need some sources. Such as another source (that is not state-run) indicating this piece was inaccurate or false. This is the goal of a balanced article. Benjwong (talk) 14:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's a reason it's described as a tabloid, and unfortunately sensational tabloids get the largest readership in many parts of the world. When the majority of the media (and I'm not only talking about domestic media) don't corroborate Apple Daily's claims or chooses not to repeat them, then we don't include it per WP:UNDUE. _dk (talk) 15:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See the Wikipedia article. It makes no mention whatsoever of them making stuff up. In fact, "The newspaper uncovered many political scandals, including a former member of the Legislative Council not reporting conflict of interest in 2000, a former Financial Secretary Antony Leung for tax evasion on a Lexus LS 430 which saved him HK$50,000 (USD $6,400), and many others, leading to the convictions or forced resignations of those individuals." And furthermore "In mid 2014, private emails of Mr.Jimmy Lai were leaked to the media, exposing his secret donations of several million dollars to several prominent Hong Kong's politicians and ex-officials." Unless you can demonstrate that the Wikipedia article is totally misrepresenting the facts, the report must stay, as far as I can see. zzz (talk) 15:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the story is properly attributed, as it is, there is no problem. The totalitarian media monopoly means that other media outlets don't cover stories like this. A BBC Newsnight report has shown a similar story on Monday. zzz (talk) 15:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Benjwong: I remember the zh:陳健康 case many years ago. The episodes that you mention led to follow-up investigations that were reported by other media, but this is not the case here. Are there other media outlets who corroborated this report? Apple Daily wouldn't even say where they got their information from!
@zzz: BBC's story is about the bused in crowd-for-hire, which is wholly different from actual triad mobs. There is no "totalitarian media monopoly" in Hong Kong, only perceived self-censorship. You may be thinking of Mainland China's media landscape instead. _dk (talk) 15:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is a different story, true. Involves a bus of "protestors", tho. There hasn't been time for other media orgs to cover it, I wouldn't have thought. zzz (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If they'd ever made up something this big before, it would surely be mentioned in the Wiki article. Assuming they haven't, then this would have to be the first time. So they have to be given the benefit of the doubt! Just because they also do celebrity gossip or whatever - so does the Guardian! zzz (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've underestimated the WP:systemic bias here on English Wikipedia. That the Wiki article doesn't have it shouldn't be an indication it didn't happen. The Chinese Wikipedia article I linked above talks about Apple Daily paying the husband of a suicide victim to photograph him hiring prostitutes, creating a media storm. Look, the Triads may well have been paid by some Chinese government agency, but I am just asking for some better sources for an extraordinary claim like this. (WP:EXTRAORDINARY) _dk (talk) 16:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's fair enough, then. That's all I needed to know. It's way too extraordinary. I don't understand how the English article gets away with being so blatantly promotional and biased, it must get very few editors, I guess. zzz (talk) 16:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What may have happened is they deliberately conflated the BBC story with the Triad rumours, to sell papers. I'll put the BBC story back in External Links. zzz (talk) 16:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am adding more sources. But please try a different perspective. Sources struggle to pinpoint exactly who called in the tanks 25 years after the 1989 Tiananmen incident. Within 24 hrs of this triad incident, one source already found out the ministry of security is responsible, two sources within a week. IMHO these investigation and sources are a wild success. Certainly as more sources are available, they will be added. Benjwong (talk) 01:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also came to object to the reinsertion of the section entitled "Investigations on organized crime use". It's not just dk who removed it, I also deleted it once. The material, what little there is that can be substantiated and that has been reported reliably, is already in the body of the article. Apple Daily, whilst being a top-selling newspaper, has all too frequently indulged in the worst tabloid excesses that it ranks up there with The Daily mail. Add to that, like The Epoch Times in its aim to destroy the Communist Party, Apple Daily and its proprietor are actively fomenting this uprising, hoping to turn it into a riot at best and a bloodbath involving the military at worst. Let's first disabuse ourselves of the notion that Apple conducted any sort of objective "investigation". In this case, it's simply publishing what its chums in the underworld wanted it to publish – these triads want to be known and feared, after all, and this exposure by Apple is not the least bit undesirable. It's a recruitment ad for the Sun Yee On and Wo Shing Wo, complete with their "price list". The section should be removed in its entirety. -- Ohc ¡digame!01:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your focus seems to be very anti-Appledaily and Epoch times (which wasn't even used). BTW there is worldjournal, bbc, yahoo, rfa, cnn sources used there also. Is interesting that you see it as a recruit list. I was thinking this mainland style of violence governance should be seriously highlighted in the most obvious manner. The ministry's punishment is so systematic you can put it in a nice table format for everyone to see. I can get rid of the table and leave the paragraph in. Remember when you are deleting this whole section, you are not telling the whole history in full. Is censoring even if that might not be your intention. Benjwong (talk) 05:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should keep the section, but delete the parts about who paid the triads and the price list, until more sources are available. Lasersharp (talk) 01:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not for us to speculate, and the only thing incontrovertible is that Triad leaders are paying the triads. These guys don't like being messed with, yet their operations in MK have been brought to their knees. They have mouths to feed, and like any employer who doesn't pay their staff, they will have resurrection in the ranks if this is not cured pronto. Now with the numbers of occupiers and the serious crimes unit of the Police out in force in MK, nobody is scared of them any more. The Apple article attempts to restore that balance by reminding us that the triads are there and who they are. -- Ohc ¡digame!03:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OC, I understand your concerns, but there are RS sources talking about the triads situation (CNN/BBC), so the section should be kept but reworked, not completely deleted. Lasersharp (talk) 03:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't dispute that, but there are already plenty of mentions about the triads in the Chronology. Ben went waaaay over the top with his section. I'd actually prefer it to be integrated with the body of the article. Also, as a slightly related issue, in view of the general quality/reliability of Apple Daily reporting, and Jimmy Lai's close involvement, Apple has become a primary source and an advocacy site. I feel that citations to Apple must be limited to [relevant and notable] opinions expressed by the journal. -- Ohc ¡digame!03:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a rfa source there pointing out the Taiwan News agency with more or less the same exact contents as Appledaily. You could have used more of that source, and less of Appledaily. Naturally Appledaily was the first to report this in such depth, so it will be the most used source. Also I find your reliability/tabloid comment inaccurate. This particular news piece was frontpage. They have other Apple divisions for tabloids, and this was never in those sections. Also your advocacy comment goes both ways. You can say a state-run source is an advocate of anti-OC, so don't use those sources. I'll wait for any further comment before restoring it. So far the investigation tells you who was involved, for what compensation and potentially who's responsible. Is worth including. Benjwong (talk) 05:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as someone with a slight pro-China bent, I think we should keep the section but mark it as possible speculation until it's covered by Western media. As unreliable as Apple might be, it is still technically news - we're not really in the position to condemn it - and should be given about similar weight as the PRC newspapers (which we do frequently cite as sources) in the interest of NPOV, though it should be given less weight as well as a single-sourced claim. Remorseless Angel 讲 15:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking at the start of this section (up to the subsection "Standing Committee decision on electoral reform"), and its a complete mess. It contains 2 references, [1] and [2], however most of it is copied directly (word-for-word) out of the latter one, while being deceptively referenced to the former. Not being an expert on constitutional matters, I can't see any way of salvaging it, so I will delete it instead.
For reference, here it is:
In the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984, the governments of the United Kingdom and China agreed that Hong Kong would revert to Chinese control in July 1997 and stated the basic policies under which the city would be governed after the handover. Under the principle of one country, two systems, Hong Kong would enjoy a high degree of autonomy, except in foreign and defence affairs for 50 years after the transfer of sovereignty.[1] Annex I of the treaty states the Hong Kong's leader, the Chief Executive, would eventually be selected by election or through consultations and the legislature would be chosen through elections.[3]
The Hong Kong Basic Law was drafted in accordance with the Joint Declaration and details how the former British colony would be governed. Socialism as practised on the mainland would not be extended to Hong Kong. Instead, the territory would continue its previous capitalist system and way of life for a period of 50 years after 1997. Hong Kong would retain responsibility for its own domestic affairs including, but not limited to, the judiciary and courts of last resort, immigration and customs, public finance, currency, and extradition.[1] Articles 45 and 68 of this constitution prescribed that the Chief Executive would eventually be elected through universal suffrage.
If an honest NPOV background history cannot be written for this article, it is fine to just direct the reader to the "main" articles, as is presently the case.
The BBC ref is not in fact used, as far as I can see, and in any case, more refs would be required for it to be remotely worthwhile.
According to the Manual of Style, untitled sections before the first subsection are not recommended anyway. I think the article is much better now without this. zzz (talk) 18:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Referencing problems aside, the information contained in these paragraphs are important as the interpretation of the Basic Law is the flashpoint in the current protests. Some background of the relevant passages and the political situation in HK should be included. _dk (talk) 07:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I found out the following resources : Cole%7Cfirst=J. Michael%7Cdate=June 25 (2014), Sunflower Leaders Denied Entry into HongKong{{citation}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link). I think the fact that HK have became quite arbitrary to exclude politically involved visitor, such as the sunflower movement leaders, it relevant.
"[...] student activists and Sunflower Movement leaders Lin Fei-fan (林飛帆) and Chen Wei-ting (陳為廷), as well as Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌), an associate research fellow at Academia Sinica, were denied visas to enter Hong Kong to attend events at the end of June. The trio and other individuals associated with the New School for Democracy were hoping to attend democratic seminars in Hong Kong held to coincide with the 17th anniversary of Hong Kong’s handover to China.
In a Facebook entry on June 24, Lin wrote that they had hoped to join the seminars to show their solidarity for Hong Kong activists involved in Occupy Central and the unofficial referendum on universal suffrage. Besides their shared democratic ideals, many people in Hong Kong had expressed their support for the Sunflower Movement’s three-week-long occupation of the Legislative Yuan in March and April this year, Lin wrote, and they were hoping to reciprocate the kindness."
In news and newsfeed of Facebook today, there have been numerous reports on the conflicts and arguments between left and right advocates. Will that be good enough for us to add a new section on this matter? --Life is lifelong revolution. 13:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Umbrevolution (talk • contribs)
The only article I can find about facebook is from the 29th Sept. [38]. There has certainly been a lot of coverage about CY Leung's daughter using her Facebook account to show off her expensive jewellery etc ("Yes - funded by all you HK taxpayers!!"), and mock the unemployed (& protesters in general) - and then threaten to sue anyone who mentions it. If there is any new media coverage of HK facebook, that should be enough for a paragraph or two. zzz (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is not what Umbrevolution probably. He is referring to conflicts between those who support the Federation, and those who oppose them. --1.36.209.129 (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Letter removed
There was an edit that removed all the links to the letter to Xi Jinping. Arguably the most important thing that happened politically on that protest day. Why was it removed? Benjwong (talk) 18:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think, because it counts as being from a primary source. I restored it at first, but then I changed my mind & deleted it again. Has it been mentioned in the media? zzz (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The issues raised in the revert were “Wong not mentioned in ref. blog not RS. WSJ article insufficient for section or claims made eg "most participants" etc. WP:UNDUE)”
Regarding “Wong not mentioned in ref.”, that's in the thinkprogress ref. Regarding “blog not RS”, the source is a WP:NEWSBLOG published by NPR. Regarding “WSJ article insufficient for section or claims made eg "most participants"”, the language reads “many participants”, not “most participants”. See thinkprogress for support for “many”.
I think it is notable, but IMHO the section could be expanded and renamed to "Religious Influence" so as to incorporate other religious influences, as seen by the Taoist deities in some of the protests, for example. Lasersharp (talk) 11:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These are helpful. Thanks for doing the research. #1 & #2 appear to be repostings of an original AP article. It might be best to find and cite the original. #3 also appears to be a reposting of perhaps a different AP article. Also worth finding the original. #4, the Democracy Lab article, we might want to leave out. The final quote by the author makes it clear it's an opinion piece with the author taking a clear position "I earnestly hope that they can achieve their goals and live to tell the tale." That kind of destroys it for me as being a reliable source for this particular subject.--Nowa (talk) 12:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The objections raised are completely accurate (ThinkProgress is a blog, ie not an acceptable ref.)
For some obscure reason, it seems to be almost standard practise, in a WP:BLP, to mention the subject's religion or lack thereof. Mention, not write a section about. But this isn't a BLP.
Suppose we left specific names out and simply referred to the leaders in general (supported of course by proper sources)--Nowa (talk) 23:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are reading too much into it. There has been discussion within churches, but churches are utterly divided by the issue, just like the rest of HK society. There is dispute as well over whether schools within churches' control ought to adopt tolerant attitudes or not towards school boycotters. -- Ohc ¡digame!14:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think we are going beyond what the references say? or do you think that the references themselves are reading too much into it?--Nowa (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There seems to be a misunderstanding here about how desirable page size is determined. The current article, as measured by prose size is 40kB. There is no need to split it at this point in time. -- Ohc ¡digame!14:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This section could usefully be reduced to "Countries around the world, apart from Russia, supported the protesters' right to protest". These "international reactions" sections never seem to amount to anything more than an opportunity to display a selection of national flags, followed by repetetive, near-identical statements, as though it were obligatory for Wikipedia to record these (it isn't). Taiwan and the US are (marginally) significant; the UK less so. The others are surely of no interest whatsoever. zzz (talk) 04:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. It's mostly empty rhetoric. The only comments that really matter are UK, US, Taiwan, and perhaps Germany. But even the Germany and US stuff can probably be trimmed. -- Ohc ¡digame!08:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this edit to remove unnecessary diplomatic languages such as "expression of concern" and "hope for stability and peace". The whole "Individuals" section should be deleted. --Jabo-er (talk) 01:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Religious influence on protests (redraft)
Here is a redraft based on the above input. Hopefully most of the issues have been addressed. Feel free to directly edit or provide feedback.--Nowa (talk) 11:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think its good except one thing - in your text you may bring a false impression that the Christian Church in Mong Kok are set up by Joshua Wong or Benny Tai. But in fact they are set up by the others, would that be better to revise the sentence as follows;
Several of the protest organizers, such as Joshua Wong, Chu Yiu-ming and Bennie Tai are avowed Christians. Other than this, in the Mong Kok occupation area, there has also been a shrine set up to Jesus at the protest site with prayer groups and independent churches forming among the participants. --1.36.209.129 (talk) 15:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently at least one other editor does not feel this section is ready for the article or that consensus has been reached. I will therefore wait for a second opinion before putting this in. If anyone has other recommended changes, feel free to comment.--Nowa (talk) 00:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikinews
Just a quick reminder to everyone of our sister project wikinews, some of us are finding our edits being removed (even when sourced) as crystal balling, or as ephemeral actions and comments by individuals that will have no long term historical significance with regards to this event. This is right and proper as this is an encyclopaedia, however such ephemera fits the definition of news, and if you are interested in such material please visit the Wikinews:Newsroom, the schedule is tight, articles have to be ready within two days of an event happening to be published, and the house style with regard to presentation differs from wikipedia, but if you know how to edit here you can edit there. No soap boxing in article space, but if you can get an article published, POV opinions are allowed on the commentary pages.--KTo288 (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
New York Times article about China's involvement behind the scenes
Section is undue, makes extraordinary claims with unreliable sources, has no place in article about political protests. RS make no mention of religion whatsoever, in 1000's of articles. Oh, wait - one WSJ article. Do not pretend you have consensus. Do not put your section in article. zzz (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my edit summary, in case you have forgotten: WP:UNDUE, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:EXCEPTIONAL, WP:NOTRS, WP:FRINGE zzz (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, there is no rush to add the religious section, and Nowa's section needs better NPOV. However, I think there is more than 1 RS that talks about the issue though, see above, including AP and PRI. Lasersharp (talk) 00:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PRI is "a free-market think tank", part of "State Policy Network", a "U.S. national network of free-market oriented think tanks focused on individual U.S. states", "founded in 1992 by Thomas A. Roe, a South Carolina businessman and Republican Party activist". How is this a reliable source on the "influence of religion" (or anything else)? I can't see "AP" mentioned anywhere above, but I don't care anyway. I really cannot take any of this seriously. I repeat: RS overwhelmingly make no mention whatsoever of religion, since it is completely irrelevant - so neither should we. End of story.zzz (talk) 04:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think some google searches will prove your statements dubious at best. Sure I agree maybe Nowa shouldn't have posted so quickly, but saying there are no RS talking about it is simply incorrect. WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Lasersharp (talk) 04:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the results of these google searches? I repeat: so far we have one WSJ article. And repeated, disingenuous claims that blogs are RS. Which I JUST DON'T LIKE, correct - it is a complete waste of time and bandwidth. Your WP:SOAPBOXING will continue here endlessly, no doubt. Just leave it out of the main page from now on. I've finished talking about this. zzz (talk) 05:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, there are are a grand total of five articles that make any mention at all of religion, out of the thousands of articles on the protests. As I said, just keep your WP:SOAPBOXING out of this article, and there won't be a problem with WP:UNDUE, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:EXCEPTIONAL, WP:NOTRS, WP:FRINGE, etc. zzz (talk) 07:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just a respond to this edit where User dk said I was "disingenuous" about the 2 HK journalists being forced to quit. My response is this. If you want to accept the story that the journalist contracts are expiring and don't want to renew, fine. Or that netizens are speaking out for them, write it off as rumour, fine. But the fact is, station staff wants to show signs that they support OC after people were rumoured to be getting fired. That is fact.
My advice, do some research on director Yuen who has a history of leaning toward pro-beijing whenever there is a need to. ATV has already been bought out by Communist-party-friendly organizations. TVB could be next (assuming it hasn't already been partially bought out). Also look around, there are other media chiefs leaving at other news organisations. Benjwong (talk) 02:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your disingenuousness is where you claim to have referenced from a source but your addition is nowhere to be found in the source you provided (Apple Daily). It doesn't matter what I or you believe to have happened; if you misrepresent a source here on Wikipedia, that is disingenuous. _dk (talk) 09:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understand the nature of the situation. I can see with my own eyes, the 2 journalists have been replaced by other staff on their usual broadcasts. As far as I am concerned, they were fired. If you are waiting for a source that use very exact languages such as communist party bribed corporate management in companies to get rid of democratic employees. That is impossible. Benjwong (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The deletions and copyediting was made to reflect proper due weight of the items within the body of the text. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedic article and not any sort of soapbox for pro- or anti- occupiers or their proxies. Sources used also need to reflect this, meaning we need to prune over-reliance on Apple Daily too. -- Ohc ¡digame!04:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is 1 (at most 2) HK local sources that would even dare present these domestic views. It's not my fault that most media shy away from materials that would get them in trouble. I use what I can find. Unfortunately there are not too many options other than apple daily. To pursue balanced weight is to use apple daily in this regard. How else can you pinpoint the views of local media? The entire local media should be left as is because there is no second option. Benjwong (talk) 04:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is undue, and appears to be coatracking. Wait til it gets wider coverage, so it can be covered in a balanced way. Particularly with a Chinese language source: there has to be consensus. zzz (talk) 04:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Undue weight applies to "views". These are not even views. These are actual events that happened to TVB (a majority station), SCMP (a majority english channel) and Apple daily (the only true voice left for pro-democracy groups). I don't know how much more mainstream you can get. Is about as encyclopedic as it gets. The only way to get more encyclopedic is putting it in a timeline. Benjwong (talk) 04:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like Ben ise objecting to removal of the criticisms of and about the TVB "voiceover" story. This is but one small part of the entire protest, and doesn't warrant all that text and could have been said with a much lower word-count. BTW, I'm not saying that TVB isn't biased, but that I just object to what seems to be a hatchet job against the TVB. What is more, I copyedited it without substantially changing how the story was told. Chapman To's little episode is celeb trivia, and isn't worth mentioning. -- Ohc ¡digame!04:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also while you think Chapman To's info is trivia, it is not. He is well known enough that when he was forced to remove ribbons, it is indicating something wrong is going on. This guy is in 4 out of 10 commercials on TVB. Yet some management people don't trust him with a ribbon. Benjwong (talk) 04:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The news coverage of the TV station has been criticised, showing the channel to be pro-Beijing. This is all covered in the article. So the criticism of the TV show from the same TV station adds nothing to the article. zzz (talk) 05:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see where you come from. Except there are only X number of shows that deal with current events. This was supposed to be one of them. Afterall this is not the US where there are 1000 channels. When one show in HK ignore occupy central, that one show counts toward a pretty big percentage of airtime. Benjwong (talk) 05:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am restoring that info on SCMP. It's wonderful that they cover the protest for English readers. But the relevance is clear. Pro-democracy students were being denied because this channel is at least partially has pro-communist party sponsors. Violation of WP:Coatrack would be if this newspaper was completely not in HK, totally irrelevant and the info was stuffed into the article randomly. That is not the case here. This newspaper source is at the heart of a critical event. Its response to both camps positive or negative is relevant to the protest, not WP:Coatrack. Benjwong (talk) 04:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My point was, that it was not absolutely clear that SCMP was being criticised for being pro-Beijing. This should be explicitly stated and referenced.zzz (talk) 05:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article said the turning down of the kids was politics motivated. Let me add that. Trust me I am not trying to give you a hard time. If international sites are willing to deal with these domestic issues, I would equally use those sources. Benjwong (talk) 05:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely find these claims against SCMP very interesting. It has always seemed to me that SCMP has played a clever game of "showing both sides to the story" when, in fact, they only use this as a means to introduce pro-Beijing arguments and viewpoints in a way that seems more reasonable. zzz (talk) 05:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think SCMP staff are doing their best to give you fair coverage. If they are forced to lean very pro-Beijing on some issue, is for survival reasons. No doubt I will still use SCMP as a source here. Benjwong (talk) 06:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What has unfolded isn't really a notable story either as most papers have different rates for different advertising. It's a very minor story in among this whole affair, what's more, most of it is based on hearsay from Andrew Chan. The paper hasn't responded, AFAICT.
I also removed the paragraph about Chapman To. It was an act of political grandstanding pure and simple. He submitted to an unrelated interview (about a film he appears in) and decides to express opinion about Occupy with the ribbon and was told to take off. Then he rants off about censorship and not being able to express himself. Not very professional, IMHO. -- Ohc ¡digame!06:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I left out the Chapman To part. But I restored the rest for a couple reasons. This entire occupy central event was largely driven by kids. In this protest they are the main feature. To ignore the things they went through is a seriously wrong way to document this event. They put themselves at risk to promote a cause. You don't have to agree with the cause, but you have to acknowledge the kid's experience at SCMP was an actual event. Same with the TVB staff secretly wearing yellow clothes. These are low-key events that carry a lot of meaning. Benjwong (talk) 03:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What happened? you reinstated it all the same. It's political grandstanding on To's part – he whipped up a controversy over nothing when he should have been talking about the film he's in. But it's actually a storm in a teacup. -- Ohc ¡digame!08:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If SCMP "lean very pro-Beijing" then clearly they are not "doing their best to give you fair coverage" - by definition. They should only be used as a last resort. zzz (talk) 06:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I still maintain we ought to minimise our reliance on Apple for the reasons already given. Ming Pao appears to be coming up the best in this far in its reporting. The spirit of Kevin Lau and those before him lives on. Some but not all foreign reports/reporters are extremely incisive in their coverage and commentary, probably because the journalists have cultivated good level of confidential contacts. Elsewhere, there is far too much CPC propaganda masquerading as "Western opinion". -- Ohc ¡digame!07:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Apple daily should be used more especially in articles related to democracy topics. It has become the star paper coming out of this protest. Some guy went and spent like $7000 on apple daily to pass the paper out freely cause they speak a grassroot voice. Benjwong (talk) 03:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ben, you seem to be giving far more importance to events than is actually warranted. I fail to see how the advertisement is a big deal, as it's well known that the papers charge different rates for different category of advertising. In addition, no other more reliable sources have reported this and I'm forced to consider that this is not notable. Just because you feel Apple is the beacon for the pro-democracy movement doesn't mean everything they carry is worthy of note. Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame!08:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
HKCTU is from pan-democracy camp. On Day 18 from SCMP:『The coalition, made up of 10 unions and transport workers’ groups, had warned... they would clear the roads themselves if the occupiers refused to remove the barricades.』Some of the unions were:
For minor issues I would agree, but your edits were placing a particular group on a particular side of the conflict. That really does need support of a reference before it goes in. For example, this reference supports the statement that the Hong Kong Tramway Workers Union have "called for an end to the agitation" since it is costing them wages.--Nowa (talk) 02:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]