Talk:2019–2020 Hong Kong protests/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Allegations of HK Police Force misconduct section

This section needs substantial re-writing. For example the subsection on Inconsistent law enforcement has more theories than facts --143.167.166.60 (talk) 13:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

According to the democrats, further actions to discredit protesters occurred when protesters besieged the Police Headquarters when the police accused the protesters of blocking ambulances, though Fire Service Department rebuked their claim.

This paragraph has been removed because it's not related to selected enforcement. --143.167.166.60 (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

This sparked criticisms from the public, who suspected the police for colluding with the triads.

Removed. Not relevant. --143.167.166.60 (talk) 13:56, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Wording in Inconsistent law enforcement changed throughout. --143.167.166.60 (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The police's inaction was alleged to be a "PR show" and an effort by the government to discredit the protesters and damage their image.

This statement is actually not relevant as to selected enforcement. If kept, balanced statement should be included. --143.167.166.60 (talk) 16:10, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

People think they don't enforce the law because the operation is a PR show for them. People think they don't enforce the law because they are colluding with triads. That's why people called it "selective law enforcement" and that's why they are criticized. More "restrained approach" is an observation from SCMP and it is not really a so-called tactic adopted by the police. OceanHok (talk) 16:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The fact that the police retreated is 'selected enforcement'. For what ever reason is speculation. At the very least, SCMP report gives another reasonable explanation. I'm afraid you are making accusation based on your own opinion --143.167.166.60 (talk) 16:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Please explain before making the change. You justify what you write by saying you are writing what 'people think'. This is a dangerous argument. Certainly different people think differently. --143.167.166.60 (talk) 16:38, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

That's why this section is called "allegations of HK Police Force misconduct". All allegations stemmed from people "thinking". People think that inconsistent law enforcement is an issue due to PR show/colluding with triads. I am not saying every people think the same, but some people think this way, and reliable sources reflected these thinkings clearly. OceanHok (talk) 16:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

SCMP article is also a reliable source, which says Police have adopted a controlled approach and kept a minimal presence since June 12. Let's also make this very clear then: John Burns on HKFP and an anonymous source believed it was a PR show. --143.167.166.60 (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

When protesters were attacked by armed men in North Point and Tsuen Wan again on 5 August, the police's response was once again condemned as "slow". Conflicts lasted for nearly half an hour before the police arrived, according to some reports

This part needs some re-wording. As far as I can see from the videos, some protesters were also armed with sticks or bats. --143.167.166.60 (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

But you will still need to cite a credible media source that has made that observation.

We aren't allowed to do our own research. Please review: Wikipedia:No original research Thanks. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 16:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The original citation is clear on this. --143.167.166.60 (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Then no need to mention what you saw in a video, right? And which citation are you talking about? 65.60.163.223 (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

You can say protesters fought back, but it is clear that the armed men started the conflicts by assaulting the protesters. At least that is the wording reliable sources used. OceanHok (talk) 16:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Too bad Hong Kong Connection ep 以暴制暴? did not have English subtitle yet, it would be a good citation for the discussion threads about "police violence" and so called "violent protesters and their actions". Matthew hk (talk) 13:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

List Based References

I tried to remove the list based references from this article, but was reverted. Can these more than 100 kB of list based references be removed from the article? --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

layout issues: huge white blank space following "Background" section

Perhaps due to the recent split, the page seems to be rendering differently for me. There is now a huge white blank gap between the "Background" section and the next section, the "Objectives" section about the five demands.

Perhaps the very wide table layout formatting of the "Objectives" section is preventing it from rendering directly underneath the "Background" section?

I do not know what to do or I would try to fix this myself. Thanks. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

 Fixed, the {{clear}} template forced the table to be shown below other contents, causing the huge gap. Cheers. –Wefk423 (talk) 19:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Bloomberg Opinion piece regarding the Twitter data sets

Is Adam Minter's opinion in Bloomberg Opinion piece "When It Comes to Twitter Meddling, China's No Russia" (reproduced below) considered due weight in the "Social media" section of the article?

Whatever the backstory, a brief perusal of the database reveals that the vast majority of content tweeted by these accounts wasn't related to Hong Kong and -- most important -- failed to generate retweets, likes or responses. In fact, most of the tweets in the database have no connection to the protests; some of the most popular appear to link to prurient material.

"When It Comes to Twitter Meddling, China's No Russia", Adam Minter, Bloomberg Opinion

I'm not convinced that Adam Minter's brief analysis of the two data sets released by Twitter is due here, as the columnist is not a subject-matter expert. — Newslinger talk 11:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Newslinger: I agree. A myriad of opinion pieces have been written about the topic. Minter's does not seem to have any particular relevance (not a SME) or impact (no further coverage in RS about his opinion). --MarioGom (talk) 13:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, and even the opinion piece itself says that it was a "brief perusal" ... meaning not in-depth or a real analysis. I have read other articles that say the reason many of the tweets and accounts may not have made mention of Hong Kong is because they were very recently purchased old/dormant accounts that had yet to be utilised for the propaganda operation. (Sorry, no source right now ... maybe I can dig it up later Edit: see below.) 65.60.163.223 (talk) 01:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation. I've removed Minter's quote from the article. If there are any in-depth analyses of the data sets that are referenced in factual reports (not just opinion columns) from reliable sources, they would probably be a better fit. — Newslinger talk 21:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Zhenqinli reverted my removal despite the consensus in this discussion. — Newslinger talk 22:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I've escalated this to the neutral point of view noticeboard. Please see WP:NPOVN § Bloomberg Opinion piece regarding Twitter data sets in 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests. — Newslinger talk 22:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Newslinger: Okay, here is some of what I could find on the topic:

• "About 200,000 more automated Twitter accounts amplified the messages, engaging with the core accounts in the network. Few tweeted more than once, the official said, mostly because Twitter quickly caught many of them." Time
• "Twitter released archives detailing the complete tweet and user information relating to the suspended accounts, which researchers have begun trawling through. Renee DiResta, a Mozilla fellow in media, misinformation, and trust, tweeted that some of the accounts with high follower accounts were created a decade ago, and had moved through a range of languages and posting behaviors in that time, while other, flimsier accounts were only registered this year. 'A number of these accounts move through ... many languages, switching after long breaks,' she tweeted. 'Suggests at least some of the old/high-follower ones were purchased, or potentially rented.'" Vice
• "Many of the Twitter accounts involved in the Hong Kong campaign were recently created and did not have large followings, said Renee DiResta, the Mozilla Fellow in media, misinformation and trust. 'It reveals almost a lack of sophistication in terms of how China is thinking about developing this outward capability,' she said ... Although most of the disinformation was spread by the 936 accounts that Twitter eventually took down, the company said it also uncovered a broader group of 200,000 accounts. Those sprang up once Twitter began banning some of the earlier accounts; the majority of them were stopped before they were able to spread more messages, the company said." The New York Times
• "On Tuesday, thousands of anti-Hong Kong posts were still being generated by what appeared to be Twitter bots – accounts created in July or August with only a handful of followers — and feeds dominated by similarly formatted slogans and propaganda videos." NPR

Hope some of that is helpful. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 01:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll balance Minter's opinion with the others. The relevant section of the article has been split to International reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests § Social media. Feel free to adjust as you see fit. — Newslinger talk 23:25, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Tactics and methods

Human Chian

We should add a small comment to the main article.

Proposal:

30 years ago to the day, on the 23rd of August 1989, a human chain was formed in the Baltic States. Spanning 675.5 kilometres, from Estonia into Latvia and ending in Lithouania, this "Baltic Way", als know as the chain of freedom, the people of the Baltic states formed a two million people long human chain to demonstrate for independence of the Communist Soviet Union. On the 23rd of August 2019, a similar chain was formed in Hong Kong, also to demonstrate for democracy and for more independence from a Communist Regime, in this China. The number of participants is unknown to me.

Hello, I just copy and pasted some of the text from the list of August protests and put it on the main page here: August 2019: Escalation. Both of your citations are included as well. And I added that same info here, too: Tactics and methods: The Hong Kong Way. Perhaps we can also find a better image that is in the public domain to include here as well? (Edit: image included!) Thanks. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 19:08, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Great work! I was trying to find a picture from the public domain!

--2019OutlaweD (talk) 22:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

There is also now a "main page" about the topic, here: Hong Kong Way

It could use a lot of cleanup! : ) 65.60.163.223 (talk) 05:00, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Chinese government and media

This section does not belong in International reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests (not "international"). I suggest moving it back here. zzz (talk) 00:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Said section still needs expansion and has its own page. Mariogoods (talk) 06:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Issues have to be fixed

Hello all, some issues after spitting the article have to be fixed.

• We have to leave a brief introduction and explanation – a dedicated section for each of those sub-articles.
• Solve broken and unused list-defined references, which are showing large chunk of error message.
• Moving back Chinese govt. reaction back to main article... but will make the sub-article way too short.
• The article is too short, and the sub-articles are also short as well.
• Merging related movements and counter-demonstrations back to timeline sub-articles per previous discussion.

Cheers –Wefk423 (talk) 08:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Broken citations in split articles

After sections of this article were split into smaller articles (including Related movements surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests, International reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests, Tactics and methods surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests, and Allegations of Hong Kong Police Force misconduct surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests), some of the named references in the new articles are no longer linked to the source information. Affected references show up as a "Cite error" instead of a citation in the References section. To fix this, we'll need to find the source information from all of the original citations before the split (Special:Permalink/912297542) and populate them into these new articles. — Newslinger talk 07:12, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I used this version (history) for my translation into Dutch.

It still has all the references. You can use it to look them up.

Except for references about the last few days ofcourse.

--2019OutlaweD (talk) 07:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I originally misread the errors, but I've resolved them by removing all of the unused list-defined references by custom script. Let me know if I missed any articles. — Newslinger talk 14:23, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

"Black cops"

User:65.60.163.223 Please revert this edit. I disagree with your reasoning (no one thinks they are being racist), which is WP:OR in any case: the article has to go with what the reliable source says. zzz (talk) 01:02, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Is this phrase actually being chanted "black cops" in English language? Or is it being chanted in Cantonese, and then translated into English that way? I assume it is a translation (that is why I suggested "mafia cops") ... in any case, it should be disambiguated. Here in the US, calling someone a "black cop" makes no sense and wouldn't sound good (and would possibly carry racist connotations). This is not original research, this is cultural awareness. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 01:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

In the English language, it makes perfectly good sense. You don't get to change translations because of your "cultural awareness". We know that they didn't say "mafia cops", right? This is basic stuff. zzz (talk) 01:49, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@Signedzzz: What did they say in Cantonese? (We can cite Chinese language source...) Thanks. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 02:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

They said "black cops" in Cantonese. We know this because it is a reliable source. You're welcome. zzz (talk) 02:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Umm, right. What is the Cantonese phrase? Thanks. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 02:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, it's not "mafia cops", is it? We know that's definitely wrong, don't we? Because that's just something you made up, isn't it. Thanks, again. zzz (talk) 02:53, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I ask this, because we also know that reliable sources stated that Carrie Lam had said the bill was "dead" when she in fact said ... something totally different and maybe even opposite to that (壽終正寢)!! So I am curious to ask about what is the actual Cantonese phrase that is being used by the protesters? Thank you. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 02:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

So that explains why you should invent a phrase and pretend that protestors chanted it. Ok, then. I'm done here. zzz (talk) 03:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@Signedzzz: Seriously? That's why I'm asking for input from Chinese speakers who have access to Chinese language articles ... "black cop" has to do with being corrupt. But not being a fluent Cantonese speaker, that is why I am asking for input, so yeah. Maybe chill a bit (or just revert the edit ... no big deal mate). 65.60.163.223 (talk) 03:11, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Either way, requesting some disambiguation of the term is completely legit. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 03:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I would, but then I would be over WP:3RR. Please revert it yourself. I am very chilled. Thank you. zzz (talk) 03:20, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Done! : ) But I would still like to get to the bottom of this! Have requested help in the edit summary ... would be nice to be able to disambiguate the term, at the very least. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 03:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

So, any Cantonese speakers able to disambiguate the term "black cops" using Chinese source? From the conversation above, you can see that it looks problematic from certain perspectives (as well as vague) and may be a poor translation. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 03:44, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Cantonese speaker here: Chinese "黑警" means "corrupt cop" or "mafia cop", it is similar to "黑社會" (triads, black society); I understand how "black cop" (direct translation) looks and sounds extremely problematic. –Wefk423 (talk) 07:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

"Black cops" in Enlgish I believe also means the same thing: corrupted cops or mafia cops. Nobody would mistake it to mean cops who are black if that was what you worried. In any case, this discussion is no relevant. If "black cops" are the phrased used in sources, then "black cops" should be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.167.170 (talk) 11:16, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

It's funny how a claim can be made that "nobody would mistake it to mean cops who are black" ... because actually, in the United States, that is exactly how that would be read! Perhaps it is a British English thing, and I get that it makes sense in Hong Kong, but here in the states it may come across as a racist slur, especially when "black cop" is being used to denigrate the police force. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@Signedzzz and 143.167.167.170: Regardless, I updated the quote to read "Corrupt cops, return the eye" ... and it is sourced! : ) I have also found less frequent reference to "mafia cops" but anyhow, that was confirmed above. You were correct that I shouldn't have changed it without a source, but I searched around and updated the phrase in question with a new citation because I find that it could be a pretty problematic wording, depending on a person's position in society and understanding of the overall Hong Kong protest narrative. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Request translate

http://paper.people.com.cn/rmrb/html/2019-08/25/nw.D110000renmrb_20190825_2-04.htm

I believe the content is important because serveal suggestions of further reactions.

Mariogoods (talk) 04:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mariogoods: This article has a detailed report about the meeting. Seems to have included all key points. Ltyl (talk) 10:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3024233/political-heavyweights-say-beijing-has-right-intervene-resolve

Tactics, methods and related movements surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests

Support split - The article is over 200kB, and parts of the article should be split to a new article entitled Tactics, methods and related movements surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests. Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - If we are splitting the article, I suggest it would be spitted into Tactics and methods surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests and Related movements surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests, as these are two different topics. –Wefk423 (talk) 15:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I would rather say related movement should merge to the timeline sub-articles. Movement such as 27 July was one of the key movement despite not a legally approved rally due to the harsh law . Many reliable source had blamed the brutality of the police on the arrest, which the "suspect"/protester, seem still hospitalized. Matthew hk (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment – Agree that related movements should be merged with the timeline sub-articles; and that the Counter demonstrations section should also be merged with the timeline sub-articles, as per the original vote & discussion above. Thank you. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 19:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Chinese government and media section should be splited as well. Honestly, I think Chinese's view is still underrepresented such as the image of the protests and protesters (rioters, separatists and so on). Mariogoods (talk) 02:41, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Support a split along Wefk423's lines due to the ever-growing size of the article and the difference in topics. MSG17 (talk) 13:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support merging the related movements section to the timeline articles. OceanHok (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - I have just boldly split several of the sections. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:01, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Jax 0677: we have to leave a brief introduction and explanation – a dedicated section for each of those sub-articles. Also, we have to solve the list-defined references. It is showing a large chunk of error messages. And... I was wondering if Chinese reaction belongs to International Reaction? It seems to be included into the sub-article, should we pull it out and put it back to the main article? –Wefk423 (talk) 19:50, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

• Reply - @Wefk423:, this article became too large, so I split it. Someone else had a script that allowed the unused references to be eliminated quickly. For me to do so manually would have been a large undertaking, which I started but could not finish immediately. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

small problem

"both Twitter and Facebook announced that they had discovered large-scale disinformation campaigns operating on their social networks"

SCMP uses "alleged", but some other media outlets does not use "alleged". Should we use "alleged" to describe this?Mariogoods (talk) 23:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

SCMP itself is owned by Alibaba Group, which would be their POV is neutral or not . "alleged" may be more neutral . I am not sure did fb and Twitter had released any press release, it seem depends on how strong the wording in those statement. For outsider including news report, i am not sure they had ability to tell each banned accounts are confirmed to spread disinformation or alleged to do so. Matthew hk (talk) 23:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Need be very careful about what should be inferred from the fact that SCMP is owned by Alibaba Group, because there is a chain of owner ship. About 30% Alibaba Group is owned by Softbank. If we imply Alibaba has undue influence on SCMP, what do we make of the influence of Softbank? --143.167.166.60 (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, yes, both Facebook and Twitter made public statements about this, with published examples included.

• Twitter also publicly published the data sets about the accounts in question: Information operations directed at Hong Kong – Twitter Safety Blog
• And here is what Facebook had to say: Removing Coordinated Inauthentic Behavior From China – Facebook Newsroom Blog

I hope this helps clarify somehow! 65.60.163.223 (talk) 00:56, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-protests-china-socialmedia/all-the-forces-chinas-global-social-media-push-over-hong-kong-protests-idUSKCN1VC0NF

A newer information about the Internet activity, though it is not directly about "alleged" issue.

Mariogoods (talk) 00:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@143.167.166.60: The change of SCMP's political position since the takeover was already covered in reliable source and real critic, no need to judge it is my personal opinion. All of the managers are Mainland Chinese, and i am no interested to investigate Softbank influence on Alibaba, but i would say Tencent was more influenced by the Chinese Government that the South African. Matthew hk (talk) 11:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

@Matthew hk: SCMP has been heavily cited in these articles to support pro-protesters' positions. I take it as a popular confidence vote for the mainland Chinese managers. Ltyl (talk) 13:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I mean, if you read their headline in subject verb object form, they sometime not side to "violent protester" side. I would say just use SCMP as a "paper of evidence" but carefully read their wording on peaceful protester and so called "violent/aggressive protester".

While for facebook and twitter, it is according to them , the banned accounts are confirmed collusion on publishing fake news, and an accusation on linkage to the Chinese Government. Adding alleged wording to describe the publishing action, seem odd and have some POV behind it. Matthew hk (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Summary style and counter protests

It's important since we've been scaling the size of the protests to also maintain a sense of the scale of the counter-protests. Furthermore, barring sources that explicitly state the counter-protests are pro-Beijing we should not be calling them such. They might be pro-Beijing; or they might be annoyed residents who just want the turmoil to end. Simonm223 (talk) 15:26, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Changes to the infobox

A few changes to the infobox re. causes and methods. Given the charged nature of the topic, I'd like to highlight it here with a new discussion section. Regarding causes: excessive forces -> Perceived excessive forces. Regarding methods: vandalism and violence are added. My understanding is that the protests have NO official leaders (the box does not have any sources either), so there is no officially declared methods. So "the methods" should be the methods already "used", which I believe warrant the inclusion of violence and vandalism.

--143.167.15.58 (talk) 12:29, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

The above comment belongs to me; newly created an account. Comments from these IPs are all mine too: 143.167.166.60; 143.167.167.170; 143.167.185.109 Ltyl (talk) 12:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

The reference to triads has, for now, been removed from parties involved. I read through the cited sources, and my opinion is that no report has even 'alleged' the triads colluded with police. Only one source - the HKFP article - might be relevant. The article claimed some pro-dem lawmakers denounced the police as “colluding” with triads. However, the cited statement from the lawmakers does not actually contain such a claim.

The Guardian article actually said: the triads "may not necessarily have been paid or ordered to attack commuters and protesters."

Ltyl (talk) 13:37, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I've restored it. The entry is extremely well-sourced, and the word "alleged" is used in the infobox to indicate that triad involvement is suspected. — Newslinger talk 14:53, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@Newslinger: It's true triads involvement is confirmed - I agree with that. But this does not automatically mean they should be included as "supporters". There are many others who have voiced their support of the government, but shouldn't/haven't be included to that list. I would like to hear you criteria. My criterion is: the sources claim there is collaboration between police and the triads. Ltyl (talk) 15:04, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

The suspected triad members attacked the protesters, which places them on the opposite end of the infobox. Since there is uncertainty regarding whether the triad members are linked to any other parties, I've added a line (Special:Diff/912437761) to separate them from the other parties. — Newslinger talk 15:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

This a grey area. Just to show how this is a judgemental call, I've added another organisation to the list as they did call on the protesters to move on, which could be interpreted as against protests. The 'alleged' is also changed to 'speculated' - the connection is really more tenuous than what 'alleged' is usually used to describe Ltyl (talk) 16:48, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not overly attached to the "triad" entry, but I thought that its removal warranted more discussion, especially since this entry has, among all of the claims in this article, the most citations attached to it. Perhaps Flaughtin, who added the citations, can express their view. — Newslinger talk 07:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@65.60.163.223: I have reverted your removal of 'violence' and 'vandalism' in the 'methods' section. It seems you don't disagree with my rationale above. Your objection is 'violence' is vague. On this I disagree. It's the language used in many media. We could easily support it with sources. Ltyl (talk) 10:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

The last bullet point in causes has been changed. The original sweeping claim that government policy caused inequalities is, I believe, impossible to substantiate. Happy to revert it if sources are provided. Ltyl (talk) 13:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

What is your rationale, exactly? Thanks. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 14:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

It seems you are referring to the edits regarding 'violence' and 'vandalism' in the methods box. My rationale is at the top of the section. Copied here: Regarding methods: vandalism and violence are added. My understanding is that the protests have NO official leaders (the box does not have any sources either), so there is no officially declared methods. So "the methods" should be the methods already "used", which I believe warrant the inclusion of violence and vandalism. Please could you respond to this argument before editing this bit again. Thanks. Ltyl (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, peaceful methods of protest are also predominantly employed much more frequently (dozens of peaceful marches, The Hong Kong Way, etc) ... so why are you not pushing to have "peacefulness" listed as a method as well?

The article also has a special section to further document the specific tactics (i.e. time and place of incidents and events) of violent actions by both protesters and police and triad and local residents, etc. Further, random vandalism is simply not taking place. That is why "property damage" is more apt, and also why I had included "graffiti" as a method as well ... it is targeted, and for political purposes.

Please respond and give more detail, thanks! 65.60.163.223 (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@65.60.163.223: I can support adding "peaceful demonstrations" as it is a fact. But violence and vandalism is also a fact; fact as is reported by reliable sources (many reports use these phrases; for video proof, see, e.g., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWOjvRPputU&t=604s) Note that vandalism is the action involving deliberate destruction of or damage to public or private property, according to wiki. Can you support your statement 'random vandalism is simply not taking place' with reliable sources? Ltyl (talk) 16:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ltyl: suggest adding sources to the violence and vandalism infoboxes. Don't overkill it. But your argument seems to be that it's a WP:NPOV issue to exclude these tactics just because they were done by black shirts. And that there's plenty of sources to support that black shirts have been violent and have vandalized things. OK, ante up. Simonm223 (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223:Thanks. I've decided to show the sources in this talk page first, which I have added at the bottom. Hope we can settle this and get on to discuss WP:DUE. @65.60.163.223:: I'd like you to comment on it too. Ltyl (talk) 15:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Hong Kong Way

I will be nominating the Hong Kong Way article for WP:DYK. We have seven days from the article's creation. Any suggestions for suitable hooks would be most welcome -- Ohc ^¡digame! 14:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean by hooks?

Also, I don't think I should help you much. I read that it is not a way to promote personal political views.

It certain is my personal political view. It is a means of demonstrating for a political view as well!

But, for the part of ideas and gathering information, I certainly would like to help :)

--2019OutlaweD (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

it's about writing a catchy one-line sentence to entice the reader of the front page to click on the link to the article and read it. See the main page for examples --Ohconfucius (on the move) (talk) 22:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I would mention the dedication it takes to stand there, the hope it shows by demonstrating peacefully and how much these people want to bee free in a democratic system.

Maybe: "In a city that was promised independent rule and freedom, but obtained oppression instead, citizens joined together peacefully in an over 30-mile long chain, that lasted all night long, to show that they want to be free to say what they want and to vote for whomever they want - The Hong Kong Way".

--2019OutlaweD (talk) 20:59, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• Did you know: the Hong Kong Way was a human chain protest action 50 km long. Simonm223 (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Intentionally miss the fighter in "Tactics and methods"

See also: Talk:Tactics and methods surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests

The are many reliable source to stay the protesters are divided into "fighter" (As a native Cantonese speaker, after reading the English news report, despite the certainly did not state the Chinese word, but certainly meant "Chinese: 勇武派") as well as "peaceful, rational and non-violent" (Chinese: 和理非 or other similar word). As a HK native, i had to suppress my POV to say, if want to construct the wiki article in a historial manner , action of "fighter" should be documented in the wiki article, which the wiki article seem missing this part of the content and only stated some of their actions such as 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests#Police station blockades. Despite their action may be "minor" among the 2 million protesters, their action are reported by reliable source, including the neutral one and more COI media such as Chinese state-media. Also the conspiracy theory that all violent action of the protesters are conducted by police-spy, are difficult to dig out reliable source to incorporate into the wiki article. Nevertheless, Mong Kok and Hung Hum rallies for example, there are news reports recording the fact that a small group of protesters did not follow the designated routes, and gather in front of police stations instead. The two factions also echoed to the section "Do Not Split" (Chinese: 不割席) of this wiki article.

For source, The Guardian Weekly (Australian edition) that published on 23 August had stated: The protesters have divided into two camps; the "fighters" believe disruption and force are necessary to get the government to respond, but the group known as the "peaceful, rational and non-violent" had controlling say over last weekend's events." (note: it seem it means 18 August or 17 August demonstrations) For the diversity of the method of protests, the Weekly also quoted the opinion of the protester: Now citizens are just trying to bring out as much creativity as we can". I will try to dig out other news articles, may be from NYT? (And i had to say, would it affect my POV if i read the forum post of the NYT interviewee?) Matthew hk (talk) 08:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I think adding it is important. Mariogoods (talk) 10:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

In the #Black bloc and group defenses section, "Protesters have also adopted different roles during demonstrations. Peaceful protesters chanted slogans and passed supplies, while frontliners snuffed out tear gas and led the charge" is mentioned, though I agreed that we can add more information to it.OceanHok (talk) 15:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The #Blac bloc and group defenses section also says: "As protests continued to escalate and the police began to use more advanced riot control tools, activists upgraded their makeshift gears from using surfboards as shields to using metal street signs, iron rods, bricks, and eggs to throw." Maybe this part could be expanded upon too, because I have seen several reports about using slingshots to hurl the bricks ... and quite a few articles about how protesters have been extinguishing the tear gas canisters or else throwing them back. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 17:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

It is not about the division of labour of frontier and other protesters when they are blocking the road. It rather multiple news reports, as well as live commentaries by Now TV for example, had reflected a "reported fact" that some protesters only joined the "legal " part of the rally, i.e. from start to finish of the designated route, and then leave, and then some portion of the protests refused to leave and gathered until mid-night. If really WP:NPOV, the wiki article had leave out the wiki editor's comment and judgement on necessary evil of the latter part or not in the wiki article, but just documented the reactions from the business sector and more pro-governement sector of the society, according to news report. Matthew hk (talk) 20:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

But don't you think that understanding the rationale of the protesters is somewhat important as well? Especially when that is being reported upon by the media organizations themselves? Thanks. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 22:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, perhaps there should be a new section to discuss the topic you are proposing: about the rise of groups of dedicated street warriors or fighters etc? You seem to have some relevant sources about that. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 22:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Here is one English language source that mentions what Matthew had talked about:

For the protesters, this is likely a huge slap in the face. After a chaotic last week, protesters had pledged to keep demonstrations entirely peaceful this past weekend. Throughout the past months, there have been ongoing debates among protesters as to whether the “brave fighters” camp, who are on the frontlines and advocate more aggressive tactics, are more effective in putting pressure on the government than the so-called 'peaceful, rational, non-violent' camp, who want to keep confrontations to a minimum.

To many, Sunday’s massive and entirely peaceful march was an acknowledgement from the 'fighters' that they were willing to take a pause in pursuit of solidarity. Now, what many are likely to see as Lam’s tepid response may be taken as proof that more extreme protest tactics are still needed. After all, the most significant concession so far—the suspension of the hated extradition bills that sparked the mass protests in June—came after a day of street occupation and confrontations with police, and not after a peaceful demonstration a few days earlier.

"Hong Kong’s moment of calm is in danger of being squandered" Mary Hui, Quartz. 19 August 2019.

Thought it could be useful if there is a new section made about this topic. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 02:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Some off-topic, I forget about wiki policy on user-generated content or opinion poll, not sure they could be really used. Also, the rally of 2 million people or Hong Kong Way are peaceful. However, field study by HKU and other academician find that, according to their surveys, HK people (mainly "peaceful, rational and non-violent" as interviewee) are growing to feel pity and agree to use force by the protesters (There are other question in the survey, according to the news report.) Here are the two news report on the surveys

Lastly, It would be lost in translation to use the word violence to map the word 武力. but according to Cambridge Dictionary, violence is force that intended to hurt people, so 武力 should map to force and 過度武力 or 暴力 should map to "excessive force" and "violence" respectively . So "the fighter" in the Guardian Weekly article seem translated right, but some source seem intentionally use the word "violent protesters" for those just block the road and nothing else. Matthew hk (talk) 11:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Matthew hk. It seems that Vandalism: destroying communist symbols and using roadside markers as barricades (and more examples) is portrayed as violence all the time. Given that this was one of the main reasons the police gave to justify the use of teargas and rubber bullets, and given that the police in HK is actually paid by Beijing and used by Beijing to "demonise" the normal hard working people of Hong Kong, it seems like vandalism is purposefully misrepresented as violence. Add to this that I just came from visiting my wife's family in Hong Kong, where I stayed in North Point and saw many mass demonstrations from my hotel and did not see violence, except for the news showing police indeed using tear gas and rubber bullets (after I went to sleep), I definitely do not think that these are simple mistakes in translation.

--2019OutlaweD (talk) 11:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. It is of course not a simple mistake with language or translation. There is an agenda. This happens all the time with American media and protest actions ... "property damange" and "vandalism" by protesters is labeled as "violent"; meanwhile, aggressive police actions that actually involve bodily harm are labeled "law enforcement" and considered "peaceful" due to the fact that police actions are never morally or rarely ethically questioned, even in the cases when police have murdered and it is caught on film. Police are almost always considered to have been "provoked" by their victims, or there is a narrative about how stressful and demanding the job of policing is (which I am sure that it is!) ... but that due to the stresses of daily on the job interactions, they are somehow not at fault for engaging in violent behaviour (Carrie Lam has made similar arguments), and it is almost always considered accidental or misconstrued, etc. Police here also have very powerful politicized unions and well paid lawyers. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I wonder if there is a Wikipedia article that explains and documents this concept. : ) Hmm. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 17:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I made a new post on the Tactics and Methods page and linked to this thread:

Talk:Tactics and methods#proposal for section about "the fighters"

Please continue discussion about the topic there. Thanks. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Missing content???

I see only a small part of the original article now!

What happened to all of the content?

--2019OutlaweD (talk) 22:08, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jax 0677, I see your name in huge edits of deletion. What is going on?

--2019OutlaweD (talk) 22:14, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Article has been split into multiple new articles ... 65.60.163.223 (talk) 02:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

This is what we have right now, hopefully I'm not missing any:

2019 Hong Kong extradition bill

2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests

Causes of 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests

List of early 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests

List of July 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests

2019 Yuen Long attack

List of August 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests

Hong Kong Way

Tactics and methods surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests

Related movements surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests Edit: this info was integrated into list of events articles.

International reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests

Allegations of Hong Kong Police Force misconduct surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests

Reputation and controversies of Hong Kong Police#2019 anti-extradition bill clashes

Yes, it is starting to get confusing. : ) Many articles now! 65.60.163.223 (talk) 23:07, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

And there is also this: Hong Kong–Mainland China conflict#2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests

But it is just has a short bit about the on-going protests, not a big article like the ones linked above. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 06:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Great work. It was needed.

--2019OutlaweD (talk) 07:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• Reply - This article became too large, so I split it. Someone else had a script that allowed the unused references to be eliminated quickly. For me to do so manually would have been a large undertaking, which I started but could not finish immediately. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comments - I agreed splitting the timeline into three separate articles and merging the related movements/counter-demonstrations with them, but I disagreed with moving "tactics and methods", "allegations of police's misconduct" and "international reactions" away from the article. I also don't see the need of having a separate "cause" article to be honest. OceanHok (talk) 15:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, I think the article about "causes" could be greatly expanded to include information about previous democracy protests, with more in-depth information about how Hong Kong government has, over the course of many years, repeatedly refused to meet demands for more democratic elections. There could also be a more in-depth analysis on the issues of economic inequality, which is considered to be a contributing factor. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@65.60.163.223: Just no. It would push the limit of the content to WP:OR. Expand on the articles of the previous protests may required. I had a long due project of building Criticism of Hong Kong property market (or other more appropriate article title). Source are readily available as scholars had wrote that topic, but i don't have time to read even i have the access of academic paper that gated by paywall.

No Original Research is necessary. I am sure there are plenty of articles that discuss income inequality, rising property values, and concerns of the younger generations, etc. Many of the current media articles report that these issues are contributing factors to the on-going protests, so this point is already well established by reliable sources. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 23:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Anyhow, any proposal to merge that content should be discussed on the talk page of that article, here:

Talk:Causes of 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests

There are a few people working on it, so it will only be getting more lengthy over time. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 23:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@65.60.163.223: You need an exact article that saying X cause Y (which Y is the protests), not an article saying Hong Kong had problem A and to F, and as a wiki editor, made an original conclusion that problem A to F in Hong Kong are the cause of the protests. Please read WP:synthesis. Matthew hk (talk) 23:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. I have read articles that specifically state economic inequality is a contributing factor to the unrest. I have also read articles that specifically state the lack of concessions by government in past democracy protests is also a factor, etc. This information is available and out there. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

I just rewrote a section about Protest violence.

It basically just accused the protestors (in a poorly sourced manner) of being violent thugs while not mentioning the violence occuring against the protestors which is well documented on wikipedia and sourced. See: Allegations of Hong Kong Police Force misconduct surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests.

I believe these edits to be made by contributors loyal or affiliated to the CCP, due to the language and messaging being very similar to that of the state run media. Please be aware of this when you review edits. L32007 (talk) 16:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC) (edited 16:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC) )

This is ridiculous, but I sort of expected it right from the beginning. The only two possible reasons to remove the material are 1) The sources are unreliable; 2) The topic is not important or off-topic. You were not able to make one single argument on the basis of either of these, but went straight to smearing my integrity. How was it poorly sourced? The events depicted in the text were reported by SCMP, RTHK, and the tweet of a pro-democracy reporter (the tweet was also cited by a Guardian article, which can be used as the source if needed). There was only one statement that could have been sourced better, which could have been improved easily. How was it poorly sourced? --143.167.185.109 (talk) 19:50, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I believe a primary source was included as the main citation (a link to a Twitter page) ... and we cannot cite references in that way. It has to come from a secondary source, such as a credible media organization that is reporting on that piece of information. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I think this is debatable, but thanks. I've replaced it with a Guardian article. --143.167.185.109 (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

The section did not mention police violence because there has been a separate section on the latter. You might have been able to make an argument that the topic is not important. Unfortunately you went straight to a partisan rant. Now I think it is more important than ever to keep this section to provide a balanced account of the events. There are plenty more reports on this topic. --143.167.185.109 (talk) 19:50, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

You might have better luck including significant instances of protester behaviour by integrating them into the descriptions of the protest events themselves, and by using excellent sources to document such allegations. For example, if a firebomb was thrown, is there a reliable media organisation reporting on it? Does the news article include credible/verifiable video evidence to go along with that? Then maybe better to include such an instance into the protest action description itself, thus allowing for context and deeper analysis. Just a thought ... I am new here, but that seems like it might work better given the amount of propaganda and spam that this page has received over the past few months. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 20:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I am new to this too. Regarding throwing petrol bomb and other behaviours in that sentence, it was cited from Bloomberg almost word for word, which is a reputable source. If we have to throw politics into the mix, Bloomberg is known to be a liberal/left-leaning outlet too. Are you suggesting this is not enough? There are many videos on youtube. Are reputable youtube channels (e.g. RTHK) acceptable sources? There are many on other media too. Will add more later. --143.167.185.109 (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Contributors' political stands should not have entered the arguments in the discussion. We all have political opinions but our contributions should be judged purely on the quality of the sources. You tried to discredit my arguments by questioning my political stand. It's a complete intellectual failure. Have I attempted to delete any other "pro-democracy" sections/contents? Did I not try to make fair and accurate improvements on the section on the alleged police misconducts? --143.167.185.109 (talk) 19:50, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

You are turning Wikipedia into a political propaganda machine. I have used Wiki for almost 20 years. I can't let you do that. I will restore the section. You are welcome to debate the accuracy of the writing. --143.167.185.109 (talk) 19:50, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments: The section has been restored. Wording updated. Will add more sources to back up some statements. --143.167.185.109 (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

It's still extremely vague. You should probably include exact dates and specific details, rather than broad sweeping allegations that "something may have happened at some point" kind of statements. Also, I am not sure how reliable Ming Pao is, as it may have ties to China state-owned media, or be owned by primarily mainland China interests, etc. But as I said in the comment above, probably integrating specific incidents into the relevant protest action sections might be your best bet. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 20:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

as it may have ties to China state-owned media is way too vague an accusation. Nobody survives this sort of accusation. I will add more details later. You are welcome to contribute. More details are already given in the linked sources. Update: section moved up from a wrong place. As I used VPN to connect my work place, my IP may change every time. I am the user from 143.167.185.109 yesterday. Of course, the opinions are mine. --143.167.167.170 (talk) 11:12, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I moved the section to Reputation_and_controversies_of_Hong_Kong_Police#2019_anti-extradition_bill_clashes where the content about police activity was moved to, to avoid the obvious neutrality problems resulting from only describing criticisms of protestors here in this article. zzz (talk) 20:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

@Signedzzz: Agreed.--143.167.167.170 (talk) 11:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@Signedzzz: Sorry I might have misunderstood or some further edits had happened -- I notice the section is now in an separate article with the controversies of HKPF as the topic. I don't agree with this change. In this case, I believe a separate article on the alleged violence of HK protestors is warranted. --143.167.167.170 (talk) 11:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@Signedzzz: There is also this article: Allegations of Hong Kong Police Force misconduct surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests 65.60.163.223 (talk) 02:15, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, it is a NPOV matter. By Cambridge dictionary violence mean force that intended to hurt people. So, it basically depends on the standard of "violence" by each press. Yes, the recent (24/25 August) the mass use of petrol bomb, vandal the shop that alleged owned by triad / pro-government thug, may be a kind of violence (you can state the exact wording from media). But you can also state the press interview that they made that revenge in Tsuen Wan because the police failed to caught the knifer that seriously injured the protesters (I think NYT had better coverage among English source, but most coverage are in Chinese). Also add to the list of violence may be the airport one, which the protesters are in stalemate to agree on release him or other actions, which the alleged spies were punched multiple times. However, it would be lost of meaning of wording that label all protesters that defy law as "violence", as under HK law, any protester required approval from the police, either they issue "Letter of No Objection" or they did not issue "Letter of Objection". Compare the alleged brain injury that after the protesters had been arrested , it would be lost of meaning of the word violence for police alleged torture, and "law defying" protesters just blocking the roads as well as make fun of police using laser pointers.

I would suggest before label each side violence, better listing example of actions of both side, leaving reader to decide the level of force used. Matthew hk (talk) 23:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@Matthew hk: Would you like to comment on the section on the sources of the alleged abuses by the protesters/sympathisers? Ltyl (talk) 10:19, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

part of the summary in International reactions section

"Chinese government has constantly expressed opposion of the protests, and many measures has been taken against the protests and their supporters. The protests has been described by Chinese media as separatism riots interfered by foreign forces."

Any suggestions welcomed.

Mariogoods (talk) 04:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

It's a bit iffy POV wise to be putting PRC responses in the international responses section. I mean One Country Two Systems says it all right there. Simonm223 (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

True. But it's clearly not a local response ... Beijing is a long-distance away, and a much different place too with different language, culture, politics, etc. Not sure where is best to put Chinese government response. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Nah. There's Cantonese speakers throughout Guangdong, and Guangdong has consistently been part of the Chinese cultural mainstream since what? The Tang dynasty? Like the An Lushan rebellion certainly. This is a unique domestic dispute, but it is a domestic dispute. It is not in any way neutral to try to imply that Hong Kong is not a part of China. Nor would such an assertion be supported by reliable sources. Simonm223 (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223: Well, thanks for that info. I knew that there are Cantonese speaking regions on the mainland, but I was not aware that the cultural and linguistic influence dates so far back. I had assumed that the loss of autonomy in Hong Kong was more akin to the Tibetan situation in terms of colonial empire building and aggressive takeover by centralized authority.

In the states, we have the territories of Puerto Rico and Guam. And while both are technically part of USA, they are more or less treated as quasi-independent regions. I am not sure that the recent Puerto Rican protests were considered a "domestic" or "internal" issue by mainland USA government or media ... but America is not China, so we talk about things differently here. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

It's the opposite direction. HK was a major Chinese port until the conclusion of a pair of colonial wars in which China was the colonized and wherein the UK forced China into a hundred year lease of the city. When the lease concluded, the UK had to return HK to China but in the intervening hundred years, there had been the fall of the Qing, the rise and fall of the ROC, the split off of Taiwan and the rise of the PRC. So the UK was able to ask for concessions in the form of the joint declaration. That gave rise to One Country Two Systems. But that agreement always had a shelf life and will expire in 28 years. Needless to say, there is some impatience in Beijing to do away with what is perceived as a vestige of colonial victimization and anxiety in HK about what will happen when they become just another Chinese city. TL;DR - cultural differences between HK and the mainland are less than 122 years old against some approximate 1400 years of integration and China is not, in fact the colonizer in this case. That would be England. Simonm223 (talk) 09:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the British colonial legacy (post 1948 or so) has left a lot of confusion in its wake ... borders drawn and then erased, etc. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

This is, however, getting a bit off-topic from the question of whether reactions from the government of the nation of which Hong Kong is a special autonomous region should be treated under the "international" relations section. And I'd persist that no, it should not be. It's a domestic response; albeit a non-local one. But like... Shenzhen is right there. Simonm223 (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@65.70;163.223: I believe local and non-local responses is a different thing. You can write about it separately. Ltyl (talk) 11:09, 28 August 2019 (UTC)