Talk:2019–2020 Hong Kong protests/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

International reactions

This information has been removed, with the following edit summary: "this is skewing the section. best to just say there has been reactions to the protests to leave it as neutral as possible." I think it is relevant and should be included.

Various U.S. politicians have expressed disapproval of corporate decisions related to the protests, including NBA's apology to China over Daryl Morey's tweet about Hong Kong, Apple's removal of the HKmap.live application from the App Store or video game developer Blizzard's suspension of an esports athlete from competing in events after he expressed support for Hong Kong protests during a streaming event. Supporters of the Hong Kong protests have also called for the boycott of Disney's 2020 live-action remake of Mulan after lead actress Crystal Yifei Liu, a naturalized American born in China, reblogged on 15 August support for the Hong Kong police.

References

-- Tobby72 (talk) 09:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Whatever the person's reasoning is... It is not even reactions to the protests, but reactions to reactions to the protests. It is also a heavy US-centric skew with undue weight as over half of the reactions section comprises things related to American parties. Not here. --Cold Season (talk) 15:35, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

There is no justification that I have seen to remove an entire paragraph from the criticism section. You cant remove things just because you dont like it. The content should be restored unless there is a consensus on the talk page to remove it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

PLA soldiers 'voluntarily' clean up after protests

Should this (and its criticisms) be included? Sources: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-16/pla-soldiers-join-effort-to-clean-up-areas-damaged-by-protests https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/11/china-pla-soldiers-hong-kong-streets-voluntary-clean-191116135413276.html https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/16/asia/hong-kong-chinese-military-clean-up-scli-intl/index.html robertsky (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

@Robertsky: I have added it (but without criticisms) in the reactions page, but I believed that we should start a discussion before adding the content in the main page since I believed that WP:SUMMARY applies here.Mariogoods (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@Mariogoods: thanks! hence the new section here! the article here is already long, and I don't want to put too much details unnecessarily. robertsky (talk) 04:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@Robertsky: Wikipedia does not delete content simply because the article is too long. I believed everything would be important or not because it is the current event. Mariogoods (talk) 04:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223, Matthew hk, and OceanHok: And the more common problem in the 2019 HK protests series pages is that the descriptions of the same event (for example, PLA soliders event) are sometimes greatly different which will make reader confused. Mariogoods (talk) 02:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I suggest a subsection with PLA activity. This will not be the last PLA activity in Hong Kong. For NPOV it is not a criticism. The fact that the PLA was deployed is notable in itself. The notion that the PLA came out of their barracks on their own idea is nonsense and there should be plenty of RS that comment the same. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

err... that sounds like you are trying to report news BEFORE it happens. 192.0.235.66 (talk) 04:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

agree with IP. the break out can happen if and when activities from the PLA continue. robertsky (talk) 04:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I know WP:OR, and I haven't contributed to this article, but when I read about it on the BBC the interesting thing for me is that they left the barracks, because that in and of itself sends a message. The fact that they cleaned up is in a way irrelevant the more important part is that they came out, it seems to me. Because otherwise in a vacuum, "soldiers help clean up" who cares? But given the nature of how hong kong works Chinese soldiers leaving the barracks <- big news. But I also know WP:OR and WP:RS I may try and check around a bit when I have time to see if I can find any RS's that provide explicitly state why it sends a strong message that the Chinese military left the barracks. So that this can be included within the rules of Wiki. Alcibiades979 (talk) 10:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

the only thing that can be confirmed right now is they did come out and the group of pan-dems did make a complaint about it (to the HK gov't). everything else is just opinion. and if you want to include BBC's opinion, then someone else will include the People's Daily, etc. Also, the assertion of "big news" is just your own. the story is now dead. no major outlets are running it anymore. 192.0.235.66 (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Coming out of the baracks and the resulting coverage is sufficient to add the to the article at this time. We can cover both both the CCP/PLA position that they came out on their own and the newspaper's coverage that they came out under orders. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

This on the November wiki page gives a pretty good summary of the events and why they're important, it also is referenced. Alcibiades979 (talk) 10:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion of adding effect of Chinese government "propaganda"

I have found the sentence in Chinese Wikipedia: 在内地民众如何结束运动的讨论中，除在香港实行一国一制的观点外，呼吁中央政府以武力镇压结束并非罕见 The claim is supproted by realiable source (NYT Chinese version) and I believed it shows the effort of propaganda.

References

Mariogoods (talk) 05:13, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

That seems to be veering toward WP:OR as it stands. Simonm223 (talk) 13:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223 No it doesnt, he FOUND that source. YuriGagrin12 (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223: @YuriGagrin12: The English version of the source is here: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/13/world/asia/hong-kong-protests-china.html Mariogoods (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

It's an opinion piece and thus not appropriate as an RS. Newspapers should be used for fact reporting only. Simonm223 (talk) 16:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Protection Status should be upgraded

I keep seeing a lot of Pro-China opinion in this page, this is against Wikipedias neutral policies. Perhaps this page's protection status should be higher? YuriGagrin12 (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the protection shouldn't be higher for this reason. "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;" Pro-China opinion is part of the event, and the pro-China view has become mainstream view in China because of Chinese government's effort. Then, even the pro-China view "a viewpoint is held by minority", it is the "significant minority". Also, pro-China view has enough media coverage. Finally, pro-China view is notable enough to be in the topic since it may lead the weird fate to the protesters. Mariogoods (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Mariogoods That is in china however, there isn't any coverage about what people are protesting about. Wikipedia forbids opinions, it is fine to quote opinions however they should not affect the actual writing of a page. Im not saying the Pro-China section shouldn't be there, Im saying this page has been brigaded sometimes to include pro china opinions in the writing of the article. To prevent brigading this should be protected. YuriGagrin12 (talk) 00:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

can you elaborate on what you mean by bias? the main thing i see missing in the article is the rumors that are being spread by the hk protesters. ie. the ones you see on LIKHG and hong kong subreddit. the most notable ones that comes to mind include the the dead naked girl, the gang raped girl and the hundreds of missing ppl. i actually dont mind including those rumors in the article, since the protesters are using it to justify violence. so it is related, even if it can not be verified. 192.0.235.66 (talk) 05:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

So what you mean is that you want to have Wikipedia treating anti-ELAB rumours as if they were fact. That is not more neutral. Simonm223 (talk) 14:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

No. What I mean is the protesters believe their use of violence is justified based on these conspiracy theories. Its not enough that we simply say "protesters accuse police of violence and brutality" we should clarified that the protesters are making accusations of rape and murder. 192.0.235.66 (talk) 22:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Without WP:RS detailing this and contextualizing it, that would not be WP:DUE. I'm sorry but the paranoid conspirisizing of the increasingly unhinged hardline of the protest movement is veering pretty much into WP:FRINGE territory at this point.Simonm223 ([[User

talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 13:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223 Some sections are the article sound biased toward pro china OUTSIDE of the Pro-Beijing section. Also I don't believe you exactly are unbiased in this, I was going to speak to you on your talk page but it appears you are a Marxist who supports China. Im not trying to disrespect you in any way but those statements of police raping people have been corroborated by multiple doctors and hospital staff.You can even see Police arresting protesters from an ambulance(which is a war crime) Obviosuly, I have my opinion and you have yours but let's not let this get in the way of being Nuetral in the article. YuriGagrin12 (talk) 00:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Upgrading protection status wont inhibit China's PR department from editing this page. What is needed is more neutral editors, and the protection upgrade would affect that. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf No it wouldn't inhibit them from anything else but the article should be written in a way that just presents facts. YuriGagrin12 (talk) 00:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

"article should be written in a way that just presents facts." that is easier said than done. just because something is true (or untrue) does not in itself guarantee inclusion on Wikipedia. For example, there were a number of rape allegations that were made against police (and many murder allegations). it is TRUE that allegations were made but are those allegations true? The current article reports a girl alleged to be gang raped during her custody at the police station - this story was carried by major outlets. Police had publicly responded that they reviewed the video footages and various records and had no record of her ever being at the police station. Not many outlets chose to carry this response in their reporting of the story - including HKFP - which many here asserted to be a Reliable Source. So while your suggestion is noble, in practice its a game of picking and choosing which facts you present which you exclude. 192.0.235.66 (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Should we add the Chinese government high-profile figure in "Lead Figures" part in infobox?

As the title says. Mariogoods (talk) 05:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Unless the PRC took some form of action to suppress the movement, otherwise I don't think it will be very appropriate. OceanHok (talk) 11:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Chinese government has done many thing expect to violent suppress. They create mass propaganda against protesters, actively boycott and censor HK protesters or their supporters. I believed such actions are not directly suppress the movement, but such actions will drain supports of the protests. In the other words, Chinese government has actively prepared to suppress the movement by cleaning every possible barriers preventing HK protesters from being supported. With such contributions, Chinese government is enough to be in the infobox. Mariogoods (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

And what exactly are these barriers that you speak of? Forget about RS. Do you have PRIMARY? 192.0.235.66 (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong protests page is likely having sources which could provide this. Mariogoods (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Misleading Claim in the Article re Police at PolyU

The following sentence found in the current article is misleading. "After police threatened to use live ammunition if protesters did not leave, on 18 November the university's president said that police had agreed to temporarily stop using force, as he urged protesters to leave peacefully and surrender. However, protesters who attempted to leave the university that day were met with tear gas and rubber bullets from police, leading them to return to the university."

This is not an accurate depiction of what happened. AFAIK, having compared time stamps from various sources, the most accurate re-creation are as follow:

1. Nov 17th evening - police thraented to use live ammo (this is accurately reported)

2. Nov 18th Approx 5:30 AM Police attempted to enter PolyU but failed (this is confirmed by various media sources)

3. Allegedly before 8AM Prof. Teng, PolyU's president secured ceasefire (this is accurately reported but time-stamp is not yet verified)

But here is the problem: Teng's stmt (available on youtube) ask for leaving PolyU peacefully AND he will accompany them to the police station. But he was unclear whether they will be arrested nor did he clearly use the term surrender. (see below)

4. At ~8AM, SCMP reported protesters attempting to leave PolyU en masse. Police reported (on their twitter) that protesters have charged at their position from multiple locations while "holding petrol bombs". (some media outlets have given name of the locations). Police later made announcement (approx in the afternoon) that "To ensure public safety, the Police appeal to everyone inside the Polytechnic University to drop their weapons and dangerous items, remove their gas masks and leave via the top level of Cheong Wan Road South Bridge in an orderly manner." (I should add the police also did not clarify whether those leaving will still be arrested)

5. At 12 noon SCMP reported that student union claims "appeal by Polytechnic University president Teng Jinguang for protesters to surrender and leave the campus peacefully, Ken Woo Kwok-wang, the acting president of the university’s student union, describes it as not helpful, and says the students who stay do not wish to be arrested." and SCMP asserts that "Some radicals interpreted the police plea for them to come out, as meaning they would not be taken into custody."

Source: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3038152/hogn-kong-protests-tense-stand-between-radicals-and-police

I think a fair presentation is that the communication by Teng and police were unclear as to whether leaving PolyU could still result in arrest. Some tried to run and escape arrest, and act that the police interpreted as aggression and fired tear gas and rubber bullets in response. Others, fearing arrest chose to stayed inside.

The assertion that anyone trying to leave will be met with tear gas and rubber bullets is untrue, as there has been those who are able to leave peacefully - albeit they are either arrested on the spot or have their belongings checked. (reported in the SCMP link above).

(personally, i would criticize Teng for a lousy job of communicating, but that is OR on my own behalf.) 192.0.235.66 (talk) 14:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

192, please see my corrected text [1]. Apologies for the inaccurate first version. starship.paint (talk) 03:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

After police threatened to use live ammunition if protesters did not leave, on 18 November the university's president said that police had agreed to temporarily stop using force, as he urged protesters to leave peacefully, while stating that he would accompany them to a police station.[218] There were multiple attempts by protesters to leave the university on 18 November. On at least three occasions, police prevented the protesters from escaping by firing tear gas and water cannons;[219] and on one occasion, rubber bullets were used.[220] Some protesters were arrested trying to escape, others surrendered to police.[219]

i think that pretty much sums it up. current report on most outlets show that about 100 ppl still inside - down from over 1,000 before the weekend. the rest have either escaped, arrested, surrendered or sent to hospital. 192.0.235.66 (talk) 05:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on reliability of RTHK

There is a noticeboard discussion on the reliability of RTHK's reporting of November 2019 Hong Kong protests. If you are interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § RTHK for List of November 2019 Hong Kong protests. — Newslinger talk 11:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

These 2 videos are public domain

If anyone wants to migrate them, these are PD, I would but video2commons is down

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uBtrJCWDZA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfqinzEIMCo

Victor Grigas (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

"Possible police-related deaths" should be renamed to remove references to police from the title

At this time there is no credible evidence that the police caused the death or fall. It is entirely based on rumors from unnamed and unknown sources. All media reports referring to the police participation is based on "the protesters alleges that...". All individuals interviewed by media (known to this date) did not claim to have personally witness the fall or the incident. These individuals also do not have background in criminal investigation or any credible basis to make the allegation they asserts to be true. They are merely stating that "I heard from someone that...". Therefore the allegation of police involvement should be removed from the heading as misleads the public into believing there is any credible basis for such allegations. 192.0.235.66 (talk) 02:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree. It's too vague. It would be better to say "Accidental deaths" and "Suicides". Of course, the police might be involved in all the deaths in some way, but no one is saying the police actually killed anyone at this point.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

"Accidental death" and "suicide" are both WP:OR. Allegations mostly centered on the police obstructing the paramedics from helping him instead of actually being the one killing him. OceanHok (talk) 10:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Ocean, we follow the sources. We dont need to dilute statements. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

What are you talking about?--Jack Upland (talk) 06:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh come on guys, after watching hours of footage of the protests it's very clear the police are responsible for a few more than 1 death. Maakreg (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Look bro, if you got a story to break, a list of names of the deceased, pictures of dead bodies, etc, feel free to send that tip to New York Times, I am sure they'd love to report the next big news. Until those claims are verified by a credit source, you are just making stuff up. 192.0.235.66 (talk) 01:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Merge discussion

There are currently three merge discussions:

• Talk:2019 November CUHK-Hong Kong Police Force conflict
• Talk:Death of Chow Tsz Lok
• Talk:2019 November Shooting Incident in Sai Wai Ho

More input will be needed. Thanks. OceanHok (talk) 12:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Merge/redirect target is changed to November 2019 Hong Kong strike for both the shooting case and the CUHK siege. More input would be appreciated. Thanks! OceanHok (talk) 12:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2019

When the people of hong kong get arrested they will be yelling their names to others around and announcing that they will not commmit suicide. It has become common consensus that the police kill and blames victims death as "suicides". Ethan.j.jordan (talk) 09:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

no source? putting this on hold until you furnish with a source. if no source, this won't be up on the page. robertsky (talk) 10:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

There is actually one. Quite an interesting read. OceanHok (talk) 13:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Enforcement on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons#Avoid flag icons in infoboxes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the infobox use CCP, China, Hong Kong SAR flag, Hong Kong Government round emblem as well as one of the community supported symbol of Black Bauhinia?

Related policy and guideline: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons#Avoid flag icons in infoboxes and another section MOS:LOGO. Matthew hk (talk) 07:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• No: it should use the Union Jack.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

How does this comment relates to the discussion at hand? OceanHok (talk) 13:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I was just flagging the issue.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• Weak yes: With US involvement, it has become more than just a "China" issue so I think it is sufficient to consider the article as an "acceptable exception". The usage here is not as "excessive" as we typically see in other protests articles, though to be honest, flag icons are always decorative in any context and they are just being there to look nice IMO. OceanHok (talk) 13:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• No:There are already plenty of images used in the article to not need further decoration. I've aways been baffled by the use of the flags in the infobox in this article because I don't see any "parties". Sure, there's a people's movement which is by all accounts "leaderless", and although such flags are used on the streets as agit prop, there is no official flag because there is no organisation. Equally problematic is the American flag used under "support". At best, it's false because Trump's position is mercantilist and equivocal although US congress has passed a piece of legislation that is arguably detrimental to the interests to Hong Kong and not just to the top officials. At worst the flag suggests that the US government is somehow funding the protests, yet there is precious little evidence to suggest that's the case. While we're here, one could argue for consistency's sake that the HKPF are, as protagonists in continuing to fuel and prolong the dispute – a deeply involved organisation with considerable operational autonomy – party to the protests and we should therefore show their emblem. but that's clearly the wrong way to go. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 16:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• No All infobox items are there to help quickly provide readers information that is reasonably definite. Flagicons are therefore very good things to provide for, say, Thirty Years' War, where they help quickly lay out the very complex sides of the conflict. In these protests, however, at least one "side" is much more amorphous. The government sides (i.e., Hong Kong SAR and PRC) are easily defined and are represented by well-defined symbols they use but the protest movement is neither. Flagicons in this case can, at best, provide only partial information to the infobox reader. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• No. MOS:FLAGS is clear that they should only be included when helpful, especially pertinent (e.g. in situations in which other publishers use them, like for showing Olympics or FIFA results), and when no reader confusion or editorial conflict is likely to result from it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

What i meant in the Rfc is, remove all icon and flag Or keep the usage of flag and icon. The latter also include which symbols for the protester is more appropriate. Matthew hk (talk) 14:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

And for the latter part. Since the protest is leaderless and people waving the colonial HK flag, US flag, Black Bauhinia flag, anti-Chinazi flag. It seem it is not that appropriate that wiki editors just WP:OR to choose one, out of many symbols . Matthew hk (talk) 14:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with that. The problem is that infoboxes tend to misrepresent reality and manufacture an alternative reality. We should avoid that.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fake Claim in Article - "Junius Ho, who was allegedly involved in the Yuen Long attack"

There is no RS that supports Junius Ho was "involved" or "allegedly involved". The statement "Junius Ho, who was allegedly involved in the Yuen Long attack" is Original Research.

FYI - the link goes to the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Yuen_Long_attack#cite_note-55

In that link, the supporting reference goes to: https://hk.news.appledaily.com/local/realtime/article/20190722/59848508

The actual article states: 網上流傳一段短片，立法會議員何君堯與大批白衣人握手，更舉拇指及鼓掌稱讚，有白衣人向何君堯稱「你哋係我嘅英雄」。網上亦流傳何君堯與元朗白衣人的合照，元朗有建築物外牆亦出現「聲討禍港泛民議員」的標貼。何在facebook回應指，自己當時只是「晚飯後路過」，因很多市民「很認同我為港敢言發聲支持警察維持治安，要求跟我拍照，我亦樂於接受」，辯稱與「白衣人打黑衣人事件」絕對沒有任何關係。

Translation to English: A video circulating online shows, LegCo member Junius Ho shake hands with white-clothed man (or men), showing thumbs up to indicate support, with the white-clothed man saying "you people are my hero(es)". Social media also circulated Junius Ho in picture with white-clothed man, with the signage "Legislative Member Voicing Criticism of Rioter Who Bring Vileness to Hong Kong" appearing on the wall of building in Yuen Long. Ho responded on facebook, he was "on the way back after dinner", because many citizen "strongly agreed with my courage to speak up for Hong Kong, support of police, support public order, they asked to take photo with me, I gladly accepted", and claimed to have no relation whatsoever with the "White-clothed men attack black-clothed men incident".

(note: the commas in the English translation are in the exact same spot in the Chinese text, therefore it may not be grammatically correct)

The source article from Apply Daily reports the allegation the white-clothed attackers may be members of organized crime. However the article did not accuse Junis being involved in the attack, nor did the article identify the white-clothed man beside Junis was a member of organized crime, or a member who took part in the attack.

I also checked the article from HKFP (in the wiki article), there was no claim made by HKFP that the man who stood by Junius was a member of the white-clothed attackers. I am also reporting this fake news on the other wiki article as well.

(aside: This is why I think HKFP has sloppy journalism, they appear to be suggesting the attack and the Junius photo are related, but they are not actually making that assertion in their writing. They also provided no picture showing any similarity between the attackers and the man who stood next to Junius. Nor did they assert the men look the same anywhere in the article. HKFP also never bothered to interview Junius for comment on the incident when reporting him on the incident.)

Anyways, please delete these unsourced allegations. 192.0.235.66 (talk) 01:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@192.0.235.66 I do agree there is nothing that says he was involved in the Yeun Long attack. Instead maybe we could phrase it as "Allegedly giving support to violent counter-protestors" YuriGagrin12 (talk) 02:07, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

from the source, The Standard reported the opposition "accused him of supporting" and "praising" the white-clothed attackers. and SCMP's article claims "Junius Ho defends white-clad mob". So either "accused of supporting", "accused of giving praise" or "defended the actions of" would be appropriate. those were the actual wordings used by the source article, so it is not WP:SYNTH. also reported in the other article is that Junius is under a misconduct complaint as a result of his public comments on the attack. so the words "accused of" would be appropriate, regardless of his innocence or guilt. 192.0.235.66 (talk) 02:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

But the fake protester kinda stab him because he was alleged to be involved in the attack. At least this is what he shouted out when he was subdued.[2][3]. OceanHok (talk) 12:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

In your case that assertion violates WP:UNDUE. The viewpoint that Ho "orchestrated the attack" (exact spelling in the article) is expressed by the attacker, not by the main stream sources. There is no main stream evidence, not even a prominent minority. There was no witness, no charges and no investigation on Ho in respect of his "involvement" or "orchestrating the attack". Therefore, such view points are fringe views. As per WP:DUE policy, viewpoints that are neither main stream nor from a prominent minority should not be included. Or if so, it must specify exactly who assert this claim - in this case, the allegation is made by his attacker (whos name isn't even mentioned in your article, which shows you how fringe this conspiracy theory really is). 192.0.235.66 (talk) 02:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@192.0.235.66 @OceanHok The white shirt people and the guy that stabbed him are not the same people. Maybe it should just be accused of. YuriGagrin12 (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I found it is more conspiracy theory to call the perpetrator that attacked Ho as "fake" protester (Or in the protests, since way many undercover police, or a conspiracy theory that protester were hired by foreign countries, or there is some accusation by media (with photos) that pro-government camp hire crowd as "supporter", it seem it need to discuss how much WP:V to label anyone as "fake", or just skip it, call police attackers as perpetrator). Anyway, it had way many media report on the accusation in Yuen Long attack. But since general public is not a court ruling, i would say Ho's involvement is merit to included in wiki article, but need careful wording due to WP:BLPCRIME. Matthew hk on public computer (talk) 02:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I have changed the wording to "accused of supporting the assailants of the Yuen Long attack". OceanHok (talk) 03:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

someone broke something - bad 'cite error' at article's end

Please repair. 104.169.16.115 (talk) 03:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

repaired. do note that this kind of error will reappear as editors update the main body text, removing the named <ref> tags as the content is being updated, while not removing the sources from the {{Reflist}} template. robertsky (talk) 15:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

broken again, can't edit to fix.

190.189.120.70 (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for raising it up. Just a note, autoconfirmed editors have been suppressing the same error diligently. robertsky (talk) 06:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

inappropriate navigation template

The Template:China–United States proxy conflict has been recently inserted into the article which suggests that the US is directly involved and manipulating the protests in HK as part of its conflict with China. It may be true， but there is nothing in the article that suggests that is the case, so it must be considered orginal research. Until such time, the template ought to stay off the article. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 08:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I reverted two of your edits that were unexplained. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I supported for deleting the template in the topic due to your reason above.Mariogoods (talk) 09:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Photomontage

I've reduced the number of images to five as I believe there's too much clutter in the photomontage. I have removed those that are identical or very similar in the montage or in the body. As many people use portable devices, the number of images is likely to be detrimental to their navigation experience of an already very long and complex article. I would welcome other voices in choosing images that may be more representative, but I firmly believe that five images would be sufficient to portray the broad manifestation of the protests. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 10:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I like the photo montage. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Currently, I think it looks really good. They demonstrate size very well Henryshif (talk) 20:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Deletion discussion of 2019 global protests article

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Protests of 2019. Boud (talk) 01:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Simon Cheng

According to BBC, Simon Cheng claimed that he was tortured in order to question him alleged tie with Hong Kong protests when he was detained in China.

I have added the incident, alongside the Teresa Cheng one. Though I am not sure whether this belongs to the "mainland Chinese reactions" or the "international reactions" part. OceanHok (talk) 13:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@OceanHok: I perfer "mainland Chinese reactions" part since Chinese government action occured first. In fact, Simon Cheng incident was.added in said section by me, but it got deleted. Mariogoods (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

References

• Why? Simon Cheng's case seems to have little direct relevance to the protests. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 21:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I support adding this text. Please read the source, it explains clearly the he had been ordered to look into the protests and the source is stating he was punish as a result of it.

"The British Consulate instructed staff to collect information about the status of the protests," he says. As a supporter of the pro-democracy movement he found it easy to blend in and, with the consent of the consulate, he signed up to some of the social media groups through which the protesters co-ordinated their actions."

It is obvious in the source. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I find the following text also interesting... Of China's only public version of events - the allegation that he was placed in 15 days administrative detention for soliciting prostitution - Mr Cheng is dismissive. ...... Mr Cheng's written statement also mentions that, before his arrest, he stopped in Shenzhen for a massage. I ask him directly if he paid for sex. "I don't want to focus on the question of whether I solicited a prostitute, because that's exactly what they want," he replies.

I am of the view that Simon Cheng should be excluded from this article because so many things about him can not be verified. BBC ran the story, but at no point did BBC verify his account. Therefore, it is WP:PRIMARY (Cheng's first-hand account of the events) and not WP:RS (BBC's account of from observing the event). And there are so many red flags here with what hes saying. He was tasked with gathering information for the UK (read: spying), he got a massage (read: prostitution), he collected money from a mainland person and take that cash to another person in hk without using the normal banking process (read: money laundering). he organized a "study circle on social science" (read: plotting). If you are going include Cheng's account of the events, you pretty much end up posting WP:SELFPUB (https://www.facebook.com/notes/cheng-man-kit/for-the-record-an-enemy-of-the-state/2490959950941845/) 192.0.235.66 (talk) 02:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

A bit of context for those who don't know - in China, Chinese citizen are not allowed to transfer money (to or from) overseas above $50,000 USD per year. (Hong Kong counts as "overseas" for this purpose) This is an anti-money laundering law. Chinese citizen with children studying abroad or running a business can apply for a permission to bypass this limit - but require proof. Foreign exchange in China must be done in person, with proof of ID - no online fx allowed (these days some smart phone apps claims they can do FX for you, but it requires someone to conspire with you to bypass the law). That being said, money laundering is still frequent, the easiest way is to take physical cash from mainland to HK and not declare it at custom. Or give the money to someone else and transfer it under their name. This type of money laundering is technically not classified as a crime (that I know of) unless you know the source of the cash is illegal or includes unpaid taxes. But getting caught with this will come with penalties, at a minimum, your money can be confiscated. 192.0.235.66 (talk) 03:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

His account is reported by independent secondary WP:RS and we are not quoting his Facebook page so I think it is fine. We can include the Chinese viewpoint (actually already did with the "soliciting prostitution" part) if they actually denied they have tortured people or dared to give an account about how their torture device is totally humane. Chinese government abducting people for crimes they have not committed and using tiger chairs are not new accusations. The problem here is that it happened on a British consulate staff, causing it to escalate into a diplomatic issue. This is also a piece of evidence that sees how far China would go with their "foreign interference" theory. OceanHok (talk) 03:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@OceanHok:Maybe we could even create a page to explain the "foreign interference" theory since the theory has been used to "explain" not only the 2019 HK protests. (laugh) Mariogoods (talk) 05:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

BBC may be RS in the general sense, but in the article link that you provided both BBC and Cheng himself are WP:PRIMARY. By Definition Primary Source is the source itself or close to the source. This includes memoir, autobiography and oral interviews of the original person. Given this event covers Simon Cheng, it is also WP:BIO and that Primary source should be avoided. Furthermore, WP:RSBREAKING should also be avoided because "It is better to wait a day or two after an event before adding details to the encyclopedia, than to help spread potentially false rumors. This gives journalists time to collect more information and verify claims, and for investigative authorities to make official announcements." And as of this date, no person has came forth to verify Cheng's self-published accounts. The allegations are not verified. 192.0.235.66 (talk) 04:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Love the IP address POV editors arguing that BBC is not an RS :-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

For the purposes of this story, BBC is about as RS as CCTV and People's Daily. All of which are state owned. The UK gov't has every reason to cover up the fact they have paid secret agents working in HK. 192.0.235.66 (talk) 05:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

IP, do you have any evidence simon cheng was a paid secret agent? that would be good content in the article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: This IP has been here POV pushing for a long time. See their talk page. 114.136.52.138 (talk) 23:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Anti-mask law

According to the page in Chinese Wikipedia, the anti-mask law is canceled by judges, which enangered Chinese government. Should we add it? Mariogoods (talk) 02:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I have added it. Mariogoods (talk) 01:13, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Is this covered that PRC stated that Hong Kong court had no right to rule on constitutional rights [4]. Just today the mask ban was reinstated, after the supreme court stated the mask ban was illegal [5] Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Chris Tang

I have created a draft page (Draft:Tang Ping-keung) for him, and I needs other Wikipedians' help. Mariogoods (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• Reply - @Mariogoods:, AFAIAC, this is ready for Article space. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Should we archive all the references refered in the topic?

Due to some references are from Hong Kong media, I believed that adding archive link is important. Mariogoods (talk) 04:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, regardless of whether it is hong kong media or not. I often do that to the articles I edited through the IABot tool. However, the article here is too long for it to process, so we will have to add them manually. robertsky (talk) 15:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@Robertsky:Then could we use the bot to deal with shorter articles concerning the 2019 Hong Kong protests? And we should do this quickly because of possible histroy-hiding. Mariogoods (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@Mariogoods: working on it at the moment on the shorter articles. robertsky (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Mariogoods: done. as for this page here... you got to manually do it. fyi. if you take a ball park of 200 bytes each archiveurl addition, for 580 references, it would be around 116000 bytes to add to the article size. robertsky (talk) 10:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Mariogoods: I have been working on archiving the references over the weekend in the article with about 70% of them more to go. thus far in general, the references which I have manually archived (hkfp, rthk, reuters, nyt) have been archived on archive.org as early as when they are published. There are some references which archive.org has no or poor archiving. These references are videos in nature. If you (or any other editors) can, do substitute them with other references that are mostly text or image based, or replace archive-url with archive.today if archive.today has better video archives (I am behind cloudflare's DNS servers, thus unable to use archive.today). I will work on the rest of the refs over the few weekends or when I am more available. robertsky (talk) 12:02, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

vote results

Quartz [6] had a nice writeup today. Highlights

A record 71% of people turned out to vote in yesterday’s (Nov. 24) district council election...The turnout was the highest of any election in Hong Kong’s history.

And an interesting quote on the HK chief executive 'election'

Hong Kongers do not get to choose their chief executive, who is instead “elected” by an elite committee of 1,200 people, carefully rigged to deliver someone accommodating to Beijing.

Seems like a useful source. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Serveal suggestions about the article

First, should we add China Daily's presentation of attacking of Junius Ho which is sourced by China Daily itself? (Media in China are mirroring views of Chinese government, so refering China Daily is enough) I have prepared the sentence: Chinese state-run media China Daily has indicated that the attack has connection to the protesters and condemoned the action.;
Second, there is a sentence The protests have been depicted by Chinese government and media as separatist riots. Should we change it to The whole protests have been depicted by Chinese government and media as separatist riots.? There are serveal sources reported protesters’ violence, but Chinese media has hardly report news which would prise the protests. The media are different in weight issues.

References

Mariogoods (talk) 05:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose including it here unless this Chinese rhetoric was widely reported by other secondary, independent sources. OceanHok (talk) 02:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose rhetoric and not an RS on this article. This is official government propaganda. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose while I don't find the China Daily any more egregious to use than the BBC, I am not fond of the latter nor very hasty to add the opinion of the former. Let's cut opinion out of this article rather than adding more in. Simonm223 (talk) 13:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - China Daily is clearly not an RS. Surprised it hasn't been added to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. Probably should be. NickCT (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to say that adding Chinese state-run media to Perennial_sources still needed discussion, such as realiably of citing them as secondary source about Chinese actors, Chinese Internet personalities and so on. Mariogoods (talk) 02:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

There is also a terrible double-standard at play considering how readily people who would blacklist Chinese state-owned sources hasten to add BBC, CBC and AJE+ sources to articles. There's nothing inherently more biased about a news outlet with a bias in favour of a state or a government. All newsmedia has a bias. China Daily just has one that's easy to suss out and one that supports a state that North Americans and Brits have been indoctrinated to fear. Simonm223 (talk) 13:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose sourcing Chinese State-run media. Not even remotely WP:RS. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Use the language from other independent sources Comatmebro (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Looks like government propaganda to me, which in my mind should not be used in an encyclopedia. (Please ping me with replies), Puddleglum2.0 ^{Have a talk?} 01:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• I think Reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong protests would a better page for this inclusion. OceanHok (talk) 02:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree, maybe better suited on the reactions article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• I believed that the List of November 2019 Hong Kong protests is a choice too. But is it a suitable place for Chinese media's opinion? Mariogoods (talk) 06:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• To be fair, at the court the perpetrator had admitted he attack Ho due to Ho's speech and alleged action during the protest. Is the perpetrator a protester? no RS to tell, is the attack is related to the protest, according to the RS it is . Matthew hk (talk) 13:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Matthew hk: Thank you for searching for the realiable source of the thing. But Chinese state-run media has become the only sources which mainland Chinese could refer and it is the example of "Chinese propaganda". The uncensored comment in China of the whole protests accepts it as fact. Anyway, I believed WP:RS is more important, but be aware of adding or deleting pro-China view. Mariogoods (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment For propaganda and rhetoric, no. But there is no reason why the state-run China Daily cannot be cited when seeking to include the official position of the Chinese regime, as it's an official mouthpiece. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 00:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Correct, and it would be attributed as you have noted as the official position of the PRC or CCP. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Opinion What exactly is the rationale for excluding China Daily or any PRC owned sources? Western media readily publish protesters' version of the event without questioning or fact checking. And I don't think anyone really disputes that PRC is a party to to this conflict. Isn't reporting their versions fair game? Can't you just say that "China Daily alleges X" the same way "Protesters alleges Y"? After all, the protesters are directly accusing PRC of many things already and have directly attacked Xin Hua, burned PRC flags. Isn't it actually beneficial to report views of the other side? How exactly are we suppose to report the other side without quoting the other side? 192.0.235.66 (talk) 05:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

There is no reason for excluding them, but we would attribute as such. It would not be in WP:WIKIVOICE. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

US support

Should the US be added as the country supporting the protestors? Since they are about to pass the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act which will give a massive amount of support to the protest movement https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1838. So, for this reason, they should be listed as supporting the protesters. Coldtim2 (talk) 12:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

The role of Zhang Xiaoming 张晓明

What role did Zhang Xiaoming 张晓明 play in causing the riots? At the beginning he was seen to "bully" Carrie Lam into drawing up the extradition bill, and dictating new educational topics and policies for the HK education system. It turns out that Zhang is a Jiang Zemin supporter. He is now apparently back in BJ and no doubt under the watchful eye of the PRC's central committees, and by President Xi Jinping. The Chinese leaderships north of HK generally know that HK and HKers have a spirit and soul of their own, and are best left to their own devices, and not to mess with these southerners. Even Chairman Mao knew this, and told the leftists in the 1960s and 70s to leave HK alone. Either Zhang Xiaoming 张晓明 is very naive or he is deliberately trying to destabilize President Xi's rule. 86.145.35.132 (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)