Jump to content

Talk:2019–2020 Hong Kong protests/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:2019–2020 Hong Kong protests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RealFakeKim (talk | contribs) at 16:31, 8 January 2020 (Archived 4 sections). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

Why is this called protests, not riots?

NO CONSENSUS FOR A MOVE IN THIS LIMITED DISCUSSION; A REQUESTED MOVES DISCUSSION IS ENCOURAGED

Closing per request at WP:ANRFC. There is no consensus in this discussion. Opponents argue that what is happening meets the definition of "riot". Supporters argue that the name most used by the sources is "protests" not "riots" and that designating the entire movement as a "riot" because of some riotious events violates WP:NPOV.

This article has had three requested moves:

  1. 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests → 2019 Hong Kong protests (not moved at Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests/Archive 1#Requested move 10 June 2019)
  2. 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests → 2019 Hong Kong crisis (not moved at Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests/Archive 5#Requested move 2 September 2019)
  3. 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests → 2019 Hong Kong protests (page moved at Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests/Archive 6#Requested move 4 September 2019)

There has not been a requested move discussing whether the title should be "2019 Hong Kong riots". I encourage editors to create a WP:Requested moves discussion to seek the opinions of a broader group of editors since the participation in this discussion was limited. I encourage editors to follow the five principles at Wikipedia:Article titles#Deciding on an article title in formulating their arguments for or against a move: Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, and Consistency.

Cunard (talk) 08:55, 12 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 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 1.64.90.29 (talk) 00:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

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.[1] "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)
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)
Jack Upland You should thoroughly read the article again (especially this section) if you are unclear what the movement wants. Please don't discuss the article without even reading and understand it. 42.76.107.162 (talk) 06:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Most of those objectives relate to the protest itself; it is circular to describe them as objectives of the protest.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:29, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Even if there are riotous aspects, that doesn't classify the whole movement as a riot. Rioting may suit some events, but there are many other tactics other than those "violent acts", such as peaceful demonstrations, lennon walls, strikes, human chains etc. Calling the movement "protest" is nothing wrong. You can call certain events as riots but not rename the article to 2019 Hong Kong riot.
Emphasizing some riotous events and concluding the whole movement as "riot" is clearly against WP:NPOV. 42.76.107.165 (talk) 05:56, 7 December 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.

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)
No, we're upset about an article about the protests giving a biased, inaccurate view, a view that helps absolutely no one understand what is happening. Every editor should oppose this.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Expansion of the "Underlying causes" section

Some explanations about Chinese domestic politic, such as the increasingly authoritative nature of Xi's China, as well as the international political environment( trade war etc) and fundamental difference between HK and Chinese judicial system maybe beneficial for this section. What do you folks think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minche r1 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

It depends on what sources say, but those points seem highly speculative.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I think the part about Xi is a bit too underlying and distant to the protests, and the part about the ongoing trade war is a bit irrelevant to the whole protests. I don't think Xi's dictatorship is the real reason why the protests started though since the origin of "mainland fears" can be traced all the way back to the June 4th incident and China has always been authoritarian anyway. I think the part about distrust toward the mainland government's judiciary system is true and sound and we should mention it, though I think China being an authoritarian state (as opposed to HK, which theoretically should have a lot of freedoms), and its infamous track record of prosecuting political dissidents and violating human rights in the past are the key reasons while the differences in judiciary systems were only minor in the bigger picture. OceanHok (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
I believed that it is "see also" sections' work and we could add this if the human rights conditions in [mainland] China is reported by reliable sources to be relevant to the protests such as Cause of 2019 Hong Kong protests.(In fact, I'm working on pages about Chinese media and social media during the HK protests)Mariogoods (talk) 23:27, 13 December 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)
@OceanHok: They insisted that the force is capable of dealing with the protests, but that does not mean that there is no impact on normal policing, especially evident when they had to pull back regular patrols to deal with the protests, and deputised correctional officers to support the ongoing police response to the protests as well. Also the police has acknowledged that criminals may be taking advantage of the protests to stage their crimes. https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-and-crime/article/3040395/hong-kong-police-open-fire-street-during-arrest https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-and-crime/article/3042048/armed-gang-loots-mong-kok-watch-shop-robberies-spike https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-and-crime/article/3038039/flying-tigers-join-fight-against-hong-kong-protesters robertsky (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
The riot police officers from CSD/Immigration Department should be mentioned in the article somewhere. It is true that they said they have been stretched thin by the protest, and the biggest evidence is probably their (lame) explanation of why they were absent in one of the year's biggest crimes: the Yuen Long attacks. Though one thing I feel very conflicted about is that the overall crime rates have actually fallen, so police doing a shitty job at policing didn't impact much anyway. But if RS mention about the police talking about the impacts of the protests on policing, they can be added to the article. Maybe alongside the OT payment part? OceanHok (talk) 05:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I have an opinion on the Yuen Long attacks, but without RS, I will not turn this into a conversation point. Yes, let's include the OT payment. This I presume? https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asia/hong-kong-protests-police-overtime-bill-12183058 robertsky (talk) 05:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Here's one about the YL attack. Anyway, the OT stuff is mentioned in the impacts on economy right now, though I think it can be moved somewhere else. Maybe another paragraph in the impact section? OceanHok (talk) 06:31, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I have placed the impact on policing in the section for society. May need a copyedit. As for the YL attack, the lack of police presence other than the alleged collusion, in my opinion, probably is due to the police underestimating the scope of violence certain people are willing to commit, and even if they didn't, the force was probably still re-calibrating their personnel and equipment deployments. They probably thought the protests would have fizzle out like before. robertsky (talk) 14:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

First sentence

If the first sentence can use the term "water revolution", it can also use the description "riots", which is how the PRC describes the protests.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Unlike Umbrella Revolution, I don't think the 2019 HK protests have become synonymous with the term "Water Revolution" yet. The same goes for anti-ELAB. OceanHok (talk) 06:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree with OceanHok. Also, here is why it is not called a riot Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests#Why is this called protests, not riots RealFakeKim (talk) 10:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
My point is if the term "water revolution" is in the first sentence, why not also include the PRC government's description as well. And "water revolution" remains in the first sentence.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I find it hard to argue that "Water Revolution" is notable enough to be used in the opening sentence of lead at all. The origin appears to be the fanciful exonymic self-invention of a FT journalist, with no nativist roots in the protest movement whatsoever. That isn't nearly satisfactory enough to fit the criterion of WP:Offical_Names and the term is too generic, as can be confirmed by a search of Google Trends, to satisfy WP:Article_titles. I'd argue for its wholesale removal as keeping it in lead seems more of a self-promotion than a new synonymous name for the protest. Sleath56 (talk) 02:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I am ok with the removal of Water Revolution, though for anti-ELAB, I forgot that this is its common name in Cantonese, so it is difficult to find English source for it. OceanHok (talk) 03:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Its common name in Cantonese is not important for the English Wikipedia article unless English sources highlight it - keep it for the Chinese Wikipedia article. Based on the above, I will be removing both names. starship.paint (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Reuters source

Here https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/hongkong-protests-extradition-narrative/ is a great source for to expand this article. A clear WP:RS. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:12, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://news.rthk.hk/rthk/en/component/k2/1497706-20191214.htm. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. A-NEUN ⦾TALK⦾ 20:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Article name after 2019

It seems unlikely that the protests would end on or before 31 Dec 2019. The name "2019 Hong Kong protests" will be no longer appropriate. It is worth discussing for the new name. Protesters themselves commonly use "Anti-ELAB movement" (or "Anti-Extradition Law Amendment Bill movement" in full), would we consider to use this? If not, at least "2019" should be changed, either using "2019–2020 Hong Kong protests", or "Hong Kong protests (2019–present)". --Fevawo (talk) 05:26, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I'd support moving the article to 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests. I don't see the protests going past 2020 into 2021, but if it does the name can always be changed again. These protests go beyond the Anti-Extradition law, so that as a title isn't the best option. – ᕼᗩᑎᗪOTO (talk) 15:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
2019-20 Hong Kong protests might be a better option. –Wefk423 (talk) 20:56, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Not a bad suggestion, maybe Chinese government would do something not so good. Mariogoods (talk) 01:55, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
I support moving it to 2019-2020 Hong Kong protests.
If it continues to 2021, then make it a Hong Kong protests (2019-present) 1233 ( T / C） 17:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
To expand the question what sould we do about the sub articles especially ones like List of November 2019 Hong Kong protests should it be changed to List of November 2019-2020 Hong Kong Protests it List of 2019 November 2019-2020 Hong Kong protests RealFakeKim (talk) 13:08, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
嘉傑 redirected the page without following consensus that has yet to be established here. It's also important to mention that the user used a hyphen (-) instead of an en dash (–). Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 01:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
I've tagged 2019–20 Hong Kong protests for deletion pending a move there; and what consensus is going to develop here other than "its no longer 2019 move it to 2019-20"?  Nixinova   T   C   04:08, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

The links to the archived pages are missing on this talk page. The archived pages are still linked to the old page name (e.g. Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests/Archive 1). Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 10:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe all archived pages should be moved to match the article name (e.g. Talk:2019–2020 Hong Kong protests/Archive 1). Hddty. (talk) 12:31, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
I support this but there is an ongoing move request so we should wait to see the outcome before changing anything RealFakeKim (talk) 06:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 1 January 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: snow moved. El_C 16:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


2019–2020 Hong Kong protests → 2019–20 Hong Kong protests – Many other articles covering events spanning these years do not give the range's end year in full (e.g. the Australian bushfires, the Premier and Champions football leagues, the NBA and NHL seasons, and even other protests, like the ones in Lebanon and Chile). jackchango talk 23:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Support Per MOS:DATERANGE, the first two digits may be dropped for consecutive years. "2019–20" also looks better. If the "2019–20…" page didn't have the bot fixing the double redirects Idve already moved the page to that title. Nixinova   T   C 05:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Support The name change didn’t have a proper vote and this is a more appropriate title. RealFakeKim (talk) 06:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Actually 19-20, 2019-20, 2019-2020 are the same thing. It purely "cosmetic" to have a concise title. And it just a more bureaucratic process since i doubt anyone would support to keep the original title 2019 Hong Kong protests. Matthew hk (talk) 12:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Request for revert possible vandalism of the page

@Matthew hk and OceanHok: Someone has changed the name into 2019–2020 Hong Kong Civil War among other questionable edits. Mariogoods (talk) 09:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mariogoods:  Already done OhKayeSierra (talk) 10:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Borrowed time". No. Hong Kong in Revolt - China's unruly periphery. The Economist. 23/11/19. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2019–2020_Hong_Kong_protests/Archive_11&oldid=934808992"