Talk:2019–2020 Hong Kong protests

Why is this called protests, not riots?

How is it that people throwing petrol bombs are not called rioters? I thought that the definition of a riot was a group of 3 or more causing a breach of the peace. Is it only a riot if people are lower class or if you like what they protest against? Wikipedia should try to be somewhat neutral and change the title to '2019 Hong Kong riots'. The western press shows more pictures of police firing tear gas, but not the arson, violence and vandalism that caused the police to respond.

People who are OK with burning Mainlanders alive should read the same article and insert the word 'Jew' or Black' instead of Mainlander to see another's perspective. How can you be OK with this violence? Do you hate us that much? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.152.165.10 (talk)

The majority of reliable sources refer to the event as the "Hong Kong protests". Among many other reasons, the term, as it is now, will likely never be changed. If you feel the article doesn't have a neutral point of view, please specify exactly what you want to be changed (e.g. "change abc to xyz") in the form of an edit request - but keep it realistic, nobody will agree on changing "protests" to "riots". OfficialBoob (talk) 11:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

there is a problem to that logic though. majority of the English sources would be the Commonwealth or USA. the UK obviously has skin in the game, as does USA. majority of the Chinese sources would be.... well... owned or influenced by PRC. surely, if you search HK riots in Chinese, you will find a lot of results. So.... I m guessing the Chinese version of this article could legitimately refer to these as riots. 192.0.235.66 (talk) 06:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

The POV of the writer certainly has an influence on which word is used. Victor Hugo, in Les Misérables, waxes long on the differences between riots, uprisings, and revolutions. Search the book. A Kindle version will allow this, and search an unabridged version. It's very interesting. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I think it has clearly got to the stage of a riot now.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

The actions may be the same, but it's the motivations which determine the proper word, and the participants will use one term, and the oppressive authorities will use another. The participants thus reveal their motives to resist oppression and preserve their historic freedoms, and the authorities reveal their motives to remove those freedoms. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

That's a fairly biased view. The Hong Kong merely introduced an extradition bill, which according to independent observers was unremarkable. There was not attempt to remove freedoms. After all, it was the transition to Chinese rule that introduced elected government in the first place.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for politely responding to my comment above; that is a step forward. I am sure that many people would like the article to be neutral. However there are many sinophobes who want bias.

1) To start with "protests" must be changed to 'riots'. A riot is a group of three or more people who commit a breach of the peace. (The exact wording does vary slightly from country to country.) Throwing bricks at people, throwing petrol bombs at people and hitting them with pipes is easily a breach of the peace. Most Western media sources have an anti-Chinese bias; try to rise above it.

2) Deaths not directly related to the riots must be removed. A second article about suicides might be created. The case of Chow Tsz-lok was used by rioters, but that was a fall from height near a riot. You should need some evidence that the police were with him for it to be anything but propaganda.

3) Give equal weighting to violence committed on the police to violence committed by the police. Do mention that the rioters smash traffic lights, slash tyres on buses, vandalize train stations, block roads, pull down bus signs, attack Mainlanders (and their shops) for their ethnicity, violently attack people who dare to argue with them, publish the details of officers' children and so on. Count the number of times rioters throwing petrol-bombs/Molotov-cocktails is mentioned and the number of times tear gas is mentioned as a measure of bias.

4) Do mention that the extradition amendment contains many safe guards and is similar to laws in the west. There are some technical points in the text that I disagree with. (Yes, I have read it.) However that is not a justification to throw bricks at the windows of Mainland children.

5) Move all the non-violent political issues to an article on the extraction debate. I have no issue with the entirely non-violent protests that happened in the first half of 2019.

It is to be hoped for that a neutral approach may serve to limit the justification of violence against people because of their ethnicity. I teach many children who come from the Mainland. How can it be democratic for ten-year-old children to be afraid of violent mobs on the street? These riots are more about internalised sinophobia than anything political. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.3.195.184 (talk) 01:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

So.... back to the topic... is it "protests" or is it "riots"? Looking over at "Yellow Vests", the term riots have been used for a while now. In my view, the labeling riots would be appropriate because a) the official gov't calls it as such - therefore it is a legitimate term (WP:PRIMARY)and is not OR. b) one of their 5 demands is to remove the labeling of "rioters", so clearly they are aware of label riot is in fact being used. and c) every major source now acknowledge that riot police are deployed, every single day, for the past week. many outlets, including those supporting the "protests" now use the term "siege" or "besieged" to describe the situation. d) we now have direct deaths from the incidents. i think the situation has advanced WELL PAST the point of just protesting. 192.0.235.66 (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

1992 Los Angeles riots, Watts riots — what's the difference here?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

What about wikipedia's own definition of a riot? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riot or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_England_riots - coincidentally, also about alleged police violence. 192.0.235.66 (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Molotov cocktails, rocks etc?--Jack Upland (talk) 10:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

They're protests. Plus it seems like a lot of devastation is coming from the police. Yeah the protestors threw molotovs to stop police charges, but Monday the police shot almost 1,500 canisters of gas at a university full of students and kids in an incredibly dense neighborhood of Kowloon that's inland and next to a busy metro station. I don't know about the rest of you, but if the police started pumping even a few canisters of gas in to my neighborhood I'd be ripping, not to mention 1,500 in a 24 hour period, plus several thousand rounds of "less-lethal" ammunition. There are kids who live there. Seven million people live there it seems almost too stupid to imagine using massive amounts of gas in an incredibly dense city whose population you ostensibly care about it, the Americans and British tried something similar on Dresden in WW2 but the key difference was that they didn't feign the hypocrisy of caring. Gassing someone every day on their way to pick up their kids every day from school is a bizarre way to win hearts and minds. In regard to the OP, no offense meant, but I put Xinhua slightly above Sputnik and RT, its articles tend to be less silly, which is why it gets put slightly above. Alcibiades979 (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

That sounds like riots.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

The political point of view is irrelevant. Disturbing the peace in large numbers is a riot. Blocking roads and smashing traffic lights is disturbing the peace. Smashing and burning the shops of ethnic minorities is disturbing the peace. Throwing petrol bombs at ANYONE is disturbing the peace and also very violent. What one thinks about a 'cause' does not change the fact that it is a riot. It is violent. Some might even say, if it were not for such rioting the police would not need to use tear gas or rubber bullets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.64.92.130 (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Riots by whom? The protestors or the police pumping civilian neighborhoods full of poisonous gas? New numbers are out, according to the Hong Kong Public Opinion Resarch Institute 83% of the population blame the government, and especially the police, for the increase in violence. In a separate poll 51.5% reported zero trust in the police force, up from just 6.5% before the protest began. "Hong Kongers are appalled that police have lined uniformed schoolchildren against walls for random searches and have arrested 11-year-olds. Reports are growing of physical mistreatment in detention." If you can with a straight face say that you wouldn't care about the police shooting so much gas in your neighborhood that even in your apartment your eyes burn, then clearly the conversation ends here, as you and I evidently have radically different ideas as to how a competent police force conducts itself.Alcibiades979 (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

If the police are using excessive force that does not mean they are not riots.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Police force isn't related to the article naming. That said, the majority of sources are using protests. This article covers a long time frame of protests over 2019 that are more recently being referred to by PRC's PR machine as riots. When can expect the IP address (and registered) POV editors to continue to push the renaming issue. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

• There have clearly been riotous aspects of the protests. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I think editors will stop raising this when Wikipedia stops calling riots "protests".--Jack Upland (talk) 00:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Some of the protests might be called riots by some, but many, especially in the beginning, were completely peaceful. So unless you want to split the article and segregate the "riots" (which would be incredibly contentions and POV) , "protests" is the term that covers the entire subject. 123.208.5.31 (talk) 06:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

That's a fair point. However, I think it's got to the point that the term "protests" doesn't cover what's happening. There has been a multitude of attacks on police (with Molotov cocktails, arrows, laser points etc), attacks on civilians, and destruction of property. Since the extradition bill was withdrawn, it's not clear what the movement wants. It is a bit strange to engage in street battles with police in support of a demand for an investigation into police brutality. Perhaps "civil unrest" might be a neutral term.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

as somebody who lives in china, i would like to give my account of the story in hopes that it will help with neutrality. the chinese government calls them "street thugs", "criminals", etc. In this case, the situation has already escalated above the point where it should be called "protest". There is also a viral GIF in china showing how the rioters poured oil directly on an old man opposing their actions and lighting him up with matches. Also, the majority of protesters/rioters are college students. Universities have reported having arrows stolen from their archery ranges and other dangerous equipment stolen. Do "protesters" do that? The police are pumping tear gas canisters into the schools because the rioters have started fires and are taking the unrest into the schools, which affects the education A LOT. in the airports, if u are exposed as a mainlander, there is a 100% chance that u will be beaten up, because the rioters have been blocking exits and even the emergency roads for ambulances every day. I feel "rioters" is a good balance between "protesters" and "thugs/criminals" and adequately describes them. RyanGeLOL (talk) 03:42, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you shouldn't use Chinese propaganda to support your viewpoint. 42.76.107.165 (talk) 04:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

RfC: how should the Deaths figure in the infobox be shown?

The consensus is that the deaths figure in the infobox should not list the number of suicides for now because there is disagreement among reliable sources. There is disagreement among editors about how many of the suicides should be considered a death caused by the protest with editors. Supporters of inclusion argued that several of the people who took their lives left suicide notes saying they hoped their deaths would convince the government to withdraw the extradition bill, while opponents argued that there could be other reasons for their deaths.

Editors found that The Guardian article says, "protesters have tracked at least nine cases of suicides that appear to be directly linked to the demonstrations", which means that The Guardian is citing the protesters and has not independently researched and verified this claim.

The 2019 Hong Kong protests are ongoing. After this RfC started on 31 October 2019, two more deaths have happened (paraphrasing from the Wikipedia article):

1. Death of Chow Tsz-lok on 4 November
2. On 14 November, a 70-year-old man died from head injuries sustained a day prior in Sheung Shui, where a violent clash had erupted between a group of protesters and a group of local residents which saw both groups hurling bricks at each other.

In the current version of the article, the infobox lists the death toll as "2" and cites these two non-suicide deaths. This RfC did not discuss whether these two deaths should be included in the infobox, so this RfC makes no conclusion about whether to keep or remove this figure. A new RfC will be needed if there is disagreement about its inclusion.

Cunard (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

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.

---

How should the "Death(s)" figure in this infobox list the number of deaths? feminist (talk) 14:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• At least 9 deaths as per this Guardian news article. The previous version of this article simply stated "Some (suicides)", citing a number of news articles from June and July each reporting on one suicide. That was an egregious violation of WP:SYNTH and inappropriate when a source exists that provides a figure on the number of suicides in connection with the protests. feminist (talk) 14:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
• Not at all or with an indeterminate number None of the sources are of a quality necessary to link any given specific suicide to the protest movement. Suicide is multi-faceted and it's honestly ghoulish to claim that, for instance, a kid who committed suicide after being kicked out of his family home following a fight about the protests with his parents killed himself because of the protests specifically. We don't know the backstory. We don't know if the kid was previously abused or neglected, the state of his mental health. We just have sensationalist tabloid headlines. This is insufficient for WP:BLP. Simonm223 (talk) 15:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Right, because The Guardian, the most trusted British newspaper by several metrics, is totally "tabloid media". I don't see how privacy protections are a factor when no suicide victim is named in the infobox. You've got to explain how this is a BLP violation other that simply asserting such a claim repeatedly. An exact figure would be difficult to source but it's hard to dispute a figure of "at least 9". feminist (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

re-The Guardian - that was sarcasm, I hope? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.19.227 (talk) 00:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• • • You are asserting a specific cause of death about identifiable people. It's a BLP violation, it's ghoulish, it is likely grossly inaccurate and it's inappropriate for Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
      • Furthermore the guardian is being mis-applied here. It doesn't say that nine people committed suicide in protest. It says that the protesters interviewed by the Guardian claim nine people committed suicide in protest. Clearly this should not be construed as sufficient to say nine people committed suicide in protest in Wikipedia's voice and without any context. Simonm223 (talk) 13:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Shouldn't be included or a vague amount (e.g some/several): I am in agreement with Simonm223, I feel that the causes around a suicide are far too vague and personal to be able to give an accurate account. While I see that we could say that "at least 9 have died...", I would argue that because it is not accurate data - which would be impossible to achieve - we should at least wait until the protests are fully concluded if we were to do any form of suicide-based death toll. -Yeetcetera _{@me bro} 15:58, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
• Not at all: It's too vague and misleading.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
• Unknown or Undetermined. While there are reliable sources for the proposition that at least a small number of people have died as a direct result, the current state of reporting makes anything more specific unsupportable. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
• At least 4 deaths - Per [1][2]. At least the first 4 (Mr. Leung, Ms Lo, Ms Wu, and Ms Mak) are recognized clearly by RS that they suicided because of the protests (definitely a death toll) or suicided to protest (e.g. Mr. Leung). I would say The Guardian is a legit source (NOT a tabloid media, which is just an excuse to dismiss an argument) but the source seems to suggest that the figure is suggested by the protesters and that may not be very accurate. It is kind of difficult to really verify the individual death of the remaining five suicides (there are a lot of mysterious suicide cases in Hong Kong, but we don't know which one count and which one don't). OceanHok (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

  For me, this is acceptable as a compromise if we can't gain consensus for "at least 9 deaths". After all, "at least 4" cannot seriously be challenged. feminist (talk) 00:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

This isn't the sort of thing you "compromise" about. Either the figure is correct or it isn't, and as has been stated it has not be proven without doubt that people have committed suicide for no other reason than these protests. See also my comment below - the Guardian hasn't researched these cases itself, it is simply quoting the protesters' claims.86.56.18.205 (talk) 11:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I am not talking about The Guardian here. At least 4 people have died because of the protests and each of their individual suicide can be traced back, explicitly, to the protests. RS are explicit about this, they themselves are explicit about this by leaving the suicide notes. And neglecting these 4 people (and maybe more) in the infobox because we are trying to guess that they committed suicide maybe because of other reasons, is ghoulish as well given that there are a bunch of verifiable sources to support this. I would say that by suggesting that these 4 people died because of some other reasons is WP:OR because this goes directly against what sources are saying. OceanHok (talk) 13:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

What RSes based on what information? Journalists are not psychologists and should not be trusted to posthumously determine causality for suicides IMO. Simonm223 (talk) 13:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Their suicide notes are quite clear about this. In particular, Mr. Leung and Miss Lo were very explicit about this. They hoped that by suiciding, they can persuade the government to withdraw the bill (as a form of protest). We don't need a psychologist to verify these information. OceanHok (talk) 14:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Two things: first, that's two people; not four, not nine, two. Secondly, actually, people who are engaged in suicidal ideation may not be fully rational. Saying, "well their note mentioned the protests and therefore it must be just that and nothing else," is reductivist at best; which is why we should not be depending on journalists to make this call. Simonm223 (talk) 14:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Saying that they are not "rational" is absolutely WP:OR. Maybe you are right about this for Miss Wu and Miss Mak (about suicide being complicated, even though their depression is derived from the protests, a fact which is quite evident in their notes), but it is definitely not true for Mr. Leung and Ms. Lo (as both of them had a very clear intention: they hoped that by suiciding they can sway the government to withdraw the bill). Calling them "not fully rational" is disrespectful. OceanHok (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. To your point about suicidal people: Suicide notes are primary sources and are not exempt from further examination/contextualization by secondary sources. To your point about journalists: There's no agreed or consistent figure to be found, notwithstanding that there's careful wording in sources which is taken as definite here, so this "at least x suicides" is arbitrary at best. --Cold Season (talk) 00:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Not at all. The sources don't seem unified enough to put this in the infobox (where we cannot provide context, in-line attribution, and so forth.) Death tolls in infoboxes are meant for when there's a solid, clearly-accepted number or set of numbers. We can discuss these deaths in the article, but they shouldn't go in the infobox until we have a more clear consensus among sources. The Guardian is absolutely a high-quality source, but it is just one source; and the standard for putting a number in an infobox (where we're presenting it as unequivocal, uncontested truth) is higher than covering it in the article, especially for something as controversial as this. Also, I'm uncomfortable with "at least nine" when there is a reasonable chance that the actual number is vastly higher - even if we're cautious with our wording, it gives the impression that the number is close to 9. Again, this is why such things are better covered in the article body for now, where we can give it proper nuance. The suicides in the Guardian article are presented as one small facet of the subject and not any sort of "official death toll." Listing it in the infobox (even with wording like "at least") inevitably gives the impression of a degree of certainty and knowledge about the death toll that simply does not exist right now. --Aquillion (talk) 07:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
• Death(s): Suicides with link to in-article Suicides section. The fact that this number keeps getting revised up and down means that there's no consensus here as to what it should be (to say anything of the RSs!). It is flatly BLP vio to attribute specific events to suicide, absent an authoritative finding (and news outlets of the interested parties cannot possibly be such). The prose gets around this issue by describe the actual events as reported. Information in the infobox should defer to prose in the case of ambiguity.130.233.2.235 (talk) 08:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment In theory, simple calculation is allowed per WP:CALC. In reality, we can't just simply add up the number of death that loosely related to the protest (e.g. participated the protest weeks before their death, dressed in black, but some media liked to link their death to the protest). And unfortunately , either in RS they did not have their own calculation (own sum), or from one RS to another RS they are reporting different figures. So, we may need to run a table form of List of suicides sublist. Also, i wondered why List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, 2019 is allowed? If that list is allowed, then create a list such as List of suicides in 2019 Hong Kong protests, and then omit a sum in the infobox in this article, and then allow the wiki reader to determine how many suicide and death are very directly related to the protest. Lastly, i still insisted at least 2 demonstrators shown their dying wish that related to the protest/5 demands before they committed suicide and it is not my conclusion but media that their death are directly related to the protest. Matthew hk (talk) 09:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
• Not at all because it is undetermined by any genuinely neutral source. The Guardian is a reputable source, but please read it properly. "protesters have tracked at least nine cases of suicides that appear to be directly linked to the demonstrations." The Guardian has not come up with this figure itself through independent research, it is simply reporting a figure the protesters are claiming, and the protesters are not a neutral source. And even then it is only "appear to be directly linked", no evidence is given as to how the protesters reached this conclusion. Suicide is complicated, there could be all sorts of other factors involved (underlying depression, etc). The only death figure given should be for people proven directly to have been killed as part of the protests, and as there doesn't seem to be such a figure at the moment, no figure should be given. 86.56.18.205 (talk) 11:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• And this supports my assertion that claims of positive identification are not sourced to WP:RS. The Guardian is not making an explicit causal claim; they're reporting that protesters made a causal claim. That should not be translated directly into a statement of fact in wiki voice in an infobox. Simonm223 (talk) 12:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• Only include the case of Marco Leung Ling-kit: I think the case of Marco's suicide is very similar to a self-immolation because he killed himself during the course of protest in public. All other suicide cases were depression related and should not be included. STSC (talk) 14:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
• Not at all: "some, but uncertain" is useless. We're not going to try a crazy attempt to find every death reported, because that's too likely to fall under WP:SYNTHESIS because of the rumor vs truth blurred discussion. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 18:52, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: Coming back to this, would it be against any policies to instead write within the actual text somewhere "Protesters have reported that at least 9 individuals have committed suicide in direct relation to the protests" or something similar? We could then omit the infobox mentioning an actual number and use that instead. Just a thought. -Yeetcetera _{@me bro} 13:07, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
• Not at all. I oppose any "at least x number of suicides", as this implies that there's an arbitrary criteria of association or even direct outcome that was determined (even though there is no agreement to be found). The cases may be associated with the protests in differing degrees, but this should be contextualized in the body of the text, as the cases are complicated and with a whole host of variables besides the protests. --Cold Season (talk) 08:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• Not at all. There's really no coherent argument for any inconsistency between the infobox and the body of the text. The suicide section of the article ought to be reduced to a single line about Leung, because he's the only case worthy of mention by name; the others are corrolary at best. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• At least 4 - I haven't seen many good sources seriously disputing the figure of 9, but is there any source at all to dispute 4? Barring a good source disputing 4, we can safely say at least 4.Worldlywise (talk) 05:53, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

  "So-and-so have stated ___ have died ..." per WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Put that in a in-line note next to the number (or multiple numbers depending on the estimates). If that number turns out to be incorrect, then just delete it and write in the article it was later determined to be false by such-and-such. RockingGeo (talk) 07:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC) Sock strike. – Levivich 19:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• Not at all; this is way too subjective and questionable (with too much WP:OR going on in trying to "discover" links between suicides and the protests) for an infobox. This needs a section in the article, with various sourced not OR material on the subject.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Not at all for now – per WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS. There is significant disagreement among RSes about how deaths are counted. We can relay that in the prose of the body of the article, but we shouldn't "pick a winner" from among disputed sources, especially when it comes to an ongoing current event. So too soon for the infobox. We should stay out of the debate until the dust settles and not put a number into the infobox until there is broad agreement among RSes as to that number. In the meantime, we can educate the reader about the number-of-deaths controversy in the prose. – Levivich 17:04, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• At least 9 deaths The Guardian article seems reputable, I think we should use it. (Please ping me with replies), Puddleglum2.0 ^{Have a talk?} 01:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

---

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

RFC: Add any foreign countries as "support" of the protesters at infobox

Add US or other counties or not as supporting counties and official organizations in the infobox's pro-protester side. Matthew hk (talk) 13:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Relevant policy, WP:OR, WP:V. Matthew hk (talk) 13:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose as symbolic support from the US Congress has changed nothing on the ground. "Support" for these infobox is usually for military or intelligence support, not symbolic gestures that carry no weight. It unfairly portrays these protests as a China-US proxy conflict. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 15:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion based on symbolic or diplomatic support, I think the line for inclusion needs to be drawn at tangible material support in the form of logistics or direct participation in the events. To put things in perspective, we don't list the US as supporting the dissidents of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, a conflict where the CIA attempted (but failed) to provide material support and where Radio Free Europe was actively encouraging armed struggle, nor do we list countries that honored the various weapons embargoes against South Africa as supporters of the anti-Apartheid forces in the South African Border War. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

  Oppose for similar reasons above. Just put an explanatory note giving the context. RockingGeo (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC) Sock strike. – Levivich 19:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose the actions of the US government have not reached the proper diplomatic level and are only symbolic. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 20:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose because this misrepresents the situation. An infobox is only useful if it summarises information in the article. This conjures up a conflict between the USA and China, and that is misleading.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Support has to be rather more then "we support you", it has to be practical support.Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose There are quite a few countries that support the Hong Kong protests, should we add all of them to the list too? I think that the Reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong protests article would be better suited at educating the end-user on who supports or condemns the protests. I believe the infobox should be reserved for physical involvement. Lokii192 (talk) 02:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose We don't generally include PR statements or even immaterial aid in such context in infoboxes. If a number of American activists came to HK and were actively participating, it would be another thing, but I don't believe this is happening, is it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:23, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I see no evidence of anything other than the US saying that they support the protestors, which is basically the equivalent of saying “you’re in our prayers”. Sympathy does not count as support. I do think that you could argue for China supporting the the Hong Kong government, however. This is an issue for China, as Hong Kong is a special administrative region of the PRC. The connections between the Hong Kong government and China is sufficient to argue for China’s material involvement. Anasaitis (talk) 22:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support (only PRC flag) - The articles present formulation that shows the PRC flag is accurate, the PRC is actively involved in this conflict and this conflict exists in China after all. I do not support use of other flags, such as USA, EU, etc as I have not seen sources to say any other country supports violent protest. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose stating that you support someone is a different ballgame than actually providing support, whether it be financial or sending over physical assistance, but in this case I don't believe this would be considered support. Cook907 (talk) 20:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support (only PRC flag) There are many sources which could provide evidence that Chinese government has "military or intelligence support" in the HK affairs. Chinese government has helped HK government to mass "propagating" protesters' alleged crime, ordered military force in the border and so on. (But could we put Xi in it since he also expressed support of the counter-protests forces) Mariogoods (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose This is an internal conflict where other countries have made some noise. There have been no concrete actions taken by any other government - even the PRC has been reticent to take any direct action, preferring to leave it to local authorities. Simonm223 (talk) 13:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose symbolic lip service support. symbolic gestures that carry no weight. Lightburst (talk) 23:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support PRC flag - The New York Times says: the Hong Kong government, backed by Beijing. Therefore China is supporting the HK government. This also happened regarding the extradition bill: BBC News [3] Ms Lam's government has backed the bill, which is also supported by China. starship.paint (talk) 02:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support (PRC flag only)—Reasons above. Ifly6 (talk) 00:55, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose until or unless financial, personnel, or material support is documented in RS coming from other countries. In the absence of this, mere statements of support do not typically elevate an actor to co-belligerency. Also oppose PRC flag. Chetsford (talk) 04:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support PRC flag: The protest is anti-China, and with Simon Cheng's case, Telegram DDOS attacks, fundraising for counter-protesters, and PLA "volunteering" to help clear the bricks, China is offering (slightly) more than just "symbolic" support. OceanHok (talk) 16:02, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support PRC flag only – RSes are in agreement that: (1) the HK gov't is backed by China, (2) China has moved additional troos to HK, and (3) there are literally Chinese soldiers on HK's streets (albeit unarmed for now). We are not giving our readers the full and accurate truth as reported by RSes if we don't tell the reader that HK's gov't and China's gov't are on one side of this dispute, with protestors on the other. – Levivich 17:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support PRC flag Per reliable sources. Comatmebro (talk) 04:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

It seem OR to me just due to US had United States–Hong Kong Policy Act and then enacting Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, would be a rationale to list US as supporting country. So how about UK? UK not ruling out sanctions on China over Hong Kong: FM Hunt, UK parliamentary report expresses concern over British judges’ continuing presence in Hong Kong’s top court: “We recommend that the government coordinates its response to the Hong Kong crisis with the governments of Australia, Canada and New Zealand as judiciaries represented in the Hong Kong [court].” Matthew hk (talk) 13:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

This RfC is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT by pro-protester users. WP:NOTDEMOCRACY states discussion are not based on votes but by the correct discussion. One major thing I noticed is that China has not provided "non-Symbolic support". None of the users opposing addressed this, Chinese Vice President and Premier said they supported the HK Gov, meanwhile US actually passed a bill in support of protesters. Meaning US has provided more support than China to each respective side. Yet only China is included under support due to users above policy of, WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. KasimMejia (talk) 05:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I think an argument that would justify China's inclusion is that China is also being targeted by the protesters (e.g. 7.21 where protesters defaced the emblem outside Liaison Office, 9.29 march and 10.1 rallies), so not having them listed in "support" is a bit strange and weird. OceanHok (talk) 10:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

You see, something being "Strange and Weird" does not justify Original Research on Wikipedia. The fact that protesters defecated on a Chinese emblem does not mean that China is supporting the HK Gov in the protests. You should read WP:OR in detail. KasimMejia (talk) 11:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment to all users Nice4What, Rosguill, RockingGeo and AnUnnamedUser. China has not provided anything but non symbolic support neither, per sources. Will you oppose its exclusion too? KasimMejia (talk) 05:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

If you can provide reliable sources stating this, then I would not oppose that edit either. RockingGeo (talk) 05:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

So you're telling me I should provide a source to prove that something in fact doesn't exist? How about you prove that something exists rather than telling me to prove it does not exist lol. Read WP:OR. KasimMejia (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Xi called a meeting with Lam and expressed his support. This was publicly reported and widely viewed as both showing support and dispelling ongoing rumor that Beijing is about to fire Lam from her job. Given that Xi is both the president of China and president of the CCP. I think its fair to say both PRC and CCP supports Lam and the HK gov't. I think that is a fair read of the articles that were published on this subject. 192.0.235.66 (talk) 05:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, Hong Kong is part of China, so saying China's support is just symbolic is a bit strange.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Hong Kong is not a part of China like the rest of China, it has special status. And a source needs to say something for it to be published on Wikipedia. Right now only sources present for Chinese support to HK Gov is Premier and Vice Premier saying we support them. That is exactly like how US said we support protesters, but its more US also passed a bill which China didn't. So right now two rules are broken per RfC WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. KasimMejia (talk) 08:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I should rephrase; if you can explain why the current references about China's nonsymbolic support aren't reliable, backed up by reliable sources, then I wouldn't oppose a removal. RockingGeo (talk) 09:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

"the current references about China's nonsymbolic support" There is no such reference in the article. Only references are about symbolic support, just like the US. KasimMejia (talk) 10:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

This conflict is China vs Hong Kong. To say that Hong Kong can't be in conflict with China because it's part of China is to say that insurgent movements and rebellions can't be conflicts. I just did a quick search and found three sources that say that this conflict is Hong Kong versus China: 1, 2, 3. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 18:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with KasimMejia that the currently cited sources (including those provided by AnUnnamedUser immediately above) do not make any direct claims of material involvement from the Chinese government, separate from the Hong Kong government and the HK police force.

I think the pertinent question here is whether the government of Hong Kong and the Hong Kong police force (and any other group in direct conflict with the protesters) is sufficiently connected to China such that China's material involvement is entailed by their involvement. If their involvement is entailed, then they should be listed, possibly without even the qualifier of "supported by". Otherwise, they should not be listed. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

It is obvious this is protest against the rule of PRC in Hong Kong. Hong Kong is part of the PRC. POV pushing to state this has nothing to do with China is ridiculous. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Although this has been a frustration for the Anti-ELAM crowd, China has been incredibly circumspect in this case - sticking to statements of "concern" and deferring any action to local forces. If we are going to treat this as an insurrection, then we could position China as a party since HK is a part of China, however it's hardly POV pushing to suggest that China has not taken any material action in the form of arrests, legislation or military action with regard to the HK situation. Simonm223 (talk) 13:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223: Simon's case is for arrest related to the protests, and Chinese state-run media has suggests legislation. Link: http://tv.cctv.com/2019/11/19/VIDEo537hXz1AiDjU62APzAP191119.shtml Mariogoods (talk) 21:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Serveal suggestions about the article

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

References

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

Survey

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Automatic talk page archiving

I tried to change the archive period to one day to reduce the size of the talk page, but I was reverted with a 150K archive size which was not agreed to. I left 14 days in place, but I think this time should be reduced. Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:03, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because the expected behavior was to archive 14 days after last entry of the thread. And the revert came after someone else reverted the archiving. There are many of these threads which would see replies after more than a day or two without reply, but that does not mean that editors are not reading or waiting for others to reply. As for the archive size, I increased it to 150k because primarily the velocity of the section size increase is quite fast and it takes less than 10 sections to fill up an archive page. I don't see an issue with a larger archive size as not many (unsurprisingly) goes into the archives and unless you are having dial-up speeds, 150k should be loading just fine. robertsky (talk) 01:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jax 0677: FYI, I am open to have a shorter archive period, but 1 day is too short. 7 days would seem more sensible. robertsky (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

RFC for "Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests" talk page size

The talk page for "Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests" is over 100 kB, and should have a shorter archive period than 14 days. Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I think a shorter time will stifle discussion. I dont have any problem to scroll down on this talk page. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

It is not the RFc matter, don't mass tag with irreverent topic. Matthew hk (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• This is the same issue as #Automatic talk page archiving above, and so should be in that section and not a completely separate one. You shouldn't need to go straight for a full-blown thirty-day formal RfC for something as simple as this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:30, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

  Reply - @Redrose64:, I am trying to advertise this RfC to the larger Wikipedia community, and there was no consensus to close the RfC before one week nor remove the publication from the RfC page. The talk page size is going to get worse in the near future if something is not done. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

  I didn't "close" it - I removed the {{rfc}} tag, this does not prevent discussion from continuing. Whilst User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Archive HowTo does state "before setting up automatic archiving on an article's talk page, please establish a consensus that archiving is really needed there", this does not apply in this case because automatic archiving is already in use on this page, you are merely asking for an adjustment to the existing settings. I also cannot find any part of Help:Archiving a talk page that suggests that an RfC should be held before adjusting the archiving settings (or even for setting up automatic archiving in the first place). I don't disagree that discussion is appropriate: but there is no need to publicise it to people who don't care, since all the people who do care will already have this page on their watchlists. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment For what is worth, the article is much longer than the Talk page. For a fast moving, well-covered current event such as this, having a long Talk page and this many discussions at the same time is normal. The automatic archival is simply a tool to trim off dead discussions, but most discussions are still active. If you think there are threads that do not benefit from further discussions, you can manually archive them. robertsky (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
• An RfC about the talk page archiving? Is that really necessary? 1 day is way too short. Even 7 I think is too short. You'd expect a large talk page on an article about a major ongoing world event. I'd say leave it at 14 days and manually archive threads that are resolved or otherwise no longer active/needed, rather than shortening the auto-archiving. Alternatively, 7 days I think is the absolute shortest it should be to accomodate editors who do not edit every day. Finally, 150k sounds right for archive size. But seriously–an RfC for this? Can't there by just ordinary talk page discussion and consensus instead? There are already enough RfCs on this page as it is. A general comment, not specific to this RfC, but I'd encourage editors to try to work on compromises on the talk page without punting to an RfC at the first sign of disagreement. – Levivich 17:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
• WP:SNOW support for a minimum of 14 days, if not a larger period. (Summoned by bot) I'm joining all previous respondents in stating that an archive period of one day is clearly a non-starter: it is inconsistent with all standard community precedent, and quite frankly, any rational approach to open discourse, transparency, and efficiency in our typical discussion and consensus-forming processes. Guidance at WP:ARCHIVE recommends 30 days as the typical minimum and 90 days as more standard. Even in extreme cases involving high-traffic articles with numerous daily posts, the advantages conferred by archiving threads over short periods will almost always be greatly outweighed by the costs that come with 1) issues having to be re-opened and re-litigated constantly (because they never had a chance of being properly resolved before being summarily dumped into the archive) and 2) issues involving gamesmanship or over-weighted opinions from those hawkishly guarding the talk page, ready to pounce on every topic they wish to comment upon, while the (typically more restrained and neutral) perspective of broader community input will rarely get in under that wire. Frankly, given the size of the readership of this article, the degree of controversy involved in the subject matter, and all of the moving parts and need for considered debate that many threads will require, 14 days is probably itself too short a period, and we certainly cannot realistically consider going below that threshold if we want the space to function in a fashion where it will serve to form consensus on complex and controversial topics and otherwise allow for resolution of editorial disputes, rather than just being a conveyor belt of acrimony. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

  agreed Elinruby (talk) 02:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

• On whether 14 days is too long or not, I shall not opine. But one day is way too short, some people only look at their watchlists once a week. This is why virtually all time-limited discussions - whether RFA, AFD or whatever - run for no less than seven days before closure. Similarly, those speedy deletion criteria that have a grace period mostly use seven days, in order to give the page creator a chance to take notice. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support 14 day minimum, for the reasons stated by Snow Rise. One of the busiest talk pages on Wikipedia is Talk:Donald Trump, which has a 7 day archive time. That talk page is regularly above 150kb, and is sometimes as long as 250kb. Even though that page is long, the discussion there is still very efficient and organized. This talk page is currently about 150kb and doesn't appear to usually get much larger than that. If activity on this page were to increase significantly for an extended period of time, maybe I could support that, but I don't think we will get to that position anytime soon. Mgasparin (talk) 06:48, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• At least 14 days (randomly summoned by a bot) This RFC is poorly formed. The first sentence is biased and the question ("Thoughts?") is absurd. Anyway, it's crazy to shut down discussion in under two weeks. If folks are having trouble keeping up, then there is a need to either get better organized or let the anarchy play out. Archiving isn't going to help. Jojalozzo (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Should we archive all the references refered in the topic?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chris Tang

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

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

NPOV issue

I edited the lead section of the article, adding a sentence copied directly from the body of the article for the sake of consistency and with a view to complying with WP:NPOV, but it has been contested.

Now most people know that there is precious little, if any, independent verification of the attendence figures for the various mass demonstrations, and the lead goes with the headline figure of 1 million as if it was factual. Given that there is an enormous gap between the widely reported upper estimate – claimed by organisers, and a substantially lower figure from police, I see the need to include both figure so that readers, who generally don't read much beyond the lead are not misled. Let's be clear, both figures have been questioned, and it's impossible to verify one or the other. We should have both. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 11:38, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I looked at the current references.

• Time states: Police estimated 270,000 people participated, but organizers say more than a million people
• Vox states: According to organizers, a total of 1.03 million people took part in the protests; if accurate, that would mean roughly one-seventh of the total population of the autonomous city-state took to the streets. A police spokesperson told Reuters that 240,000 were present at the “peak.”

I agree with you. The references have been used selectively. It should be made explicit who states what. --Cold Season (talk) 19:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Can we just say a mass demonstration broke out on June 9? Kinda clunky to include both figures in the lead and also kinda confusing if we do not explain how they calculate the number. OceanHok (talk) 03:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't have time to find the exact talk page discussion, but someone already stated the criticism of the figures by Columbia Journalism Review. The Economist ([4]) also stated the figure may not be true but at the same time it probably the largest ever in Hong Kong. Matthew hk (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Both the organizer and police statements can be considered to be POV statements, as both are parties to this conflict. The 'official' police statement should be considered no more reliable than the organizer statement. Thus as pointed out above, both should be included with DUE weight. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• I have removed the NPOV tag as this appears to be a minor issue. if anyone has suggestions to update the NPOV concern, they may present the proposal and a discussion for that proposal should happen in a new thread. The article is planned to goto the ITN section. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I have readded the NPOV tag as there are numerous comments which raise the issue.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Anti-mask law

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

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

Is this covered that PRC stated that Hong Kong court had no right to rule on constitutional rights [5]. Just today the mask ban was reinstated, after the supreme court stated the mask ban was illegal [6] Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

The article is long. The article is current.

The two templates on the page are there to alert readers that the articles are long and subjected to frequent changes due to the ongoing activity in Hong Kong. I don't see how this is a case of overtagging. @Jtbobwaysf: robertsky (talk) 10:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• Concur - Leave {{2L}} tag on until the article is shortened. Leave {{current}} tag on article until changes diminish significantly. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
• Remove Current This current tag has been discussed previously on this talk page and the consensus has been to remove it, as the quantity of edits per day is below the current tag threshold. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: Can you point us to the archived discussion? there are 8 archive pages and searches for 'template', 'tag', 'current' do not seem to find the discussion. I may be missing something here... robertsky (talk) 01:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I too dont know exactly where in the history of this talk page. I recall someone said above that the tag was suitable for 12 edits per day and this article was averaging less than 10 per day. Maybe it was something someone noted in the edit summary last time someone added the tag, I cant find it too.

Per WP:CET "The current event template may be used to warn the editor or reader about the great flux of edits and the fast-changing state of the article, due to the fact that current events tend to get the most attention from editors...Generally it is expected that these templates will appear on an article for less than a day, or occasionally longer, but not several weeks "

Regardless I am opposed to the tag, please see if you can find other editors that support it. I suppose you might also want to substantiate what is "fast changing" about these protests. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

What's the point of archiving then? haha. OK as per WP:CET then. Will be switching to In Use template for a couple of hours as I am updating the ref section. robertsky (talk) 03:49, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

The current tag is always pointless.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:33, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

• I agree that we should remove template clutter. If it's too long, discuss it here on talk. and split it if there's agreement. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 12:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
• Remove both. {{Current}} is inappropriate here; it's generally meant to be added for less than a day; occasionally longer for extraordinary occasions that many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) edit an article on the same day. Adding it to an article for an "event" that has lasted months on end is plainly absurd, is not what the template is for, and serves no useful purpose. And {{very long}} is the sort of template you should get consensus before adding (or at least re-adding once someone has objected), since it directly directs editors to make drastic changes that require pre-established consensus to implement and since it serves no useful notice without such consensus. Given the heavy coverage of the topic, it does not look too long to me.--Aquillion (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
• For an event that is as long-winded and complicated as this, it is not long enough if you ask me. There is so much more we can add. OceanHok (talk) 13:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
• I have removed the tag "too long" as there seems to be agreement that the length is justified. if anyone has suggestions to shorten the article they may present the proposal and a discussion for that proposal should happen in a new thread. The article is planned to goto the ITN section. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: The 'very long' tag is not about whether the length of article is justifiable, it's about the article being too long to read and navigate comfortably. The article has the size of 374,757 bytes currently. WP:SIZERULE says over 100kB content is too big for an article. This technical issue has not been resolved and I put back the tag. STSC (talk) 12:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

  @STSC: The guideline refers to readable prose size. The article is currently at 70KB, where the guidance is Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material).—Bagumba (talk) 13:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Where's this 70kB come from? STSC (talk) 16:29, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

STSC It comes from User:Dr pda/prosesize, and I have re-verified that Bagumba is right, accordingly I have removed the tag. The article is currently featured on the mainpage. Please do not restore the tag again without proper justification. If you have questions, you should ask. If you have suggestions to reduce the content propose it in a new thread and get WP:CONSENSUS to do so. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Chinese media and social media surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong protests

To shorten the reaction page and detailed describe the Chinese reaction, Draft:Chinese media and social media surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong protests was created. Mariogoods (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@Mariogoods: - I don't think we need a separate page for this. The Reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong protests should handle it properly. I always find the "too long" argument to be strange because it is supposed to be a long article for an event as complicated as this. OceanHok (talk) 14:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@OceanHok: Thank you for your response. However, I believed Chinese media and social media Chinese media and social media surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong protests is notable enough to create an independent article (I have searched "chinese propaganda hk" and found serveal useful sources). A timeline could be helpful for reader to understand Chinese propaganda strength. Both propaganda and censorship are used. Mariogoods (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, I suppose you can add more things like fake news, "flag protectors", police KOL and the bizarre Chinese Internet culture into the article, maybe more on things like NBA/South Park/Cathay, but the statement and rhetorics made by official state-run media is so repetitive and monotonous that listing all of them seems to be a bit WP:TRIVIAL if you use the timeline format. Maybe you can use the Tactics and methods surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong protests format? I am sure their propaganda efforts (statements from the likes of Global Times/China Daily, 50 Cents, little pink in Weibo/overseas) are diverse. OceanHok (talk) 03:50, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@OceanHok: I have considered using Tactics and methods surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong protests format but eventually chose to use timeline format. The reason why I used timeline format is mainly because propaganda and censorship status keep changing according to current situation. For example, censorship of a specific event would be lifted once offcial statements being released. Anyway, you are welcomed to edit the draft. Mariogoods (talk) 11:00, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I reconsidered the issues. Your suggestion is still helpful and I'll partly accept the suggestion. Mariogoods (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

vote results

Quartz [7] had a nice writeup today. Highlights

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

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

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

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

US support

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

The role of Zhang Xiaoming 张晓明

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

Impact on policing

To add? There are now news reports on increase in crimes being committed with multimillion dollar robberies being carried out now due to the curtail of normal policing efforts in relation to the protests. https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3039791/hong-kong-police-hunt-two-men-over-tsim-sha-tsui-robbery https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-and-crime/article/3040137/hong-kong-police-hunt-robbers-who-stole-hk2-million https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-and-crime/article/3040201/second-armed-robbery-less-24-hours-nets-hong-kong robertsky (talk) 03:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think adding them is appropriate. The source really did not clearly state the correlations between the protests and the robberies. Even the police themselves have no concrete evidence that a correlation exists. They simply cannot "rule it out". It would be too early to include anything about this I would say. (On a side note, the police force never claimed they were stretched thin by the protests. They have always insisted that the Force is sufficient/more than enough to deal with the protests, so theoretically speaking there is no impact on policing according to the police.) OceanHok (talk) 07:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I think you're biased. Anyone can see that massive police resources are being directed to the protests.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone notice the problems with the intro parts?

Wikipedia highly advocates the neutrality principle. Therefore, the first problem that I have found is the sentence "This led to concerns that the bill would subject Hong Kong residents and visitors to the jursidiction and legal system of mainland China, which would undermine the region's autonomy and Hong Kong people's civil liberties." The first part of this sentence is fine, but the second part of the sentence seems like abetting readers to believe that this bill would "undermine the region's autonomy and Hong Kong people's civil liberties". I look through the references, but the references are from news media which I don't believe that there is no bias inside the references.

The second problem that I have found is the sentence "Police operations and alleged misconduct". We need to look at both sides of the news, not just the Western reports. During the protest/riots, there are Western media workers incite protesters/rioters to do violence things. Therefore, we better include both police and protesters/rioters' behaviors.

The third problems that I have found is the sentence "The police reacted by besieging the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK) and Hong Kong Polytechnic University (PolyU) which resulted in a large number of injuries and arrests." By only mentioning polices' behaviors are very likely to make the readers choose their side, what about the protesters/rioters ruined the transportation system? And what about the protesters/rioters ruined the public construction? Let's please be neutral.

Finally, the sentences "the protests have been largely described as 'leaderless'" is not the fact. Based on the Chinese official's announcement, there are some leaders in this protest/riot. So this sentence seems unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amilychun (talk • contribs) 08:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I think those are fair points.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with these points as well. An inherent flaw in this article is that its sources are primarily from the western media, which has been almost entirely an echo chamber of reports vilifying the police and sanitizing the protesters. Any facts that could help illuminate the police's side of the story are dismissed as "propaganda", and thus we have an intellectual environment in which there exists no diversity of thought and restricted access to information (ironic for a "pro-democracy" movement, eh?). I would support a POV tag being placed onto this article, as the skewed descriptions of nearly everything are difficult to ignore.

—Tookabreather (talk) 23:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Amilychun: - I’m not referring to this article, but you have misunderstood the neutrality principle. Wikipedia requires, via WP:NPOV, that all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic are published. That doesn’t mean that the article in the end will be neutral. If the vast majority of reliable sources declare: “Hitler was evil”, then Wikipedia will also declare: “Hitler was evil”, which is not neutral to Hitler. Simply put, we follow the reliable sources’ view. Also, we don’t dismiss reliable sources just for bias unless it is extreme bias that tarnishes reliability. starship.paint (talk) 07:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint, I'm not referring to you, but your comments are irrelevant.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• See WP:VNF - Western media are our pernnieal reliable source so we will mostly follow what they say. I have added the Chinese "foreign interference" theory to the lead but what they say is not "fact" because the Chinese government itself is also an involved party. OceanHok (talk) 11:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• @Amilychun: Your arguments are really confusing. For one, you question the concept that subjecting Hong Kong to the PRC's legal system would undermine civil liberties and autonomy. Isn't reducing the separation between the two legal systems literally the definition of reducing autonomy? As for the civil liberties part, it's not exactly a secret that the mainland Chinese court system isn't exactly independent or fair. Regardless, this is irrelevant since it's clearly part of the statement of opinion early. The article is not stating, as an objective fact, that the bill would reduce Hong Kong's autonomy or the civil rights of its citizens, just that people believe that. Second, and far more seriously, you complain that western media is oft-cited by the article, saying that it is biased, but then say this: Based on the Chinese official's announcement, there are some leaders in this protest/riot. So this sentence seems unreliable. So you discount one source as biased, then criticize the article for not relying on Chinese government reports. Seems problematic, no? ItJogarz1921 (talk) 07:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I think your arguments are confusing. Many Western commentators have said the extradition bill was normal. To say that people can't be extradited from Hong Kong to mainland China puts the relationship between the two below that of many sovereign countries. If they are "one country" of course they should have some extradition arrangement. It's absurd to suggest otherwise. It is also absurd to suggest that the protesters haven't been violent. Are you kidding???--Jack Upland (talk) 08:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about China and Hong Kong being two separate countries, just that Hong Kong is autonomous. That autonomy includes separate legal systems. By reducing the separation of the two legal systems via extradition treaty, one reduces the autonomy of Hong Kong. It's not complicated.Jogarz1921 (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Most of the sources that go into the ramifications of hong kong's supposed sovereignty. There is no valid reason to remove this content from the article unless there are sources that contradict this. It makes no difference if the sources are supposedly western. this is wikipedia english after all, and the majority of english sources are western. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Assaulting civilians

The protests have been largely described as "leaderless"[62] and protesters have used various tactics, including assaulting civilians,[63][64][65][66] to pressure the government has some severe problems. First

• WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV to not mention protesters being attacked by mobs. Also WP:UNDUE to not mention the peaceful tactics.
• Wrongly implies that beating people up is a "tactic".
• Oversimplifies incidents as "assaulting civilians" without considering the context. For instance, there are many versions behind the case where the taxi driver get assaulted.
• We already have Subsequent protests throughout the summer spread to different districts, and there were confrontations involving the police, activists on both sides, suspected triad gangs, and local residents, which handles the attacks from all sides in a neutral way already.

That's why I will insist that the sentence is very problematic. OceanHok (talk) 16:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I think it's the other way around. The article itself has no mention of protester's throwing Molotov cocktails or shooting arrows at police (even though these things are mentioned in cited sources). It is a pro-protester POV all the way through.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I've counted at least eight (8) instances in the lead where the police are described as violent with no context whatsoever of the protesters' actions leading up to the confrontations. No mention in the lead of protesters burning people alive, killing a man with a brick, stabbing a police officer in the neck, or other such atrocities that protesters committed. The lead makes the protesters look like saints. But add literally three words ("including assaulting civilians"), an assertion supported by four independent sources, and suddenly the lead becomes "problematic." Give me a break. I completely agree with Jack Upland that this article is severely biased in favor of the protesters, and is written almost specifically to influence the reader to take the protesters' side.

—Tookabreather (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

You guys did not even address the problems I have raised. Look, I know what you guys are trying to do, to paint the protesters in a bad light "for the sake of neutrality". I am sorry, but if you are going to mention the protesters' violence, you must also mention the counter-protesters. Both sides have committed heinous acts. Are you going to mention Andrew Chiu's ears being bitten off? Are you going to mention protesters being knife-attacked? Fujianese gangs? I know protesters have beaten people severely, but the problem is the pro-Beijing camp is using the exact tactic and singling out only one side and then cherrypicking the incidents violate WP:UNDUE. "Rifts within the society widened as protesters began to assault civilians" shows a lack of thorough understanding of the incident and your incapability to stay neutral. It is not like "I have sources" and then you can do whatever you want. Per WP:SUMMARY and WP:LEAD, we should keep everything brief. OceanHok (talk) 09:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there has been violence on all sides, and all of it should be mentioned. It is not conditional. It should be unconditional. The whole approach to this article is not neutral and not accurate.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Per your argument then you must agree Rifts within the society widened as actvists from both sides have assaulted each other is definitely better than Rifts within the society widened as protesters began to assault civilians. WP:LEAD is not a WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of information. OceanHok (talk) 10:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

No, mentioning "all of it" is not the way to go. Presenting different viewpoints as if they are equal, despite them receiving different magnitudes of coverage in RS, creates a WP:FALSEBALANCE. feminist (talk) 15:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm talking about mentioning facts, not viewpoints.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I think "including assaulting civilians" is unnesserary to include and I agree with OceanHok's opinion.We should be catious as pro-protests and anti-protests bias should be avoided.Mariogoods (talk) 03:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

But that's bias.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the whole and not just a part of the context should be provided, because a hyperfocus on police action while leaving out protester action is WP:NPOV. --Cold Season (talk) 13:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Lead

@Tookabreather: - I will tell you (again) why each of your changes to the lead is problematic:

• The bill was introduced after a man killed his girlfriend in Taiwan and fled to Hong Kong, a territory with which Taiwan does not have an extradition treaty - Something for the 2019 Hong Kong extradition bill page, not here
• when an 18-year-old student protester was shot after striking a police officer with a metal rod - This was disputed. See [8]
• Rifts within the society widened as protesters began to assault civilians - I have explained this already. And if you don't know, counter-protesters are the first ones to "assault civilians" with the Yuen Long attacks and later the North Point attacks. Protester's violence was a reaction to it.
• throwing petrol bombs at the police - Not entirely true. It was thrown sometimes as a roadblock, so "confront the police" is better.
• further intensified the protests, with protesters setting a civilian on fire - Once again cherrypicking incidents when what I have mentioned above is already sufficient to cover everything about the violence from both sides. Why someone being set on fire should take precedence over, a) someone ears getting bitten off or b) police violating guidelines of using weapons? c) someone shooting fireworks at protesters?
• After protesters set fire to the campuses and threw petrol bombs at police, the police reacted by besieging the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK) and Hong Kong Polytechnic University (PolyU) - That's not how it started at all, they did not "set fire to campuses" before the siege, only during the siege, which was mentioned already in the pages for CUHK/PolyU conflicts already. The conflict started because they obstruct traffic nearby.
• There also exists a sizeable number of Hong Kong citizens who oppose the protests - very . How many of them are out there? What concrete evidence proves their existence? What actions they have done? Why should we care if they have done nothing but only criticizing the protesters inside their comfortable homes? Counter-protesters and the self-proclaimed "silent majority" have held several pro-police rallies shows their existence and their roles in the protests.

WP:V is the fundamental principle for Wikipedia, but after you have a source, you need to consider WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. And not to forget the factual errors you have introduced, which you called as "just facts". For all the party involved, you should only mention the general characteristics only, not independent incidents (aka, ears being bitten off, or someone set on fire) with the exception of the really important ones that have significantly change the course of the protests (such as 721, 831, and 101). OceanHok (talk) 03:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

All of my points still stand. If you are going to describe what the police did, then you logically must describe what the protesters did as well. To omit any mention of the protesters' contributions to the conflict creates the picture that police are just attacking protesters for no reason, which is pushing a WP:POV that is not supported by the sources.

—Tookabreather (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Yet all of my points still stand and you didn't bother to address it. This is not a discussion if you are just going to keep forcing your way pushing that anti-protester WP:POV without considering the WP:UNDUE principle. I am challenging your edits by pointing out a bunch of problems to show that none of your point stand and your refusal to listen and force your way through can be considered as disruptive editing. Per WP:BRD cycle you should not have reverted me back in the first place and instead should discuss here to sort out what is ok and what's not. To omit what I have said is WP:NPOV as well. It is not like you can just say "I think it is fine" and then go ahead and then insist your edits have no problem. OceanHok (talk) 04:08, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

You also contradict yourself by suggesting that the protesters are attacking "civilians" for no reason as well... OceanHok (talk) 04:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Any claim that the protesters haven't been violent goes against many reliable sources.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

How is Alex Chow Tsz-Lok's death is related to protest?

It's not even proven that he was escaping from tear gas and there were videos shown that someone may be following him. I don't think we should be adding him to the list of casualties until there is substantive sources backed by substantive evidence. This protest movement has a tendency of labeling all suspicious deaths as murder or deaths caused by police and we should be careful with buying into the fake news.

The only confirmed death related to protest is the 70-year old man who was killed by a protester hurling a hard object at him. I think we need to also highlight that it's not a protester being killed to avoid confusion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.247.238.245 (talk) 17:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with both of your points. If a police officer had killed a 70-year-old man, Wikipedians would be so quick to type it into the lead that their fingers would fall off. But since it was, in fact, the protesters who killed a 70-year-old man, he is simply added to the casualties list, the crime is reported in the passive voice, and no responsibility is attributed to the protesters. The way the article is written almost intentionally obfuscates the issue to make it seem like the two deaths were caused by police, when in fact both were caused by the protesters' own actions. This should be clarified.

—Tookabreather (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

If reliable sources widely associate a death with the protests, we consider it related to the protests. Simple as that. This test has been met with the case of Alex Chow. feminist (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

There have been plenty of reliable sources about Molotov cocktails. Simple as that.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how this is related to the current discussion. Reliable sources mention the use of petrol bombs (aka Molotov cocktails) by some in the protests, and our article covers the use of petrol bombs as one tactic. I don't see any conflict here.

Similarly, reliable sources associate the death of Alex Chow to the protests, so we cover his death in our article. feminist (talk) 01:57, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

They are just upset about not having protester violence covering 99% of the article. 42.76.107.162 (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Deliberate omission of context in the lead section

The bill was originally introduced in order to extradite a fugitive murderer from Hong Kong to Taiwan. This is a fact.

The 18-year-old student protester was shot only after striking a police officer with a metal rod. This is a fact.

The protesters have assaulted civilians. This is a fact.

The protesters have burned someone alive. This is a fact.

The protesters were "besieged" because they set fire to the university campuses and threw petrol bombs at police. This is a fact.

All of these facts are supported by reliable sources that I have repeatedly attempted to place onto the article's lead. Every one of my attempts has been reverted for spurious reasons. This article censors information about the protesters' violence and portrays the police's responses completely out of context, and the editors curating it have made sure of that. This article, as written, is a joke and indistinguishable from propaganda. There couldn't be an article more deserving of the POV tag than this one.

—Tookabreather (talk) 12:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Those are verifiable and notable facts, and omission skews it per WP:NPOV due to a focus on certain specifics but not the whole. I've noticed, especially, that the 2nd fact has repeatedly been obfuscated by a specific user, but it should be included that it happened and not just "attempted" as cited by reliable sources. --Cold Season (talk) 13:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

saying "The protesters have burned someone alive" tends to imply the man was killed. It's more appropriate to say he was "set on fire".

I also agree that the article is skewed, and that any mention of the term "riot" or "rioting" have been swiftly purged (except when mentioning "riot police"), even when these are in the context of specific incidents and backed by reliable sources such as the BBC. The images also tend to focus on police violence, and we have yet to see any images of protesters throwing Molotov cocktails. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 13:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

The "metal rod" part is disputed. Counter-protesters have assaulted protesters is a fact, and the people protesters have assaulted are not always "civilians" is also a fact, thus mentioning one side only while sacrificing key context is WP:UNDUE. People burnt alive is a fact but people's ears being bitten off or someone's eyes being blinded by rubber bullets or protesters being shot by fireworks are also facts, then why the burning incident should take precedence over other equally ridiculous incidents? It is ok to mention protesters throwing petrol bombs or committing property damages as general characteristics but I oppose listing independent incidents. And we need to admit is that the (alleged) police brutality is a key driving factor for the protests, so it is difficult to downplay police responses. It is rare for RS to use the term "riot" (other than reporting the government/police viewpoint) when they were describing the protests or the protesters, while when you search things like "Indonesian riots" or "Chilean riots", you actually get many results. OceanHok (talk) 14:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Two wrongs don't make one right. Police violence is mentioned over and over again, with examples and linked to the protesters' responses. All the police major incidents against protesters and journalists are mentioned in the article, and it does not serve the cause to be in denial that protesters have shown a high degree of violence too. A man was set alight during a dispute (with someone wearing black?). It may be an isolated instance, but the e ntire protests are a string of isolated incidents, and I see little justification for excluding or downplaying protester violence against police and other civilians. The reason why the attempt at immolation should be given greater prominence is because of the severity of the violence: It is attempted murder by any benchmark. All the prior instances of protester violence were against inanimate targets whereas this was an attempt on a person, and caused severe burns to the victim. Equally not mentioned is the incident where a police officer in plain clothes was the target of a petrol bomb after he allegedly drove his car into a crowd of protesters. Although Molotov cocktails have become a weapon of choice, and protesters throw them in the tens if not hundreds on a daily basis, their use is mentioned in the artice as if they were all isolated occurences. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 15:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• I am not suggesting to downplay protesters' violence, but to give counter-protesters WP:DUE weight when they have commit actions equally bad. If we are going to mention people burning, then why are we not mentioning protesters being knife attacked? With both sides using extreme violence against each other then why only the protesters were singled out as the "violent" groups while counter-protesters were relegated as the peaceful "civilians"? The fact is that they have been assaulting each other, and no one is better than another. I don't oppose adding the Yuen Long plainclothed officer catching fire or other instances that caught RS attention (like the liaison guy being shot with an arrow) in the radical protesters (or maybe the history) section, but using petrol bombs with the intention to murder is not the general characteristic of the protests thus it was not appropriate for the lead. That's why I am only ok with "people are attacking each other" but not "protesters are assulting civilians". OceanHok (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• I can understand that you don't want to split with the other in the movement, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor is it a forum for advocacy. I don't see how intent or motivation should come in when it comes to petol bombs. These are among the most destructive home-made weapons used by rioters and terrorists. They have been used by HK protesters like they eat instant noodles since peaceful protests failed, probably even before the 10-1 storming of legco (I haven't been keeping track), and are certainly a hallmark of protest violence if not of rioting in a general sense of the definition, although why the term "rioting" hasnt been used more frequently is because it suits the Western (anti-China) narrative. It's inescapable that thousands of petrol bombs were found in CU and PolyU, even though they were never used. As to due weight, how do you propose to keep a "balance"? How about mentioning one petrol bomb for every teargas canister? How about one rubber bullet injury for every victim nearly killed by protesters? What I'm trying to demonstrate is that the transactional approach to balance is entirely arbitrary. But by not mentioning it, downplaying it, the article fundamentally violates WP:NPOV. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 16:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• The dictionary definition of "Rioting", or here in WP is a state of behaviour that makes no distinction between causing injury or damege to people or inanimate targets, so the fact that protesters have only been targeting police and other symbols of the PRC doesn't make the actions any less "riotous" despite the lack of use of the word by reliable sources. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 17:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• I will repeat again. I am not suggesting to downplay the violence from the protesters, but to give due weight to the violence from counter-protesters which is equally malicious. Sentences like "Rifts within the society widened as protesters began to assault civilians." (Tookabreather's wordings) obviously is WP:NPOV and Rifts within the society widened as actvists from both sides have assaulted each other (my version) can cover both violent incidents from both sides without digging deep into each of the incident. I mean, unless you want something like Protesters was shot by attackers with fireworks. The protesters became violent and assaulted Celina Ma. Some taxi driver rammed into the protesters and broke someone's legs to show his opposition. But the people beat the taxi driver. To retaliate, pro-Beijing supporters bite off Andrew Chiu's ears. Not happy with that, the protesters set a man on fire. Frustrated, pro-Beijing decided to knife attack a peaceful protester near Lennon Wall, but then the protesters are going to beat this guy with a drain pipe. I mean, this chain of garbage theoretically adheres to WP:NPOV as well. OceanHok (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

If you are talking about the WP:NPOV in the other sections, I have added more about petrol bombs in the radical protester's section if this is what you guys want. I don't oppose adding violence of the protesters to the article as long as it is done with WP:NEUTRAL and WP:CONCISE wordings and given due weight. I would draw the line of WP:NPOV at summarizing similar behaviors with just one sentence while singling out the ridiculous ones (People being set on fire/someone shot with fireworks/Pressing people's face against the ground) or if it involves notable people. If incidents cannot be grouped (e.g. Prince Edward station incident, police van ramming into crowds, Yuen Long inaction), then it would stay on its own. If you are talking about why the history has more mentions of tear gas then petrol bombs, that's probably because people are complaining about the article's length and then we trimmed it to just "clashes" and "confrontations" (which is not a bad change I may add, detail weaponry used is mentioned in the subpages). Regardless of whether RS is biased or not, using "riot" because we think the situation fits the dictionary definition is WP:OR. OceanHok (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• It's only OR if there are no sources to support the assertion, but there are. I attempted to add two very precise an limited instances, supported by sources, but they disappeared soon enough probably because there's a severe allergy within the movement to the "R word". Anyway, I do not believe that WP:CONCISE and WP:SUMMARY are sufficient to warrant removal of important detail as to the violent nature of the conflict or signature actions of either police or protesters. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 21:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

References

• There is clearly an extreme pro-protest POV in this article, which censors protester violence.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

There are also extreme anti-protest POV pushers in this talk page, which avoid discussing police violence while trying their best to smear protesters instead. 42.76.107.162 (talk) 03:57, 7 December 2019 (UTC)