Talk:2010 Hong Kong by-elections/Archive 1

Archive 1

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. Ucucha 05:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Five Constituencies Referendum → Hong Kong legislative by-elections, 2010 — While the "Five Constituencies Resignation" (五區總辭) or "Five Constituencies Referendum" (五區公投) are popular terms for describing the LSD/CP plan, Wikipedia articles on elections are generally named for the actual event and the year, not the agenda of any particular participant. The Canadian federal election, 1988 is not titled "Canadian Free Trade election," despite the FTA being the only politically significant issue in that vote.

The current name is definitely not NPOV as it accepts as official the LSD/CP position that the by-elections constitute a de facto plebiscite on the universal suffrage issue. There is no dispute that what will occur is a by-election to replace resigning LSD/CP LegCo members: the dispute lies in the significance of the election results. Kelvinc (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion

• Oppose: - By-election article should not exist until there really is a by-election, see WP:CRYSTAL BALL. Also to say this resignation article IS the election article is POV pushing. That suggests the resignation was 100% responsible for the election. You could have picked any event within the Democratic development in Hong Kong journey. The resignation is just a possible final straw (as they say). The 2012 date was not decided recently. Benjwong (talk) 02:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose: - If you read the Chinese government's statement issued through the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office, you will see that the term referendum is used throughout. The word byelection is not used once. We have no NPOV problem as both supporters and opponents agree that this is a referendum. The pro-Beijing camp is threatening to deny funding, so we really can't be sure there would be byelections anyway. F (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • "林瑞麟重申，政府有憲制責任安排補選，而基本法中沒有公投安排是憲制事實，政府只會視五區總辭為一次補選。" "Stephen Lam again states that the government has a constitutional obligation to organize by-elections, and the lack of provisions for referendum in the Basic Law is an institutional face; the government will only see a general resignation in the five districts as a by-election." (Singtao, 2009-12-16)
    
    "Supporters" and "opponents" of the pro-democracy camp do not necessarily cover all opinions on whether the by-elections are a "referendum" in the sense that a LSD/CP victory with +50% turnout=support for universal suffrage and abolishing FCs. The government is (supposed to be) neutral in who should win but does not see this as a referendum. There may be a lot of support for abolishing FCs but people might still not vote for LSD/CP in the polls. Even if only one person shows up for each district (which should negate the "referendum" by the LSD/CP guidelines), five new Legco members are still elected. There is definitely a by-election where Legco vacancies are filled.
    
    Perhaps we can have one article on the by-elections themselves and the political movement that led to the resignations (though I imagine there's not much to say in the "Background" section of a by-election article that won't be said here). There's a remote possibility that Legco may not pass the appropriations for holding the by-elections, but I think this is posturing by certain politicians and the government has a legal obligation for the government to fill vacancies via election, so I really don't think this is too much crystal-balling. I think do that the debate over whether this whole thing constitutes a referendum is noteworthy enough to be in this article, so to name the article itself "Referendum" is prejudiced. Kelvinc (talk) 02:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - the common names are "Five-Constituency Referendum" or "Five-Constituency Resignation". Hillgentleman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC).

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wrong name

It is meant to be a defacto referendum, not a real referendum, yet. Should use the official name, which is Resignation. Arilang ^talk 20:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Five-constituency Referendum has become standard. [1] Hillgentleman (talk) 04:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

From my daily experience, Five Constituencies Resignation is the most widely used term in Hong Kong, although Five Constituencies Referendum is also occasionally used. I agree with Arilang that the name of this article should change to Five Constituencies Resignation, because the by-election will NEVER be a true referendum as it is not provided in the Basic Law. It will forever only be a de facto referendum: possessing the substance of a referendum, but not the form. The name of this article ought to be changed to Resignation. How do we move this page??Craddocktm (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

From my experience, they are used interchangeably with very similar frequency. The current page title is the "official" one adopted by the movement. Hillgentleman (talk) 04:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

If they are used interchangebaly with similar frequency, the name that is less controversial should be used for this article. While the LSD & Civic Party's views do matter, they are not conclusive: this is a matter for the entire Hong Kong. DAB, the Liberal Party and the government will not recognize its referendum status. Legally, it is settled that the de facto referendum is not binding, and hence not a true referendum (see the comments of two HKU professors of law). In such context, resignation is the more appropriate name.Craddocktm (talk) 11:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

There are many kinds of referenda and their results are not always binding. (c.f. Referendum#Procedure_and_status). From the opening line of Referendum: A referendum (also known as a plebiscite or a ballot question) is a direct vote in which an entire electorate is asked to either accept or reject a particular proposal. - exactly what is happening. Hillgentleman (talk) 11:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

"If they are used interchangebaly with similar frequency, the name that is less controversial should be used for this article." <-- In fact, "resignation" is only the first step in a long process. The Referendum = Resignation + Re-election. A more appropriate name would be "Five-district by-election" but that is not a common term. Hillgentleman (talk) 11:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that 'resignation' or 'by-election' are to be preferred. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 12:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Under Hillgentleman's usage, non-binding means being non-binding on the government. Maybe I can clarify what I mean as non-binding: not recognized in law as a referendum, in other words not binding on the legal institutions. Frankly speaking, I am disappointed Hillgentleman is using wikipedia as a source: do you seriously think I will be convinced by the lead paragraph of a wikipedia article? I can say with confidence that is a way too wide definition. All true referendums have legal status: they are either recognized in the constitution, or provided by statute law. Needless to say Hong Kong law does not recognize such a concept. What is more, the de facto referendum does not even fit into your definition: in the by-election the entire electorate is asked (by the organizer) to elect those who will represent them, but not accept or reject a particular proposal. Therefore, at the end of the day, the conclusion is inevitable: this is not a TRUE but a DE FACTO referendum. If Hillgentleman insist this is a true referendum he is rendering the words De Facto otiose.

Lastly, the by-election, if you ask me, should be included in a new article called Legislative Council 2010 by-election. That is the true nature of the by-election and should not be confused with this article.Craddocktm (talk) 14:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Hillgentleman, this is not a Referendum as it failed to meet the most important requirement of a referendum. I believe a particular proposal is a keyword for referendum. They have a proposal in this incident but the people who votes are not voting for a particular proposal as there are more than 1 proposal and not enough options provided on the ballot.

direct vote in which an entire electorate is asked to either accept or reject a particular proposal.

Resignation should be a better wording for the title as both words are used by the general public but one of them can lead to a misconception of the incident. People added this article to the Referendum page. It is now removed. 210.0.229.224 (talk) 03:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

起義 does not equal to Uprising

Sometimes it is very difficult to do a good, let alone perfect Chinese-English translation, more so obvious in this case. 起義, Uprising is just one of the many possible translations, because 義 has multiple meanings and usage. The pro-Beijing group's accusation against LSD's use of 起義, saying that LSD is advocating revolution and bloodshed is just low and pathetic. Arilang ^talk 06:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That's what Alan Leong said; it might be correct, but the media says uprising so I don't see why we cannot follow that. Kayau Don't be too CNN I'LL DO MY JOB uprising! uprising! 11:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Functional constituency

Another important topic seem to be missing in this article is the proposed abolishing of Functional constituency ? Arilang ^talk 07:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Now it is called a Movement

“五區公投運動”前身是由立法會社會民主聯機和公民黨發起的“五區總辭、變相公投”運動，即每個選區由一名泛民主派議員辭職，其後再派人參與補選，填補空 缺，屆時會以“儘快實現雙普選及廢除（立法會）功能組別”為統一訴求，做到“投人等於投議題”的變相公投。中國港澳事務辦公室上周高調抨擊，嚴斥公投違反 《基本法》這香港小憲法，但兩黨昨天(周四)正式結成“公社聯盟”，正名為五區公投運動。

May be the article should be renamed Five Constituencies Referendum Movement ? Arilang ^talk 07:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not exactly a movement with 5 people involved and everyone else watching. However if the entire democratic camp quit, that could be a movement. HK would officially be run by beijing overnight. Would that be equal to fast fowarding one country two systems by 37 years? Benjwong (talk) 07:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Redirect to here. Kayau Don't be too CNN I'LL DO MY JOB uprising! uprising! 11:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Removal of links

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources

Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English ones, except where no English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material.

Wikipedia:Help desk#Internet video

It's not explicitly prohibited (WP:YOUTUBE) but is not usually a good idea as you can easily run into copyright issues. Xenon54 / talk / 01:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
It's alright when the channel is an official channel, such as Hollywood Records (channel) or CNN (channel). However, videos uploaded by regular users are almost never appropriate, as ones of encyclopedic value are usually copyright violations. Liquidluck✽talk 02:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Would like to discuss with user:Gzdavidwong regarding the removal of links in Additional source section. Arilang ^talk 00:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Introduction

I propose removing or relocating the last line of the introductory paragraph. There are only 5 geographical constituencies in HK, and there is one pan-democrat resigning from each of the constituencies. Therefore, there is no need to mention the name of all constituencies.Craddocktm (talk) 17:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean this sentence:"The five constituencies include Hong Kong Island, Kowloon East, Kowloon West, New Territories East and New Territories West."? I don't see anything wrong with it? Arilang ^talk 00:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the sentence itself. Just that it does not deserve a place in the introduction. In short, the names of the 5 geographical constituencies are not material to the Five Constituencies Referendum. If there are 6 GCs in HK and the democrats have men standing in the by-elections of 5 of the GCs, there would be an actual need to name the 5 GCs for the purpose of identification. However, we only have 5 GCs, which makes it unnecessary to name all of them. If readers are interested in knowing the names of the GCs, they can be directed to the GC wiki page or the main body of this article. The introduction should be reserved for the most important information - which the names of the 5 GCs are not.Craddocktm (talk) 09:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

This article is biased

At the moment this article is heavy biased towards the pro-Beijing POV. Reasons:

1. There is no presentation of views of LSD and Civic Party.
2. Too much emphasis on "what Beijing like and what Beijing do not like.
3. No mention of the true nature of HK's special zone nature.(In 1997, Beijing claimed back only the Soverignity of Hong Kong, the running of HK, the admin, police, tax, education, finance, etc, remain in the hand of HK people)
4. No mention of "One country, two systems", and the promise of "50 years no change"(五十年不变)
5. No mention of "HK is to be governed by HK people" (港人治港)
6. Beside "Universal suffrage", "abolishment of Functional constituency" is also the main issue of the corrent by-election.
7. This by-election is more than a by-election, is a way to show off the "Power to the people" of the HK people. Arilang ^talk 00:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no issue with adding 1,6 and 7. However, I object to adding the rest of your proposals. Regarding 2, the article should provide the responses of Beijing in order to provide a balanced POV. The way to strike a neutral POV is to add the views of LSD and Civic Party, rather than removing sources regarding Beijing's response. Regarding 3, 4 and 5, they are NOT material to the referendum. They are principles from the Basic Law, and are to be observed regardless of the outcome or existence of the referendum. 3, 4 and 5 are materials that belong to the Basic Law page or the Hong Kong page, and have little relevance to the referendum.Craddocktm (talk) 09:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

User Craddocktm, your reasonning clearly shows that you have not fully understood the true meaning of this "Five Constituencies Referendum ".

1. Hong Kong is the only special place inside China that is practicing One country, two systems. That means, Hong Kong does have a capitalist style voting system, that means of the 13(or is it 15) billions Chinese, only 700 millions of Chinese(Hong Kong Chinese) can VOTE, even though this VOTE is a very much "limited vote". The uniqueness of Hong Kong's One country, two systems need to be emphasized, simply because this system, Hong Kong people can cast their vote, when 13 billions mainland Chinese can only vote in their dream, if they ever dare to dream at all.
2. The pro-democratic group main by-election theme is:盡快實現真普選、廢除功能組別. Translation: True universal suffrage ASAP, abolishment of Functional constituency.
3. Because of the intervene of the powerful Beijing government, many of the lawmakers of the HK Legislative Council belong to Functional constituency, at the same time they are members of The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong. In short, they are many lawmakers inside HK Legislative Council who are not voted in by the Hong Kong electorate, and they are heavily pro-Beijing, and couldn't care less about ordinary HK people's welfare.
4. Because of the stronghold of pro-Beijing group(namely The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong) on the HK Legislative Council, the pro-democratic group cannot see any light at the end of the tunnel, so they exercise their right, by resigning en-mass, thus triggering a by-election, encouraging HK people to exercise their basic right, that is, TO CAST A VOTE. This is a very serious political move, and the five resigned lawmakers have made great sacrification, because they themselves do not know they will ever go back to the Legislative Council at all, and mind you, as a lawmaker, they enjoy high salary, plus lots of fringe benefits.
5. The 五區公投、全民起義 slogan, was meant not only for the HK Chinese, it was also a hint for the 13 billions mainland Chinese. This is the exact reason why Beijing government come down heavy handed, fearing that the mainland Chinese might follow the HK's example. This is the exact reason why Donald Tsang and the rest of the pro-Beijing group all try to guess what Beijing like and do not like, and play their cards accordingly. This is the exact reason why the pro-Beijing group would try to boycott this by-election.
6. If you do not understand the above historical background, there is no way you would understand this article. Arilang ^talk 11:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Please get your concepts right before making groundless accusations.

1. Hong Kong's one country two systems is of course unique. Sadly, one country two systems does not correspond to a capitalist style voting system. It has nothing to do with democracy at all. This principle only applies to the way of life and capitalist system (BL Article 5). A capitalist system is an economic and social system which has nothing to do with voting. Then, what is the basis of the votes of Hong Kong people? It is provided in Article 26 of the Basic Law, which limits the right to vote to HK permanent residents. Obviously, the one country two systems principle is a separate thing from the right to vote.
2. No issue. Something I agree.
3. Again, what you said is inconsistent with the Basic Law. Functional constituencies (FC) are provided under the Basic Law and has nothing to do with Beijing's intervention. Read Annex II of BL. The problem of the FC is well known, but their members are not all of DAB origin. They represent business interests rather than Beijing's interest, though the interests of the two sectors overlap at times. And FCs are actually elected, albeit by a much smaller pool of voters.
4. I have no issue with that, but how is your argument relevant to the current question of what to add in the article?
5. It's personal speculation, not supported by any authoritative sources. I have never read any reports as to whether the slogan was a hint for the 13Bn Chinese. The reason Beijing comes down heavy-handed is never made known to the public; what you wrote is again speculation.

Please advance constructive comments on what to add and what not to add in the article. This is not a place for blogging of your personal views.

Please note the rules of Wikipedia. Especially Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Do not include personal opinion. Although I am a pro-democracy person myself, Wikipedia is not the place for personal opinion. What you and I think does not matter.

I am still of the opinion that 1,6 and 7 can be added, but 2,3,4 and 5 should not.

Also, you are quoting Joseph Sternberg way too much. He uses too many weasel words which must be avoided on Wikipedia. Also, do not write his name directly: Wikipedia should express various views of the public, not that of a particular journalist.Craddocktm (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you do agree with most of my points, except this sentence:

The 五區公投、全民起義 slogan, was meant not only for the HK Chinese, it was also a hint for the 13 billions mainland Chinese.

OK, I shall withdraw this statement. And, what do you mean by this?

I am still of the opinion that 1,6 and 7 can be added, but 2,3,4 and 5 should not.

Points 2,3,4,5, they explain the background of the en-mass resignation, without them, everyday readers would never be able to understand the political motive of it all. Without points 2,3,4,5, added, readers can only see the tree, cannot see the whole forest. The ultimate goal of the very being of wikipedia, is to let readers, in future or present, to be able to see the full picture. Well, as full as possible. Arilang ^talk 21:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Point 2 (Beijing's response) is currently sufficient and not excessive. My suggestion is not to remove them or tamper with them. Point 3, 4, and 5 should not be added in the background, since they are not of significance relevance to the referendum. How much background to add in one article is always a matter of judgment: we have to select the most relevant parts otherwise the entire Basic Law has to be incoporated into the article. That Hong Kong is a SAR, governed by "One Country Two Systems" and by the Hong Kong people has little relevance to the referendum. The referendum is to strive for universal suffrage and to abolish the FCs. However, Hong Kong's SAR status, the "One Country Two Systems" principle and governance by Hong Kong people do not tell us anything about universal suffrage or FCs. These 3 concepts merely tell us that Hong Kong must be administrated separately from China. Separate administration does not mean democracy - that is the exact situation Hong Kong is currently in: administered by a local government which is not democractically elected, governed by a CE who is of Hong Kong origin but not elected by the people. I have already added the Basic Law provisions regarding the current political system and universal suffrage in the background section, which is more than enough.Craddocktm (talk) 09:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Arilang, if you can find sources to support the hint of the slogan, put it in. The DAB is still alot more civilised than the beijing central government. So people do expect a "real response" right before May election time. You can put anything into the article. But these party views doesn't matter much more than what's already here. Benjwong (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hong Kong citizens

User Craddocktm, we have discussed the political situation, and the historical background of this by-election, fair enough.

But lets not forget, what do the HK people really think. Do they care? Would they come out and cast their vote? May be yes, may be no. This is really the million dollar question. There are at least two yardsticks that may be used: (1)2010 Hong Kong new year march 30,000 march, was a clear show of force of HK people.(2)http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=312300407802 A Facebook "100,000 people do not like ###" political group was somehow deleted by Facebook, and then, within just a few days, tens of thousands of members ganged up again. Now, to call up 100,000 people to became member of a online group is another show of force. Arilang ^talk 11:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

So what is your suggestion? Do you wish to create a new section to describe the sentiments of the Hong Kong people towards the referendum? Or are you saying the New Year March and the Facebook incident ought to be incorporated in the background section? I think the feelings of the Hong Kong people towards the referendum ought to be included. The Facebook incident is more problematic: I don't think it's directly related to the referendum, but I have no serious objections if you wish to add a line about it in the background section. I await your clarification, but meantime I wish to point out: (i) support for democratisation does not equate support for the referendum; (ii) there have been a number of surveys on Hong Kong people's opinion towards the referendum - you may wish to dig them up from newspapers; (iii) being against DAB does not equate a pro-referendum stance. Craddocktm (talk) 12:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The 30,000 New Year March was clearly a show of force, and demand for universal suffrage was the main theme of the march. The 100,000 anti-DAB members facebook may not be directly related, but it is another show of force that no political party dare to ignore, and now there are two groups of near 100,000 members, and DAB only has 10,000 members. Arilang ^talk 22:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is the next step. Most HK media has self-censored and avoid going any further to describe what happens if there is an election in 2012. Let's get to the point. "Liberate HK" does not sound like you want to be managed by beijing anymore. If that is the case, what is the next candidate supposed to do for the people? If an election is held and the vote goes to someone no different than a puppet-installed-candidate, then what is all this voting for?? Benjwong (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Benjwong, "election in 2012" is just a dream. There will not be one, all the HK political parties know that. I remember seeing somewhere, Wong Yuk-man's interview by some reporter, saying he has done for HK what he can, and let "命運" decide the rest. What he really meant was, he knows that many HK people simply Kowtow to Beijing, and scared of Beijing, "阿爺吹雞,全部跪低", but being his nature, he still like to fight till he end of his life. I think Hong Kong will remember him as a Hero. Long Hair also feel the same, as he had outlived his hero Che Guevara's short life(34?) and he is (50?). What will happen next? No one knows. Arilang ^talk 22:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

But then politic is such a complex and unpredictable thing, anything can happen between now and May 2010, there could be a strong sway of public opinion either way. Whatever happen, these five lawmakers will have their names etched into Hong Kong history. Arilang ^talk 22:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I see it like this. The central government does not trust HK people. Vice versa, HK people seriously don't trust the central government. Beijing has an obligation to defend its territories (HK). It cannot afford to give the people any freedom. It needs to be able to capture any citizen it deems a threat. The problem is the horrible state-run legal system of court, police, gov officials all from the same monopoly. If the focus of the election is to fix this rights violation problem, then I think it is worth it. However if the election is to attempt at fixing salary issues, liberation independence.... it is one hard road. Call it HK's long march. Benjwong (talk) 06:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's add the sentiments of the HK people to this article. Politics is unpredictable, but the article will be more complete if we add the existing polls and surveys. Craddocktm (talk) 14:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

HK govern acts like idiot

李柱銘斥林瑞麟「不戰而勝」論，指保皇派避戰公投，政府出口術干擾選舉

Benjwong, well I do agree with all your points, beside this one:Beijing has an obligation to defend its territories (HK). It cannot afford to give the people any freedom. No, Beijing care more about it's own STABILITY(政權隐定) than anything else. In Beijing's mind, this HK five constitencies by-election is nothing, nothing in the sense that the end result(win or lose) would not affect much of the Legislative Council's politic. Beijing also care less about seven millions HK citizens, afterall, seven millions people, big deal, there are hundreds of mid-range mainland China cities that have seven millions people. What Beijing fear most is the effect on mainland Chinese, especially the slogan 五區公投、全民起義. Why? Communist came to power in 1949 on the propaganda and agitation of the revolution spirit of then mainland Chinese. They are afraid history might repeat again. This is the exact reason why the HK government join force with the pro-Beijing group, hand in hand, they are on the path to destroy this by-election, regardless, right under the gaze of international media, at the expanse of becoming the international laughing stock, and don't give a damn. Why? Like I said before, "阿爺吹雞,全部跪低".

Lets watch video again:李柱銘斥林瑞麟「不戰而勝」論，指保皇派避戰公投，政府出口術干擾選舉 林瑞麟 represents HK government, in effect, the HK government is going to boycott a legal and legitimate, and government funded government election, it is absurdity to the extreme. Arilang ^talk 13:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Please discuss about the article here. Any personal exchange of opinions should not appear here unless the discussion is relevant to the article.Craddocktm (talk) 13:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as the referendum affecting the mainland, 99 out of 100 people is not aware of the event. They are aware of Tibet and Taiwan's unhappiness. As far as HK goes, they are looking at Jackie Chan and if he seems happy, the rest of HK must be. About the joining hands part, I do not believe HK gov acts like idiots. Stephen Lam, Rita Fan etc has to speak for beijing. There is no way Wen Jiabao would speak to HK in that same manner for ten thousand reasons. The by-election looks to be held in May according to today's news. Benjwong (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Craddocktm, every discussion here is about the by-election, the discussion about Beijing's reaction, and the influence of Beijing on HK politic, is very much relevant here. These opinions are not my personal opinions, I can show you the sources. If we ignore the Beijing influence, would be just like burying the head in the sand. Moreover, this article needs to include: Responses from HK political identities, such as Stephen Lam, Rita Fan, Long Hair, Wong Yuk Man, etc, unless you try to censor it? Arilang ^talk 22:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

So, are you trying to include everything you have written above in the article? If that is the case, I have serious reservations. The New Year March has already been mentioned. The Anti-DAB group, as I said, as little relevance. Benjwong's claim of media censorship is overgeneralization and again personal opinion. Your claim that election in 2012 is just a dream is again personal observation, though I don't dispute it. Your claim Yuk-Man will be remembered as a hero is again personal opinion which is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Then's there is Benjwong's unsubstantiated attack on the issue of mutual trust. That's pretty much speculation and cannot be placed here unless there are any reliable sources. The very claim that Beijing cannot afford to give freedom to the Hong Kong people, and that Hong Kong people enjoy no freedom, is laughable as inconsistent with the content of the Basic Law and not supported by the view of any Human Rights Organization. Then, there is your repeated use of "阿爺吹雞,全部跪低". Do you seriously think it's appropriate to place it in Wikipedia? I appreciate all the discussion here is about the referendum, but a substantial portion of it is irrelevant to the article itself. The discussion here has degenerated into a personal platform for discussing personal views on the topic. I way forward is to state clearly what you intend to include in the article; the reason; the source; and avoid writing things here that can never appear in the article itself. I don't dispute we need to include well documented Beijing influence, but certainly not pure speculation. Responses from HK political identities, such as Stephen Lam, Rita Fan, Long Hair, Wong Yuk Man should of course be included.Craddocktm (talk) 03:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying there is no mistrust problem? The need-for-a-referendum began with mistrust from the very start. And I also think the overgeneralization of media censorship is not overgeneralization at all. You are looking at a territory so profit obsessive, it will sell magazines and newspapers on every imaginable topics. Now you have a topic this hot, and the media is all of a sudden quiet. If that is not self-censorship, I don't know what is. Benjwong (talk) 05:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

But those are pretty much personal speculation, aren't they? I don't deny there is a lack of trust between Beijing and the Hong Kong people, but "trust" is always something difficult to measure and quantify. You have to figure out the distinction between what we FEEL is right, and what we can VERIFY as right. To verify such a claim, I reckon finding an academic journal which directly deals with the issue is appropriate. But I seriously doubt you will ever find a reliable source describing the trust between the CPG and the HK people. Moreover, I think the approach you guys have shown above is wrong. You guys firstly stated your own personal opinions without citing any sources. Even if I assume you can find appropriate sources, you are merely using sources to substantiate your claims. I think it ought to be the other way round. We ought to find out what the commentators are actually saying and present it on this article. Personal opinion should have no place here. As to media censorship, firstly it has little relevance to the referendum and should not appear in this article. If you wish, you may want to create the page Media Censorship in Hong Kong. Moreover, your reasoning shows exactly why you are overgeneralizing. You are saying the WHOLE territory is "profit obssessive", and the WHOLE media is quiet. Your biggest problem is failure to distinguish between different media outlets. It's easy to see the different stances of the papers: Apple Daily is beyond doubt a pro-democracy newspaper, MingPao is quite neutral to slightly pro-democracy, SCMP is quite neutral to slightly pro-Beijing, while Oriental Daily, The Sun, Sing Tao, Tai Kung Po and Wen Wei Po etc are pro-Beijing. To say all of them have problems of self-censorship is certainly an overgeneralization of the picture, particularly when you consider the enormous circulation of Apple, MingPao and SCMP. What is more, the papers have hardly been quiet: I have no diffuclty in getting sources from various sources, from pro-democracy papers like Apple Daily and the Standard to heated criticisms in pro-Beijing newspapers. Even if the papers are at the moment as quiet as you said, there's no reason to suppose the reason is self censorship: there can be a lot of reasons, and having previously reported extensively on the referendum, the sensible newspaper man would focus on other news for the time being unless there are new twists and turns to the story. Craddocktm (talk) 07:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Craddock, while I understand your view, you are not telling it like it is. But is not your fault. Cause the sources are not telling it like it is either. I am well aware of neutral vs pro-beijing news. The definition of self-censor is a little different. Is like putting up news on Nina Wang at 1st, 2nd, 3rd... 15th and every other page. And spend a tiny blurp of info on the election. And the info looks so weak and non-reflective of society, no wonder recent surveys show people have little intention to vote. Tsang Hin-chi (曾憲梓) said the democrats showed desire to be independent. But why does he say it in such a way that the democrats appear like traitors? Why not point out all the other people who want citizenship changes. Wikipedia depend on sources, and the sources do not follow up. Mistrust is the root of the by-election (and 2012 election if it exist). Problem did not start yesterday. It started a long time ago. There is something wrong when PRC is supposed to be on an up-swing now, yet people are still leaving.

It is NOT hard to quantify. I suggest you look at the emigration statistics of:

1. HK citizens leaving for other countries post 1997.
2. HK citizens already with foreign passports, so they can pack their bags anytime.
3. Rich tycoons or their wealthy kids with foreign passports
4. Mainland citizens who flock to HK regularly so they can be one step closer to leaving.
5. Mainland citizens who happened to be pregnant and give birth in the middle of a SAR-visit trip. Right of abode people.

Now I cannot deny PRC is working hard to improve itself. But all of the above are in large quantities. Pro-democrat camp has already answered. They are saying we need an election to fix society's problems. Pro-beijing camp needs to seriously answer this. They get paid a lot of money to boycott elections and hide problems. Benjwong (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You still don't get my point. So, at the end of the day, you cannot give any source that actually talks about the mistrust and link it to the referendum. That, will be the end of the story. You can't list various factors and say they are relevant unless some sources say they are. Unsupported by sources, what you are saying is actually original research. On Wikipedia, it is inappropriate to say you suggest me looking at something: it ought to be some sources suggest me looking at something. It's really appalling that after all my insistence that sources be provided and prolonged discussion, no sources have actually emerge here to substantiate your claim. Regarding media censorship, it seems you have yet to address my concern it has little relevance to the referendum. Also, what you are saying must be substaniated by sources. I would expect a detailed media studies journal to substaniate your claim. You said the info is weak: but why is it weak and is the reporting really weak regarding the referendum? It's your personal conviction tht the reporting is weak and as I said, you can't put unreferenced materials in here. If you understand the different stance of the papers, it certainly does not explain YOUR theory of media censorship: a pro-democracy paper has absolutely no reason to shy away from reporting on the referendum. Galtung & Ruge's theory of news values undermines your entire media censorship argument as it shows the shaping of news is down to a variety of factors. This discussion is going nowhere as long as you persist in disregarding the need for sources. Truth is not the benchmark on Wikipedia; the standard is VERIFIABILITY. If sources don't come up, I am afraid you cannot put it in the article. It's as simple as that.Craddocktm (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am not a HK citizen, that means I do not read HK newspaper nor watch HK TV, I just watch whatever are online, such as youtube, and from these youtube video, I can say NowTV is better than ATV when dealing with the by-election. The RadioHK is also pro-democracy. Craddocktm is right, we need sources for whatever we put on wiki. But then Benjwong is right too, as I have just did a google search on HK by-election, there is hardly anything worth reading. Maybe Google had also been bought over by Beijing? After all, money can buy anything these times. Arilang ^talk 21:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

There is an article on SCMP titled "Views on the big issue". I can literally copy paste it to an article such as Responses to Constituencies Reform. The contents is not controversial or original research at all. However I do not know of wikipedia's policy of copying an article directly, especially since that is a paid site. Benjwong (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Original research refers to unpublished analysis and opinions. SCMP articles are clearly published and of course do not count as original research. It is perfectly alright to quote the contents of that article, but copying and pasting paragraphs after paragraphs of the SCMP article would be inappropriate. Try to rephrase the source and write it in your own words (but do not add your own ideas).Craddocktm (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I give up the idea of using that article. There is no way to do it without appearing to be copying. Benjwong (talk) 02:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

More source

最新最齊的社民連消息 Include OurTV HK video

林保華:中國鷹對香 港五區總辭 林保華 is a famous HK/Taiwan political commentator, can be another source. Arilang ^talk 06:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Best interpretation of Beijing/HK relationship

中國政府的"敵我關係", Benjwong, is it possible to get them in text form? Arilang ^talk 06:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

There are thousands of videos on youtube just like this one. We should not just insert any random person's opinion into the article. There is no space. Benjwong (talk) 07:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

徐少驊 Benjwong, Tsuis(徐少驊) seems to be a political commentator, he is not a Mr.Nobody. His comments should be considered as reliable source. Arilang ^talk 07:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Appledaily.com

一國兩制泡沫幻滅！共黨施壓facebook岌岌可危！ Appledaily.com video on shut down of facebook group.

Now TV video

五區公投-建制縮頭派@大鳴大放--pt.1 五區公投-建制縮頭派@大鳴大放--pt.2 五區公投 建制縮頭派 大鳴大放 劉夢熊 梁家傑 Part 3

To user Craddocktm and Benjwong, I have listed six youtube video, by watching these six video, I sort of understand HK's complex political situation. Can these video be used as sources? If not, where to get them in text form? Arilang ^talk 07:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it'll be impossible to get text form. I reckon directly posting the video link as reference is okay, but you will need to translate the video content into your own words. But a word of caution for using youtube sources: they are not neutral sources from what I have seen and may not satisfy the wikipedia:reliable sources rules. The Follow LSD blog is even more undesirable: blogs are regarded as elf-published sources which are not reliable. But do use youtube videos for the time being; however, when doing the write up, please try to keep a balanced POV. Craddocktm (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)