Talk:Gen Z protests in Asia

Are you joking number death of protesters?

Why other countries have higher death more than Thai protest that impossible!!! ~2026-11527-96 (talk) 13:34, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

GenZ protests happening in India in July 2026

Article probably needs updating as protests have already lasted weeks and are gained a lot more momentum in last few days. ~2026-41157-49 (talk) 08:09, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Support Reporting is broadly referring to these as "Gen Z protests," see

Abhijeet Dipke: The Face of India's First Gen Z Protest Movement – Reuters

The Defining Image of India’s Gen Z Protests – The New York Times

"tens of thousands of Gen Z protesters have taken to the streets of the capital Delhi"– BBC News

India's Gen Z Protesters Demand a Proper Education – The Economist Organicbrutalist (talk) 08:00, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Infobox

@Ahammed Saad: You have made two entirely incorrect statements regarding enwiki policies and guidelines.

all protest articles must contain this infobox. Doesn’t matter if it isn't a single protest. Articles like Arab Spring or Revolutions of 1989 have this infobox. False. Infoboxes are always optional, read MOS:INFOBOX. Neither do what other articles say or do is relevant here (WP:OTHERSTUFF). Your edits restore clear cut WP:OR and aren't acceptable. This isn't a {{infobox civil conflict}} in any way shape or form.

you start the talk, I've restored the what was default before your edit. If you want to bring this such change, gain consensus first. Also I did not restored infos that has OR allegations in the infobox. False. There is no such thing as "default". Any editor can (and should) remove OR at first cite. This isn't a consensus issue at all. The WP:ONUS is on you to prove why that isn't the case, not the responsibility of other editors to "start the talk". Gotitbro (talk) 08:32, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree that my first statement was incorrect, but the fact is that infobox is an essential component of an article and it’s removal should require a consensus (unless it goes against Wikipedia policies). I meant that you should have started a discussion first, not me, because I didn't had any problem with the infobox prior. By "default" (terminology might not be correct), I meant that I partially restored your pre-edit version, which had contained the infobox. Ahammed Saad (talk) 08:48, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@Ahammed Saad: Sorry, but but to be blunt, you aren't making any sense or don't understand basic enwiki P&G.

"but the fact is that infobox is an essential component of an article and it’s removal should require a consensus (unless it goes against Wikipedia policies)."

Ill founded and incorrect assumption. Infoboxes are a handy overview of an article's WP:BODY, they aren't essential not require any consensus for disclusion. Certainly not in a case where incorrectly applied and chockful of OR. Here, this isn't a "civil conflict" and the usage of it as such is simply incorrect. Period.

"I meant that you should have started a discussion first, not me, because I didn't had any problem with the infobox prior.

OR content has no place on enwiki and neither do incorrectly used infoboxes. The onus is on you to show otherwise. Your WP:PREFERed version is irrelevant and does not affect due process. Gotitbro (talk) 10:16, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I think you could not understand my words. I never said to mandatorily include the infobox in my reply, rather I said that infobox (when it's included) is an "essential" part of an article, because it covers a large part of that article and it's a part of the lead. WP:INFOBOXUSE clearly says that consensus is needed to include/exclude an infobox. But originally, I did not have any doubt over the inclusion of infobox in this article. But you had, therefore you should had started a discussion prior. In case of OR, how could you say that every single information in this infobox is an OR? For example, "partof" parameter doesn't include any information that's an OR. Now if you want my opinion, I favour keeping the infobox with debated infos removed. Ahammed Saad (talk) 10:37, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@Ahammed Saad:

INFOBOX [emphasis mine]: The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.

Now please explain how this is a 'civil conflict' for it clearly isn't. If an apt infobox doesn't exist we don't use it. That should be very easy to understand.

"is an "essential" part of an article"

You just made that up. Infoboxes most certainly aren't essential for anything. They were introduced as useful navigation/summary aids and that is what they remain. Gotitbro (talk) 10:50, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Again you are getting off topic. Firstly, I NEVER said in my previous two replies that it's MANDATORY to keep infobox here. I agreed that my first edit summary was incorrect. And everything in the lead is "essential" because it summarizes the article topic. Now it's up to you that how you perceive the meaning of "essential" here. If you're just debating on lexicon then close this discussion because it's about infobox not word meaning.

Secondly, Template:Infobox civil conflict already says that A civil conflict infobox may be used to summarize information about a particular civil conflict (for example, protest, strike, clash with police) in a standard manner. Now I don't think any sources are required to prove that Gen Z protests in Asia are "protests". Ahammed Saad (talk) 11:21, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@Ahammed Saad: It is not the fault of other editors if you keep using inapt words and then chock it upto 'perception of lexicon'; it is pretty dry, cut and clear what essential means. And infoboxes certainly aren't that.

"maybe" is the operative word there, and I'm pushing back because: 1) this isn't a civil conflict (redirects to civil war) in any sense of the word 2) there is no point in having an infobox which says nothing about the broad-based "movement" which this is, i.e. merely listing countries or portraying this as any sort of uniform event. With the amorphous nature of which protests are or aren't "Gen Z", that isn't something to be addressed in static tabular infoboxes but with prose in the body.

Ultimately, the effort should be to improve this article (which I've attempted in culling the dollops of OR) than sticking it up for barely knowledgeable infoboxes. Gotitbro (talk) 11:37, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, no doubt that ultimate purpose is to improve the article. But saying that there is no point in having an infobox which says nothing about the broad-based "movement" which this is, i.e. merely listing countries or portraying this as any sort of uniform event is quite a self opinion. No such kind of direction has been given in the Template:Infobox civil conflict that what should be classified as a protest. All the protests related article (regardless of broad-based "movement" or local protests) generally contain this infobox. Ahammed Saad (talk) 13:11, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

@Gotitbro a user has restored the infobox with disputed infos largely removed. I think current version is perfect. Ahammed Saad (talk) 11:57, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

@Ahammed Saad: I'm fine with this version as well. Gotitbro (talk) 12:24, 27 July 2026 (UTC)