Talk:2019–2020 Hong Kong protests/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

11 November 2019 shooting incident and 11 November dousing and setting on fire of Lee Chi-cheung

In the lead... Is there a reason to selectively incorporate certain incidents, while omitting others [1], whereas notability per coverage does not differ.

Also, I wish to be pointed to the alleged earlier discussion, as was claimed by Oceanhok [2], otherwise I will consider that statement deceiving. --Cold Season (talk) 17:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• this sounds very much like a bad faith accusation to me. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 19:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Saying that there was consensus is false. --Cold Season (talk) 14:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

That discussion ended with an orange NPOV tag being removed, so you saying that there wasn't a consensus is false. OceanHok (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

For the lead, only the most significant events should be listed. The man being ignited with fire was just one of the many assaults that have happened in the city during 2019-20. Rifts within society widened and activists from both sides assaulted each other summarizes everything very well and I do not see the need of having it mention again. If we are talking about due weight then we also need to another case which see pro-Beijing groups attacking protesters. Regarding the incident in Sai Wan Ho, the shooting incident kickstarts the whole week of chaos that follows.[3], so that's the main reason why it is in the lead. I don't see the actual impacts the fire incident actually brought to the city or how it has changed the course of the protests (no one held rally to support him, the pro-Beijing camp didn't win in the election...), so I cannot see that as a "landmark" event in any way. OceanHok. This was the relevant discussion. OceanHok (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

The significance is established by sources, not some criteria that you made up about how protesters reacted to it (which is very WP:POV). I'm willing to make a Wiki article to prove that point. Secondly, I see no consensus to only include the shooting incident while excluding the burning incident, so that's false. --Cold Season (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

This is not about notability, but about significance. That's two different things. If it is not notable, it should be removed from the assault section as well. It is an event that has happened, but not a landmark event. If your argument is simply because "sources talked about this" and this criteria is enough to warrant its inclusion in the summary section, then we should go ahead and delete all section headers because everything listed here is important and covered by RS. I strongly disagree having a separate article for this. Not only because they will be WP:CONTENTFORK of the timeline articles, but it also lowers the bar to a point that nearly every assault incident (ears bitten off, knifing incident, both shootings, individual protest incidents etc.) would warrant their own articles (which is excessive and unncessary). I provide a source to tell you the very real significance of the shooting and you call it WP:POV? That's laughable. OceanHok (talk) 18:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

You're free to start a AFD after. --Cold Season (talk) 18:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

You haven't addressed my point at all. This is such an unhelpful attitude. OceanHok (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I have, I don't see the point to repeat myself. --Cold Season (talk) 14:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

You didn't. A notable event that receive adequate coverage from RS does not mean it is significant when you view it from a broad sense. In the same way, Hong Kong Way is a notable event on its own, but it is not significant when viewed from a broader sense (which is the whole purpose of this article). OceanHok (talk) 14:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion in the lede is about WP:DUE and WP:LEDE. I personally haven't read that much about the dousing incident, doesn't merit inclusion. Lede needs to be cut, not discussed adding another paragraph on the incident. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

POV pushing the ambulance obstruction claim in Chow's death

Regarding edit [4]:

At the moment, user Oceanhok is persistent in trying to repeat the same info (the protester accusation that police blocked an ambulance) as much as possible article. It already appears several times, so I removed one instance of it. Inclusion in the section about police conduct has merit and the other instance is in the deaths section, but constantly repeating it throughout the article is POV pushing.

Secondly, the user is trying to present this material (accusation made by protesters) in isolation, omitting the fact that the Fire Services (who operate the ambulances) stated that the police did not have contact with their ambulance. This is POV. --Cold Season (talk) 14:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I will stop assuming good faith to you if you keep accusing me of POV pushing. We have mentioned before in a previous discussion that we are repeating ourselves, but that's inevitable. A random student death would not have caused such a huge splash if protesters haven't drawn ties to police brutality/misconduct. As for the second part, I have gone ahead and changed to avoid mentioning specific events, which should be mentioned in that separate allegation page. OceanHok (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, then do so by presenting it in a NPOV manner, without giving priority to protester accusations while omitting other views. I will restore the Fire Services account. --Cold Season (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC) Yeah, alright. Just saw your new edit, I will accept that. --Cold Season (talk) 16:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Lead section

The lead section doesn't mention when the bill was introduced (Feb 2019?), or when the first protests began (March 2019?). It's a bit jarring when it jumps directly into the sentence Despite a demonstration attended by hundreds of thousands on 9 June 2019,. Could someone with better knowledge fix this? — Goszei (talk) 05:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Goszei: Thanks, you are absolutely ciorrect. The lead was in need of a rewrite. I've seen to it somewhat, including the main point that you made amongst other things. The other editors might have some ideas too. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 07:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Death

There is no point mentioning the two deaths in an elaborated manner in the lead. Both deaths are rather insignificant in the grand scheme of events. It is also redundant because you already have a whole section and two articles dedicated to these two deaths. OceanHok (talk) 04:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• It's exactly what I thought when I made that change. The change has been stable for over 2 weeks, and I fail to understand why it's come back as a big paragraph. It's not about WP:NPOV or the like. The lead is quite long, and I didn't see any need to detail every landmark event there. I still don't. I think it's quite adequate to leave the pointer there that will lead people to the more detailed account in the article. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 19:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• @Cold Season: - I will just ping you directly. Having a prior RFC on NPOV has no relation to our discussion here. OceanHok (talk) 04:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
• The onus is still establishing consensus to change the wording that was established then, not outright undiscussed removal of it all such as the manner of death. --Cold Season (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• But it hasn't been deleted. It's still in the body in detail, and it's still there as a summary in the lead... What's more, it's been like that for weeks. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 16:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
• Judging from the fact that this discussion has been opened for five days already and there are only three participants, I doubt the change is even considered to be controversial by most people. OceanHok (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Much of it has been deleted. There's not much active endorsement to waver from the status quo. No. --Cold Season (talk) 18:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

While much of it has been deleted, it can be even shorter (the benefit of having a standalone article). Are you opposing the change because no one here either support or oppose the change? Wouldn't that mean the community has no real opinion on this change, implying that the change is uncontroversial? I really don't get your logic here. OceanHok (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps that's how we ought to deal with the lead – a complete rewrite from the ground up. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 19:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I would not oppose that. OceanHok (talk) 04:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Cold Season: - If you are not able to present an argument against its removal, this edit is disruptive. WP:SILENT is already established, judging that no one undid my edit until you did so (after several weeks), and no one opposes this change (until I need to ping you to this discussion five days after you revert my change). OceanHok (talk) 14:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

The onus is on you, as the RFC has already established the wording. --Cold Season (talk) 14:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• Anyway, since Cold Season wants bureacuracy, I will just ping everyone who joined the straw poll last time. @Jtbobwaysf, RealFakeKim, Sleath56, Deryck Chan, Citobun, Matthew hk, and OhKayeSierra: - The crux of this discussion is simple: whether we should allocate a completely separate paragraph for the deaths and explain the details (current version), or if this simpler version is better. OceanHok (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not at all better, omiting the fact that Chow fell and the Luo got hit by a brick thrown by a protester. --Cold Season (talk) 15:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

My opinion is that the way they die is not important in the grand scheme of events, and per WP:SS, brevity should take priority. We have a detailed version of how they die in the death section already. Wikilinking the two pages is sufficient. OceanHok (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

How they died is literally at the center of this divisiveness. --Cold Season (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd argue if they died in other ways, it would generate the same amount of controversy. OceanHok (talk) 16:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• My vote is for without explanation of deaths in the lede, simply say two died and wikilink. The cases have entire articles now anyhow as mentioned above. The lede is already too long for me, I dont see how getting into how they died is that important at this point in time. Especially the impending doom of the security law from Beijing. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with OceanHok the death are insignificant in the grand scheme of the protests. — RealFakeKimT 12:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• I prefer the short version that mentions these two victims by name but defers the circumstances of their deaths to the main text and dedicated articles about these two incidents. (i.e. endorse OceanHok's version) Deryck C. 18:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• I also agree with the shorter version. Not significant in the grand scheme of things. Citobun (talk) 01:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
• Not significant enough. The deaths are tragic, but discussing their details in the lead is clearly directing the narrative to a specific direction instead of providing a concise high-level understanding of the topic. Bstephens393 (talk) 05:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

HKPF recruitment outside HKSAR

Hi everyone! This is a duplicate post from talk:Hong Kong Police Force. I was reading the new Hong Kong national security law and I came across a passage that I have not read any news reports on. Art. 16 HKNSL, last paragraph states: 'The department for safeguarding national security of the Hong Kong Police Force may recruit qualified professionals and technical personnel from outside the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to provide assistance in the performance of duties for safeguarding national security.' Is is me, or does it look like this would enable the HKPF to (legally and transparently) bring in PRC riot police? Anyone care to take a look? The law can be found at [5]. Doanri (talk) 20:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Doanri: HKSAR police has always been able to recruit from abroad, but such recruitment has complied with Hong Kong's professional immigration regulations regardless of the new hire's origin, until last year when it was reported that PRC riot police were usurping the identities of HK police officers on leave. I don't think the letter of the law really matters in this regard because (1) there has been no case law, (2) HKPF has become flippant about their own rules, and (3) interpretation of NSL lies with the central government anyway. Deryck C. 22:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Fair point on the mootness of the letter of the law. I'll look into the previous situation though, I haven't read up un the identity fraud stuff yet. Doanri (talk) 12:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Doanri: See e.g. [6][7][8][9]. Deryck C. 15:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Foreign Involvement

I really regret to have to ask for this, but given what had transpired in Syria, Libya and Yemen, it is inescapable to ask precisely those writers and editors who are sympathetic to the protests to address the question of foreign support from the West, from Taiwan and from other opponents of China. It is surreal to read a piece that does not address it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.203.8 (talk) 12:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

If you're talking about material/financial support: to put it mildly, I haven't read any WP:RS on the subject. Care to share some? Doanri (talk) 12:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I am glad that you are putting it "mildly" -- thank you. Unfortunately after all that has taken place elsewhere, the assumption is flipped ... folks now assume external meddling, until shown otherwise. Here is a source for you. https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/hong-kong-protesters-ruin-200423092338967.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.203.10 (talk) 12:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Opinion pieces aren't reliable sources. — Richard BB 12:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Haha, I hadn't noticed the article cited. Lawrence Ma is no ordinary or scolarly analyst. He's an apparatchik of the CPC, so the article can be considered Regime propaganda. --Ohconfucius (on the move) (talk) 06:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, in my view, it is up to those editing this as pro protest piece to include rebuttals. It is not believable that a city that was in the top tier of HDI would explode all by itself. So, as I said, the history of the last 10 years shows that whenever we assumed domestic factors alone, we end up finding things like CIA funding of militants and extremists. So, spare me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.203.10 (talk) 12:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia works entirely on reliable sources being included. If there are no reliable sources that demonstrate that there is foreign involvement in the protests, then we cannot include it in the article. We most certainly cannot 'assume' the CIA are involved. — Richard BB 12:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Besides, not to get into a debate about this, but the HK democracy movement isn't anything new -- the city "exploding" as you say is very understandable given the new laws the CCP are enforcing. — Richard BB 12:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• Foreign involvement is an allegation made by the Chinese government, and it is mentioned in both the lead and the Mainland China reactions section already. It should not and will never be written as a fact. OceanHok (talk) 12:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Comments coming from an anonymous IP and promoting the CCP narrative (or any other narrative, for that matter) without providing even a single reliable source for consideration have zero value. Bstephens393 (talk) 05:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Quoting from the Al-Jazeera opinion letter:

• "The protesters are not satisfied, even as we see Lam continually negotiate with or obey their demands." No, as the letter itself admitted, withdrawing the 2019 Extradition Bill was the only concession ever given.
• "Despite escalating violence between protesters and police in Hong Kong, I believe it is extremely unlikely the Beijing government will take retaliatory measures against the protesters in 2020." False prophet. I'm sorry too that you are wrong - I wish there wouldn't be as much punishment as the Hong Kong national security law and the many prosecutions of terrorism and secession that have already begun with the first two weeks of this law being in force.

I think with such errors it's safe to reject this opinion piece as a reliable source. Deryck C. 16:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

When hundreds of thousands take to the streets repeatedly over a period of months in an advanced civilisation as HK, something has to be terribly wrong, that narrative doesn't cut any ice. The Communist Regime and its lackeys such as CY Leung have been harping on for years about "foreign powers" meddling in HK, none has been able to come up with evidence to back up that narrative. --Ohconfucius (on the move) (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

"Hong kong spring" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Hong kong spring. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 30#Hong kong spring until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 06:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

"Hard hat revolution" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Hard hat revolution. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 4#Hard hat revolution until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Update: Steel1943 has withdrawn the request. Deryck C. 16:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Page move dispute for (death of / killing of) Luo Changqing at ANI

Your input to the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Move dispute on Death of Luo Changqing / Killing of Luo Changqing will be most appreciated. Deryck C. 01:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Update: ANI thread is now closed; new RM is open at Talk:Killing of Luo Changqing#Requested move 5 August 2020. Deryck C. 16:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

New topic division

I wonder if we should draw an end to the topic of this article (and its accompanying timeline) since street protests are becoming less common (and we all know whom to blame), and start a new one called 2020 Hong Kong constitutional crisis whose scope begins with the NPC's plan to enact Hong Kong national security law and continues with the ongoing LegCo election crisis? Deryck C. 18:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I think this suggestion makes sense since the current controversy mainly focuses on the national security law rather than five demands. However, what would be the scope of this "constitutional crisis"? The national security law and the LegCo election are actually two separate constitutional crises. OceanHok (talk) 09:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the main purpose of starting a new article is to draw a line under this one, and then have another summary-style article about the ongoing crisis in Hong Kong. In a way 2019-20 Hong Kong protests also has multiple storylines: the Extradition Bill, police violence, Five Demands, District Council elections, Wuhan coronavirus, and then National Security Law. I envisage the new article to also be broad and I do think "constitutional crisis" covers both issues because the ongoing disqualification controversy - as the Returning Officers' statements show - is very much influenced by the National Security Law.

I guess the outline of the article will be something like this:

• (Lead)
• Background
  • Extradition Bill protests and the Five Demands
  • Covid-19 pandemic
• National security law
  • NPC decision (May)
  • Promulgation and enforcement - includes commentary on conflict of laws
  • NSL arrests and warrants
• LegCo election
  • Pan-dem primaries (allegations of NSL violation)
  • Candidate disqualifications
  • Election postponement
• (Possibly in its own section: international responses)

--Deryck C. 22:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I am not too sure about this, since the scope seems a bit narrow. The direction where the whole protest/pro-democratic movement will go at this moment is very unclear. I think we can reconsider this proposal after a month or two. OceanHok (talk) 11:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with OceanHok that a certain waiting period would be beneficial in our decision making on this question. If a new article is to be created, it should, in my view, state that the national security law was, first and foremost, "the" answer by the authorities in Hong Kong and Beijing to the street protests (and therefore the Five Demands); otherwise it could even be said by certain quarters – it should be clear who I mean here – that the "constitutional crisis" had already become plain during the protests, with the remedy having come through the NSL.

Apart from this point, a general problem that I have with the term "constitutional crisis" as part of the new article's name, at least from the present point of view, is that it puts the emphasis rather strongly on governance. This would seem to give insufficient weight to numerous ways how the protesters and their supporters will likely continue to express their resistance outside the LegCo. In due course, it may be that a term for the post-NSL enactment era will emerge. I would think that a neutral term relating to a date (obviously 1 July 2020 would be a candidate for this) would be desirable for this. There are surely many broad precedents for such naming, though I can only think of Vormärz. But such a term must of course gain traction in public discussion over an appreciable timespan. Also, in view of these issues, we may have to allow for the possibility of a future renaming of the envisaged new article. --CRau080 (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I was going to propose that this article be split up into different protests for the different goals thought but decided against it. I think this would be a good start at cutting this big topic up. — RealFakeKimT 09:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Is HK protests a disaster

I found that Bishonen remove Wikiproject disaster management from HK protest, Yellow vest movement, Lebanese protests, and so on. IMO, all of these protest,while categorised as social movement, it is actually include in disaster, which belongs in Wikiproject Disaster Management. I Have questions, why these protest remove WP disaster management tag, while it also includes civil disobedience, which is a Man-made disaster? 114.125.235.207 (talk) 09:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Political unrest doesn't come under "disaster management", come on. Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management would be added to twenty times as many articles if it did. Also, you have added (and I have removed) the Wikipedia:WikiProject Death tag to a number of articles, like here, pretty randomly IMO. If you want to insist on adding these WikiProjects to such articles, please discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disaster management and Wikipedia:WikiProject Death and see if you can get consensus for it. Bishonen | tålk 10:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC).

PS, please note that you have a warning for adding irrelevant wikiprojects at User talk:180.245.109.42! Bishonen | tålk 10:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC).

Wikipedia is not a soapbox Flaughtin (talk) 06:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I suggest that the IP editor(s) voicing their objection to the removal of their WikiProject additions actually read the introductory paragraphs of those WikiProjects. WikiProject Disaster management for example deals specifically with natural disasters. It doesn't matter how you interpret the name of the WikiProject or the event you're adding their template to—it's not in their scope. CentreLeftRight ✉ 07:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Supporting Countries

May I ask a question? Macau and Hong Kong are include in the 2020 Hong Kong protests? Please answer this question. Aldrin0000 (talk) 04:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

"Hong Kong protesters" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Hong Kong protesters. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 30#Hong Kong protesters until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. RZuo (talk) 08:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Discuss

It has been suggested that local events post-July 2020 be split out into another article titled Aftermath of the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests. Please discuss about this..180.129.28.52 (talk) 13:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Page size

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.

---

This page now has 501,088 bytes of markup; it should be subdivided, into several sections. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

it is the largest article on english wikipedia that isn't just a list of things basically Rapidkillerx (talk) 04:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

When would this end though? Almost all of the active protests have dwindled since August. Each month's "protests" articles (see August, September) now has exceptionally detailed news reporting that primarily report the aftermath, rather than the civil conflict/unrest itself. If this drags on we are going to have a serious debate to rename it to "2019–21 Hong Kong protests" (even if the protests revolving around the initial cause has ended), which is ridiculous; even with Hong Kong's recent history of frequent protests, the 2014 protests aren't combined with this article as "2014–20 Hong Kong protests".

My suggestion is to split up the article and call all local events after July 2020 Aftermath of the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests. Some sections that might be timewise ambiguous (such as international reactions, etc.), if necessary, can have their own article pages. The rest of the minute details should be merged into the broader scope of Hong Kong–Mainland China conflict. NoNews! 02:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I think the 'History' section can trim to just one or two sentences for each month's timeline to briefly describe what has happened in the months, as what has been done in the Chinese Wikipedia article. I don't think it is suitable to split to "Aftermath of the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests". Although the "protests" have significantly changed into online activism or protests against contradictory arrests, they are still protests against Hong Kong/Chinese government.--Sun8908──Talk 05:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I strongly disagreed with splitting the history section off. It can use some further trimming, but history is the most important aspect of the protests, and leaving it with only 1 to 2 sentences in the main page is not an ideal solution. OceanHok (talk) 05:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Splitting is a good idea, but there are clearly far too many references here. I would propose removing all the non-English language references. If there is content that can only be referenced using a non-English source, it's probably not notable enough for the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Strongly disagreed with splitting the history. Also, there are protest in October. An unimportant person (talk) 14:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

We should differentiate whether the October protest is part of THIS bigger protest, or something different. Based on the article it looks like a National Day protest, so it seems more than not a recurring one, and should belong to part of the Hong Kong–Mainland China conflict rather than here. This article is specifically about the notable group of 2019-20 protests with its initial causes/grievances and protest methods, rather than all protests in 2019-20. Protests in Hong Kong are common but not all should be lumped into this one! NoNews! 01:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I believe that the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests, in their "undisputed", so to speak, stretch – whichever date that may exactly extend to –, have encompassed such a range of occasions and particular grievances that any excision of protests in the nearer future (for reallocation on another page) would not do justice to this unprecedented broad character. Indeed, I would find it hard to regard any protest in the city that should occur, as of now, as standing sufficiently apart from the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests to warrant its move to another article. In fact, the National Security Law, with its broad and vague scope, has done much to cement this situation.--CRau080 (talk)

The setting up of the National Security Law is in itself a milestone event that heavily influenced events thereafter. While there are still protests, they are much scattered than before (compared to, say, October or November 2019) and are no longer the same nature and scale. Demosistō and some other democratic activist groups have disbanded, their leaders arrested or fled; no one is still going about chanting the Five Demands or Glory to Hong Kong; the Yellow-Blue economic/cultural dichotomy is no longer so prominent; no gangs attacking public facilities or passers-by; no more attacks or accusations of attacks from the HKPF. These are all important and defining characteristics of THIS protest (as in the article), and these do not feature in current ongoing events.

I'd agree there's still a degree of civil dissatisfaction in the city overall, but the current stage looks more like an aftermath than the active stage of protests, hence my argument to call such events part of the Aftermath -- it will also cover the grievances issue that you have mentioned. If a large cluster of news-worthy protests do occur again, then we ought to examine their nature and tactics before considering whether to add them back or recategorize them as a separate group of protests. NoNews! 00:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

All the more because of the chilling effect of the national security law on street protests, I think it is important to keep in mind what Sun8908 implied earlier in this thread: that the protests have always been aimed at the Hong Kong and mainland governments. To see the street protests as a characterization of the protests – or even as a partial one, whatever this would mean – would, in my view, not sufficiently account for the political root causes of the protests, which certainly have not gone away; nor are there any signs yet (as far as I know) that they will anytime soon.

The backdrop of the national security law – if no longer the pandemic situation, which has eased – does need to be accounted for fully when assessing any form of protest under these circumstances. Emphasis here is on "any" because given that the law is sweeping and vague, so is the scope of potential protest. At such protests, offences could happen which, while being non-offences or trivial acts by pre-NSL standards, are now criminal acts and so would, to me at least, make such protests fall under the remit of the article to which this talk page belongs. It is unsurprising that the national security law has largely silenced the call for the five demands, as it has essentially pulled away (in the eyes of the pro-democrats) any foundations on which the five demands could even be seriously raised.

The above is not to say that I am in principle against a split of the material into two parts pre- and post-national security law. I think that the naming "aftermath" ought to be replaced by a different term that suggests that the expressions of the protest took new forms under the repressive atmosphere created by the NSL. Also, if we reached that stage, there would have to be, in my opinion, a discussion of what to do with a fair bit of material, reaching back much further than June 2020, on the run-up to the national security law, such as the scuffle in the LegCo. While it seems rather early for firm decisions (and this would in my view justify waiting for some degree of normalisation of the situation in Hong Kong, which should not solely be based on public safety, economic rebound and other government-touted indicators), I think that the two main articles to be created (with their children) should convey that their respective contents are, to a big extent, two sides of the very same coin.--CRau080 (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

You do have a point there, that there are many interlinked events that makes it difficult to find a clear cut, and also the term "aftermath" may not necessarily be the most suitable. I'm fine with not proceeding with any arbitrary splits just based on month. However, to your earlier point, I would still argue that solely going by political cause is not enough (see 2014 protests). THIS group of protests are characterized by points such as the street protests and violence, the Five Demands, the Yellow/Blue economic dichotomy, along with the widespread news coverage and international attention. By this definition, current situation shows that the active phase of this group of protests is ending or has ended. The National Day protest is more likely an isolated one. The lingering societal ramifications and international/diplomatic reactions (from the timeline) are more as a result of the National Security Law (NSL), and technically can be included under that article.

There would come a time where we would need to decide where to set an end time to this article. Protests in Hong Kong are common and not all should be lumped into this one; if there are no more notable related protests after a period of time, then we shouldn't call societal events "protests continued" or foresee more protests to come. Future events, if they become notable, are better to have their own articles. How's that? I'd say let's observe for at most another month or so before deciding whether to wrap up. NoNews! 13:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, I think that post-July things should go into a separate article, but the protests didn't end, at least, as no one declared an end and even local press (read: Apple Daily) continued coining the term "reverse-power movement" way after July. Much like the core components happened between until (at least) July. It is too hard to set an end-date, and considering the UK Government Hong Kong Act, I think (personally) it may way spinning into the next world war (it things always go to the dark side), but that's another story.--1233 ( T / C） 15:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the page should be moved to another paged titled "Aftermath of the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests". This article should be organized into a timeline order, not a single event order. If however, these protests continue into 2021 in the same manner and have the same cause I would suggest making a new name for this article and summarizing most article points to reduce the size of this page. Articles of events that have gone more than a year usually have a summary of key events that happened in one year or one month I suggest we do likewise if it spans out. Articute (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Now at 463,009; this article still needs to be split into several parts. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support split - I have been recommending a page split for months, but have been rejected multiple times before. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support split - let's make it simple. Split it by year. COVID-19 made the split between 2019 and 2020 much easier. starship.paint (talk) 13:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
• With the protests not picking up any pace soon, I think we can now identify the key events during the protests, and then massively trim the history/clashes/death section or move them to the timeline overview article. OceanHok (talk) 14:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

References

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.

Requested move 31 December 2020

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 section.

---

2019–2021 Hong Kong protests → 2019–21 Hong Kong protests – This is similar to the title that has been used in years past, and if 2021 should not be in the title, then "20" should. Jax 0677 (talk) 23:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Strong oppose: Please move it back to "2019–20 Hong Kong protests", it's only the specific end date that needs to be decided. Per my point and OceanHok's view above; there is no evidence that protests have continued beyond November 2020 [10], and expecting more protests to come is just WP:CRYSTAL. There are a lot of aftermath events such as the trial of student leaders and reactions to the NSL, but these are to be listed separately and not under the range of the timeline. If more related active protests do happen in the future, then we can consider adding them in again.

@Dicmoehtet2400: Considering that you initiated the page move, citing It is still continuing up to 2021, please give the evidence, both here and on the main article.

PS: note the various subpages (timelines, etc) that haven't been moved, and per my point here, suggest to keep them as is until this discussion concludes. NoNews! 00:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose and move back to 2019-20 Hong Kong protests for now. As I have mentioned before, I don't think the protests would be back anytime soon. We will still be seeing prosecution and further suppression of freedom, but for now, the actual act of protests are unlikely to show up, especially during this pandemic period. Should the protests really show up again in 2021, I would argue that we can start a separate article because I don't think the structure of the current article can accommodate that. OceanHok (talk) 04:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose and should revert to the condition before bold move. Moreover, as other stated, the correct MoS / naming convention is 2019–2021 for period that spawn more than a year (e.g. , 2019–20, 2020–21 are correct, and 2019–21 is not correct). Also it seem OR that large scale protest still exist in 2021. (or even the second half of 2020). Today is 1 January thanks. Matthew hk (talk) 05:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose as there is no evidence the protests are continuing. Common sense would suggest there will be no more protests similar to those before given the punishment being meted out. If any future protests do occur (how would we know on the 1st of the year) I suspect they will be sufficiently smaller and different such that we can create a new article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Starzoner: why did you move this without discussion or consensus? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I moved it because Dicmoehtet2400 moved it to 2020-21. I'll move it back now. Matthew hk, OceanHok, Jtbobwaysf. Starzoner (talk) 13:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Can we close the move now, and go back to the previous two discussions (split, end date)? NoNews! 13:54, 1 January 2021 (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.

Users clamouring to label the protests as over

@Newfraferz87: regarding this edit summary, multiple sources 1, 2 call this a "protest" or a "demonstration" and it is not your role as a Wikipedia editor to personally decide what constitutes a protest or not. Please review WP:OR. Citobun (talk) 04:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Fine if it has been called a protest, but that doesn't mean it must listed under the scope of this article, which specifically refers to the group of protests with its most noted characteristics (Five Demands, yellow/blue economic circle, Glory to HK etc). Protests and demonstrations occur frequently in Hong Kong (note July 1, October 1 annual protests) but that doesn't mean each protest is this (group of 2019-20) protests continued!

If you can explain how this protest should be properly grouped under the scope of this article (or cite enough sources that say so), then please do so, and update the history and timeline appropriately. Otherwise it's better listed under Hong Kong–Mainland China conflict or have its own article. NoNews! 05:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

It would take some serious mental gymnastics to argue that the CHRF protest of 1 January 2021 is unrelated, considering it was organised by the same group behind the largest marches of 2019 and 2020. Only now they are calling for the release of people imprisoned, in part, for their role in the 2019-20 protests. And the July 1, October 1, etc. demonstrations that you mentioned ARE included within the scope of this article. Citobun (talk) 07:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Citobun: The July 1, October 1 demonstrations also occurred throughout 2014 to 2018, likely also organized by pro-democracy supporters that had a part in the 2014 protests. That doesn't mean those protests must all be grouped together, or combined with the 2014 protests to become a huge article on 2014-2018 protests. See also Matthew hk's comment above. The July 2019, October 2019 and July 2020 demonstrations can be considered within the scope of this article because the cause for the protests is still there; that is debateable for October 2020, and by January 2021 is really far-fetched to say the January 1 demonstration shares the same cause, grievance and methods as in the article. NoNews! 06:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Whatever is decided, editors really need to absorb/digest MOS:DATERANGE before requesting a new title. 2019–20 is okay and 2019–2020 is okay; to extend it into 2021, 2019–2021 is okay, but 2019–21 goes against the MOS style guideline, which does apply to article titles as well as article content. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 07:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I lived outside HK for a bit long, but July 1 protest is something like since 2003? Also, 1 January protest is far from the scale of 2019 protests. There is a law to arbitrary arrest any pro-democrat people and media has reported that this law is one of the main reason the protests has been supressed . Matthew hk (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

It's pretty safe to say that the protests in the form adopted up to November 2020 (and their intensity) are no more. The underlying discontent is undoubtedly remains high but has been replaced by white terror. Like the 2014 protests ended with the clearances, I'd say that the subject of this article ought to be considered a closed chapter with the NSL guillotine falling. By the same token, it would similarly make little sense to merge the 2014 protests into this article on the grounds that there have been intervening protest marches organised twice a year. The NSL and purges being brought against civil rights activists are a subject in their own right. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 21:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest any editor to throw away their local POV and base on secondary source. It does not help to bluffing that the formal protest is still ongoing or exaggerate the yellow mask is a real protest. The Economist has coverage on yellow mask ([11]) but i don't think there is much to summarized and add to this article. Instead, mass arrest that quite a lot of charge could be traced back to the events in 2019 protests, should be the new focus on updating this wiki article.

While for merge. Yes 2014 protest should be mentioned, but again, based on secondary source 2019 is very different from 2014 for the tense atmosphere between protestor and police , as well as the act of violence that the protester though it is patriotic / an act of localism. Matthew hk (talk) 12:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

And "Union for New Civil Servants" formed in 2019 and pro-democracy, was announced their dissolution https://www.facebook.com/uncs.uncs.82/photos/a.175102330553123/469826671080686/?type=3&theater https://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20210116/bkn-20210116215755355-0116_00822_001.html Matthew hk (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of Hong Kong (Black Bauhinia with wilted petals variant).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

video

Shouldn't this be in the article?

Shouldn't this be in the article? Victor Grigas (talk) 22:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Article size split

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.

---

• Support split - To follow up on the previous discussion, since there is consensus to split, I suggest reducing the "Reactions", "Impact", "Local media coverage", "Police misconduct", "Online confrontations", "Deaths", "Background", "History" as well as the "Clashes between protesters and counter-protesters" sections to ONE paragraph each, and having the rest covered in the sub articles. Obviously, I am open to suggestions. Splitting by year will only help so much, as there are now sections for each month. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

  I would suggest integrating history/death/clashes into one single history section and then trim it massively while moving the relevent information to Timeline of the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests. Online confrontation and media coverage probably are not long enough to justify a standalone article. The effect section needs to be updated and reworked and maybe combined with the aftermath/subsequent suppression mentioned above. Tactics/reaction/police allegations/background can be further trimmed, but I think they are written in summary style already. OceanHok (talk) 17:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

  Agree on split(s)/simplifications, but not as radical to the extent of one paragraph each.

  1. "History" can more or less stay but with unnecessary details moved to the Timelines.
  2. "Clashes between protestors and counter-protesters" -- seems trivial to set a section on its own when the article itself already describes conflicts between two parties -- may be merged into "Tactics and methods".
  3. "Police misconduct" is too detailed for the scope of the general article, and needs to be slashed heavily with the bulk of the text going to the subpage.
  4. "Tactics and methods", "Local media coverage" "Reactions" can also be cut down to at most three paragraphs per subsection with all details (direct quotes from politicians etc) going into the subpage(s).
  5. In particular, "Reactions" need to be differentiated regarding whether they are in response to the protests or to the NSL, each of which have their own pages.

  I'm open to further discussion and suggestions of course. NoNews! 02:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose split Split would be WP:UNDUE since the bulk of sources are for earlier one when there were actual protests. What is being referred to here sounds like an attempt to carve off the aftermath, which is part of the story. As OceanHok states, we can easily trim the timeline as we already have another split article, no need to make a second. I also oppose ever single suggestion by Jax 0677. Clearly all biased suggestions seeking to push a POV. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support split but doing this one new article at a time. Similar to what OceanHok has said, multiple sections can be combined into one, and can then be split off. WP:UNDUE is completely irrelevant here as this is not determining which content should or shouldn't be on Wikipedia, and it's just as baseless to claim that splitting the article supports a point of view. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

  @OceanHok: do you support split as Onetwothreeip seems to indicate? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose split This is nowhere near the WP:SIZE limit, and the topic is one connected series of events, so splitting it would be arbitrary and confusing. I don't oppose the material-rearranging proposals (1–10, below) that I can see, but none of them are arguments for a split, or would necessitate one, they would just potentially make the article easier to read. That said, beware creating monolithic sections. Most of the section titles suggested for merger below should be retained as subsection headings within the merged sections.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose split This topic has already spawned multiple sub-articles, and it would be nigh impossible to arrive at post-split versions that are significantly shorter without losing coherence. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 21:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose split - per my rationale above. OceanHok (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Summary of ideas to split article

Please comment below as to which ideas you support for reducing the size of this article:

1. Reduce the "Reactions", "Impact", "Local media coverage", "Police misconduct", "Online confrontations", "Deaths", "Background", "History" as well as the "Clashes between protesters and counter-protesters" sections to ONE paragraph each, and have the rest covered in the sub articles
2. Integrate history/death/clashes into one single history section and move the relevant information to Timeline of the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests
3. Update the effect section and rework and combine with the aftermath/subsequent suppression
4. Trim Tactics/reaction/police & allegations/background
5. Unnecessary details of "History" moved to Timelines
6. Merge "Clashes between protestors and counter-protesters" into "Tactics and methods"
7. Slash "Police misconduct" heavily with the bulk of the text going to the subpage.
8. Cut "Tactics and methods", "Local media coverage" and "Reactions" down to at most three paragraphs per subsection with details going into the subpages
9. Differentiate "Reactions" as to whether they are in response to the protests or to the Hong Kong National Security Law
10. Split only one new article at a time

--Jax 0677 (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• Strong support for Item 1 and Support for items 2-8 - I support my own idea (Item 1), but I also support Items 2-8. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

  I support all of these, but I'm not sure if going to one paragraph for each of those is a good idea, at least immediately. I would recommend you be WP:BOLD and take these actions, and editors can revert them if they disapprove. What would be the first new article to create? Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Reply - Online confrontations surrounding the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests, or whatever comes out of this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• I have gone ahead and gave the history section a trim, as well as integrating the death section into different sections. I don't think online confrontation/press coverage is long enough or substantial enough for a split. Other sections can be trimmed, but not as significantly as the one for the history section. OceanHok (talk) 06:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment - @Newfraferz87:, @Jtbobwaysf:, I have listed this discussion at WP:ANRFC. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

  Why is that even necessary? It is not like we have such a heated arguemnt that requires admin intervention... OceanHok (talk) 04:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Fails RFCBRIEF First is not not properly formatted as an RfC with multiple overlapping proposals and thus impossible to really contribute to. It is flagrantly in violation of WP:RFCBRIEF. It seems there are also two issues being discussed and mixed up here. First is if the article should be split, and what to split off. Second is if the protests are ongoing and if the article should be renamed to 2021. (The user also unilaterally renamed it, and was met with significant resistance to it). This user is seeking to wp:wikilawyer the process to drive some sort of POV in an article that isn't really WP:TOOLONG and the protest events are long since ended (with only court cases and jail times being meted out today). If the event is mostly ended (as well as corresponding coverage of it), what is the point to split it now? If we need to split something off, and if the editor thinks there is not enough space for the post protest events, then let's make an aftermath article and then we can carry on with that there. But I am not clear that this is being advocated here. This rather appears as some sort of attempt to mess with WP:NPOV. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't think Jax is pushing a WP:POV here. He just has a very bad habit of requesting RFC for trivial matter, or for issues that are not suitable for RfC (e.g. split discussions). OceanHok (talk) 14:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  Its like a bomb has gone off on this talk page with multiple RfCs running with a huge number of issues proposed and multiple tags on the article. Not the correct approach. There is no good reason to split this article and doing so will create a POV fork as it will be impossible to review all of this chaos. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - To the closing administrator, Talk:2019–20_Hong_Kong_protests/Archive_15#Page_size indicates that there is consensus for a size split. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

This is essentially one editor pushing for a split, and given the political nature of this article could advocating for a POV split. No split is needed at this time without a clear consensus. The author of the RFC has proposed multiple splits inside this RFC which is now hopeless broken and fails RFCBRIEF. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I am going to remove the tag from the article, this proposal appears to be dead. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:57, 15 March 2021 (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.

Tag

I want to remove the split discussion tag from the article, as it refers to an informal 'RFC' that is now so conflated no consensus is possible. Note the 'RFC' lacks the WP:RFC format. There is one editor Jax 0677 (talk · contribs) that started the discussion, but apparently the user didnt know how to create a property RFC, or intended to create an informal discussion. Please read WP:RESPTAG. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• Reply - I just reinstated the split tag, as there been a request for over two months at WP:ANRFC to close two discussions on this page. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• I've removed the tag, having closed that discussion. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 4 April 2021

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: Consensus that the subject of this article does not include protests in 2021. MOS:DATERANGE does say that the title should be "2019–2020", however. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 18:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

---

2019–20 Hong Kong protests → 2019–2021 Hong Kong protests – I have no opinion on this matter, but have created this move request as a matter of procedure, per the suggestion here, since the end date is in question. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment – Per MOS:DATERANGE, the title (if we moved it to 2021) would have to be "2019–2021", not "2019–21". I'm not the nominator, but adjusted the proposal accordingly. Paintspot Infez (talk) 23:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• Reply - @Paintspot:, would the current title not need to be moved to 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests? --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - Unless there have been substantial developments since the previous RM / previous and current discussions, there appears to be no evidence to suggest that the type of protests with similar cause and methods as mentioned in the article are still ongoing. There are a few occasional demonstrations related to the NSL, but those are not as significant as the earlier protests, and can be listed under their relevant article. NoNews! 04:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't think there is any major protest in 2021 that resembles the scale of that of 2019 or early 2020. Even if there are new protests, I think we need a new article to cover that. OceanHok (talk) 05:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Read the #End date section instead of playing the voting game (which wiki is !vote) Matthew hk (talk) 21:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose requested move as I do not feel there has been sufficient updates to the situation warrant extending to 2021, but support move to 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests per MOS:DATERANGE, which notes that spelling out both years in full is preferred, even if not required for two consecutive years. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 00:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Message to closing administrator - In my opinion, this discussion should be relisted, since further discussion is warranted about whether both years should have four digits. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose there are no 2021 protests, only aftermath. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2021 (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.

End date

I mentioned this earlier and it's a suitable time to bring this up again: it's about time we need decide whether to rename this to 2019-21 protests come the new year; if not, then it's imperative to decide an end date, without any sort of expectation for more protests to come. The last known (and isolated) protest, as far as I know, was in November [12]. The timelines only list events up to October, and even those are mostly NSL reactions (which have their own subpages) rather than actual protests themselves. NoNews! 02:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I wonder how other protest articles handle this? Because most protests gradually fade out and won't actually have an exact end date. I would oppose moving it to 2019-21 protests though. OceanHok (talk) 17:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

OceanHok, I moved it to 2019-2021. Starzoner (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

While popular opinion remains favourable to the protesters and their cause, the actual act of protests have largely faded, and I don't think it would be picking up steam easily again anytime soon. Stuff like "yellow economic circle" are still ongoing though, but I don't think that is a strong enough reason to say that the protests is still continuing. Generally I think the name of the article ("2019-21 HK protests") are too limiting, but I have yet to see RS calling this period of time something else. OceanHok (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree here with OceanHok, these protests are largely over (and I oppose adding 2021 to the name of the article at this time). A new phase of civil disobedience may emerge, but it likley will not resemble the subject of this article (given the heavy handed response by the PRC). I don't support any renaming and I think this article's time period has ended. The question is if we have more current content that cannot be worked into this existing article. Updates on the legal proceedings of past protests obviously continue to fall within the scope of this article. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

It is not actually over. There were demonstrations in the past few days. Say the boat trip in Sai Kung and the procession to the Legislative Council Complex in support of the twelve Hongkongers detained across the border in Yantian. The timeline is not up-to-date. It has to be updated to reflect the events in November-December 2020 and January 2021. 223.197.170.231 (talk) 12:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

We don't call 8964 as 1989 to 2021 China protest, even until recently, there is annual event in Hong Kong that related to 8964. The HK protest are now focus on the court ruling instead of pro-democracy as described by foreign media. Plus there are Chapter 599G of HK Law, many other reason that no large scale protest exist in HK since the start of COVID-19. This fact is well reflected in news report and wikipedia is not a primary source and express your view. Based on secondary source it is well clear it is over. You can add a small section to have some major aftermath described, however. Matthew hk (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I changed the bold and infobox dates back to correspond to the ill fated move earlier. If someone wants to make these dates say this is going into 2021 then they need to find consensus first, or do an RFC. This event ended already and now is the aftermath phase (courts, punishment, etc). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Most certainly is ongoing, protests are ongoing and that is simply a fact. If we should split the article towards more recent protests is possibly debatable but protests are ongoing and there will be information towards this. Des Vallee (talk) 06:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Des Vallee: So, where is the citation on large scale protest? Matthew hk (talk) 12:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

And here is the real situation reported by reliable source ABC Australia instead. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpFMs61_pwk Matthew hk (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

They’re probably going to protest again on China’s National day. Dylan095678 (talk) 02:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

In case your are new in wiki. WP:Crystal. Wikipedia is NOT a crystal ball. Matthew hk (talk) 13:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Ok, new news article. We need to summarize external sources wording regarding the March 2021 protest on arbitrary arrest is part of "The pro-democracy protest" (this wiki article) or not. Or rather a aftermath of aftermath (Hong Kong national security law). Matthew hk (talk) 05:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Based on the given article it looks entirely like an anti-NSL protest. If it's just an isolated event then it should be noted under Local effects of the Hong Kong national security law, and doesn't warrant extending the event timeline of the protests (as in this article) all the way to 2021, since there has been little protest activity in 2021. I'd say wait a couple of days first to see whether this protest picks up momentum. NoNews! 13:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

References

• Comment - There is a move discussion regarding this issue at Talk:2019–20 Hong Kong protests#Requested move 4 April 2021. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Misarchive

Did Cluebot III just erroneously archived some sections to Talk:2019–2020 Hong Kong protests/Archives/ 15 instead of Talk:2019–2020 Hong Kong protests/Archive 15 ? NoNews! 00:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Newfraferz87, not sure if it is because of the archive prefix not being updated. I have manually shifted and the archived sections to Archive 15, and set a redirect. – robertsky (talk) 08:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Imbalanced article?

Large section discussing police misconduct, but very limited coverage on tactics used by protesters such as violence/intimidation techniques on individuals and businesses they disagreed with. Under the "Radical Group" section, only anti-police tactics/actions were discussed. Limited mentions under "Clashes between protesters and counter-protesters". Heterodoxist (talk) 18:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be much worth mentioning how the protesters' violence went on. Police misconduct gained more coverage on relatively different topics. It also doesn't match the word "clashes" for including the techniques in that section. Sun8908 _Talk 01:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2021

Source 22 is an error, and thus another source may be needed, or the link needs to be fixed. 174.5.74.198 (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done CentreLeftRight ✉ 21:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 2 July 2021

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. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 (talk) 07:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

---

2019–2020 Hong Kong protests → ? – With new events such as the stab of a police officer in 2021 that are likely to be connected with the protests, I think we should consider renaming the article to something like 2019-2021 Hong Kong protests, or even Anti-Extradition Law Amendment Bill movement as in some other language versions of Wikipedia. It's true that there is no longer large-scale protests, but the movement, however, is still there. For example, there was a protest on 1 July. Eight96Four (talk) 06:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC) Eight96Four (talk) 06:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose It is not a mass scale protest, it is WP:OR to link new events to this article. It is not a harm to create 2021 Hong Kong protests if there is a real mass scale protest against the National Security Law and central government in general (and it need to pass WP:GNG for wiki). Also, note that there is Hong Kong 1 July marches article. Matthew hk (talk) 14:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Since the last RM is in April. I think this article need a moratorium on RM. Matthew hk (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - @Matthew hk:, I could not agree with you more. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per WP:CRYSTAL, we cannot make any change (let alone one with such broad implications for the framing of the content of an article as would be involved with changing a namespace), based upon speculation about how we believe sources are likely treat new facts. In fact, in this case, it would not only be premature, but would include elements of WP:Original research to judge the more recent events as best described as a continuation of an existing social movement/phenomena. Mind you, if the bulk of sources treating more recent actions/demonstrations do end up contextualizing them as part of the same protests, we would of course follow suit, per WP:WEIGHT/WP:NPOV. But at present, that does not seem to be the case--or if it is, said sources have not been presented here in a compelling fashion, as required by WP:ONUS. Until such a shift has taken place in the sources, and that shift adequately summarized/attested to here, a move would be premature and inappropriate. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:15, 3 July 2021 (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.

Moratorium on move requests for "2019–2020 Hong Kong protests"

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.

---

I am starting this discussion to propose a moratorium on move requests for "2019–2020 Hong Kong protests", since the last move request took place in April 2021. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose.(Summoned by bot) This project's policies and community consensus generally align against this kind of prior restraint; consensus can change, and neither discussion nor vital editorial processes should be short-circuited by an a priori/begging the question determination that future sourcing (or even a new editorial consensus on existing sourcing) might arrive at the conclusion that a different approach to the current content is in order. Furthermore, even if there is occasionally an article for which repetitious application of a process becomes tendentious enough for us to consider applying WP:IAR and adopting a moratorium on discussion of some core editorial aspect of an article, this is definitely not one of those cases: a RM request once every few months is hardly the kind of especially arduous and taxing circumstances that would justify such an exceptional abrogation of our standard principles. There are indeed cases of articles that receive such requests every few weeks--or even days, under some short term circumstances--and we typically don't apply moratoriums on such requests even in those cases--let alone circumstances where the extent of the editorial burden is a short discussion every four months. Mind you, I find myself in agreement with the OPs !vote in the most recent RM discussion. But a moratorium under these facts would be overkill in the extreme and seems to suggest an inappropriate level of opposition to the voicing of contravening views, if I am to be blunt. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:39, 3 July 2021 (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.

Requested move 10 August 2021

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 consensus. No such user (talk) 11:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

---

2019–2020 Hong Kong protests → Anti-Extradition Law Amendment Bill Movement – As someone have created the article for January 2021 timeline, I think we should really discuss whether to rename this article or to ban the existence of such articles. I would suggest renaming this article to something like Anti-Extradition Law Amendment Bill Movement, without time limitations. So events not in 2019-2020 can also be included in the protests. Eight96Four (talk) 05:17, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose: The scope of the protests extended way beyond the initial opposition against the Extradition Law Amendment Bill, I'm not sure if the new title would adequately explain the course of the protests, and any reactions after the NSL was implemented can technically be described under Local effects of the Hong Kong national security law as opposed to this article. I'm inclining to oppose, subject to change if any editor has other strong supporting reasons.

In any case, the timeline articles after July 2020 appear needlessly detailed and off-topic (with regards to both the protests and the Anti-Bill movement) to me, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. I'd suggest either they be moved to some new title (such as Timeline of reactions to the Hong Kong national security law put under its parent article), or they be removed altogether with contents summarized on the parent article. (Pinging timeline-editing user @Ara11183:)

NoNews! 12:48, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose the protest quickly escalated. All foreign media only refer it as "the Protest" and the 5 demands are not only against the Extradition Law, which is well covered by media. Matthew hk (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Is this even a recognisable/commonly-used name? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 13:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

  Yes. "The 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests, also known as the Anti-Extradition Law Amendment Bill Movement, took place from 2019 to 2020 in response to the introduction by the Hong Kong government of the Fugitive Offenders amendment bill on extradition, which was later withdrawn in September 2019." Eight96Four (talk) 16:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

@Eight96Four: Even outside Hong Kong and China? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:20, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

May I ask if the term 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests is even used outside of wikipedia? The name Anti-Extradition Law Amendment Bill Movement is commonly used in Taiwan (Chinese: 反修例 or 反送中) , and recognisable in other countries if you ask outside of Hong Kong and Chi na. [1][2] Eight96Four (talk) 12:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Dude....This is ENGLISH wikipedia so that citing Taiwanese source in Chinese language does not prove the common name in ENGLISH. Also , wikipedia is stubborn or whatever to describe it, please try to prove it in quantitative way such as google ngram. And to any admin that close this RM, the RM request really really need moratorium Matthew hk (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose The protest first were about the extradition bill but quickly went to anti-government and pro-democracy protests where the extradition bill was not playing a part in anymore.Finn.reports (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I may need time to construct a proper ngram query, but probably "the pro-democracy protest" is more common than "Anti-Extradition Law Amendment Bill Movement". Matthew hk (talk) 03:05, 17 August 2021 (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.

Renaming of timelines

As mentioned in the 10th August RM above, given that there have not been objections to my suggestion and there is consensus that protests have ended, I've opted to rename the timelines after October 2020 to "Timeline of reactions to the Hong Kong national security law", as the descriptions no longer describe any new protests like the style of 2019-2020. The new title should fit better. NoNews! 12:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Should we also create the page Reactions to the Hong Kong national security law? Eight96Four (talk) 01:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@Eight96Four: There's already two existing articles, on local effects and international responses, which scopewise are comprehensive. If you want to add more content, you can add to either. If you want to create the mentioned page that combines both aspects, I have no objections, though it might make the article too long. NoNews! 05:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

(new) Agree to move title : Anti-Extradition Law Amendment Bill Movement (2019 Hong Kong protests) [a more open title]

Agree that the effective date of the National Security Law is the starting time for the second phase of the movement, bringing the movement to the international level; not agreeing to include a clear end date, because it is not believed that all forms of the movement are over. BliredArm (talk) 02:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)— BliredArm (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Dgtdddsx123 (talk · contribs).

Dude....WP:RM is closed . Please start another one, but no off-site canvassing Matthew hk (talk) 04:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree that WP:RM should always be open for discussion until an open public source is cited. WP:RM needs not to be 'set' closed. BliredArm (talk) 07:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)— BliredArm (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Dgtdddsx123 (talk · contribs).

I do not think anyone should seriously consider the input of a less-than-day-old account with an edit history consisting of this one comment. Seems like a sock and/or single purpose account to me. CentreLeftRight ✉ 05:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Stay calm dude:) BliredArm (talk) 07:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)— BliredArm (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Dgtdddsx123 (talk · contribs).

List of updated relevant sites. [remark]

[remark]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_reactions_to_the_Hong_Kong_national_security_law_(August_2021)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_reactions_to_the_Hong_Kong_national_security_law_(September_2021)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_2019%E2%80%932020_Hong_Kong_protests
One can leave both negative/positive comments for the protests on the third page.
This is a flexible page. Dgtdddsx123 (talk) 2:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

This article is way too long. Probably just add a hatnote that ask reader to read another article for post-protest clamp down of Hong Kong freedom and democracy? Feel free to create History of Hong Kong (2019-) or History of Hong Kong (2020-), or just ask reader to read Hong Kong national security law and the effect of literally nuke the pro-democracy political parties into dust? Matthew hk (talk) 09:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

no offense... (no canvassing please.., Matthew.) Dgtdddsx123 (talk) 4:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, now play a game that accuse me canvassing? Matthew hk (talk) 04:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

New session about the Criticism of protesters is needed

The article only mentions police violence, but as far as I know, the protesters also engaged in violent acts such as assaulting police, vandalizing public property, abducting passers-by, and so on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nana byun (talk • contribs) 02:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

The information you need is on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_2019%E2%80%932020_Hong_Kong_protests. Dgtdddsx123 (talk) 2:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I've seen this page before. However, I believe it is preferable to include this column on the page in order to make the content appear balanced on both sides.Nana byun (talk) 02:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

We need to fairly represent reliable reference, which seldom means all sides of an argument equally. The Domestic reactions section does not pull any punches. What exactly do you have in mind? Dushan Jugum (talk) 04:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The information is already adequately included in the radical group subsection/domestic response. I don't think any more elaboration is needed. OceanHok (talk) 11:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The protest are still going on.

The protest are still happening and for the same reasons plus more under CCP China. A correction on the title and some limelight towards their struggle would be nice 2601:100:C100:3540:650A:BC2C:A34E:8CE (talk) 15:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any source? Citobun (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I would say 2021 Hong Kong protest or even History of Hong Kong (2020-) may be better article title to cover the post National Security Law Hong Kong. Just one thing i am pretty sure mass scale protest does not exist in Hong Kong now. You want to reflect the real world , create wiki article to cover the mass scale arrest and dissolution of political parties , citing news article should be the real thing to do. Matthew hk (talk) 18:51, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok but do you have a reliable source for this? TypeKnight03 (talk) 04:51, 24 Aug 2021 (UTC)

@TypeKnight03: Sorry for late reply, but in 2021, some HK people (or most but no action yet) is emigration. https://www.economist.com/britain/2021/09/23/britains-newest-immigrant-group-is-unlike-any-that-came-before

Or which "you" you want to talk to? Me or Citobun or the ip? Matthew hk (talk) 04:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree Matthew. As you suggested elsewhere too there are still some protests but they are not mass ones. Whether they are notable and whether they are related to the 2019 and the 2020 ones are another question. 203.145.95.18 (talk) 13:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

There are some very small scale ones. Yes they are small scale (in groups as little as four or even two) but that doesn't mean they don't exist. 124.217.189.132 (talk) 13:40, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

The problem is people keep want to revive this article to change it to 2019–present Hong Kong protests or try to RM again and again to Anti-Extradition Law Amendment Bill Movement. Yes, probably media will have mix view on it is the extension of 2019 protests or not, if there is large scale protest in 2021, but so far nothing really happened and it is November 2021 already. If large scale protest do exists (say, 1000 people and have media reporting?), just create 2022 Hong Kong protest(s). Matthew hk (talk) 05:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Let them eat cake. 124.217.189.132 (talk) 10:47, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

October 2021: Lead

The lead was recently changed unilaterally by Dgtdddsx123 as if the article was moved, and as such it no longer conforms to MOS:FIRST. I do not see any real opposition though aside from myself and I am uninterested in a discussion between just me and them. I think the discussion regarding the title of this article should be revived, and my thoughts are as follows:

• A source using the term "2019–2020 Hong Kong protests" or "2019–2021 Hong Kong protests" is not sufficient justification for its inclusion in the lead. The goal is to avoid redundancy in the lead (i.e. avoid, "The 2019–2021 Hong Kong protests are a series of demonstrations since 15 March 2019 ...")
• This article is about the Anti-Extradition Law Amendment Bill Movement and the aftermath of its suppression. This article does not cover any protests or demonstrations that occurred in 2021, only the subsequent crackdown. The source provided that uses the term "2019–2021 Hong Kong protests" makes the same mistake.

All the best, CentreLeftRight ✉ 06:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

It is to keep pages from contradicting each other. You can also leave comments on the pages that discuss criticism of protesters and about the protests/suppression in 2021 if necessary.
All the best☺,Dgtdddsx123 (talk) 07:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

The title "Anti-Extradition Law Amendment Bill Movement" is kind of a common name in Cantonese, but not really in English. I think we need to accept the fact that there is no more actual act of protest in Hong Kong since July 2020. There is only resentment against the government, but little to no actions to actually defy it in 2021. OceanHok (talk) 07:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I doubt hrichina is deemed a reliable source or not. Matthew hk (talk) 17:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Why? But yes they are western. 124.217.189.132 (talk) 10:52, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 September 2020 and 11 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Taylortai0205.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Protesters violence

While the article has a section about Police misconduct, it is missing a section about Protesters violence. The "Radical group" subsection is created only for violent tactics, and it's not a good place for adding acts of violence which are not part of a tactic. The violence of the protesters is a reality and the topic deserves to be mentioned in the article. At this moment, Death of Luo Changqing is presented like being part of the event and the article tries to hide the fact that she was killed by a protester, while describing in detail whatever the government and police did wrong. At this moment, protester violence is presented as a somehow heroic tactics of resistance against oppression, tactics that include violence.

• The protesters set on fire a construction worker, identified as Mr. Lee, who survived.
• Luo Changqing, a 70-year-old cleaner, died from head injuries sustained after he was hit by a brick thrown by a Hong Kong protester
• Journalist beaten in airport, Hong Kong officer mutilated in acid attack and more - [13]

Barecode (talk) 06:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
This would be the page you need: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_2019%E2%80%932020_Hong_Kong_protests One can leave both negative/positive comments for the protests on this page.Dgtdddsx123 (talk) 06:23, 08 December 2021 (UTC)

There is no need for a separate section when these events are mentioned elsewhere in the article. Nor is wanting to specifically highlight "protesters violence" a great reason for creating a separate, redundant subsection. Citobun (talk) 09:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Citobun Dgtdddsx123 - So you agree such incidents of violence can be mentioned in the "Radical group" subsection? Barecode (talk) 09:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

One can leave both negative/positive comments/own feelings for the protests on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_2019%E2%80%932020_Hong_Kong_protests. Of course, don't be too aggressive:) Dgtdddsx123 (talk) 11:39, 09 December 2021 (UTC)

I concur with Citobun that this shouldn't be a section. Luo and the guy who was lit on fire were already discussed in the article and there is no point repeating again. We tried to avoid discussing singlular incident unless it was very important and notable. This page is not meant to be an exhaustive list of violent actions. I don't see any problem with mentioning violence against police in the radical section. OceanHok (talk) 12:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I haven't noticed that those things were mentioned in the article already. I apologize. Barecode (talk) 13:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Article size split

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was NO CONSENSUS. Nythar^T.C 08:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

---

• Support split - To follow up on a previous discussion, since there is consensus to split, I suggest reducing the "Reactions", "Impact", "Local media coverage", "Police misconduct", "Online confrontations", "Background", "History" as well as the "Clashes between protesters and counter-protesters" sections to ONE paragraph each, and having the rest covered in the sub articles. Obviously, I am open to suggestions. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

• Why are we having this discussion every other month... Reducing the sections to ONE paragraph is an absurd idea. For instance, the article for World War II has way more than just six paragraphs. We probably need a short overview on the changes in Hong Kong one year after the NSL was enacted, but other than, this article is completed and shouldn't be changed significantly. OceanHok (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

It is How to split need to be discuss. Or noone bold enough to throw out the details and leave the real essence to actually summarize the protest and the impact. Matthew hk (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

• Reply - @Matthew hk:, agreed! --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

• Strong Support:This article is far too long, and that topic actually needs and deserves an article. You have my full support on this one.! Dunutubble (talk) 22:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Dunutubble: we don't need another vote.....the previous discussion has concluded that the article need to be trim . Rather we need discussion on how. Matthew hk (talk) 00:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. Agree with Matthew. It's all about how. I saw his message on an online forum and I agree with his reasoning. 210.6.10.118 (talk) 13:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@210.6.10.118: (i know the ping does not work for ip, i just want the layout) Dude...I don't use online forum to discuss en-wikipedia matter (i do use discord and github to discuss POE wiki matter). Or did someone impersonating me? Or did someone just quote me? I am an old guy that CD-rom at LIHKG , as i don't have email to register there. I do have hkgolden.com account Matthew hk (talk) 23:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@OceanHok:, And World War 2 is a bad comparison. World War 2, is world war, it involve many battle, many countries. If you want to be more impactful for this 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests, dude........can you even do it like 400 words at least in lead? It is way too long as a summary article that people has lost interest to read it. I do read forum that this is new kind of misinfo war by bumping the article with junk or not so important info and detail so that discourage people to actually read it. This article has way many subarticles to place details. Matthew hk (talk) 01:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

And for people in forum . Please create account. DONT use sock. I will submit anyone to WP:SPI. Learn to cite newspaper especially wiki widely acceptable source eg. WSJ, FT, The Economist, NYT. Some western media may be bad, some pro-Beijing newspaper may be bad (e.g. HKEJ), but it is necessary evil to use them. (unless they are discussed in WP:RSN to not use them) Buy book or borrow it from public library and drop down points (or scanner? pirating the whole book is not recommended btw), even they are published by Sino United Publishing, again necessary evil. (Of course on apolitical topic as the company is the mouthpiece of Central Gov) or check the author. I read a book that literally challenged the works by 劉智鵬. You can only add the version that other author rebutting 劉智鵬, or add both versions in articles, as it is harder for wiki editors to act as a professional to judge which version of geo history is right. But some are really common sense that you can easily reject and don't need to mention in wiki article. Also, use talk page more often, please leave discussion of HK topic in WP:WPHK page. Wikipedia is not that accepting the reasoning of we have discussed off-site and don't show the discussion to the public. I.e. Telegram group and discord. You can gossip there but "serious" matter such as which news articles should be used should leave it on wiki article talk page. Matthew hk (talk) 02:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

No, I am not comparing the protests to the war itself. What I am trying to say is that I have never seen an article documenting history that has one paragraph per session. This is a stupid and absurd proposal. I agree with further trim (I have been involved with efforts to trim the article last year), but I definitely disagree with trimming the article at such a massive scale. OceanHok (talk) 11:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Well said. And that's precisely also what Matthew hk pointed out above on how to split. (And thank you for bringing this up in the forum.) 124.217.189.132 (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Concur with Matthew hk. Thanks for the notice in the private group. 219.76.18.205 (talk) 10:51, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@124.217.189.132:, @219.76.18.205: You show up as troll for a block too? Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#HK unregistered ip cult again. Matthew hk (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

What~!? 124.217.189.132 (talk) 10:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Matthew hk:? 124.217.189.132 (talk) 11:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• I agree to split the “impact” part to a separate article, but the idea of having only one paragraph for each section is absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikipedianUser12 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support split The current size is really too long! 106.214.118.201 (talk) 06:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Not necessary. 2001:8003:9008:1301:20F2:85E5:2433:9212 (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2022 (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.

NPOV

The entire article is insanely POV towards the protesters/rioters. Genuinely, the fact that the article title is called "Hong Kong protests" instead of riots, or even civil unrest just goes to show how pov it is. Yes, it is technically correct under WP:NPOVTITLE, but we could at least add a redirect from "2019 hong kong civil unrest" or something like that. Furthermore, most of the body article is pov as well. The entire article is written as if it was the righteous protester/rioter against evil china and its minions. For example, under "subsequent clampdown and exodus", the quote "The police continued to use the law to target local activists and critics of Beijing, including business tycoon Jimmy Lai. In January 2021, the police arrested more than 50 individuals, all of whom were candidates in the primaries for 'subverting state power'. " prominently displays use of scare quotes in "'subverting state power'", and also "the police ... Jimmy Lai", implies that the law was made solely for the purpose of strengthening the police so that they could target people the government didn't like. IMHO, a possible rewriting could be "Local activists and critics of Beijing, including business tycoon Jimmy Lai were arrested under the national security law." This doesn't betray the original message (that local activists and critics were arrested), and is also NPOV.

All in all, I think that we should consider adding an NPOV dispute for the entire article, at least until we can properly rewrite it. I've already done some editing of the especially egregious shooting incidents, which make it sound like the police shot them for no reason. SherlockHolmes23 (talk) 08:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the above.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:58, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia reflects the bulk of reporting by WP:RS. The mainstream media calls the activites protests rather than riots. Therefore, Wikipedia is constrained to the do the same. Similar points apply to your other complaints; see, for example, the source cited [14] which itself puts "subverting state power" in quotes. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:05, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Corresponding article about aftermath, sentencing, and government restrictions?

@Citobun, Jax 0677, Matthew hk, Newfraferz87, OceanHok, and Ohconfucius:
Hello, is there a related article that discusses the aftermath of the protests, including legal consequences faced by notable individuals who had participated?

For example, this recent CNN article: Hong Kong finds 90-year-old cardinal guilty over pro-democracy protest fund

It discusses Cardinal Joseph Zen, Cantopop singer Denise Ho, barrister Margaret Ng, scholar Hui Po Keung, and politician Cyd Ho, who were all found guilty and fined for administering a legal defense fund during the protests. Where would information like this go? Does a related article exist that could facilitate such additions and updates? Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 09:53, 27 November 2022 (UTC)