Talk:Demosisto

The O-macron in the name

What is meant by the macron of the letter O in the name of Demosistō? --－yhynerson1 (talk, contribs) 06:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• On Demosisto website is written it is from Latin letters. PoetVeches (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Too much of terms about ideology and political position in infobox

"Ideology: Direct democracy,

Left-wing populism,

Liberalism (Hong Kong),

Localism,

Radical democracy,

Social progressivism;

Political position: Centre-left[1] to left-wing"

- I think Wikipedia's users put too much information in infobox obviously. I think it need to say that this party is just democratic. Also democratic parties usually have no ideology except for belief or point of view that all human beings must have their rights and liberties written in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ So, I think there is no ideology at all. Also it is interesting to read the references that the party is "centre-left"(it has some citation from Chinese language news agency) or even "left-wing"(here no citation), but I think it is doubtful, because their leaders criticize usually marxism, especially Chinese Communist Party that has marxism as official ideology, isn't it? --PoetVeches (talk) 07:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I deleted few words in section Beliefs about "self-initiation"

I deleted few words in section Beliefs about "self-initiation" because the link was dead (Demosisto; Mission; https://www.demosisto.hk/mission?lang=en#self-initiation), but now actually I found the source on the Demosisto website about "self-initiation". I think, this is the same as civil initiative in crux, in all, there present the sort of idea and no need to add namely this term "self-initiation" as well as "self-standing", etc., back, -- for brevity sake, but just in case I give the address about the "self-initiation" that I deleted there (if some think it is important to back or just for considering about the mission and goal of Demosisto). (Demosisto; Demosistō Goal for Self determination; https://www.demosisto.hk/nathan?lang=en). PoetVeches (talk) 18:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Re-added Social Democracy

- HKfreedomfighter 3:12 UTC+8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkfreedomfighter (talk • contribs) 2019-09-15T07:12:26 (UTC)

Removed due to no reliable source. Matthew hk (talk) 15:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF

Exception 1 stipulates that we should not use ABOUTSELF content that is unduly self-serving. As Demosisto is a separatist movement trying to court western sympathy, it has a reason to misrepresent its ideology; as such, we should not use Demosisto as a source for identifying specifics of its ideology in an infobox devoid of context. This material would likely be WP:DUE with accreditation in the body of the article though. Simonm223 (talk) 12:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

It is not separatist movement. Media reported it as localism, you don't have RS to claim it as separatist either. For the infobox, yes it need to chop all the unsourced content Matthew hk (talk) 14:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

My understanding is that Demosisto doesn't want HK to be part of the PRC - which would be de facto separatism. However I'm OK with the infobox saying localist as there is a reliable secondary source supporting that. But for ideological things like "progressivism" and "leftism" I'd not support an ABOUTSELF statement in an infobox. Simonm223 (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Demosisto for the most part advocates an autonomous democratic Hong Kong which is not pressured by an authoritarian regime the likes of China, but I never seen Wong advocate for an outright declaration of independence (Thus forming a entirely new country similiar to Singapore) from China, nor did I ever hear a reliable source describe the party as a separatist movement the likes of which are seen in Tibet or Uighurstan for example. As for their ideology, Demosisto has consistently advocated economically leftist measures in their manifesto such as an welfare state, labour rights, a higher minimum wage, progressive taxation, iniversal healthcare, renewal of public housing, and funding of public education, and socially, they are very supportive of LGBT rights, civic and individual freedom (Particularly on the internet), universal suffrage and the dismantling of functioncal constituencies, and a revival of Hong Kong culture, hallmark signs of a pro-democratic liberal and progressive political party. Unless there is a source which contradicts the notion of Demosisto being a leftwing party, I don't see why should every ideology besides "Localism" be unilaterally removed, and primary sources can be used in certain cases, especially if said sources are the only adequate material available on the specific subject at hand. Alexander Zubatov (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

My personal opinion: They're a bunch of NIMBYs who don't like all the poors moving in from the mainland and smelling up the place. They're obsessed with linguistic purity, which is dangerously close to ethnic nationalism. Their plan to privatize RF spectrum is neoliberal. They might be progressive on gay marriage, but their platform isn't left. However my opinion isn't relevant here, nor is it the reason I removed that text. The Wikipedia answer is again that we don't use ABOUTSELF to describe political ideologies of controversial groups. Nor should we use weak sources. Find SCMP or something assigning this group an ideology beyond localist and we can talk. But if it's just what they call themselves, no. Simonm223 (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

SCMP's "Will shift from Hong Kong politics to social activism give Occupy poster boy Joshua Wong's Demosisto Party a new sense of purpose?" (Readable here: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/2149422/hong-kongs-demosisto-party-founded-occupy-poster-boy-joshua) article on the party repeatedly referred to Demosisto as part of the pro-democratic liberal camp of Hong Kong, already providing a source both for the "Liberalism (Hong Kong)" ideology and the direct and radical democracy (Due to their outspoken calls for self-determination and promotion of global democracy) classification, which is also described here: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/2147947/pro-democracy-political-party-demosisto-shift-focus-away.

As a sidenote howewer, the South China Morning Post has a mixed record when it comes to factual reporting and does have a noticeable pro-CCP slant, especially after Alibaba, whose CEO is a member of the Chinese Communist Party, acquired the newspaper in 2017, and thus it should not be regarded as a fully authoritative and impartial source on matters surrounding Hong Kong and Asia in general. See this analysis for more information:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/south-china-morning-post/ Alexander Zubatov (talk) 19:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Correct myself, may be due to this protest, they changed the stance so that The Economist used "pro-independence" wording. Matthew hk (talk) 01:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I would accept "liberalism" based on the SCMP source - and "pro-independence" per the Economist. Simonm223 (talk) 12:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

And Mediabiasfactcheck is literally just like one guy. It's not a good tool for assessing source reliability. It's impossible to find sources that don't have a bias on China. BBC is laughable in this regard; US sources too. (Of course so is China Daily). SCMP has a bias, just like every other newsmedia outlet in the world. But SCMP's bias is substantially less severe than, say, Ming Pao even. Simonm223 (talk) 12:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

There is still a substantial conflict of interest regarding SCMP, especially since its literally owned by a Alibaba CEO who has strong ties to the Chinese Communist Party , and thus cannot be expected to report the situation in Hong Kong accurately or impartially. And Mediabiasfactcheck explains its methodology thoroughly and transparently here:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/

In addition, it also adheres to the IFCN code of principles, and always links to reputable factcheckers such as Politifact or Snopes when analyzing a news website, and corrects any erroneous entry, as seen by their recent temporary removal of Jihadwatch from their website after they erroneously claimed the ADL listed them as a white supremacist organization (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/jihad-watch-correction/). And they are anything but a "one guy organization". Here is their list of staff members:

The Team:

"Dave Van Zandt – Editor/Owner

Aaron O’Leary – Writer/Contributor

Karen O’Connor Rubsam – Writer/Contributor

Kenneth White – Writer/Contributor

Jim Fowler – Writer/Contributor

Dennis Kelley – Research

Michael Allen – Research

Faith Locke Siewert – Research

McKenzie Huitsing – Research

Mike Crowe – Extensions – Web Development"

Alexander Zubatov (talk) 14:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

It's Dave Van Zandt's blog and it's not worth the paper it isn't printed on. Simonm223 (talk) 14:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

That's solely your opinion, one which does not disprove SCMP's conflict of interest. You are welcome to provide evidence that the SCMP is not unduly influenced by the CCP and that it is an authoritative source on Asian matters (Preferably without invoking whataboutisms about media bias as you did earlier), and you are also welcome to provide sources that disprove MBFC's designation of the South China Morning Post as an factually mixed website. Until then howewer, caution should be exercised when citing SCMP, especially on subjects related to Hong Kong and Chinese politics in general. And once again, it's not a "one man blog", given that several other staff members asides from Zandt are involved in MBFC's operation and its analyses are sourced to credible factcheckers such as Politifact, Snopes, and Factcheck.org, and thus they are not based on opinion. Alexander Zubatov (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing to disprove. SCMP is just about the best source there is for stuff in Hong Kong. Certainly a fair sight better than Ming Pao if you're looking for neutrality. But then a lot of people editing Hong Kong articles these days don't want neutrality, do they? Just another soapbox. Simonm223 (talk) 15:36, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

• I've done a quick scan of the available local news sources regarding the party, and it seems there is very little coverage of anything other than their position on one or two political issues. In light of this, I think using their own manifesto (which one assumes is the go-to document for would-be members) is the most reliable source. Taken together with official speeches made by senior party members I cannot find any support for the argument that they support independence. They have been quite consistent in their assertion that they support "self-determination" and not independence. Whilst I am aware that the official narrative in China is that these are equivalent positions, I don't think this makes it so. I would argue that if a position is to be stated, they should be described as "self-determinist". This is also the most consistent moniker used by the local English-language press in their coverage, after "localist". Kdm852 (talk) 00:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Again, per WP:ABOUTSELF the use of their own manifesto to assign them an ideology is unduly self-serving considering their position as a controversial political advocacy group actively courting western support. We need reliable secondary sources for this. As I mentioned in response to MatthewHK this exists for "liberalism" per SCMP and pro-independence per The Economist. So those positions, I'd be OK with in an infobox. For other positions, I'd want to see it in body text with some commentary. Simonm223 (talk) 13:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

The problem of wiki content is, we don't run journalism , we actually purely rely on secondary source. There are lots of relic that wiki article are completely no source or completely full of primary source that fail to verify the party are actually practising those idea and POV or not. But yet since wiki are lack of admin and experienced editors to patrol the new article, questionable COI /self-promotional edits are everywhere. If there is no in-depth news coverage or research paper from uni to cover Demosistō , then the unverifiable content should be chopped and ask reader to just read the party's ad and official site and judge themselves, instead of asking wiki editor to wiki everyday bible for them. And yet, i discovered a new, total garbage article: Socialist Action (Hong Kong). A never heard about party that somehow cherry picked sources that may be all linked back to the party or just non-in-depth coverage that complied a complete non-GNG passing article just for self-promotion. Matthew hk (talk) 05:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 12 August 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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move page. (non-admin closure) — YoungForever^(talk) 00:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

---

Demosistō → Demosisto – Per MOS:TM, we do not follow organizations' choice of stylization unless it is replicated in a majority of reliable sources. A quick Google search shows that that is not the case. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Stylizations don't belong in the title. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support. It was always a bit indulgent. Now the party is no more, it'll be known by its unfancified name. But we should include 'stylised as' fairly prominently. Cossaxx (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. -- Ab207 (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Kdm852 (talk) 06:13, 13 August 2020 (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.

Y Done. -Kj cheetham (talk) 07:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)