Talk:2014 Hong Kong protests/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Conflicts between left and right advocates

In news and newsfeed of Facebook today, there have been numerous reports on the conflicts and arguments between left and right advocates. Will that be good enough for us to add a new section on this matter? --Life is lifelong revolution. 13:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Umbrevolution (talk • contribs)

The only article I can find about facebook is from the 29th Sept. [1]. There has certainly been a lot of coverage about CY Leung's daughter using her Facebook account to show off her expensive jewellery etc ("Yes - funded by all you HK taxpayers!!"), and mock the unemployed (& protesters in general) - and then threaten to sue anyone who mentions it. If there is any new media coverage of HK facebook, that should be enough for a paragraph or two. zzz (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I've tried to build in some commentary to the effect in the Effects_on_Hong_Kong_society section. CY's daughter is a red herring. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 06:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not what Umbrevolution probably. He is referring to conflicts between those who support the Federation, and those who oppose them. --1.36.209.129 (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Crimes Against Humanity

You know that trying to remove a well-established editor from your well-orchestrated vandalism is a crime. 'You' will be stated here to address two or three editors in particular below that have 1k+ edits per account towards this article alone.

Signedzzz (talk · contribs) / zzz, who has a sockpuppet 223.16.147.12, and Underbar_dk (talk · contribs), who are presumably students involved in the protests, are systematically trying to introduce false content such as "the movement has become fully autonomous", "People of Hong Kong" as the protestors implying that every person in Hong Kong was in support of the protests, and "Triads" attacking protestors, when Triads have not existed in Hong Kong since the 90s. They have violated the revert requirement, and have used it well over thirty times in the period of 24 hours on October 4, to no effect.

Citobun (talk · contribs), who has a sockpuppet 208.103.235.34, on the other hand who takes a role of that of a mentor, and is an experienced editor on Wikipedia, has ulterior motives towards his conduct on Wikipedia, and has instructed editors on how to change the content these articles without alerting the audience towards the false content, how to file arbitration cases, and so forth.

The organization section was originally written to a high degree of sympathy towards the protestors, while maintaining neutrality. However, when you included "a high degree of organization, politeness, tidiness, and staunch adherence to nonviolence" in which no American will believe, as everyone knows from the pictures and documentaries that the protestors are sweaty, dirty, constantly littering and have not taken a shower in weeks, I included information relevant instead towards the article, such as the efforts of the Red Cross donors to help those in need, the efforts of those involved to maintain the neutrality of the protests by removing vandalism. but those edits were removed, as your double standards allow you to remove whatever these 2 - 3 editors involved and do not allow anyone else to challenge their POV.

Anyone who opposes you is considered an enemy, and you do not allow any room for anyone other than those with religious fervor and label others as vandals when it is you who is vandalizing. Unfortunately, other editors are not stupid, and those involved in Gnoming work have restored the article to its former status, even without my presence. Yet, you persist in their folly in rewriting the article towards the battle between Good vs. evil.

You are misleading Americans and anyone involved in the protests, and you are aware of what you are doing. this is very serious, and can hold consequences towards the movement in general, one in which I am not involved in.

Here are a list of Wikipedia violations you have made:

• Wholesale blanking of sections or anything, even genuinely sourced information, as opposed to blatant errors or honest mistakes
• Removal of properly sourced information and stating in the comments section that it was unsourced.
• Injection of bullshit into the article. Some examples would include: "The protesters... media coverage about their high degree of organisation, politeness, tidiness, and staunch adherence to nonviolence." and that "Triads" attacked the protestors, you may as well cite the KKK, which actually exists here in the South.
• Describing the movement as "spontaneous movement of the masses" on bold headings.
• Labeling the movement as autonomous. Being autonomous would imply that the movement has already reached a critical mass. There are at least two logical fallacies that would imply as a result, that would mean that the movement has become violent, and second, it means it has spiraled out of control.
• Writing that the entire City of Hong Kong as "People of Hong Kong" supported the protests, which is not the case. Most corporations are opposed to the protests.
• Use of multiple sockpuppet accounts and meatpuppet allies to achieve their means.
• Using warped Admins to further your cause.
• Stating that I am vandalizing. Good one. "In a room black Cats, one of the Cats declared that it was whiter than the others." Conversely, here is an example of my version of the article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_Hong_Kong_protests&diff=628209049&oldid=628143309

Dark Liberty (talk) 02:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

While I don't believe in as such a large conspiracy, I definitely believe there is sock puppetry going on, but not necessarily by one person. There are many protesters, as you said, they could just be a group of students. I want to assume good faith, but UmbreRevolution has been really pushing it. There's just so many signs that a duck is a duck. That aside, I have nothing against dk or zzz, unless it is shown they are using sockpuppets. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, this section title is inappropriate. Some of the language in this post seems really...weird and awkward, not what I would have considered to be written by someone in the US.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 08:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Dark Liberty - what do you mean by "Triads have not existed in Hong Kong since the 90s"? Of course they do. Are you not familiar with Hong Kong? Among thousands of obvious references, try this from SCMP: Triads infiltrated camps of Occupy supporters and detractors, say police. Onanoff (talk) 10:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah! I see that Dark Liberty has been blocked. Good - all his other contributions were partisan and ad hominem attacks. Sadly, no doubt he'll be back wearing a different hat. Onanoff (talk) 11:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Timeline of the 2014 Hong Kong protests

• Support split - The 2014 Hong Kong protests article is over 100 kB, and a new article entitled Timeline of the 2014 Hong Kong protests should be formed from the "Chronology" section, which unfortunately, is likely to grow larger over time (we may also wish to create an article entitled Reactions to the 2014 Hong Kong protests). Thoughts? Additionally, since this talk page is getting long, I set up archiving. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose split – Propose conversion of chronology to prose, per WP:PROSELINE. RGloucester — ☎ 04:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose There seems to be a misunderstanding here about how desirable page size is determined. The current article, as measured by prose size is 40kB. There is no need to split it at this point in time. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 14:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Per reasons stated above. Would cause confusion. Not remotely a long article. zzz (talk) 15:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Lead, first paragraph

this para also seems like it badly needs redoing for NPOV etc. Pref not by me. thanks.zzz (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like that's been sorted. zzz (talk) 15:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Christian Influence

Per wp:BRD, I'd like further discussion of the proposed addition:

Many of the participants and leaders of the protests are avowed Christians. One of their motivations is distrust of the treatment the Chinese government has given to Christians in China. Joshua Wong for example, is an Evangelical Christian who has cited his faith as a motivation for his leadership. Frank Langfitt, “A Surprising Tie That Binds Hong Kong's Protest Leaders: Faith”, NPR, 9 October 2014. In terms of denominations, the Methodist Church of Hong Kong has been openly supportive of the protesters. The Anglican Church has encouraged members to stay out of the protests.Jack Jenkins, “Why Christians Are Helping Lead Hong Kong's Pro-Democracy Movement”, Think Progress, 12 October 2014Ned Levin, “Hong Kong Democracy Protests Carry a Christian Mission for Some”, Wall Street Journal, 3 October 2014

The issues raised in the revert were “Wong not mentioned in ref. blog not RS. WSJ article insufficient for section or claims made eg "most participants" etc. WP:UNDUE)”

Regarding “Wong not mentioned in ref.”, that's in the thinkprogress ref. Regarding “blog not RS”, the source is a WP:NEWSBLOG published by NPR. Regarding “WSJ article insufficient for section or claims made eg "most participants"”, the language reads “many participants”, not “most participants”. See thinkprogress for support for “many”.

Regarding WP:UNDUE, I think that's a good issue and appreciate others' views on it.--Nowa (talk) 10:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it is notable, but IMHO the section could be expanded and renamed to "Religious Influence" so as to incorporate other religious influences, as seen by the Taoist deities in some of the protests, for example. Lasersharp (talk) 11:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Here's a reference for Kwan Tai. Any others?--Nowa (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

1 2 3 4. Lasersharp (talk) 10:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

These are helpful. Thanks for doing the research. #1 & #2 appear to be repostings of an original AP article. It might be best to find and cite the original. #3 also appears to be a reposting of perhaps a different AP article. Also worth finding the original. #4, the Democracy Lab article, we might want to leave out. The final quote by the author makes it clear it's an opinion piece with the author taking a clear position "I earnestly hope that they can achieve their goals and live to tell the tale." That kind of destroys it for me as being a reliable source for this particular subject.--Nowa (talk) 12:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

5 6 7 These are just from quick google searches, but can't find the original AP sites for #1-#3 yet. Lasersharp (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

These are all excellent. Good find!--Nowa (talk) 17:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• The objections raised are completely accurate (ThinkProgress is a blog, ie not an acceptable ref.)
• For some obscure reason, it seems to be almost standard practise, in a WP:BLP, to mention the subject's religion or lack thereof. Mention, not write a section about. But this isn't a BLP.
• A valid contribution would be a section on the Sino-British Joint Declaration, Hong Kong Basic Law and the decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. zzz (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Is your concern that we should not be drawing attention to a particular leader's personal religious beliefs?--Nowa (talk) 17:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Doing so would, for example, amount to making an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim as to its relevance, which would then in turn raise issues of WP:OR. Also, nb. point #3, above. zzz (talk) 22:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Suppose we left specific names out and simply referred to the leaders in general (supported of course by proper sources)--Nowa (talk) 23:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• I think we are reading too much into it. There has been discussion within churches, but churches are utterly divided by the issue, just like the rest of HK society. There is dispute as well over whether schools within churches' control ought to adopt tolerant attitudes or not towards school boycotters. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 14:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you think we are going beyond what the references say? or do you think that the references themselves are reading too much into it?--Nowa (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

See bullet points, above. zzz (talk) 16:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

By the way, a couple of good references on division within the churches would be very helpful.--Nowa (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikinews

Just a quick reminder to everyone of our sister project wikinews, some of us are finding our edits being removed (even when sourced) as crystal balling, or as ephemeral actions and comments by individuals that will have no long term historical significance with regards to this event. This is right and proper as this is an encyclopaedia, however such ephemera fits the definition of news, and if you are interested in such material please visit the Wikinews:Newsroom, the schedule is tight, articles have to be ready within two days of an event happening to be published, and the house style with regard to presentation differs from wikipedia, but if you know how to edit here you can edit there. No soap boxing in article space, but if you can get an article published, POV opinions are allowed on the commentary pages.--KTo288 (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Sign Translation

"Poster for the 'Umbrella Revolution' with slogans including "The Hong Kong Federation of Students cannot represent me" and "Do not believe the leftards, beware of dispersal tactics".

Can someone confirm that translation? Is there actually a Cantonese direct equivalent of "leftard"? 2601:9:6700:A51:81CD:DDAE:529B:B857 (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

In fact a direct translation does not exist, but this is what most protesters agree as seen from online forum/Facebook --203.145.79.57 (talk) 04:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The word is contraction of "左" (left) and "膠" (glue, plastic, but colloquially retard). If you speak Chinese (I guess you don't if you're asking for confirmation) there's a more in-depth explanation here. Eniagrom (talk) 10:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Please do not delete entire sections

The chinese dissent section was restored. Please discuss here before wiping out any more sections. Benjwong (talk) 04:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Revolution News! reliable?

Revolution News! is being used as a source. Is there any evidence that it meets wp:rs?--Nowa (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Have noticed a sprinkling of information throughout alleging US is funding the protests. The sources cited—Revolution News as you mentioned, and Zero Hedge as another example—aren't looking great, though. Doesn't look like these posts are fact-checked or run by editors, and they're basically just cross-linking / quoting each other. Writer "George Washington" in that cited Zero Hedge post concludes, "It's not beyond the realm of possibility that the U.S. egged on democracy protesters in Hong Kong," and while yes, it's not impossible, these posts seem to amount to little other than conspiracy theory at this point. Haven't found other more reliable sources speaking to the allegations on US funding, so if anyone does, please share. Karolle (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• There's a source from a canadian research website about something like this iirc, also RT of course says this. Though RT isn't always reliable. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 18:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• The White House has already released a press statement implying their support for Occupy, so that anti-Occupy forces would not be able to cite the funding against the United States. Dark Liberty (talk) 19:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Closer to home, Wikipedia have some useful information on the number of Color Revolts that have taken place recently. Also, information is out there concerning neo-con plans for undermining counties that have since been involved in Color Revolts. While not hard evidence - does it not point to US training and funding of the protests in question?

92.16.158.81 (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-14pU0naooII/VCpiN5XHYGI/AAAAAAAAJ9U/hGTMqhqNLSQ/s1600/nancy-carl-demaward2.png

Movement's Over. Go home. Dark Liberty (talk) 10:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

US media coverage of the Hong Kong protests. Honest? Reliable?

80.41.63.109 (talk) 14:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Disingenuous comment

Just a respond to this edit where User dk said I was "disingenuous" about the 2 HK journalists being forced to quit. My response is this. If you want to accept the story that the journalist contracts are expiring and don't want to renew, fine. Or that netizens are speaking out for them, write it off as rumour, fine. But the fact is, station staff wants to show signs that they support OC after people were rumoured to be getting fired. That is fact.

My advice, do some research on director Yuen who has a history of leaning toward pro-beijing whenever there is a need to. ATV has already been bought out by Communist-party-friendly organizations. TVB could be next (assuming it hasn't already been partially bought out). Also look around, there are other media chiefs leaving at other news organisations. Benjwong (talk) 02:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Your disingenuousness is where you claim to have referenced from a source but your addition is nowhere to be found in the source you provided (Apple Daily). It doesn't matter what I or you believe to have happened; if you misrepresent a source here on Wikipedia, that is disingenuous. _dk (talk) 09:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the nature of the situation. I can see with my own eyes, the 2 journalists have been replaced by other staff on their usual broadcasts. As far as I am concerned, they were fired. If you are waiting for a source that use very exact languages such as communist party bribed corporate management in companies to get rid of democratic employees. That is impossible. Benjwong (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:OR, please also watch your WP:POV. _dk (talk) 19:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Trade Unions

Here's an article in Time about the role of certain trade unions in the protests.--Nowa (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

HKCTU is from pan-democracy camp. On Day 18 from SCMP: "The coalition, made up of 10 unions and transport workers’ groups, had warned... they would clear the roads themselves if the occupiers refused to remove the barricades." Some of the unions were:

• Construction Industry Employees General Union
• China-Hong Kong Freight Association
• Hong Kong Motor Transport Workers General Union
• Hong Kong Tramway Workers Union

STSC (talk) 20:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you find a reference to support your position?--Nowa (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

You don't just revert if a ref is requested, use tagging. STSC (talk) 01:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

For minor issues I would agree, but your edits were placing a particular group on a particular side of the conflict. That really does need support of a reference before it goes in. For example, this reference supports the statement that the Hong Kong Tramway Workers Union have "called for an end to the agitation" since it is costing them wages.--Nowa (talk) 02:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

International Reactions

This section could usefully be reduced to "Countries around the world, apart from Russia, supported the protesters' right to protest". These "international reactions" sections never seem to amount to anything more than an opportunity to display a selection of national flags, followed by repetetive, near-identical statements, as though it were obligatory for Wikipedia to record these (it isn't). Taiwan and the US are (marginally) significant; the UK less so. The others are surely of no interest whatsoever. zzz (talk) 04:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I propose deleting statements by Canada, France, Italy, Vietnam, etc zzz (talk) 04:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Agree. It's mostly empty rhetoric. The only comments that really matter are UK, US, Taiwan, and perhaps Germany. But even the Germany and US stuff can probably be trimmed. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 08:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Agree with this edit to remove unnecessary diplomatic languages such as "expression of concern" and "hope for stability and peace". The whole "Individuals" section should be deleted. --Jabo-er (talk) 01:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Please discuss any deletions

Very large sections were deleted. Please discuss here. Thanks. Benjwong (talk) 04:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• The deletions and copyediting was made to reflect proper due weight of the items within the body of the text. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedic article and not any sort of soapbox for pro- or anti- occupiers or their proxies. Sources used also need to reflect this, meaning we need to prune over-reliance on Apple Daily too. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
• Instead of blindly reverting all my changes, please elaborate on what bits do you object to being removed, Ben? -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

There is 1 (at most 2) HK local sources that would even dare present these domestic views. It's not my fault that most media shy away from materials that would get them in trouble. I use what I can find. Unfortunately there are not too many options other than apple daily. To pursue balanced weight is to use apple daily in this regard. How else can you pinpoint the views of local media? The entire local media should be left as is because there is no second option. Benjwong (talk) 04:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it is undue, and appears to be coatracking. Wait til it gets wider coverage, so it can be covered in a balanced way. Particularly with a Chinese language source: there has to be consensus. zzz (talk) 04:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Undue weight applies to "views". These are not even views. These are actual events that happened to TVB (a majority station), SCMP (a majority english channel) and Apple daily (the only true voice left for pro-democracy groups). I don't know how much more mainstream you can get. Is about as encyclopedic as it gets. The only way to get more encyclopedic is putting it in a timeline. Benjwong (talk) 04:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Seems like Ben ise objecting to removal of the criticisms of and about the TVB "voiceover" story. This is but one small part of the entire protest, and doesn't warrant all that text and could have been said with a much lower word-count. BTW, I'm not saying that TVB isn't biased, but that I just object to what seems to be a hatchet job against the TVB. What is more, I copyedited it without substantially changing how the story was told. Chapman To's little episode is celeb trivia, and isn't worth mentioning. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Also while you think Chapman To's info is trivia, it is not. He is well known enough that when he was forced to remove ribbons, it is indicating something wrong is going on. This guy is in 4 out of 10 commercials on TVB. Yet some management people don't trust him with a ribbon. Benjwong (talk) 04:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The news coverage of the TV station has been criticised, showing the channel to be pro-Beijing. This is all covered in the article. So the criticism of the TV show from the same TV station adds nothing to the article. zzz (talk) 05:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I see where you come from. Except there are only X number of shows that deal with current events. This was supposed to be one of them. Afterall this is not the US where there are 1000 channels. When one show in HK ignore occupy central, that one show counts toward a pretty big percentage of airtime. Benjwong (talk) 05:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I am restoring that info on SCMP. It's wonderful that they cover the protest for English readers. But the relevance is clear. Pro-democracy students were being denied because this channel is at least partially has pro-communist party sponsors. Violation of WP:Coatrack would be if this newspaper was completely not in HK, totally irrelevant and the info was stuffed into the article randomly. That is not the case here. This newspaper source is at the heart of a critical event. Its response to both camps positive or negative is relevant to the protest, not WP:Coatrack. Benjwong (talk) 04:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

My point was, that it was not absolutely clear that SCMP was being criticised for being pro-Beijing. This should be explicitly stated and referenced.zzz (talk) 05:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The article said the turning down of the kids was politics motivated. Let me add that. Trust me I am not trying to give you a hard time. If international sites are willing to deal with these domestic issues, I would equally use those sources. Benjwong (talk) 05:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Obviously western media will not cover all important local issues. zzz (talk) 05:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I definitely find these claims against SCMP very interesting. It has always seemed to me that SCMP has played a clever game of "showing both sides to the story" when, in fact, they only use this as a means to introduce pro-Beijing arguments and viewpoints in a way that seems more reasonable. zzz (talk) 05:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I think SCMP staff are doing their best to give you fair coverage. If they are forced to lean very pro-Beijing on some issue, is for survival reasons. No doubt I will still use SCMP as a source here. Benjwong (talk) 06:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• What has unfolded isn't really a notable story either as most papers have different rates for different advertising. It's a very minor story in among this whole affair, what's more, most of it is based on hearsay from Andrew Chan. The paper hasn't responded, AFAICT.

  I also removed the paragraph about Chapman To. It was an act of political grandstanding pure and simple. He submitted to an unrelated interview (about a film he appears in) and decides to express opinion about Occupy with the ribbon and was told to take off. Then he rants off about censorship and not being able to express himself. Not very professional, IMHO. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 06:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I left out the Chapman To part. But I restored the rest for a couple reasons. This entire occupy central event was largely driven by kids. In this protest they are the main feature. To ignore the things they went through is a seriously wrong way to document this event. They put themselves at risk to promote a cause. You don't have to agree with the cause, but you have to acknowledge the kid's experience at SCMP was an actual event. Same with the TVB staff secretly wearing yellow clothes. These are low-key events that carry a lot of meaning. Benjwong (talk) 03:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

What happened? you reinstated it all the same. It's political grandstanding on To's part – he whipped up a controversy over nothing when he should have been talking about the film he's in. But it's actually a storm in a teacup. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 08:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

If SCMP "lean very pro-Beijing" then clearly they are not "doing their best to give you fair coverage" - by definition. They should only be used as a last resort. zzz (talk) 06:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• I still maintain we ought to minimise our reliance on Apple for the reasons already given. Ming Pao appears to be coming up the best in this far in its reporting. The spirit of Kevin Lau and those before him lives on. Some but not all foreign reports/reporters are extremely incisive in their coverage and commentary, probably because the journalists have cultivated good level of confidential contacts. Elsewhere, there is far too much CPC propaganda masquerading as "Western opinion". -- Ohc ^¡digame! 07:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually Apple daily should be used more especially in articles related to democracy topics. It has become the star paper coming out of this protest. Some guy went and spent like $7000 on apple daily to pass the paper out freely cause they speak a grassroot voice. Benjwong (talk) 03:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Ben, you seem to be giving far more importance to events than is actually warranted. I fail to see how the advertisement is a big deal, as it's well known that the papers charge different rates for different category of advertising. In addition, no other more reliable sources have reported this and I'm forced to consider that this is not notable. Just because you feel Apple is the beacon for the pro-democracy movement doesn't mean everything they carry is worthy of note. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 08:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I have restored the section about the $14,000 and the local media responses. Please discuss before deleting. Benjwong (talk) 13:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

• It wasn't deleted, but moved to the chronology section. Now it's duplicated. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 13:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Wow you call that duplicated? The edit was reduced to nothing. Benjwong (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Manufactured news

The 26 October section (now deleted) contained a statement by CY Leung that was, especially by his standards, eminently reasonable and sane, pointing out that the sports/religious sector is not economically important. This is, I believe, a manufactured "news" story, designed to drown out his very recent disastrous outbursts. Such non-stories reported only in the local press need to be carefully scrutinised. This one, in any case, is very obvious, and entirely non-notable - unless and until a foreign journalist draws the same conclusion as me, and reports on it, that is. Then it will be notable, for an unintended reason. zzz (talk) 15:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Retitling

As I noticed that the Chinese version of this protest has been formally renamed as Umbrella Revolution, shall this be also applied in the English version?--1.36.209.129 (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

No, decisions taken on other language versions of Wikipedia don't affect us. You can open a move request if you like. _dk (talk) 17:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

As I did before, I would support any proposal to move to either "Umbrella Movement" or "Umbrella Revolution", as determined by reliable sources. RGloucester — ☎ 18:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I have but eventually the request was deleted, could anyone please suggest what code I will need to add? thanks. --1.36.209.129 (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

New York Times article about China's involvement behind the scenes

• http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/18/world/asia/china-is-directing-response-to-hong-kong-protests.html?smid=tw-share

This article might have important information that we can add into the article. _dk (talk) 15:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Paywall. zzz (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I took a look and it basically says that many experts speculate that China is controlling how the Hong Kong government responds to the crisis.--Nowa (talk) 23:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Number of arrests as of 27 October

332 people had been arrested as of 27 October (link). I don't know where to put this piece of information. I added it to a new section under "Chronology", but my edit was reverted.

I didn't put the number of arrests in the infobox because not all arrests were made to the activists (even though the majority of them were). Some of the offences mentioned in the above article, such as "furiour driving"(link) and "allowing objects to fall from height"(link), likely refer to offences done towards activists, not by activists. Therefore some of the offences should be counted under anti-occupy groups, but the breakdown isn't available.

It would be great if savvier editors could add the number of arrests to the info box. Chansiuon (talk) 02:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the infobox can either group all arrests and injuries on both sides or separate them into two columns. So if we're putting te 332 figure into the infobox, we should get the total number of injuries on both sides, because there is no way to separate the injuries on the two sides while grouping the arrests together. _dk (talk) 11:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's what I think: group the arrests together, and leave out the injuries (since we don't have an updated figure for that anyway). zzz (talk)

Nowa

Section is undue, makes extraordinary claims with unreliable sources, has no place in article about political protests. RS make no mention of religion whatsoever, in 1000's of articles. Oh, wait - one WSJ article. Do not pretend you have consensus. Do not put your section in article. zzz (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's my edit summary, in case you have forgotten: WP:UNDUE, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:EXCEPTIONAL, WP:NOTRS, WP:FRINGE zzz (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

IMHO, there is no rush to add the religious section, and Nowa's section needs better NPOV. However, I think there is more than 1 RS that talks about the issue though, see above, including AP and PRI. Lasersharp (talk) 00:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

PRI is "a free-market think tank", part of "State Policy Network", a "U.S. national network of free-market oriented think tanks focused on individual U.S. states", "founded in 1992 by Thomas A. Roe, a South Carolina businessman and Republican Party activist". How is this a reliable source on the "influence of religion" (or anything else)? I can't see "AP" mentioned anywhere above, but I don't care anyway. I really cannot take any of this seriously. I repeat: RS overwhelmingly make no mention whatsoever of religion, since it is completely irrelevant - so neither should we. End of story.zzz (talk) 04:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I think some google searches will prove your statements dubious at best. Sure I agree maybe Nowa shouldn't have posted so quickly, but saying there are no RS talking about it is simply incorrect. WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Lasersharp (talk) 04:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Where are the results of these google searches? I repeat: so far we have one WSJ article. And repeated, disingenuous claims that blogs are RS. Which I JUST DON'T LIKE, correct - it is a complete waste of time and bandwidth. Your WP:SOAPBOXING will continue here endlessly, no doubt. Just leave it out of the main page from now on. I've finished talking about this. zzz (talk) 05:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

AP NPR PRI Huff Post I'm interested in your claims about PRI, do you have any links to back that up? It seems like you have the wrong PRI in mind. Lasersharp (talk) 06:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

So, there are are a grand total of five articles that make any mention at all of religion, out of the thousands of articles on the protests. As I said, just keep your WP:SOAPBOXING out of this article, and there won't be a problem with WP:UNDUE, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:EXCEPTIONAL, WP:NOTRS, WP:FRINGE, etc. zzz (talk) 07:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Bloomberg. Lasersharp (talk) 14:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Lasersharp: I really don't think the quality of the references is the issue. Several prominent editors of this article have a deep seated aversion to mentioning religion in an article about a political protest. Unfortunately I don't know how we can reach consensus on this issue.--Nowa (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Still, it's hard to argue with the Wall Street Journal.

Paywall, sadly. _dk (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I'm registered. It's basically consistent with Talk:2014_Hong_Kong_protests#Religious_influence_on_protests_.28redraft.29. The objection to the redraft was not enough RS. We don't have to all agree, but at some point we should be able to reach consensus that multiple RS should support inclusion in the article.--Nowa (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's another article about the churches' roles in the protests, and how some pro-establishment legislators want to investigate those links. Something to consider too. _dk (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Good find. Yes, this should be added to the content as well.--Nowa (talk) 17:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Religious influence on protests (redraft)

Here is a redraft based on the above input. Hopefully most of the issues have been addressed. Feel free to directly edit or provide feedback.--Nowa (talk) 11:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Christian and Taoist religions have played a significant role in the protests. Several of the protest organizers, such as Joshua Wong, Chu Yiu-ming and Bennie Tai are avowed Christians. Other than this, in the Mong Kok occupation area, there has also been a shrine set up to Jesus at the protest site with prayer groups and independent churches forming among the participants. At the other end of Mong Kok a Taoist shrine to Chinese folk hero and deity Guan Yu has been set up with protesters burning incense. One of the motivations of the Christian protesters is distrust of the Chinese government and its treatment of Christians in China. Nonetheless, Hong Kong churches as a whole are divided over the protests with some supporting, others neutral and still others opposing. One of the motivations for the Guan Yu shrine is that he is the patron deity for both the police and Triads. The protesters hope that the police and Triads would not want to offend him. Sylvia Hui, “Hong Kong protests see weird, wonderful scenes”, Charlotte Observer, 14 October 2014 Matthew Bell “Christian take a prominent role in Hong Kong Protests, PRI's The World, 6 October 2014 “Hong Kong democracy protests carry a Christian mission for some” The Australian Business Review, 3 October 2014 (reprint of Wall Street Journal article with easier access)“Police act on Hong Kong protests: Live Report”, Bangkok Post, 13 October 2014 Political cartoon by Kong Chi Lo showing Jesus and Guan Yu holding yellow umbrellas and walking among protesters, China Digital Times, 14 October 2014

I think its good except one thing - in your text you may bring a false impression that the Christian Church in Mong Kok are set up by Joshua Wong or Benny Tai. But in fact they are set up by the others, would that be better to revise the sentence as follows;

Several of the protest organizers, such as Joshua Wong, Chu Yiu-ming and Bennie Tai are avowed Christians. Other than this, in the Mong Kok occupation area, there has also been a shrine set up to Jesus at the protest site with prayer groups and independent churches forming among the participants. --1.36.209.129 (talk) 15:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Thanks for pointing out the possible confusion. Let's see if there is any other feedback.--Nowa (talk) 00:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Since there has been no other comment, I'll put the section in with the recommended change.--Nowa (talk) 15:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Apparently at least one other editor does not feel this section is ready for the article or that consensus has been reached. I will therefore wait for a second opinion before putting this in. If anyone has other recommended changes, feel free to comment.--Nowa (talk) 00:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

It looks like there is no consensus to add a section on "religious influence" so I added a note of "religious expression" to the section on "artistic expression" with RS.--Nowa (talk) 16:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

And I have since deleted it since it was more about religious expression and not artistic expression per se.--Nowa (talk) 23:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Not an RS, but still an interesting explanation of the Guan Yu temple.[2]--Nowa (talk) 18:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Proposal to move the content of Chronology section to Wikinews

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.

---

The Chronology section reporting the ongoing news is getting too large; I propose to move its content to Wikinews under Hong Kong as per WP:NOTNEWS. STSC (talk) 10:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, as before (see above). The section is integral to the article. zzz (talk) 10:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The Chronology has been growing bigger now since 15 October, and I don't see there will be an early end of the protests. Also the article now is taking long time to load. STSC (talk) 11:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The news has slowed to a trickle. You should contact your broadband provider. zzz (talk) 12:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a dial-up access. STSC (talk) 12:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• We should whittle down the less notable events in the chronology and start looking at ways to turn it into prose. Whether or not the section gets moved to Wikinews, the information should remain here as they are integral to the article as zzz said. _dk (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• Reply - The 2014 Hong Kong protests article is over 100 kB, and a new article entitled Timeline of the 2014 Hong Kong protests should be formed from the "Chronology" section, which unfortunately, is likely to grow larger over time (we may also wish to create an article entitled Reactions to the 2014 Hong Kong protests). This was discussed on this page earlier, but got shut down. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion (proposal) is still there. No one shut it down. No one agreed with it. zzz (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Reply - Actually, someone removed all of the {{Split}} tags from the page before one week of discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment - I tried to put a {{toolong}} tag on this page, but User:Signedzzz removed in thrice in direct violation of WP:3RR. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Create sub-article, per WP:SIZE the article exceeds the point where a sub-article should be created. Therefore, as suggested by [[[User:Jax 0677|Jax 0677]], it be best to take the chronology section and create the sub-article Timeline of the 2014 Hong Kong protests.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. at 56k readable prose, it may be a little bit on the large size, but at this stage I wouldn't like to see the article denuded or seeing integral content ejected to another article. I would be inclined to reconsider if it grows by another 50%, but probably not before that point is reached. I'd also say there may be opportunities for consolidation in the meantime. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose – as previously stated, it is integral to the article and the article is not excessively large. In the future, it could use some paring-down. Original nominator User:STSC has a longstanding history of foisting his political agenda on China-related articles, and his contributions on this and the Occupy Central article are no exception, i.e. spamming the external links sections with fringe theories regarding foreign incitement of the protests ([3], [4]) and deleting well-sourced edits (on arbitrary grounds) which contradict his political worldview. He is adept at working within the bounds of Wikipedia conventions, never pushing the envelope too far, but ultimately shows little respect for the concepts of impartiality and balance.

I am tired of seeing him undermine the impartiality Hong Kong-related articles – his edit history speaks for itself. I am tired of him enforcing his activism through blunt force reverting and frivolous, bullying use of warning templates in mine and other's talk pages. This is not a personal attack. It is solely about content and editing history. To conclude, I am skeptical about the motivations behind this proposal to move to Wikinews. In effect it is a deletion proposal, to purge from Wikipedia the bulk of this article. Citobun (talk) 02:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

While it's not entirely impossible for someone to use 'dial-up access' as claimed, it's not in itself a valid reason for this RfC. This recent edit, where he inexplicably decided that the protests are "Low importance" to Wikipedia:WikiProject China and Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics, seems to confirm these POV issues. (BTW, I removed the article tag, as editors are already aware of this discussion. Warning readers is an inappropriate use of tags). zzz (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS is the reason for moving to Wikinews, not because of "dial-up access" (in a remote village!). STSC (talk) 21:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Citobun is reminded not to personal attack and launch a hate campaign on other editors who hold different views from his. STSC (talk) 21:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

My grievances are solely about content. I'm merely pointing out that you need to review WP:ACTIVIST and WP:SOAPBOX, because the vast majority of your edits serve to push a specific political viewpoint, even through your tendency to disguise these POV edits as "c/e" or "formatting" changes. You are consistently contravening basic, established policies integral to the impartiality of the encyclopedia. No "personal attack" there. Citobun (talk) 06:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• The Chinese article is longer and more in need of cleaning up. Moving of copying content to WN and removal from this article are independent and are not mutually exclusive. Hardly anybody writes for WN and even fewer read it. Maybe nom can copy the section, when it was broken down into days' activities, but to remove the content from this article now would be inappropriate and damaging to this article. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 22:11, 4 November 2014 (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.

Add back John Ross (academic)'s reaction?

Ross made good points about Western media. Not one shred of protest by US media against HK's lack of elections during UK rule. How is John Ross (academic) not notable? Also, which portion of WP:UNDUE? --George Ho (talk) 02:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Claim to fame: "adviser to ex-mayor of London". You obviously didn't read the "Foreign media" section in the article. zzz (talk) 02:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Recently read the section. It should be added back to "International reactions". Maybe add a new subsection? Regardless of his reputation and notability, the man's POV holds water. His notability/non-notability cannot and shall not prevent his reactions from appearing in Wikipedia unless you can cite (as said before) portion of UNDUE. --George Ho (talk) 02:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, why is the NY Times portion undue? How obvious is the fact that China supports the HK government? --George Ho (talk) 02:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

If just include anyone you and every other editor happens to agree with, "Regardless of his reputation and notability", we can just throw every "portion of UNDUE" and any other policy/guideline away right now. zzz (talk) 02:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to assume your last question is rhetorical. zzz (talk) 03:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I read UNDUE, and I should say that an advisor's notability wouldn't affect him as a part of a small minority. There should be many views reflecting his views, regardless of his notability as (academic). Otherwise, his views may not reflect others'. Did you read John Ross (academic)? Off-topic, but there are some views from (non-)notable people. See Showdown (Cheers) and Sam and Diane, but they are fictional. --George Ho (talk) 03:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Well... I hope it intends to. I saw you removing some portions as undue. --George Ho (talk) 03:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not that he's an adviser, so much, it's that he's an ex-adviser to an ex-non-notable and irrelevant person - clearly extraneous, by any reasonable estimation. (And you seem to be failing to AGF). zzz (talk) 03:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Ken Livingstone is not someone irrelevant (except to you, anyways). He made significant changes to London as a mayor. I wonder if you really live in HK. By the way, according to AGF, "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (vandalism). Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism. Rather, editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice." Also, "Be careful about citing this principle too aggressively. Just as one can incorrectly judge that another is acting in bad faith, so too can one mistakenly conclude that bad faith is being assumed; exhortations to "Assume Good Faith" can themselves reflect negative assumptions about others." --George Ho (talk) 03:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh... I'm not accusing you of malice or anything. Rather I interpret your assumptions as... well, I don't know what your assumptions exactly are. Livingstone and his advisors are notable in their own ways. Notability is not temporary. --George Ho (talk) 03:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I should have phrased that differently. The ex-adviser to an ex-mayor of a foreign city is irrelevant. Livingstone himself would (possibly) merit a mention in an article about London, but certainly not his adviser. There can be no doubt about this. zzz (talk) 03:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

In where does WP:N and/or UNDUE allow removal of the ex-advisor's opinions? --George Ho (talk) 06:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't read that Ross is also a staff of Renmin University of China, which makes him more notable. --George Ho (talk) 15:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• It's utterly non-notable and undue weight. We do not need to publicise the comments of a Brit who has become a lackey of the Chinese state when we are already reporting the views of the state media and plenty of lackeys in HK and elswehere. It would I'm sure be notable if anyone in such a position expressed a contrary view, most likely for what would happen to such a person (ie that he would very soon find himself "ex-staff of Renmin University". ;-) -- Ohc ^¡digame! 16:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you tell me which portion of WP:UNDUE the passage violates? I did not realize that HK weren't given elections until the 1997 UK handover to the Chinese. --George Ho (talk) 16:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Could user Ohconfucius please also point out which Wiki policy that deals with the "notability" issue of a content? STSC (talk) 17:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Turning it around, kindly indicate why having it there is giving due weight.

Ross is entirely irrelevant in this story. The article already includes the argument he made about the lack of democracy throughout the colonial years, so it would not only be undue but repetitious. Furthermore, it is not a "foreign media" issue. He made a Weixin post, and the sources talk about the comments and discussion is within Chinese cyberspace, in among the free individuals who know nothing about democracy and little about HK's issues and the 50-cent party members when all news of HK has been censored and all pro-occupier content is ruthlessly removed.

Nah, definitely undue. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 10:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Who the hell is Patrick Ko then? Is he more notable than the well-known scholar John Ross? STSC (talk) 13:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Xi Jinping Banner in Mong Kok 20141026.jpg

To user Ohconfucius: I have assumed good faith but you have gone too far. You can just put that poster of Xi Jinping in your bedroom but not on Wikipedia. That image of mocking the leader of a country is absolutely non-NPOV. STSC (talk) 13:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• You'll have to try a lot harder than that! As I said, the banner is just one manifestation of the hottest meme in town, and its discussed in the article as being such and that fact is attested to by a source. We have a lot of irreverent images here on WP, but whether they get included is not dependent on reverence. If your logic holds, the entire article (as is the subject matter) has been deemed unacceptable to the Chinese govt, so we shouldn't allow the article to be in Wikipedia. Fortunately Chinese sensitivities don't come into anything here. ;-) Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 14:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Keep that "hottest meme" yourself; whether it's acceptable to the Chinese government is beyond the point. This Wikipedia article is describing a conflict, if there's an image that's mocking the party involved then it would compromise the neutrality of the article. STSC (talk) 15:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The photograph does not mock anyone, the poster does. The photograph is a non-judgemental piece that helps illustrate what is going on in Hong Kong, and is quite appropriate for this article. RGloucester — ☎ 18:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The photo relays the same message from the poster; it is not appropriate to be placed in the context of a conflict. STSC (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The photo doesn't relay any message. The point of the photo is to demonstrate what is going on, not to advance an agenda like the poster. Wikipedia is not censored. RGloucester — ☎ 20:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

If anyone thinks this image is important to this article, please upload a local copy and argue for its retention under fair use criteria, as it qualifies as a speedy deletion at Commons being a derivative work of a derivative work, of which the underlying copyright is unclear, I would have speedily deleted as such, but given how that might be interpreted , have put it up for DR. You're welcome to comment at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Xi Jinping Banner in Mong Kok 20141026.jpg.--KTo288 (talk) 20:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I reckon that this photo does not violate NPOV, or else all photos showing the banners in different protests can be accused as NPOV violation and have to be deleted. Many banners in HK protests mocks the Chief Executives, especially CY Leung (better known as "689") since 2012. "689" has always been drawn as a wolf, so mocking Xi Jinping in this way is not a serious matter. Whether adding the photo into the article violates NPOV or not depends on the caption. Just be careful with the wording and it should be fine. We only need to describe the photo without adding any personal opinion. We only need to state the fact that this banner is shown in Mong Kok, and what the content of that banner is. --User Tony YKS (talk), 9:25AM, 17/11/2014 (HKT)

Umbrella Square

Someone created an article for the "Umbrella Square". I'll leave it to you guys whether to incorporate it into this article or try to get it prodded/AfDed. _dk (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)