Talk:2011 Chinese pro-democracy protests/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

WP:BATTLEGROUND

As someone with a genuine and deep respect for China and the Chinese people, and for their extraordinary achievements in recent decades, I am depressed at the childish and highly aggressive battleground attitude being exhibited by some editors of this article. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Tags

When POV and OR tags are added, the editor in question needs to raise the problems on the talk page. The IP editor hasn't done this, and I would encourage him to clearly and specifically raise concerns here.

Furthermore, what is the purpose of adding in these small pieces of detail like reporters' names? People can check the details by following the links. There is a lot to discuss here and only so much space before the article gets too big to be easy to read. Therefore it's best to keep things simple. That said there might be some useful information there. Perhaps the IP user can propose some additions and then we can discuss how useful they would be. That should avoid any further reversions. John Smith's (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

IP 66.214.168.122 has been warned for edit warring Pol430 talk to me 21:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I have removed a short thread from the talk page that was copied here by the IP from Pol430's talk page to prove a point. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 00:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

VOA video file

User Zlqq2144's removal of VOA video file without discussion on talkpage is an unfair action. Currently there are 6 jpeg files, but the VOA video file carries much more information then the six jpeg files combined. Editors are welcome to discuss on talkpage to reach consensus. Arilang ^talk 06:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if it violates any rules, im new here. However, isn't it added without discussion? Or does that not need discussion? Also, it is relevent, but not of the greatest importance. So why not put it somewhere below (instead of under the title) or better, as a link to youtube or something.Zlqq2144 (talk) 06:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Zlqq. The VOA video file is from commons, under US GOV Public Domain license, and VOA is a reliable source, you really need a good reason to remove it. Unlike the File:0001.png added by you, unless you can provide a license, and a source, or a OTRS ticket from the creator, it will be deleted by admin. Arilang ^talk 06:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

>VOA
>reliable source
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I see your point. I am not doubting the source of the video, just the importance of it. It was placed directly underneath the introduction, making it a very important part of the article. However, the content of the video is focused on the government's reaction to the protest, which is of course relevent, but of great importance? I doubt it. Also, I am looking for the source of the image (which is a screenshot of a video) and will try to get the correct version up asap. Zlqq2144 (talk) 07:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I have provided a license, and a source to the image.Zlqq2144 (talk) 07:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

VOA is not a reliable source; it is official propaganda from the U.S. federal government, hence why it falls under the free use U.S. government license. Also, it is mostly a newscast in Chinese. What is mostly inaccessible to readers is interrupted for a few seconds by coverage that while par for the course for VOA, is undue for Wikipedia; the filming and dramatization of a single arrest paints an extremely misleading picture of the really picayune nature of the gathering. Not only is the video inappropriate, but so are most of the recent inflationary/promotional pictures of individual dissidents. Quigley (talk) 07:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes that's my opinion as well, though I don't know if it is assumed true or do you need RS to prove it so I didn't mention it in my comment. Zlqq2144 (talk) 07:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Read the whole Voice of America article. It's not exactly a secret. Quigley (talk) 07:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Good, now I have another reason to delete the VOA file.Zlqq2144 (talk) 07:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Does this trash actually belong on Wikipedia? Newscasts are not encyclopedic, and use here is WP:ADVOCACY, WP:PROMOTION, amongst others. Just because it is free doesn't mean that it is encyclopedic. Just because something is free doesn't mean it belongs on Commons. There is plenty of free rubbish on the internet; some sites even offer Creative Commons licensed pornography - yay, let's fill Wikimedia Commons up! Not. Commons is not intended as unlimited server space; only files that are useful belong there. Also, may I ask, why are we putting a video of a news report within an encyclopedia article? The video belongs neither in this article, nor on Commons. Burn it with fire. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Zlqq2144 (talk) 08:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:20110221 美国之音新闻 中国低调报道茉莉花抗议活动.ogg is where the party's at, I guess. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

VOA ogg file

The deletion of the VOA file is unjustifiable, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#VOA and US Army Signal Corps video. Arilang ^talk 06:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Am I misreading or something? The discussion there is about two files you uploaded, one being this one, the other being WW2 files. One comment was Always on the context of how they are being used. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk | contribs) 04:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC) which means it depends and needs further discussion where they are used. The other one commented on the WW2 files, pointing out that they are historical documents. This one is a news report. Zlqq2144 (talk) 07:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Invitation on voting on deletion of video file

Please help to vote /w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:20110221_美国之音新闻_中国低调报道 茉莉花抗议活动.ogg&action=edit&section=1 here "keep" or "delete" on the issue of the video news coverage of the protests by Voice of America. Zhangjiandong (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

：：Benlisquare, please have a look:[1]

Certainly VOA represents the view of the U.S. and is biased, but in that sense, all of the mainstream media in the U.S. have the same bias. Since it's been posted on the VOA Channel in YouTube, I believe we generally view such videos from mainstream media as being reliable sources. TimidGuy (talk) 11:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Arilang ^talk 05:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

But the question is whether inclusion of a video file on the Wikipedia project is encyclopedic. If you take a look at my original argument at the FfD, my main concern was not POV or reliability, but rather the file's inclusion being pointless. If Fox News was public domain, would we have video clips of Fox News reports on every single politics-related page? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Given that the audio is in Chinese and most of the readers are not bilingual, this video file being the live recording of the actual events both in Beijing and Shanghai, it will certainly enhance reader's understanding of this so called "revolution". Arilang ^talk 23:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Nigga that's like the seventh time you've brushed my question away with something irrelevant. You'd make a great spokesperson for the Foreign Ministry of Israel. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Fabrication

There seem to be a number of insidious fabrications which I myself can't keep up with, including at least one CNN article which appears to have been re-edited by CNN staff to help make the intended citation become suddenly "inaccurate". I know CNN can be extremely unfair, but this is too evil!

From the so called "Jasmine revolution in China article":

ORIGINAL SECTION (PARA 3) ON "ASSAULTS ON FOREIGN JOURNALISTS IN BEIJING" A policeman hit a camera out of CNN producer Jo Kent's hand and six policemen physically forced Kent and CNN reporter Eunice Yoon to a bank branch. They released the journalists after half an hour. An ATV cameraman, reporter and TVB cameraman were allowed to leave Wangfujing shopping street after questioning. ATV news reported that their clips showing the rally site were deleted by officers.

SAME SECTION (PARAGRAPH 3) AFTER I ADDED MORE ACTUAL DETAILS: On February 28, CNN Beijing correspondent Eunice Yoon, Jo Ling Kent and crew headed out to Wangfujing to cover the "response to anonymous calls on the Internet to stage protests and begin a Tunisia-style "Jasmine Revolution" in China". A policeman hit a camera out of CNN producer Jo Kent's hand and six policemen physically forced Kent and CNN reporter Eunice Yoon to a bank branch. They released the journalists after half an hour. Eunice Yoon reported after the incident that "What makes China's treatment of the international press so bewildering is that there had been no protests for us to cover here..... My own experience and those of my colleagues show how incredibly terrified and paranoid the Chinese authorities are". An ATV cameraman, reporter and TVB cameraman were allowed to leave Wangfujing shopping street after questioning. ATV news reported that their clips showing the rally site were deleted by officers.

ON MARCH 7TH, I edited the following into Jon Huntsman Jr. page: On February 5, 2011, The Associated Press reported that Jon Huntsman was the target of China's internet policing in the wake of the 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests, and stated that he was captured on a video that showed him "scanning a crowd at the site of a tiny protest in Beijing", where he was then confronted by an unidentified man who asked him "do you want to see chaos in China?", after which Jon Huntsman was then observed leaving the scene with apparent bodyguards.

AFTERWARDS ON MARCH 9TH, user @ 76.65.22.178 deletes it leaving only the following slant:

In February 2011 Huntsman's name was blocked from web searches by China's internet policing measures. Huntsman's name joins "Tunisia," "Egypt" and "jasmine" as blocked terms. Since the Chinese government is trying to avoid a Jasmine Revolution in China and demonstrations are not allowed, Chinese activists call for 'strolling' instead. Huntsman was spotted on Sunday February 20, when he strolled privately with his family, coincidentally at a protest venue in Beijing among 200 Chinese strollers. This Sunday walk became known as 'The Huntsman Walk', an expression first used by the 'New Yorker'.

The following edited into the "Jasmine Revolution" article (and then the newer and separate "Jasmine revolution in China" article, removed?), to which I've added failed verification tag: An elderly female demonstrator in Shanghai stated: "Our country has no proper legal system, it's a one-party dictatorship, a tyranny, that suppresses the citizens. There is also land eviction. Many people are beaten to death in many land eviction cases." (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Editor seems to be trying to make a point, but I can't quite make out what that point is. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I had to read this several times to understand what the editor took issue with, but still think I've missed some things. They rejected some edits to the paragraph dealing with Huntsman's appearance, and either this editor or another evidently took steps to revert this section to a version they preferred. I have no objections there. They also noted that they observed a problematic reference in the Jasmine Revolution article, and added a failed verification tag. I checked the reference, and the material cited does appear there—not in the article's body, but in the video. It loaded slowly for me, which may be why the editor did not initially notice it. I will remove the tag.

Besides that, it seems the editor just summarized their edits, which seem uncontroversial to me (aside from the liberal use of italics). I'm not sure what "fabrications" they were referring to, though. Homunculus (duihua) 03:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

March 13 Contradiction?

13 March There were several hundred police in the Wangfujing and Xidan districts in Beijing, including uniformed police with dogs, paramilitary police, plain-clothes police, special forces units and security guards.[37] More than 40 police were present at the Peace Cinema in Shanghai.[37] According to the Agence France-Presse (AFP), "there was no massive police presence [at Wangfujing] as seen on previous Sundays."[27]

- Contradiction?... i am not sure how to proceed here... can someone actually find a proper source that gives the right information? 173.230.178.111 (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not a direct contradiction, it depends on whether "hundreds" is "massive" or not. DPA gave more details, while the quote from AFP does not say that there were no police at all, just that the presence was not "massive" at Wangfujing (saying nothing about Xidan and Shanghai). In any case, i've WP:NPOV'd this into one paragraph. If you can find more reliable sources, please add them and their notable information content if it's new/different. Boud (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Times Square, the US, and WP:UNDUE

Wow. 20 people. That's smaller than the anime club at the University of San Francisco, and that's not even something. Don't you think the article is giving a little bit too much WP:UNDUE weight here? 20 people, in the way I look at it, is a negligible quantity of people. I mean, simply for this reason, there's an excuse to add the United States flag to the infobox - but is this necessary at all? What tells that this wasn't just some after-school thing organised by a few kids disgruntled with the CCP? Back in middle school I've done the same thing with a much larger group in front of the Japan Embassy in Canberra, and this was back in 2005. Is this Times Square thing even notable at all? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Yea, the League of Social Democrats routinely has 15 people ready to come out and demonstrate at whatever anti-government cause there is in Hong Kong; the 20-person demonstration in the centre of New York really needs to be put into some sort of global context. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The crowd at Hong kong and Taipei is not much better than those at Times Square, the USA flag should be treated as an equal to any other flags. Arilang ^talk 09:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Er, yes. The League of Social Democrats would have had a higher headline participation rate if they had been astute enough to ask for sympathetic "strolls" in Causeway Bay next to the semi-permanent Falun Gong demonstration outside Sogo, instead of marching to the Central Liaison Office ;-) --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Still, the removal of the Shannxi University reference by OCF is a bit premature, what about this link:http://sankei.jp.msn.com/world/news/110321/chn11032114080001-n1.htm, the crowd is 500 strong. Arilang ^talk 08:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Removal was more out of sourcing and verifiability concerns. Epoch Times is a Falun Gong newspaper whose declared mission is the downfall of the Communist Party. It routinely publishes stories that are either unverified or unverifiable, and is only 'reliable' where it reports on the position of the FLG. I see there report that Apple Daily has reported it too. That's not a huge improvement. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Apology to OCF for my immature protest against his decision to remove the Shannxi University reference, which looks increasingly more like a piece of ill manufactured fake news. Arilang ^talk 01:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

No worries, mate. You did mean "premature", I assume ;-) --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Requesting semi-protection tag

Since this article has become a battleground for editors who are into editing warring and POV pushing, a {{::Edit semi-protected}} tag would solve a lot of headaches, as well as save a lot of precious time for everyone. Arilang ^talk 02:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Wait until there actually are disruptive IP edits. Currently there are none. "Preemptive strike" is not a reason for protection, as WP:PILLAR encourages that all people are allowed to edit. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The currently blocked IP editor was being disruptive. Let's see how he behaves when he comes off the block, or whether anyone takes over for him. John Smith's (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Pro - I vote for a semi-protected tag even though this suggestion might not have been intended to vote on. There has been so many important things removed in this article and now it reads like a real mess with repititions, broken structure etc. Let us also think of the readers! Waikiki lwt (talk) 09:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Protection is based on whether there is any persistent edit warring or vandalism. I have never seen this being decided on by vote. There is no action here suggesting protection/semi-protection is necessary. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

China / Taiwan naming conventions

Just noticed reversions to the article over the naming convention employed to refer to Taiwan and Mainland China. WP:NC-CHN#Political NPOV suggests that in instances where one is trying to differentiate Taiwan from the mainland, that "Republic of China (Taiwan)" and "People's Republic of China" be used in lieu of the more ambiguous "China" and "Taiwan." For the section dealing specifically with Taiwan, I suggest that we change the title to "Republic of China (Taiwan)", refer to Taiwan was RoC, and use PRC to refer to Mainland China. Is there agreement here, or does this require further discussion? Homunculus (duihua) 19:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I would say that this is unnecessary. We're talking about protests happening in Taiwan the island. This is not a discussion of Taiwanese politics or State to State relations. In circumstances like this it's much preferable to refer to "Taiwan" because everyone knows what it means. "RoC(Taiwan)" is a compromise to help identify Taiwan whilst referring to the formal title that it goes by.

Also the editor that originally wanted to make the change has left a message on my talk page to say he's happy keeping things as they are, though he might be interested in discussing it further. John Smith's (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright, good to know it's resolved (at least for now). Homunculus (duihua) 20:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

New suggestion

Rather than open another new move request, I wanted to put the idea forward informally. How about "2011 Chinese protest movement" or "2011 Chinese protest campaign"? It keeps the word "protest", which is important because that's what everything was about, whilst also suggests that this was a campaign/movement to get protests happening and perhaps the protests themselves weren't the most important thing.

Thoughts? John Smith's (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

"Campaign" in China is used only for government incited movements. "Movement" fits better to this civil protests. It also makes clear that the protests are not so important, but that a civil society is developing. However, I would prefer "Jasmine Revolution in China", like suggested in an earlier discussion. This corresponds also to the Chinese and Japanese article. Waikiki lwt (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

"Jasmine Revolution", while being the common name of this movement, can be misleading as a title. At least to me, the word "revolution" implies that something much bigger than a "protest", or even an outright overthrow of the current regime, is going on. In reality, this event is (as far as I, an ordinary man in PRC, know) nothing close to a "revolution" - it has not even gained nationwide attention. In fact I knew absolutely nothing of it before I saw it on WP today - it is not like I don't read news... Blodance the Seeker 03:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, I concur that "campaign" is used mostly for official movements. Blodance the Seeker 03:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• AFAIK, organisations such as Amnesty International launch campaigns... I though the Chinese democracy movement was behind this one. What's the difference? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

When used in the context of PRC... "campaign" does sound like some sort of govt-sponsored movement to me. Of course it's just my POV, but i thought that if a less-loaded term is available... Blodance the Seeker 03:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The word is completely neutral and independent of organisations, IMHO. There are all sorts of campaigns... Commercial organisations have 'advertising campaigns', too ;-). --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand, but an otherwise neutral term/object could be associated with someone through the extensive use of it, such as lots of slogans. If there really isn't any strong reason (which I can't find) on using the term "campaign", why don't we settle on another one such as "movement"? :P Blodance the Seeker 04:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• To be frank, I'm unenthused by either suggestion. However, if it is to be a choice between two, I would plump for 'campaign'. 'Movement' has the connotation of flow of masses, and this has clearly not been demonstrated; OTOH, anyone can mount a campaign, even an individual so long as organising, or attempt at orchestrating is demonstrated. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Same. I'd go with the current title. But there has been a lot of move requests in here. So if it has to be moved... Blodance the Seeker 06:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I feel that the problem with '2011 Chinese protests' is exactly the same as using the word "movement". What protests there have been were completely un-notable probably for reasons of pre-emptive suppression; the calls and the official reactions have been much more noteworthy, so I would stick to '2011 calls for Chinese protests', although I would not oppose '2011 Chinese protest campaign' among the options presented so far. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 10:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The actual actions taken by the protesters(or protesters-to-be for that matters) may not be WP:notable, yes. If you are expecting a single word on this from any Chinese press, you are seriously underestimating the power of govt censorship. And I'd say they would do their best to prevent foreign press from getting any info. (Yeah, I know I'm ranting, sorry.) The current sources are generally about calls for protest. However, can't we count "calls for protest" as a kind of protest? Verbal protest is also "protest". Considering there are actual actions taken, the title as it is might be more accurate than "calls for protest". Blodance the Seeker 13:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• "can't we count "calls for protest" as a kind of protest? " Sorry, I just don't see it that way. It's no more than a rallying cry.--Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
• Echoing Ohconfucius. "Calls for protest" is not "protest". One suggests for something to happen, the other denotes that something actually occurred. Similarly, "conspiracy to rape" is not "rape", "plan to invade" is not "invade", and "speculate to become bankrupt" is not "to become bankrupt". -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 15:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

That's not what i meant - i meant "calls for protest" could constitute verbal protest, as in saying "no". Blodance the Seeker 16:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll give you the benefit of doubt because English is not your first language. Otherwise. I would have said you were playing with words. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd admit I did play with the word a bit. However, we are talking in the context of a country where expressing dissident voice could get yourself thrown into jail. Taking this into consideration, the calls to protest/demonstrate, although probably no more than a rallying call, could be the way of protesting by those who lack the determination to openly oppose the regime. This was what I wanted to express by "verbal protest". Blodance the Seeker 08:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

But that still doesn't make them actual protests, as a call for protest has the intention of instigating protest, and isn't a protest in itself until a protest has actually been successfully formed as a result of the call. Plus, many of the calls come from outside China, so I don't see how dissident opinion in China fits in with this. If you're sitting outside China, you can pretty much say whatever you want and expect no consequences - the people calling for protest know this quite well, as do Chinese authorities. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Ai Weiwei

Should it be noted that Ai Weiwei was recently arrested. It clearly was political. [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.60.230.254 (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added it. Waikiki lwt (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

It may have been political because he often critisizes the government, but he was not involved in the 2011 chinese protests —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.200.252 (talk) 12:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

He was apparently arrested after posting something in support of the Jasmine Revolution on his microblog, so yes, his arrest is related to the protests. Blodance the Seeker 13:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Twitter link(Chinese). Translation: "Although I don't care about the 'Jasmine' at first, those who fear the 'Jasmine' keeps telling me how bad the 'Jasmine' is. Thus i realized the 'Jasmine' is the utmost fear in their mind. What a nice 'Jasmine'!" Blodance the Seeker 13:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Reporting errors

Some dangers of using archive images... see here. Check out the permalinks leading to the live article (for verification purposes) --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

2011 Trucker strike

Hello, Can you please add in information about the trucker strike. 2011_Shanghai_Truckers_Strike James Michael DuPont (talk) 04:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested moves

Move proposal 1 -- to 2011 Chinese Jasmine gatherings

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

---

2011 Chinese protests → 2011 Chinese Jasmine gatherings — The numbers of protestors estimated by foreign journalists for the first 3 Sundays have been small, but the numbers of foreign journalists gathering have been significant and the numbers of police gathering (and beating and arresting journalists and "strollers" suspected of casually walking in a politically provocative fashion) have been even more significant. The proposed new name (from discussion on the talk page) is intended to be a non-judgmental descriptive title, where "Jasmine" is the name used by protest organisers and media (and apparently one senior PRC official). If the proposal is accepted, the lead would need to disambiguate in explaining that the article is not about the literal gathering of a flower. The "J" is capitalised since it refers to the Western media's usage of the proper noun "Jasmine Revolution" regarding the Sidi Bouzid Revolt#Naming. Boud (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Also note previous discussion of this issue in the sections above. I support a move in general since the current title is both vague and a bit inaccurate and the use of "Jasmine" in the title. Oppose the use of "revolution". —  AjaxSmack  04:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Semi-support - the proposed title is definitely better than the current title, which is highly inappropriate, since it doesn't cover notable 2011 protests in China, only those from the "Tunisia wave". 65.93.14.50 (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support - The Jasmine gathering name is ok. It has the Jasmine word. And doesn't emphasize the protest part. Benjwong (talk) 04:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - "Gatherings" is a meaningless description of what happened. An uninformed reader might think this was about a flower expo. Moreover, I have heard no description of this as a "Chinese Jasmine gathering". We need to go by how these events are described in the English language world, not how individuals here think it should be described. Even if the protests weren't successful in that a lot of people got together to shout slogans, protesting was the point of what happened. I do wonder if some people deliberately want to underplay the protesting nature. John Smith's (talk) 08:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose CNN, Reuters, ABC, CBS, indeed all the mainstream media call this event(or non-event) as "revolution", or "protest", or "moment". No one ever call it "Gatherings". Why would editors want to say something is Blue, when mainstream media reporters say it is Red? Arilang ^talk 08:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • If mainstream media says that grass is red, does that make grass red? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment{{quote|Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. WP:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight

Benlisquare, editors are here to add "viewpoints...in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." This "gathering" viewpoint is not "significant", I am afraid. Arilang ^talk 23:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but neutrality would include describing an event with the proper name. It is clear that the word 'revolution' was a gross exaggeration, but the word 'protests', although not a million miles away, is still an overstatement because nobody has been able to demonstrate that there have been notable demonstrations. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the media use a variety of terms to describe these events, and they often point out that there have been no major protests and certainly no revolution. In other cases, the media refers to "protests" or a "Jasmine revolution". When the terms and descriptions used in the sources are inconsistent or contradictory, we have no choice but to attempt our own description.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 01:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Conditional support of name change being necessary, and the proposed name seems reasonable. An alternative name might be 2011 Chinese unprotests ;-) --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
• Conditional support for a name change to something more realistic, as long as it is within reasonable boundaries. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. I support a renaming, and was prepared to reluctantly agree to this proposal. That was before I read John Smith's flower expo comment, and now I cannot get the delightful imagery out of my head. I agree that we should adopt a naming convention employed by published, reliable sources. Unfortunately, the most common term found in the sources is of a "jasmine revolution," and this is no revolution. "Jasmine protests" also turns up with great frequency in the english-language media reports, though it often appears in the context of "calls for" protest, rather than referring to the protests (unprotests?) themselves. There does not seem to be an elegant solution here, but "2011 Chinese Jasmine Protests" may be the closest we will come, partly because it is the most likely term to be searched for, short of "revolution." Articles titles cannot always bear the burden of explaining the precise nature of an event or topic, and in this case, we may need to let the article do most of the explaining.Homunculus (duihua) 05:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support. (i'm the proposer.) Several of the arguments above relate to different parts of Wikipedia:Article titles: see the sections
  • Wikipedia:NAME#Common_names
  • Wikipedia:NAME#Non-neutral_but_common_names
  • Wikipedia:NAME#Non-judgmental_descriptive_titles
  • Wikipedia:NAME#Precision_and_disambiguation
  • "Jasmine gatherings" is clearly not the common name, even though "Jasmine protests" or "Jasmine revolution" are common among Western mainstream media, so the "Jasmine" part of this is common
  • "protests" to some degree could be considered OR or POV, since not all sources agree that these were protests (though i agree with John Smith that protests do not necessarily mean carrying banners and shouting slogans)
  • As i say in the proposal, the proposed new name falls under the Non-judgmental_descriptive_titles principle. "Gatherings" is not widely used, but that's not a counterargument. The question is whether or not this is a neutral and NPOV description of what the topic consists of.
  • John brought up the ambiguity problem: the reader might first think that the article is about Chinese gathering jasmine flowers in 2011. However, "Be precise, but only as precise as necessary." As stated in the proposal, the proposal is 2011 Chinese Jasmine gatherings, not 2011 Chinese jasmine gatherings. In scripts with the lower/upper case distinction, such as latin script, the difference between Jasmine and jasmine can be quite important (but varies between Different Languages or author styles...). This should alert the reader that the topic is not about gathering flowers.
• i don't know if anyone will change his/her position following my explanation here. If we fail to get obvious consensus for the present proposal, then someone can make a new proposal (my guess is we should try for 2011 Chinese Jasmine protests, with big J and small p), or else we just stick with this title for a month or so and then a new name might become obvious. Boud (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Definitely an improvement over the current title. I agree with Boud.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I hear quack, quack. Those gatherings were intended as a sign of protest, end of story. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose.
  • These protests have far more forms than just "gatherings": Strolling, ordering menu no. 3 and jasmine tea etc.
  • These are protests, no gatherings, see the infobox at the top right corner.
  • All the other language editions of this article have either "Jasmine-Revolution in China" or "2011 Chinese Protests" as a title. Why should the English version become a gathering? There are far more important gatherings in China. But if it comes to protests, these are simply the most important protests since 1989. Waikiki lwt (talk) 09:10, 9 April 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move proposal 2 -- to 2011 Chinese crackdown

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

---

2011 Chinese protests → 2011 Chinese crackdown on dissidents Proposing to move this article from 2011 Chinese protests to 2011 Chinese crackdown on dissidents (or 2011 Chinese crackdown on activists and journalists or just 2011 Chinese crackdown on activists/2011 Chinese crackdown on dissidents). The major news story is China's horrendous crackdown and detainment of human rights activists and foreign journalists, not the actual protest. The crackdown was a result of calls for protest, but the protest itself was a non-event, as supported by numerous sources and the content of this Wikipedia article. The title should make this clear.--hkr (talk) 01:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

"Chinese crackdown" is also being used by mainstream media outlets to refer to this event.--hkr (talk) 01:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Who are "Chinese" and who are they cracking down on - nuts? Again, a meaningless title. If there was consensus that this was acceptable, I would prefer "Chinese protest crackdowns". There was more than one crackdown and it was done regarding people trying to protest. I should also point out that the previous move proposal has not been closed yet. John Smith's (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, "2011 Chinese protests" is just as vague, for the same reasons. Who among the Chinese are protesting and what are they protesting for? And "2011 Chinese crackdown on dissidents" is another option, one that's more specific. Also, the other move proposal is to another title, and one that most users are opposed to (I know it hasn't "officially closed", but the consensus is against it).--hkr (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose -New proposed name would only add more confusion, in the sense that Chinese communist regime had been "cracking down" on dissidents since 1949, and if this name gets the OK sign, we could have titles like 2010 Crack down, 2009 Crack down, 2008 Crack down, so on and so forth. Arilang ^talk 23:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

But the same applies to "2011 Chinese protests". Chinese protests occur in the PRC every year, regardless of how much the PRC ruthlessly tries to suppress it. 2011 Chinese protests can refer to any of these protests, not just the (attempted) one that this article is dealing with. The PRC does send its goons to beat up/jail human rights activists and journalists every year, but the current title needs to be more specific.--hkr (talk) 14:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Nice try, but this presents the same problem as the current title. Just as "2011 Chinese protests" should rightly describe all major protests of 2011, "2011 Chinese crackdown on dissident" would have to describe all crackdowns on dissidents in the calendar year, which extend well beyond the scope of this particular crackdown. We don't want to head in that direction.Homunculus (duihua) 02:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. I agree that the PRC regime is intolerant of any expressions of dissent, and routinely rounds up dissidents in a pre-emptive or precautionary manner. There may be many during the course in one year. We already have coverage in most cases where dissidents are cracked down upon because they are closely related to notable events, such as 20th anniversary of Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, 2008 Summer Olympics or 2010 Nobel Peace Prize, and I feel such an approach is sufficient. This crackdown is a knee-jerk reaction from a paranoid bunch of old men to the 'call for protests', thus needs to be related to it. I think there is general consensus that we seem to be talking around the protests as if they were real (as opposed to hypothetical, based on the government reaction). It also seems there are few notable protests in this round, and would therefore suggest perhaps '2011 calls for pro-democracy protests in China'. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  • "2011 calls for pro-democracy protests in China" just might work! It's better than the current title.--hkr (talk) 14:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose.
  • Not the crackdown is important, but the protests. Since the protesters are so difficult to grasp, the crackdown so far is not successfully.
  • All the other language editions of this article have either "Jasmine-Revolution in China" or "2011 Chinese Protests" as a title. Why should the English version become a gathering? There are far more important crackdowns in China. But if it comes to protests, these are simply the most sweeping and profound protests since 1989. Waikiki lwt (talk) 09:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: then we should rename the article on the June 4th Incident to include the word "crackdown". --HXL's Roundtable and Record 23:52, 15 April 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move proposal 3 -- to 2011 calls for pro-democracy protests in China

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

---

2011 Chinese protests → 2011 calls for pro-democracy protests in China
Per Ohconfucius. This title is more specific than "2011 Chinese crackdown on dissidents" or "2011 Chinese protests". Protests and crackdowns on dissidents happen every year in the PRC, but "calls for pro-democracy protests" are much rarer. We need to make it clear that this was a call for pro-democracy reforms, and not just one of the more frequent protests over property rights or local corruption. This is more preferable than the "Jasmine"-related titles, since the title makes it clear that the online calls are about democracy, and not the flower (although the use of Jasmine Revolution is widespread in the media, neither the Tunisian Revolution or 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests articles include it in the title).--hkr (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support, as stated above. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support, as the current title is descriptive [there is no universal name for the events]; the proposed title just does it better. Quigley (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Overly complicated and "calls" is far too vague. John Smith's (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. So far the main theme is Jasmine, a name that comes up in nearly every reference. The next name that comes up persistently is "revolution", be it underground, phantom, shadowy, call it whatever you may. Looking at the rapid and all powerful responses of the regime, my conclusion is that the Chinese government is engaging in a psychological warfare against an invisible enemy. Give it a few more weeks, maybe a real revolution is around the corner. Arilang ^talk 23:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd like to use the word "Jasmine", but the Tunisian Revolution article isn't even titled the Jasmine Revolution. "Pro-democracy" is better than just "Jasmine", and it makes it clear that this is about democratic reforms, not the flower. And "maybe a real revolution is around the corner" is WP:CRYSTALBALL-y, so there's no way we can include that in the title. If it does become a real revolution, we should change the title, yet before that happens, we need something more specific than "2011 Chinese protests" (which could refer to anything!). But, you do agree that the current title is too vague?--hkr (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I could agree to leave it a few weeks, but my prediction isn't so cataclysmic as Arilang. I believe the regime has succeeded in merely buying time.. Using a cooking analogy: the flames are being turned up by this movement, but the safety valve on this pressure cooker is still effective but working harder. The temperature needs to rise by a lot, and very fast for the pot to explode. We are more likely to see the challenge from the 'invisible enemy' fizzle out than gain momentum this time around – it's more likely to happen with a political trigger unforeseen by the regime, or perhaps when North Korea or Myanmar collapses. But I digress... because it's all just ball-gazing. As to the title proposal, it's no more "vague" than the calls themselves, made anonymously through the diffuse online media (Boxun and Twitter etc). Inserting 'Boxun' or 'Boxin.com' into the name might make it less vague, although I see that as being largely unnecessary for the title when '2011 calls for pro-democracy protests in China' is adequately descriptive. The consensus away from "Jasmine revolution" was already demonstrated when the article was at AfD. Anyhoo, I find '2011 calls for pro-democracy Jasmine revolutionary protests in China' [sic] to be a real mouthful. ;-) --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion "2011 calls for China underground Jasmine uprising ", or "2011 calls for China Jasmine uprising (underground)" See 地下教會 地下教會:Translation:Underground Church.

Arilang ^talk 03:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment On response to user OCF's comment:"We are more likely to see the challenge from the 'invisible enemy' fizzle out than gain momentum this time around ", if the enemies prefer to remain invisible and nameless, and the online revolutionary call comes every week, I seriously doubt the regime's ability to catch anyone of the phantom warriors. The reality is, Chinese police manpower operate in the real world, and every police operation costs $, whereas phantom warriors just need to punch some keyboards from nowhere, without setting foot on neither KFC nor Big Mac. Who is going to win at the end? "Elementary, Mr.Watson." Arilang ^talk 06:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• Both you and I are speculating here, which is why I drew a line under my digression. This discussion is off-topic, as it does nothing to improve the article. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose.
  • Not the calls are important, but the protests. Every protest in history has been called for by some kind of opinion leaders, might it be sophisticated exile intellectuals or the leaders among the angry mob. So that the protests have been preceded by calls is logical, but not important.
  • The proposed new title is misleading: It looks like there were only calls, but no protests. Why do you have to arrest 25 people and supervise 200 other, if there is no protest? We have video coverage of participants protesting and telling the cameras what they protest for. Dear friends proposing this, you might have the power to rewrite history in the PRC, but not in Wikipedia.
  • All the other language editions of this article have either "Jasmine-Revolution in China" or "2011 Chinese Protests" as a title. Why should the English version become "calls"? Waikiki lwt (talk) 09:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: per John Smith's. Overly complicated. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 23:52, 15 April 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move Proposal 4

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

---

• 2011 calls for China Jasmine uprising(underground)
• 2011 calls for Chinese Jasmine protests
• 2011 calls for Chinese Jasmine Revolution

Any comments? Arilang ^talk 08:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Would you consider amending your proposal to "2011 calls for Chinese Jasmine protests"? "Protests" has been used more frequently in connection to this event than "uprising." Moreover, It's unclear why the "underground" qualifier is necessary. I'm not even really sure what it means in this context. Boxun is not underground...Homunculus (duihua) 03:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

That would be the current title with the word "Jasmine" added. You should just add it now. Is trivial. It shouldn't need a vote. Benjwong (talk) 04:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

"calls for protests" and "protests" are in two entirely different realms. No one have ever witness any real protest yet, and there might not be any real protest to be seen for another X number of weeks, still, the weekly "calls" keep on coming, and the weekly police responses are highly visible. Arilang ^talk 05:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I am fine with calls for protests. There are too few voters however. Benjwong (talk) 06:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

'calls for protests' is acceptable to me too. I'm not so keen on the Jasmine, because it really applies to the Tunisian Revolution, but the name is still more apt and descriptive than the current. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

As long as the word jasmine is mentioned somewhere in the article, it should be ok. The reason why I wanted to not plainly call it "Chinese protest" is simply because the name can be confused with other "Chinese protest". Benjwong (talk)

So, do we have consensus for changing the title to "call for pro-democracy protests"? Although they haven't !voted, Benjwong and Homunculus look to be in favour. I'm not against the idea of mentioning Jasmine in the title, but pro-democracy is much more specific than Jasmine, especially if reader isn't aware of the Tunisian Revolution.--hkr (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

If "Jasmine" is being excluded from the title, and nearly every reference carries the word "Jasmine", then the article would suffer violation of WP:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight. Arilang ^talk 00:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose.
  • Just keep the title as it is. Remember the long nfd discussion and we did not find a good solution, but protests are better than calls. Of course following offical sources there are some 80,000 other protests each year in China, so the title is not more than ambiguous. The matter would be best addressed with "2011 Chinese Jasmine Protests", but our special Chinese friends participating in this discussion have the order to avoid the word "Jasmine" and they are the only ones working on this article night and day using different alias.
  • All the other language editions of this article have either "Jasmine-Revolution in China" or "2011 Chinese Protests" as a title. Why should the English version be 'calls'? Have the calls not been heard? Has there been no protest? Waikiki lwt (talk) 09:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
• General comment. Move proposals 1-4 are all awkward circumlocutions, and the current "2011 Chinese protests" violates at least four of the five WP:TITLE principal criteria. Some titular variation of "Jasmine Revolution" or "Jasmine" seems essential. Sixteen of the current article's 66 References have "Jasmine Revolution" titles and seven others have "Jasmine". Phrasal searching Google News finds 133 "Chinese Jasmine Revolution", 33 "Jasmine Revolution in China", and 0 "2011 Chinese protests". Keahapana (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move proposal 5 -- to Chinese Jasmine Revolution

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Consensus against move. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 3:30pm • 05:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

---

2011 Chinese protests → Chinese Jasmine Revolution — Please vote with keep current article title or change article title to "Chinese Jasmine Revolution". Please mention your arguments shortly. When everybody had time to vote and non-consensus or a majority is visible, an administrator should apply the change or close the vote.. Waikiki lwt (talk) 02:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

strong change

• All sources in the article refer to the movement, call for protests, protests, and reactions as "Jasmine" or "Jasmine Revolution".
• The organisers on boxun.com have coined the name "Chinese Jasmine Revolution".
• In Google you find millions of hits for "Jasmine Revolution" and "China", but none for "2011 Chinese protests".
• Following offical statistics of the PRC, there are about 80,000 protests in China every year. This article reports only on the Jasmine protests, not on the 79,999 other protests in China. The current title is misleading.
• Many protest forms refer to Jasmine: Ordering Jasmine tea, calling oneself a "jasmine tea drinker", holding up Jasmine flowers, playing the song "A wonderful Jasmine".
• The Chinese and Japanese versions of this article use "Chinese Jasmine revolution".
• Terms like "Jasmine" are blocked in China. Should we WP editors follow this blocking policy and avoid an article name with "Jasmine"? Waikiki lwt (talk) 02:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I really think we should just settle and pick a name. This event has received too much coverage considering little has happened. Meanwhile the 2011 Shanghai riot was a real event with not enough coverage. Benjwong (talk) 02:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed, but not this one. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose please refer to here, the above and above discussion. There is no revolution, and the proposers have not demonstrated that it is an issue of WP:COMMONNAME. It would be a gross mistake to name it so per WP:NPOV. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose like Fist of the North Star, per the reasons I and other editors have repeated over and over again ad nauseum above. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Replies to your points: >The organisers on boxun.com have coined the name "Chinese Jasmine Revolution".
    Isaac Newton originally called Calculus "fluxions", but it isn't called "fluxions" now, is it? In the old days, the term "faggot" was actually used in medical dictionaries to denote that someone was homosexual, back then then considered a mental disorder. I don't see your point.
    >In Google you find millions of hits for "Jasmine Revolution" and "China", but none for "2011 Chinese protests".
    WP:GOOGLETEST might have a word with you.
    >This article reports only on the Jasmine protests, not on the 79,999 other protests in China. The current title is misleading.
    And the name "revolution" isn't misleading? Nice Tu quoque you got there, you've been told time and time again on the problems behind "revolution" yet you've chosen to ignore them.
    >The Chinese and Japanese versions of this article use "Chinese Jasmine revolution".
    Different Wikipedia projects are different Wikipedia projects, with different contibutor bases, different policies and are different altogether. The Chinese Wikipedia claims that "Chen Zhen", a novel character, was a real person (Looks like they've changed that some time ago), and the Japanese Wikipedia claims that Manchukuo was not a puppet state, but a state created under the ideology of national self-determination. If you're trying to argue that other Wikipedias are more balanced than EN Wiki, I suggest reading more. The Japanese Wikipedia frequently implies within articles that the Central Tibetan Administration is the legitimate government of Tibet and that they represent and speak for all Tibetans (one of many examples at Humanitarian response to the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami); should we follow suit in that as well? The Japanese Wikipedia is notorius for its non-world-view and ja:WP:JPOV, is frequented by editors with an anti-PRC anti-Korean bias and many of its users are 2channel residents; whilst the Chinese Wikipedia has an undue population representation: Editors are predominantly from Hong Kong, Taiwan and the Overseas community (a perfect cesspool for FLG derpatry) since Mainland Chinese prefer to use domestically-owned sites such as Baidu Baike and Hudong.
    >Terms like "Jasmine" are blocked in China. Should we WP editors follow this blocking policy and avoid an article name with "Jasmine"?
    If you're going for the Argumentum ad Hitlerum, I suggest leaving this discussion immediately, it's what underage kids learn to stop doing when they are twelve. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• • Suggestion The new name should be:Calls for Chinese Jasmine Revolution, the fact is, there is neither visible "protest" nor "Revolution" yet, even though there might be some hint of unverifiable underground protest, but the "calls for revolution" and the regime's overreaction is all we know, so far. Arilang ^talk 08:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• strong change We should stop avoiding to use the original title. I support the renaming in "Chinese Jasmine Revolution". The "calls" should be one section, as well as "protests", "reactions" etc. Who thinks of "calls" as being more important, or "reactions" is personal opinion. The movement itself must have an article and that is simply "Chinese Jasmine Revolution". A call for the revolution does not justify an article. A call followed by visible or invisible protests, and by very visible reactions justifies an article not on the calls, but on the movement. Zhangjiandong (talk) 08:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • User:Zhangjiandong has been confirmed to be a WP:SOCKPUPPET of User:Waikiki lwt, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zhangjiandong. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Cool story comrade, you've practically ignored 80% of the talk page right there, have a good read and you'll realise that all of your points have already been answered. I'm not going to bother copypasting text for you and serve it on a silver platter. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• User Zhangjiandong should stop being over-enthusiastic about this invisible "Revolution", which is unverifiable, non-existence, and in my humble opinion, give it a few more weeks, everything would just fade away, like smoke. The bottom line is, there is no "Revolution" now, and there ain't no "Revolution" in the near future anyway. So, why bother give it a name, when there is going to be nothing there? Arilang ^talk 09:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: WP:CANVASSing has been attempted by User:Waikiki lwt, refer to Special:Contributions/Waikiki lwt. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

No, dude, I have just invited people who contribute in the field of contemporary Chinese politics and criticism to vote in order to reach consensus. Sorry I did not invite you and OhConfucius, that was only because you two had already voted. Waikiki lwt (talk) 11:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

>80% of "Invitations" are to users who have expressed anti-CCP sentiments in the past
>oh noes sorry I was only inviting everyone lol
Are you playing dumb, or are you expecting me to be dumb? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Waikiki, there remains a very strong suspicion that you may have cherry-picked those editors who would be more inclined to support you, as you invited less than one-third of the number of editors who have contributed to the article. What is further unfortunate for you is that, perhaps inadvertently, you entitled the thread "Vote for renaming article to 'Chinese Jasmine Revolution'", à la "Vote Labour", but uninvolved admins may well look at it in the backdrop of your edit warring and make a presumption against you. ;-) --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 11:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a new user and apologize if I'm inadvertently violating Wikipedia rules. Thanks for taking time to help me learn... Waikiki lwt (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• strong change As the protesters, the media were using 'Jasmine' word. The government also blocked, censored word 'jasmine' so it would be appropriate to use such name which includes 'Jasmine'. Maheshkumaryadav (talk) 09:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• I have already stated above that the overwhelming number of source articles cagily refer to "Jasmine Revolution" and put the term in quotes. I therefore believe such usages of 'Chinese Jasmine Revolution' strongly suggest use is figurative and not "common" or "widespread". --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 17:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear OhConfucius, I think you should not comment on everybody. Let other people have their own view and express it here. Waikiki lwt (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - there was no revolution as such and the scale of the protests was insignificant.

Olegwiki (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Current name seems better, although I'd be open for an alt name that would include the word Jasmine. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. To address the worst of the avalanche of fallacies that the proposer has submitted, not naming an article after a blocked search term does not mean that Wikipedia is buckling in to state censorship. Most contributors to this article can agree that the current title is not the best, but consensus has not yet congealed for a single better alternative. "Jasmine Revolution" is pushing a name that hasn't caught on (and no common name has caught on for that matter); descriptive titles are the custom on Wikipedia in cases like these. Quigley (talk) 23:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm pretty sure we already voted on this...but let's not jump the gun. --haha169 (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• Change as per WP:TITLE Recognizability and Naturalness. IQinn (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
• Strong support of change. Yes, in terms of WP:TITLE, besides Recognizability and Naturalness, this ambiguous 2011 Chinese protests fails the basic criteria of Precision and Consistency. If we don't use the most common names "Chinese Jasmine Revolution" or "Jasmine Revolution in China", then at least another title with "Jasmine Revolution". (Note the post-Marxist irony of parallel titles like 2011 Chinese Grand Prix, 2011 Chinese Super League, 2011 Chinese FA Cup, and 2011 Chinese Figure Skating Championships.) Why doesn't 2011 Chinese protests include the inexplicably missing 2011 Shanghai riot and 2011 Yunnan protest articles? The recent disputed forking of China's 2011 crackdown on dissidents suggests another possible solution. We could fork the "Jasmine Revolution" content into a new appropriately titled page, and keep the current one as an overview with sections wikilinking all relevant pages. Keahapana (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose there's no revolution, so the proposed name is useless. "2011 Chinese Jasmine political protests" would be better. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 05:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose This is not enough to count as a revolution. Benjwong (talk) 15:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose a change to 2011 Chinese "Jasmine Revolution" might be possible, but not without the scare quotes - the difference is huge; however, putting quotes in a title makes it more difficult in links to Wikipedia etc (html escaping needed etc); and having a title with scare quotes makes it sound like we can't think up a more accurate name. The present title 2011 Chinese protests is descriptive under WP:NAME. Boud (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - as per above oppose reasons. The current title is neutral and all POVS covered. Changing it will give way to instable name titles and invite pov pushers. --Visik (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment the current title is not neutral. This article does not cover Chinese protests of 2011, only those connected with the Jasmine ones in the Middle East. There are other Chinese protests of 2011, so the current title is biased and misleading. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 03:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I believe most people already agree to that, which is why there have been a number of name change proposals. Replacing a problematic (in this case ambiguous) name with another, only to have to change it again, is tiresome nonsense we don't need. Let's just put this one to bed and break down the discussion into acceptability of the various words in the title, much like what happened at 2008 Beijing Drum Tower stabbings. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support Everyone in the media refers to the protests as the Jasmine revolution. Even if the term is banned in mainland China, they should be able to use their proxies to get around the great firewall. The Tienanmen protests of 1989 weren't redirected to a non-censored page; why should we perform the contrary to this? I am a violinist ♫ talk to me here! 14:46, 19 April 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move proposal 6 -- to Chinese Jasmine Revolution(failed)

I hope that this one might get through. Arilang ^talk 06:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Use of Epoch Times as a source

Re this edit, which introduced a whole paragraph about a person naming himself "Gracchus", who claims to be one of the organisers. I have always been sceptical of using Epoch Times, for it is the declared agenda of this journal to work for the downfall of the Communist Party. The article does not mention the Falun Gong, or its views, thus we should avoid citing with a Falun Gong affiliated source. We already correctly cite boxun, the dissident source (or horse's mouth) about the calls for protests and the strategy, so reliance on the Epoch Times to back up a claim from an unnamed individual – whose claims and credibility cannot be verified – seems unwise. I have so far not found any alternative source for this information, and have tagged the citation {{rs}}. I hope that a reliable alternative source can be found. However, if this is not done within a reasonable time, the entire paragraph should be removed. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Now removed. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

changes by now indeffed user

I have now reversed the POV edits of the user who was blocked for socking. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)