Talk:2019–2020 Hong Kong protests/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions about 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Sources for the alleged violence/vandalism/abuses by protesters or their sympathisers
Some have claimed that the alleged violence/vandalism/abuses by the protesters or their sympathisers did not exist. I have collected below a list of reports that show otherwise.
To avoid wasting time on pointless arguments, let me state the obvious:
- This is a list of the alleged abuses by the protesters or their sympathisers. It is NOT a balanced account of the abuses from all sides. There has been separate sections/articles on alleged police violence.
- This is NOT a discussion of WP:DUE or WP:UNDUE. That would be the next step.
Also note:
- Update: some reports might be describing same events.
- The list is not exhaustive. Some links contain description of multiple episodes of violence.
- I have tried my best to find reliable sources. You are welcome to fact check.
- The dates are the dates of the reports, not the dates of the events.
- Some Chinese have been translated to Enlgish - it's not very good, but hopefully not misleading.
- Regarding doxxing: Most reports, from reputable sources, only cited police news releases, which borderline primary sources. But an NYT article (26 July 2019) did report their original research.
Overview: relatively balanced accounts
https://www.rthk.hk/tv/dtt31/programme/hkcc/episode/589411
An incomplete time line:
21 June 2019: Vandalism and arson.
"Protesters start a fire at the gates of Tuen Mun police station after spray painting its wall with profanities."
"Bricks are thrown at Tuen Mun police station, smashing the windows on the first floor, and a rubbish bin is set alight."
1 July 2019: violence
"The violence, perpetrated by mostly masked youths wearing helmets, was on a scale that stunned the city. Thirteen police officers were taken to hospital after they were splashed with an unidentified liquid, believed to be drain cleaner, during clashes around the city’s legislative and administrative centre."
"They used a cage trolley and metal poles to repeatedly ram the glass front, swearing at and manhandling a handful of opposition lawmakers who had supported their protests so far but were trying to stop the violence.
Their appeals for calm were ignored, and pan-democrat legislator Leung Yiu-chung, 66, was physically tackled and flung to the ground as he tried to stand between them and the building front."
7 July 2019: Doxxing arrests
https://news.rthk.hk/rthk/en/component/k2/1466464-20190703.htm
15 July 2019: doxxing claims
"A tactic called doxxing, which involves posting the private data of police officers and their families online, has been widespread over the past weeks."
"About 180 police officers have been attacked and injured during the Hong Kong protests, with their families subjected to "intimidation and bullying", the Hong Kong government said on Sunday (Aug 18)"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/14/police-and-protesters-clash-in-second-hong-kong-town
"The public broadcaster RTHK later said that 22 people were admitted to hospital after the clashes, of whom three were in serious condition. It reported that 11 police officers were injured in the unrest and two lost fingers"
16 July 2019: police injury
https://news.rthk.hk/rthk/en/component/k2/1468658-20190716.htm
"A student on Tuesday appeared in court accused of biting off part of a police officer's finger during clashes in Sha Tin on Sunday."
24 July 2019: vandalism, abuses
http://www.ejinsight.com/20190724-graves-of-lawmaker-junius-ho-s-parents-vandalized/
"Pro-Beijing lawmaker Junius Ho Kwan-yiu reported to the police that the graves of his parents had been desecrated, days after he was seen shaking hands with some of the white-clad men who attacked pro-democracy activists and other commuters "
(A related issue: the junior police association condemned the vandals 'cockroaches'. This has been falsely twisted into them condemning all protesters cockroaches.
26 July 2019: Doxxing and abuse of police officers and their families
""“Dadfindboy” — a play on the name of a Facebook group created under the auspices of helping mothers find their children, but which ultimately became a way for pro-government groups to gather photos of protesters — is one forum for the doxxing of police officers. By turns facetious, juvenile, cruel and profane in tone, the channel repeatedly reveals personal information and photos, some of them intimate, of the family members of police officers, "
27 July 2019: abusing an elderly (who slap a sign off a protester's hand)
"A video of a group of young people jostling and swearing at an elderly man at Hong Kong’s airport on Saturday has gone viral online."
3 August 2019: vandalism
"Protesters and police clashed in Hong Kong again Saturday, as demonstrators seized a Chinese national flag from its pole and flung it into the city's Victoria Harbour, while police fired tear gas after protesters vandalised a police station."
5 August 2019: Violence, vandalism, arson, abusive language (used against families of police)
(Video shows an innocent driver was hit, his car vandalised. A lady in black attempted to snatch the cellphone off the hand of a lady in white when she was filming the incidence.)
"A driver who drove through a barricade was earlier stopped by an angry crowd at Healthy Street West, some of whom punched him and shattered his windshield as he got out and argued. A protester said the driver almost hit people with the vehicle."
"Protesters ignite a tree outside the homes of police officers and their families in Wong Tai Sin, after throwing bricks at the lower floors of the building and breaking windows."
(A video further down showed suspected Molotov cocktail being thrown into police station)
6 August 2019: Petrol bombs, arson, vandalism, abusive language against families
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXS6kWW_4co
(The fight in the first part (up to 2:00) of this video clip is widely reported. However, the vandalism perpetuated by the protesters shown in the second half is never mentioned by any outlet except for SCMP.)
(A related issue: the police was again accused of collusion with the thugs based on the fight. http://www.ejinsight.com/20190806-protesters-fight-off-attackers-in-north-point-tsuen-wan/ I don't know how this squares with what is shown in the second part.)
"Dozens of protesters chased after them until they reached the building, smashing the windows of the office as they asked for the men to be handed over. A man inside a flat in the building took out a knife and shouted at the protesters outside."
https://news.rthk.hk/rthk/en/component/k2/1472926-20190806.htm?spTabChangeable=0
"The black-clad protesters attacked the buildings with bricks, defaced them with graffiti, and in many cases started fires outside the gates."
"Video circulating online showed what appears to be petrol bombs being thrown into a police station, setting the hood of at least one police car on fire."
https://www.zaobao.com.sg/realtime/china/story20190806-978732
"黄大仙纪律部队员工宿舍的入口立起水马，大门两边的墙壁上被涂鸦，上面写着“黑社会之家”"
(Some images show slurs like: Accidents will happen to your wife and daughter. The pics were from readers, but this particular slur can be seen on a pic on SCMP)
https://thestandnews.com/politics/黃大仙連續三天警民衝突-紀律部隊宿舍遭圍攻2/
"有人用噴漆在宿舍外牆上寫上「黑社會」、警訓等字句，並以雞蛋、磚頭掟向宿舍外牆，有玻璃窗碎裂，有示威者用鐳射激光照射宿舍的窗口。警方則不時從宿舍內，朝睦鄰街上的示威者施放催淚彈。"
https://www.hk01.com/社會新聞/360810/逃犯條例-黃大仙紀律部隊宿舍住戶多次被圍-不明白為何被攻擊 "宿舍住戶趙小姐表示，自己現時很怕示威者，晚上睡不著：「禍不及家人，我不明白示威者為何要攻擊宿舍。」但她認為，大部分年輕人都是和平理性的"
https://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20190806/bkn-20190806081533899-0806_00822_001_cn.html (Video shows the abusive languages painted on the wall outside of police's homes. Might not be a very reliable source, but it is corroborated by other sources)
7 August 2019: a video showing the damages due to previous violence
https://www.hk01.com/社會新聞/361172/逃犯條例-警短片展示紀律部隊宿舍家破情況-住戶-雙方應冷靜
10 August 2019: abusive language against police officers
http://cn.rfi.fr/中国/20190810-示威者盂兰节超度亡魂到黄大仙警察宿舍外烧纸钱15人被捕
https://www.hk01.com/突發/362092/除惡盂蘭晚會-黃大仙警察宿舍外清場-警拘捕5人涉非法集結
(The protesters or sympathisers chanted "阿SIR，收嘢啦". If you know Cantonese, you understand that this is a very offensive slur. They were calling on the police to collect the burned paper money, which is effectively a death curse against the police.)
12 August 2019: violence against police homes
https://www.france24.com/en/20190812-theyre-being-used-hong-kong-protests-divide-neighbourhood
"Poppy Chan, the wife of a police officer, was preparing dinner for her family when she heard the crash of a brick shattering the window of her third-floor apartment."
13 August 2019: Violence against two mainland travellers and an officer
https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/08/article/hk-airport-paralyzed-for-second-day-by-protest/
"At one point a police officer pulled his handgun on protesters after he was beaten by protesters who had taken away his baton."
"One of the men detained by protesters had his hands secured with cable ties as he was forced to sit on a baggage trolley. Later the mob repeatedly kicked him as lay on the ground."
"For the first time in more than two months of clashes, a policeman drew his service revolver and pointed it at violent protesters at Hong Kong International Airport on August 13, but did not open fire. He was outnumbered and under attack by a group of protesters, one of whom snatched his baton and beat him with it."
http://std.stheadline.com/instant/articles/detail/1067018/即時-香港-機場集會-疑似公安內地男遭圍困-防暴警施放胡椒噴霧拘兩人
"該名男子自稱送機，爭執間疑跌下一個載有證件及木棍的背包，示威者翻查其銀包證件，發現他有內地身份證和港澳通行證，有人再以其姓名搜尋，再發現名字在內地公安名單上，遂懷疑他是內地公安並包圍，示威者用索帶綁起其雙手，並高叫「唔好畀佢走」。
至晚上8時許，有救護員到埸但示威者不容許帶走，現在情況僵持。至晚上9時許，該名男子仍然被示威者包圍，受困逾2小時，即使救護員在場仍然無果，期間男子遭示威者拳打腳踢，褲子更被扯去，露出內褲。晚上約10時，該名男子暈倒，救護員將他送上擔架床，並帶上氧氣罩。"
19 August 2019: abuses against MTR employees
"Off-duty MTR station officer Kwok Chi-keung was stunned when he ran into three youngsters on the streets of Sheung Shui, who without warning unleashed a torrent of abuse at him. “You dead blue ribbon""
"it took him a while to remember that his personal information had been put on social media, exposing him to the possibility of verbal attacks"
"Tam Kin-chiu, vice-chairman of the pro-Beijing Hong Kong Federation of Railway Trade Unions, also said his personal information including his mobile phone number was posted online late last month. A rail driver, Tam said he had since received numerous anonymous phone calls, some after midnight, and was also called by a financial agent inquiring if he had applied for loans."
19 August 2019: petrol bombs
"An officer suffered second-degree burns when he was hit by a petrol bomb thrown into the Tsim Sha Tsui police station compound "
22 August 2019: doxxing and online abuse
https://news.rthk.hk/rthk/en/component/k2/1476173-20190822.htm?share=facebook
"The police on Thursday warned people against sending online threats or posting personal data of others, as it revealed that the information of more than 1,600 officers has been unlawfully collected and leaked since June."
(The video shows an image on a seem-to-be facebook page, which says "all police who had ever used violence, your children will not live past 7 if they are younger than 7...")
24 August 2019: violence with petrol bombs
"Hong Kong police fired volleys of tear gas to break up anti-government protests in a gritty industrial suburb on Saturday after activists threw petrol bombs and bricks"
(See also the picture further down the page)
25 August 2019: Violence in general and against a bystander
"In a now familiar pattern, the protesters threw bricks, petrol bombs, corrosive liquid and other projectiles at the police, who responded with tear gas, pepper balls and sponge grenades"
(Starting from 5:19 of the first video, a group of black-shirts attacked an unarmed white-shirt after some verbal exchanges, and beat him to the ground)
26 August 2019: Violence against police. Vandalism
"A Hong Kong police officer fired one warning shot into the air as protesters chased and attacked him and several colleagues with metal pipes during chaotic scenes in Tsuen Wan"
(33 seconds into the video, a police officer fell to the ground. The protesters continued to beat him with sticks. Then a police officer fired a warning shot.)
"Protesters smashed glass doors and windows in two mahjong parlours while scolding staff inside. They also tried to prise open the roller gate of an arcade gaming centre.
Security cameras and outer walls were also vandalised. The protesters left the site after a few minutes." Ltyl (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'd say insert a couple of the sources from BBC, SCMP and Reuters into the infobox to support your addition. That there has been violence in the protests is most certainly WP:DUE and well supported by reliable sources, but we do have to show it. That said, I daresay even the most stridently anti-China editors will have to admit those three sources are not "paid by Beijing". SCMP in particular is an excellent source for relatively balanced China reportage, absent both the blatant pro-Beijing bias of Xinhua and the equally problematic anti-China bias of the BBC. Simonm223 (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- OK, I went ahead and inserted some refs that I felt were relatively unambiguous. I didn't read everything in this list but I should note that the main reason I stopped when I did was to prevent refbombing. Simonm223 (talk) 16:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. Haven't got around to do it myself. Ltyl (talk) 16:30, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Too long, haven't read much. But for source, i had read some BBC articles from my phone app, which some of their articles quote HK police directly without judging. However, many local media as well as foreign journalist had often question HK police creditability at the live press conference. And in recent days it emerged a new unrelated scandal that the police had tortured an elderly in the hospital "special treatment room" that the police thought there is no cctv, but the footage was exposed by the hospital c/o lawmaker after a request from the victim. Also lost count of local news coverage on blatant lie from the police of the "necessary and under controlled" force they claimed, and the blatant from the live footage the press had captured. I would say any claim from the police via press release or quoted by the press, requires to use "the police claims" wording in most case.
- While for Chinese state-source, due to censorship and POV/ COI, they labelled the protest as rebellion or "color revolution" or reaching "new terrorism", it never a reliable source but a propaganda that they would dare to show the full picture to their own citizen , and due to misinformation , i don't think their conclusion on the protest, could be used . It can used in a section that dedicated to state-media however. (It was incorrectly moved to International reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests#Chinese government and media). Matthew hk (talk) 13:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- Also for the action of the protesters, there is no consensus even among local and Western media on the actions are violent or not (except the most recent use of petrol bomb or mass vandal of shops), to avoid POV pushing, may be just list the actions of the protesters and leave the reader of the wiki articles to judge it is a use of force or a use of violence (violence = excessive force by some dictionary). Matthew hk (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- I mean I'd be 100% onboard with deleting the methods field from the infobox. My distaste for infoboxes isn't exactly a secret. Simonm223 (talk) 13:25, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Simonm223: I'm for deleting it. By the way, is it appropriate to delete some text on the talk page? It's getting very cluttered. Cheers. Ltyl (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- I mean I'd be 100% onboard with deleting the methods field from the infobox. My distaste for infoboxes isn't exactly a secret. Simonm223 (talk) 13:25, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- Probably you haven't read much of the list. I am aware of the concerns about police news release. That's why I used it very carefully. As I said, the doxxing claims from police news releases were corroborated by NYT. I felt the corroboration was needed to convince a wider audience. As to the consensus on 'violence', it is not actually what I tried to show with the list. I merely showed that violence was the description used in the sources. However, I would say the media does have consensus on this, using the 'passive consensus' standard in wiki. It's fair to say many reliable sources use that description, while no reliable sources actively dispute it. In this sense, we may say it is a consensus. Ltyl (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Ltyl: It is not appropriate to delete material from this page except in very limited circumstances. However if consensus is a conversation is over, or if a thread is inactive for an extended period, it can be archived. Simonm223 (talk) 15:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- Ltyl, i mean, local press did not have a consensus on the protesters are violent or not, since out of 2 million participants of the rally , are quite different from the demonstrators that make fun of police using laser pointers or just foul languages, to people throwing umbrella and occupying the road and airport departure hall. Generally , there are more source to label those throwing petrol bomb are violent, and those did not break any law but only participated the police approved rally (and stay in designed route) are peaceful. But in between had quite a big spectrum. Matthew hk (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Discussion on what tags to include on the infobox
- Comment about Vandalism – Okay, I read through the passages above ... yes, vandalism is occurring, and as I had stated before and as these sources show, it is not random. The property damage is targeted / strategic and with political purpose (mostly attacks on police stations). So the information on the infobox should either read Political vandalism or simply Property damage ... please note where each of those wikilinks directs to, specifically in those articles. The distinction is important and clear. "Vandalism" alone is too vague. Thoughts from others? 65.60.163.223 (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Another more specific option would be: Police station blockades ... and that section could probably use more detail as well, but at least this description is more accurate. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not certain how vandalism alone implies a lack of a target. Specific instances of vandalism are certainly targeted, but the variety of targets is pretty broad - cctv cameras, police vehicles, the homes of police officers, vehicles, etc. It's an infobox. It's bad enough we have to add refs to it. Getting too wordy belongs in the body text. Would not be opposed to "targeted vandalism" as a suggestion. Simonm223 (talk) 18:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- I am agreeable to "targeted vandalism" but I think it should link to a section that specifically describes the tactic as strategic and purposeful ... so wikilinking to Vandalism#Political makes sense to me. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 19:26, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Although, reading the section on Property damage does seem more accurate to me: "Property damage tactics have been part of the labor movement, peace movement, ecology movement, environmental movement and anti-globalization movement, among others ... and even police forces have been targeted." I am not attached to either one, but think we should be specific. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment about Violence – Okay, I have read through the first two linked sources for this tag on the infobox (the third is a video).
- From "the first SCMP article".
- "Stones and rocks are also being thrown at police by demonstrators."
- "In Wong Tai Sin, riot police try to remove barricades on Lung Cheung Road set up by the protesters, who throw stones and other objects at them, and police are driven away."
- "Police on Yeung Uk Road in Tsuen Wan leave after brandishing a black flag warning for tear gas after protesters hurl objects at them. Protesters cheer and applaud the police’s departure and immediately return to occupy the road."
- "After police fire tear gas in Wong Tai Sin, protesters enter Temple Mall to rest. Residents living nearby throw water bombs at police on the ground."
- "At least 10 more rounds of tear gas are fired on Harcourt Road, but protesters show no sign of leaving. Some even throw the gas canisters back at the Chief Executive's Office."
- "In Tai Po, protesters run off after police fire fresh rounds of tear gas to clear Nam Wan Road. Some in the crowd had earlier thrown rocks at officers. A middle-aged woman cries in pain after the gas enters her eyes."
- "A petrol bomb is hurled into Wong Tai Sin Police Station as officers in riot gear remain on standby."
- "Protesters outside Tsuen Wan Police Station are hurling bricks, stones and eggs at the station, breaking many glass windows. They also deface the station with graffiti saying 'triad' and 'murderer'."
- "A young demonstrator uses a catapult to fire three shots at the iron gate between the mall and a bridge to the police station where officers are standing guard."
- "Protesters are hurling bricks, stones, paint bombs and eggs at Tsuen Wan Police Station. Officers stand guard inside the station's car park. They try to broadcast a warning through a loudspeaker but it is barely audible over the shouting outside."
- "Protesters also threw bricks and all manner of objects at police after officers let fly three rounds of tear gas in the direction of a mall and residential building."
- "Another round of tear gas is fired in Tin Shui Wai. A protester hurls the canister back into the police station."
- From "the second SCMP article".
- "It was a police force feeling betrayed and abandoned but which nevertheless faced waves of attacks by protesters the very next day, using tear gas, rubber bullets and sponge grenades to clear the streets."
- "One of the biggest concerns raised by top police commanders and operational chiefs working both in the field and at headquarters, speaking to the Post on condition of anonymity, was what they described as the growing acceptance of violence against officers. The umbrellas that were used as both shields and weapons during the 2014 Occupy protests remain a staple, but protesters have added bricks, sharpened metal rods, drain cleaner, ball bearings launched from catapults, and petrol bombs to their arsenal."
- "More than two months into the protest crisis, police refuse to admit they are getting more aggressive in their anti-riot tactics, touting the bureaucratic line that they are merely responding with a level of force that matches the intensity of the attacks against them. But both reports on the ground and video footage of police in action, especially during late-night operations when they swing into action to clear the streets, clearly show they are not holding back as much as they used to."
- "The departure from their default defensive mode can be traced back to an unspoken turning point for police when protesters vandalised the facade of Beijing’s liaison office in Western District on July 21, defacing China’s national emblem hanging over the entrance."
- "The unprecedented use of force at Kwai Fong station marked a clear change in tactics – in the past, police would allow protesters who attacked them to retreat into the MTR system to surface at a different location for another guerilla-style assault. They also took it to a new level the same day at Tai Koo station, chasing after protesters and piling onto them at the top of a long, steep escalator, where they beat them with batons and fired pepper pellets at close quarters."
These sources show a back and forth in terms of the application of violence by protesters and police. Sometimes the use of violence by protesters is defensive, and sometimes it is offensive. But it is always with purpose and is political. Therefore, I believe the appropriate term is thus Rebellion. From the Wikipidia page:
Rebellion is a refusal of obedience or order. It refers to the open resistance against the orders of an established authority. A rebellion originates from a sentiment of indignation and disapproval of a situation and then manifests itself by the refusal to submit or to obey the authority responsible for this situation. Rebellion can be individual or collective, peaceful (civil disobedience, civil resistance, and nonviolent resistance) or violent (terrorism, sabotage and guerrilla warfare.)
In political terms, rebellion and revolt are often distinguished by their different aims. If rebellion generally seeks to evade and/or gain concessions from an oppressive power, a revolt seeks to overthrow and destroy that power, as well as its accompanying laws. The goal of rebellion is resistance while a revolt seeks a revolution.[citation needed] As power shifts relative to the external adversary, or power shifts within a mixed coalition, or positions harden or soften on either side, an insurrection may seesaw between the two forms.
I would also like to note that the on-going anti-elab protests are included here on the List of revolutions and rebellions. So the tag on the infobox should not be listed as "Violence" but as "Rebellion" as it is a much more accurate and apt description of the overall situation, and inherently includes the application of violence in its very definition. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- I would vehemently disagree. We have no reliable sources saying that an element of Hong Kong is in open rebellion. And, considering how charged that language can be in the Chinese context it would hardly be neutral to create such a statement via WP:SYNTH. We do have ample reliable sources for political violence such as throwing petrol bombs, etc. Let's stick to what we can source and not what we might imagine. Simonm223 (talk) 19:30, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Furthermore, I have corrected that list. Simonm223 (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Fair enough ... I was just going from the definition of rebellion on the wiki page. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 19:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Simonm223 (talk) 19:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- I understand ... but it seems like there is some sort of middle ground here. The violence is not baseless and there is opposition to authority in street clashes and with unpermitted marches ... nor is it "chaos" as sometimes reported by reliable sources. I agree that short of accurate descriptions by media there is not much to go on. That's why we are having a discussion about it, and I respect your perspective as you are a long time editor. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- So you are suggesting that it would be within reason to change the tag on the infobox from "violence" to Political violence, correct? That seems reasonable to me as well. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)The thing about an infobox is that brevity is a necessity. What can we say that is sourced reliably in minimal words and expresses what's going on neutrally? Protesters have engaged in violence. Certainly there's a diversity of tactics and other protesters are peaceful. But the reality is that to avoid saying they've used political violence is not neutral. And "political violence" is not particularly brief. Now there are synonyms for political violence but many of them come with various weights. I'm certain we don't want to say, as certain mainland Chinese sources might, that protesters throwing petrol bombs at police are engaging in terrorism. And as I've pointed out the word "rebellion" carries its own baggage. Not the least of which would be the implication that the protesters were actively trying to break the One Country Two Systems policy and form an independent nation. I don't believe this is the case, nor do I think the protesters would be well served by major information platforms suggesting, as encyclopedic fact, that they were attempting that. Frankly the most effective way to express with appropriate brevity what's going on is to say "violence" and then to discuss the nature of that violence as supported by reliable sources in the body of the article. Where we can talk about how some of the violence has been defensive and some of it has been aggressive. Where we can detail fist fights, fights with sticks and steel rods, use of molotovs, forceful confinement of mainland travelers, etc. We have a duty to discuss these events neutrally and dispassionately, just as we have a duty to discuss human chains, rallies, sit-ins, and other peaceful protest tactics. And just as we have a duty to discuss police brutality and allegations of political involvement with violent counter-protesters. Remember: Wikipedia isn't supposed to take a side in this. We communicate what can be verified. That's all. Simonm223 (talk) 19:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- So you are suggesting that it would be within reason to change the tag on the infobox from "violence" to Political violence, correct? That seems reasonable to me as well. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- I understand ... but it seems like there is some sort of middle ground here. The violence is not baseless and there is opposition to authority in street clashes and with unpermitted marches ... nor is it "chaos" as sometimes reported by reliable sources. I agree that short of accurate descriptions by media there is not much to go on. That's why we are having a discussion about it, and I respect your perspective as you are a long time editor. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Simonm223 (talk) 19:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Fair enough ... I was just going from the definition of rebellion on the wiki page. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 19:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Furthermore, I have corrected that list. Simonm223 (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Simonm223: Absolutely makes sense. I would just like to point out some bias on the infobox and in the article too ... anything to do with the police is "alleged" ... "allegations of excessive force" ... "alleged police brutality" etc. Whereas protesters may be labeled as "violent" without any prefixes such as "accusations of" or "alleged protester violence" etc. One way around all of that is to just be really specific about the claims being made. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 20:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- My understanding is 'excessive' is subjective, so it is an allegation. Police has the power to use violent force - vested by the law. The argument is whether it is excessive or not. However, protesters have no such power. Therefore 'violence' is 'violence', although you can certainly argue that it is justified. This is perhaps WP:NOTFORUM already. Ltyl (talk) 20:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- True, but one may also argue that some "protester violence" is in fact self-defense. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 20:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Ltyl: Also, just to point out the obvious: simply because application of force is allowable by law for HKPF, does not make it any less violent. We rarely see statements like "violent police action" because it is usually just called a "police action" ... occasionally one will see "violent clashes" or something like that in the media or on the wiki pages. But police violence is routinely diminished and in fact normalized by how it is described as "legal" and "necessary" and any criticism is considered subjective. It is a form of structural bias, built-in to how these situations are described and reported upon. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- I am against 'political vandalism' and 'political violence'. Some violence/vandalism did not seem to serve a declared political purpose (the driver comes to mind). If you want to convey a sense that it isn't 'full-scale' or rampant violence (whatever that means), I can vote for 'targeted vandalism' and 'targeted violence' as suggested by Simonm223. Ltyl (talk) 19:59, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, "targeted vandalism" seems to make sense. A vast majority of the property destruction has had political purpose, however. Sure, there are a few outlying instances, but the numerous police station blockades are obviously with clear intent, as demonstrated by well documented graffiti that pretty clearly describes protester motivations (and even in their own words!). 65.60.163.223 (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- While it's fully possible to support a claim that some protester violence may represent community defense, I think it's more complicated - see for instance the forced confinement of mainland travelers during the airport protest. They were not actively engaged in any protest-related activity but were subjected to a form of violence on the basis that they were suspected of being mainland journalists. That's pushing the boundary of defense. Simonm223 (talk) 23:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Simonm223: Perhaps. But I do remember reading that there were specific concerns about the mainland individual targeting people and trying to take photographs of faces ... and that those photos would be turned over to authorities for facial recognition and punishment or arrest, etc. Given that China is on some totally other level of crazy that I can't understand, in terms of punishing free speech (and even abducting and torturing people for free speech), maybe it makes folks a little paranoid ... but maybe they are right to be worried too, especially in light of airlines workers getting fired for private Facebook posts, etc. I get that people would be afraid and upset if they felt there was a Chinese state agent in their midst. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 04:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- Clearly paranoia is not a valid justification for violence, let along claiming the violence is self-defence. The danger was not eminent. The protesters can ask security for help if they suspect any unlawful behaviors. Ltyl (talk) 10:25, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Ltyl: Sure, that's true, but how does one ask for help if they have been renditioned? Please see: Causeway Bay Books disappearances. Pretty off the charts, in my opinion. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- So is it self-defense for private citizens to apprehend members of the CIA? Because I mean when you want to discuss rendition to black-sites I mean... But again, this is speculation. I'm tempted to hat this whole line of discussion. It'd be WP:SYNTH for us to characterize those actions as community defense under the speculation they believed they'd be extra-judicially renditioned. And it would have to be extra-judicial as neither the Basic Law nor the shelved extradition law would have allowed for such actions. Simonm223 (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Simonm223: Well, of course there is tons of stuff the CIA has done that merits the attention of international courts. Getting any of those agents (or the Agency as a whole) brought to trial is a completely different story. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 20:40, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- Not sure if self-defense can be applied to a group of people, in a legal sense. I would need convincing on this. An individual (e.g. the protester charged with biting a finger off an officer) might be able to claim it though, at least as a strategy for defense in the court. Ltyl (talk) 09:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- The argument for community defense being equivalent to self-defense is particularly significant within leftist circles so I'm willing to concede that there may be corrolaries there. But, "they have a camera and came from the mainland, get them," is not exactly community defense as anybody would generally define it. Furthermore, with regard to fears vis a vis free expression and torture, I'd suggest, as somebody who has actually lived in China for some time and has a lot of connections to the place, that the US understanding of Chinese suppression of free speech and the reality don't exactly line up. This is why we should avoid WP:SYNTH such as claiming that forceful confinement of mainland journalists by protesters constitutes defense against surveillance. While we may report reliable sources containing claims the protesters believed that, we shouldn't treat that as fact. Simonm223 (talk) 12:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- TIL moment re. community defense = self-defense. Interesting. Ltyl (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Simonm223 and Ltyl: Somewhat off-topic – Hmm, curiously there doesn't seem to be a wiki article about the broader concepts of community self defense, or comparisons of different historical and modern methods across the globe. Searches for the topic redirect here: Baojia system. I would have at least expected some decent articles about Zapatista practices, as they are probably even to this day still defending their communities from the Mexican Army. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 17:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'll add that to the AfC hopper once I get done with Anti-Communist Propaganda then. Simonm223 (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- Awesome!! : ) 65.60.163.223 (talk) 02:22, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Methods in the infobox
In light of the discussion here, I've removed the Methods row from the infobox. As far as I can tell, there is almost no way for us to effectively, accurately and neutrally summarize protester methods sufficiently to fit such a constrained format. Let's keep it in the body where we can provide necessary context. Simonm223 (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- Makes sense, as the list will only continue to grow as the protests continue. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 17:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- I linked the tactics and methods article inside the Methods row from the infobox. ([1]) –Wefk423 (talk) 16:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sorry I'm strongly against this. The linked article has not yet included material on violence etc. I've removed the edit. Ltyl (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Ltyl: Feel free to help improve upon the section, but just because it's not "complete" doesn't mean that it should not be linked, eh? Perhaps the infobox is not the best place, but we do need to more prominently offer the link somewhere on the article due to the content being removed following article split. Anyhow, there is a lengthy conversation on the talk page about improving the methods and tactics section, here:
- Since you are so passionate about this, perhaps you would like to help and make it better? Please review the discussion thread for details. Thanks. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 20:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Wefk423: Please explain why you put these back in light of the discussion wherein all participants agreed to remove? Simonm223 (talk) 15:35, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Simonm223: "All"? How about IP user 65.60.163.223 who asked Ltyl to improve the section not to simply remove the link? Not a participant? Reading the discussion, the consensus is to remove the big chunk of descriptions and actions, which caused controversy for the sensitive terms. I simply added a sub-article, with an adjective "Diverse", which seems like a suitable description. I believe that it is important to integrate the sub-articles to this article. Don't you think so? –Wefk423 (talk) 15:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- It's integrated into body text. And the IP was asking LTYL to participate at the methods article; not to restore the infobox. It's just clutter in the infobox. Simonm223 (talk) 15:54, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- It's not really integrated if it's just a small template message under "Timeline" section without any summary. I have to disagree that the only five words is "clutter in the infobox". The infobox should include a summary of everything, and almost all protest article includes the method row (including 2014 Hong Kong protests). I don't think that it should be completely wiped out. –Wefk423 (talk) 16:01, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- It's integrated into body text. And the IP was asking LTYL to participate at the methods article; not to restore the infobox. It's just clutter in the infobox. Simonm223 (talk) 15:54, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Simonm223: "All"? How about IP user 65.60.163.223 who asked Ltyl to improve the section not to simply remove the link? Not a participant? Reading the discussion, the consensus is to remove the big chunk of descriptions and actions, which caused controversy for the sensitive terms. I simply added a sub-article, with an adjective "Diverse", which seems like a suitable description. I believe that it is important to integrate the sub-articles to this article. Don't you think so? –Wefk423 (talk) 15:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Wefk423: Please explain why you put these back in light of the discussion wherein all participants agreed to remove? Simonm223 (talk) 15:35, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sorry I'm strongly against this. The linked article has not yet included material on violence etc. I've removed the edit. Ltyl (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
I fail to see how a word in an infobox is superior to a line in the body. Simonm223 (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- That's not a valid argument. Infobox is suppose to summarise everything to give an introduction to the topic of the article. If it is a "clutter in the infobox", you should condense it, not wipe it out. I can't understand why you are so eager to clean the whole thing, especially when your initial argument was that we could not "effectively, accurately and neutrally summarize protester methods". Isn't "Diverse" a neutral yet suitable term? You said that we should "keep it in the body where we can provide necessary context", then you should go improve the sub-article body, not remove the method row which simply links to a body with more information. –Wefk423 (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- That's not actually a response to my question which is how that infobox word improves over the line of body text that currently links the two pages (both of which I am, in fact active on.) Your argument seems to be WP:ILIKEIT. Simonm223 (talk) 16:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- You didn't provide any valid points either, but I won't accuse you for WP:IDONTLIKEIT since we are having a discussion for the good of the article. I simply wanted to added a description in the infobox to summarise the method of the movement, and linking the sub-article. If there are other disagreement from other users, then remove it. I'm not here to have an argument with others, but to contribute to this encyclopaedia. But I don't see any reason (or guidelines) to wipe the whole row away. –Wefk423 (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- That's not actually a response to my question which is how that infobox word improves over the line of body text that currently links the two pages (both of which I am, in fact active on.) Your argument seems to be WP:ILIKEIT. Simonm223 (talk) 16:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Simonm223 and Wefk423: How about we go forward with creation of a navigation sidebar for the "orphaned" articles like this one, as suggested in another on-going thread? I think it would really help a lot! 65.60.163.223 (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- I mean I would support the navigation sidebar as proposer. LOL Simonm223 (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- I agree too, it's better for navigation as there are too many sub-articles. –Wefk423 (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- I've got a start here. Having some trouble getting the image to display. User:Simonm223/sandbox - I've got a redlinked article that soon will exist in there. The rest are what I could find that seems appropriate to include. Simonm223 (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- Fixed the image display problem. –Wefk423 (talk) 21:36, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- I've got a start here. Having some trouble getting the image to display. User:Simonm223/sandbox - I've got a redlinked article that soon will exist in there. The rest are what I could find that seems appropriate to include. Simonm223 (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
A section on alleged violence by protesters
I am putting together a page based on the sources listed in a previous section. Suggestions and information are welcome. Ltyl (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Ltyl: Did you have a chance to read the talk page thread that I linked you to?
- It is here: Talk:Tactics and methods surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests
- There is some good content and a couple of sources are discussed. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 21:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Okay, there is a new section in the Tactics and methods article, here:
Feel free to contribute and add content! Thanks. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 06:50, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Martial law
I heard the debates about the possibly martial law enaction from the Global Times (as always, GT supports the martial law). I believe it is important but I don’t have time to find realiable sources to confirm it.
Mariogoods (talk) 03:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, a lot of discussions are held to discuss the possibility of Martial Law. Here is another sources from HKFP and HKEJ. 12 And, GT oppose martial law now.--PYatTP (talk) 09:36, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- We should be avoiding including speculation. See WP:TOOSOON and WP:DELAY for why. If martial law is declared, or if the government announces an ultimatum to implement martial law, or even if a major protest group does one of their press conferences and claims they believe that martial law is imminent and it gets coverage, that'd definitely be due. But media speculation? Undue. Simonm223 (talk) 12:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
What is valuel
| WP:NOTFORUM |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I discover that people in our society does not look out value which we generat cris in between one nation to other nation and is not good, will as a good citizenship we should learn how to value Jomolado (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC) |
Caution with summary
I understand the desire for brevity in summary style, and I do concede that some shortening and tightening is in order before this page forks yet another child. However summaries that exclude key, due, reliably sourced details such as mob violence toward police severe enough to lead to the firing of a warning shot have a serious impact on WP:NPOV. When summarizing, please try to keep these sorts of matters in mind. Simonm223 (talk) 13:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- Per WP:BRD, whoever added this sentence should brought this to the talk page after I reverted it. When I undo you, I have already added back that the information that the police was assaulted by protesters. If your issue is that they use "makeshift weapons", I am fine with it and feel free to add it yourself. But this is a summary, things like "More guns were drawn by the police, who did not fire again and later retreated" and "an officer falls to the ground" does not matter in the bigger picture. I insisted on keeping this section simple and short. OceanHok (talk) 13:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)From my perspective, you aren't reverting the information. You're editing the page to exclude reliably sourced content. Thus you aren't the reverter here. But that's neither here nor there. If you want to try again to summarize please do, but leave in the information regarding makeshift weapons this time. Simonm223 (talk) 14:00, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Troop rotation due?
Reuters being a wire service, it often jumps on stuff first, before any significance is established. Is the discussion of the troop rotation actually due here? China claims it's a routine action. And frankly, carrying on like nothing is happening seems to be a preferred tactic whenever possible in these sorts of disputes, so it may very well be. Simonm223 (talk) 13:38, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- I would say it is not due for rotation. However, the previous training at Shenzhen and the editorial of People's Daily had indicated that they have some linkage, since in their training, press had taken footage that the soldier were dressed as black shirt yellow hatted demonstrators. Matthew hk (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
It's due, the article clearly says why and I've edited the material to reflect that. Your personal opinions about what Reuters does and what Beijing prefers isn't relevant. I am notifying @BJohn1087: to this discussion as the user was the one who added this info. Flaughtin (talk) 20:13, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Flaughtin:. the 2017 and 2018 rotation also took place in August. [2][3]. It is purely Reuters speculation on the 2019 rotation is related to the protest . Matthew hk (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Matthew hk:Well if it's "speculation" then it's reasonable speculation and no worse than your speculation that what Reuters was doing was speculating. At any rate, the material should be included because Reuters is a reliable source and lots of other reliable sources are saying this as well. At least it is much more reliable than Xinhua (a source which you cited) which, we can all agree, is not reliable for anything except for stating the views of the prc government. Flaughtin (talk) 22:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- I've removed the speculation that the routine troop rotation is
likely to hit a nerve
. I still don't believe this incident is due mention at all. It's clearly routine, and has happened at the same time for several years, but if it has, in fact hit any nerves find a source for that. Not a wire service speculating it might. Simonm223 (talk) 12:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)- You are clearly not getting this. What you personally think about Reuters isn't relevant, the only thing that matters is what the editing rules on Wikipedia are. That kind of speculation belongs on a blog, not here. WP:RSP on Reuters is prettty clear: Reuters is a news agency. There is consensus that Reuters is generally reliable. Syndicated reports from Reuters that are published in other sources are also considered generally reliable. Press releases published by Reuters are not automatically reliable. That means anything written in a Reuters article is fair game. No different than how anything written in Xinhua is fair game for sourcing it to the PRC government or the Daily Stormer to the KKK/Third Reich. You should know this by now given our interactions in the past on other pages. As for the specific wording itself I am going to change it because like I said there are lots of other sources drawing parallels to the troop rotation and its effects on the protest movement. Flaughtin (talk) 22:01, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Added another article by Reuters that also says the rotation is routine. Ltyl (talk) 09:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- It's not another source it's the same article. Check before you make edits like that again next time. Flaughtin (talk) 22:01, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- I added this: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-protests-china/china-rotates-new-batch-of-troops-into-hong-kong-idUSKCN1VJ02K. You used this: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-protests/china-rotates-troops-into-hong-kong-as-protesters-call-for-democracy-idUSKCN1VJ06B Two different articles. Ltyl (talk) 22:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- It came up as the same link for me. Regardless it doesn't matter given the changes ive made. Flaughtin (talk) 23:49, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- I added this: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-protests-china/china-rotates-new-batch-of-troops-into-hong-kong-idUSKCN1VJ02K. You used this: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-protests/china-rotates-troops-into-hong-kong-as-protesters-call-for-democracy-idUSKCN1VJ06B Two different articles. Ltyl (talk) 22:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
6 goals or 5 goals?
The infobox now lists 6 goals. Most news reports still say 5 demands? Ltyl (talk) 21:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- The last demand include universal suffrage and resignation of Carrie Lam, it was spited into two demands in the infobox. —Wefk423 (talk) 07:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- Should be 5. It just some version just demand the resignation of Carrie Lam, instead of universal suffrage. But now that version is deprecated. Matthew hk (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Category Riots
I found the user UsernamesAllTaken added the Category:Riots and civil disorder in China, Category:Riots and civil disorder in Hong Kong. Should we remove it or keep it? Mariogoods (talk) 10:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- It did a civil disorder by some sense. Local media often described the protest of that day had turned to conflicts between police and protesters. But i am not sure it is due or undue to put it in that cat . Matthew hk (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- I found UsernamesAllTaken also added Category:Riots and civil disorder in Hong Kong to 2014 Hong Kong protests, Umbrella protests (in its redirect pages). Mariogoods (talk) 22:31, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- I believed that describing this as civil disorder should be careful since there are strong CoI around the protests.Mariogoods (talk) 22:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- Was there really any degree of civil disorder during the Umbrella Revolution? I thought it was predominantly a peaceful occupation of public space? 65.60.163.223 (talk) 06:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- The problem is that UsernamesAllTaken has added the category in said articles including the article. Mariogoods (talk) 08:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- Was there really any degree of civil disorder during the Umbrella Revolution? I thought it was predominantly a peaceful occupation of public space? 65.60.163.223 (talk) 06:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Would like everyone to take a look
Hello all. There is an ongoing discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests. Inside the discussion are some ideas about the direction of the article & sub-articles. Some articles are way too detailed, which violates WP:NOTNEWS. We should consider condensing it, or maybe transferring some content to WikiNews. Cheers. –Wefk423 (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Question
If I want to add information about online activities which is not from Chinese government or protesters, where can I add this? (I have found the report about hkleaks.org in SCMP, if my memory isn't wrong)Mariogoods (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Requested move 2 September 2019
- 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved, per WP:SNOW. In the interest of clarity please propose any other move requests separately. El_C 03:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests → 2019 Hong Kong crisis – Since this protest is currently the longest, why not rename this page? 69.157.127.100 (talk) 03:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Oppose(see below 16:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)) Please read WP:CRITERIA before starting RM. WP:article titles should based on reliable source, so far the Guardian still use [the/2019] Hong Kong protests. [4] Matthew hk (talk) 03:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- Support alt option 2019 Hong Kong protests per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and adding hatnote if necessary for disambiguation. Matthew hk (talk) 16:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree with Matthew hk. --Gomaza (talk) 04:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose I agreed with Mh too. Mariogoods (talk) 04:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per above — IVORK Discuss 05:19, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose — who called it the Hong Kong crisis?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:51, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Crisis is not a suitable word, both vague and judgmental. At most the title could be changed to 2019 Hong Kong protests, as they're now about more than just the Bill.92.24.157.21 (talk) 11:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- "2019 Hong Kong protests" is concise but not very precision. There are other protests in year 2019, mainly before June that not related to the bill. While the current article title, "2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests", still not very precise due to the bill is only the immediate cause, and underneath protesters wants democracy and freedom they had promised in the Basic Law. However, as external source did not change to that wording, may be "2019 Hong Kong protests" is an option (and per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC), we just need to add hatnote. Matthew hk (talk) 13:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- BTW i just noticed the article title of the related protest in 2014, is located in 2014 Hong Kong protests, but Umbrella Movement as another article also existed. Matthew hk (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- Strong oppose Per above, it is definitely not a crisis. Also support 2019 Hong Kong protests. –Wefk423 (talk) 11:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- I agree VitaminBoost (talk) 11:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose, agree moving to 2019 Hong Kong protests. OceanHok (talk) 13:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:CRITERIA. Specifically "2019 Hong Kong crisis" is less precise than the current title, and also less natural. It also fails WP:COMMONNAME since there is no evidence in reliable sources that "crisis" is the common-name, with most reliable sources still speaking about "protests". Agree with Matthew hk that 2019 Hong Kong protests is a better title both than the proposed title and the present title, particularly it is more consistent with 2014 Hong Kong protests, more concise, more precise. FOARP (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- @FOARP: You mean 2019? There is a typo , as you wrote "2018 Hong Kong protests". Matthew hk (talk) 16:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- oops, fixed FOARP (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- @FOARP: You mean 2019? There is a typo , as you wrote "2018 Hong Kong protests". Matthew hk (talk) 16:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- Strongly opppose per user 92.24.257.21 Chungonion (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - Since 2019 Hong Kong crisis is not a widely used common name, it would have to be a descriptive name, but it's not descriptive: "crisis" could mean that a hurricane hit HK - the key information about what sort of crisis it is is missing. In fact, under the Chenoweth–Stephan 3.5% rule for an active and sustained participation in civil disobedience, the HK campaign, with about 30% participation in the biggest protests, and easily 3.5% of active sustained participation, most likely qualifies for the rule, so sociologically, the situation would violate historical precedent if it failed to achieve its aims; unless it violates the rule, 2019 Hong Kong Revolution seems likely to be the long-term name. We can't propose this yet; we can only predict it (WP:OR). Boud (talk) 01:09, 3 September 2019 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Is the Nation a reliable source in general?
How about this opinion piece specifically, when it is used to support the allegation of violence by the police?
https://www.thenation.com/article/hong-kong-protests-china-police-brutality-democracy/
As an opinion piece, it merely repackaged previous allegations and piled more allegations on top. It looks problematic. The Nation mostly publishes commentaries and opinions. As far as I know, not reliable as a news source. Ltyl (talk) 20:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- This article is one of the source used in the infobox for the alleged violence by police. I suggest replacing it (perhaps the other two together) with the Amnesty International report.
https://www.amnesty.org.hk/en/verified-hong-kong-police-violence-against-peaceful-protesters/
Ltyl (talk) 20:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- I am pretty sure The Nation is a reliable source. : )
- But if you thought it wasn't reliable when you removed it and replaced it, then maybe would have been good practice to mention that reasoning in the edit summary in the first place. Yes, it is largely progressive, but it is reliable. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- The quality of The Nation articles might be fine. But it's not a source of facts or news. The article by Amnesty International serves the purpose much better. Ltyl (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- Well, The Nation article is actually a summary of a lot of facts. But about the Amnesty report, yes, it looks good but it is dated 21 June. So it is missing a couple of months of info. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 02:54, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- It's more like a lot of allegations. It might or might not be wiki policy but this is common sense: when opinions are cited we should make clear that they are indeed opinions. When this is impossible as in the infobox, we should avoid citing opinions. Ltyl (talk) 08:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Ltyl: What are the allegations that you disagree with? 65.60.163.223 (talk) 05:59, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- @65.60.163.223: The quote in the reference is 90% opinion - that's the main thing I'm object to. I have removed the quote while keeping the reference. Ltyl (talk) 08:03, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- If way many opinions are on one side, then it may be due to put it in infobox. Today (31 August), police used massive violence on all passengers and even children that no indication they are suspects (or even protesters) or intention to resist arrest. I would just and see news report that not using violence wording. Matthew hk (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- 'massive' and 'all passengers' are sweeping opinionated claims. I'm doubtful that they are supported by news report. Ltyl (talk) 08:03, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- That was after the masked protestors trashed the metro station, destroying the facilities and harassing the passengers. When the police came they abandoned the masks and the black t-shirts to try to bleed among the passengers. Those rioters where the ones hitted by the police. See the full video of this. As usual the media is showing only a part of the event to hide the violent actions of the masked protesters. Daduxing (talk) 11:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- 'massive' and 'all passengers' are sweeping opinionated claims. I'm doubtful that they are supported by news report. Ltyl (talk) 08:03, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
- If way many opinions are on one side, then it may be due to put it in infobox. Today (31 August), police used massive violence on all passengers and even children that no indication they are suspects (or even protesters) or intention to resist arrest. I would just and see news report that not using violence wording. Matthew hk (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Daduxing: I am sorry but ... what!?! Even if the police could have somehow magically identified protesters, do they have the legal right to rush in and beat people? I am not sure how the law is supposed to work in Hong Kong, but in a lot of developed countries a person needs to be charged with a crime and then found guilty in a court of law before they receive any punishment. The police can't just go around beating people up because they suspect a person may have been participating in property damages or democracy protests. Just wow! 65.60.163.223 (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
The Nation is listed on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources as generally reliable though partisan. El_C 22:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)