Talk:2019–2020 Hong Kong protests/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

NPOV issue

Closing per request at WP:ANRFC. There is some support for in the lead including and attributing the participation figures from both organizers and the police, but there is no consensus to do so. This is owing to the limited participation in this discussion and a suggestion that the lead should omit the participation figures from both the organizers and the police and just say there was a mass demonstration. The lead currently says, "Despite the sizeable mass demonstration on 9 June, the government proceeded with the bill." If there are still disagreements about what the lead should say, I recommend that editors create an RfC to seek input from a wider group of editors.

Cunard (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

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

---

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

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

I looked at the current references.

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

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

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

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

I don't have time to find the exact talk page discussion, but someone already stated the criticism of the figures by Columbia Journalism Review. The Economist ([3]) also stated the figure may not be true but at the same time it probably the largest ever in Hong Kong. Matthew hk (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

---

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.

The article is long. The article is current.

REMOVE BOTH THE {{Current}} AND {{Very long}} TAGS.

Closing per request at WP:ANRFC. The consensus is to remove the {{Current}} and {{Very long}} tags.

Editors noted that {{Current}} tag should be used for "less than a day; occasionally longer" and "extraordinary occasions that many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) edit an article on the same day". Editors noted that the demonstrations have happened for months and that the article generally receives fewer than 10 edits per day.

The article currently has a readable prose size of 70k according to User:Dr pda/prosesize. WP:SIZERULE says that at greater than 60kB, an article "Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)". The consensus is that the article's size is justified by the complexity and scope of this topic.

Cunard (talk) 08:56, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does anyone notice the problems with the intro parts?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Britain and the USA have an extradition treaty. Neither of them have lost autonomy as a result. What is your understanding of "one country"?--Jack Upland (talk) 06:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Assaulting civilians

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

While I don't want to deflect from the discussion here on certain critical events that stand out in the history of the protests, I suggest that the references throughout the article deserve some scrutiny. I removed two. While I don't say that these are factually wrong, they present a strong opinion next to facts, and thus may draw criticism for not maintaining neutrality. --CRau080 (talk) 13:41, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Lead

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

• The bill was introduced after a man killed his girlfriend in Taiwan and fled to Hong Kong, a territory with which Taiwan does not have an extradition treaty - Something for the 2019 Hong Kong extradition bill page, not here
• when an 18-year-old student protester was shot after striking a police officer with a metal rod - This was disputed. See [4]
• Rifts within the society widened as protesters began to assault civilians - I have explained this already. And if you don't know, counter-protesters are the first ones to "assault civilians" with the Yuen Long attacks and later the North Point attacks. Protester's violence was a reaction to it.
• throwing petrol bombs at the police - Not entirely true. It was thrown sometimes as a roadblock, so "confront the police" is better.
• further intensified the protests, with protesters setting a civilian on fire - Once again cherrypicking incidents when what I have mentioned above is already sufficient to cover everything about the violence from both sides. Why someone being set on fire should take precedence over, a) someone ears getting bitten off or b) police violating guidelines of using weapons? c) someone shooting fireworks at protesters?
• After protesters set fire to the campuses and threw petrol bombs at police, the police reacted by besieging the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK) and Hong Kong Polytechnic University (PolyU) - That's not how it started at all, they did not "set fire to campuses" before the siege, only during the siege, which was mentioned already in the pages for CUHK/PolyU conflicts already. The conflict started because they obstruct traffic nearby.
• There also exists a sizeable number of Hong Kong citizens who oppose the protests - very . How many of them are out there? What concrete evidence proves their existence? What actions they have done? Why should we care if they have done nothing but only criticizing the protesters inside their comfortable homes? Counter-protesters and the self-proclaimed "silent majority" have held several pro-police rallies shows their existence and their roles in the protests.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EXCLUDE THE UNITED STATES FLAG AS A SUPPORTER OF THE PROTESTERS. INCLUDE THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA FLAG AS A SUPPORTER OF THE AUTHORITIES.

Closing per request at WP:ANRFC. The consensus is to exclude the United States (US) flag in the infobox as a supporter of the protesters. Editors concluded that this is because Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act provides only symbolic support. Editors found that the US has not provided material support to the protesters through direct participation in the events or through logistics, financial, or personnel support.

The consensus is to include the People's Republic of China (PRC) flag in the infobox as a supporter of the authorities because the PRC has provided material support to the authorities such as moving more troops to Hong Kong and having soldiers on the streets.

Cunard (talk) 08:54, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

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

---

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

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

Survey

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

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

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

• Oppose because this misrepresents the situation. An infobox is only useful if it summarises information in the article. This conjures up a conflict between the USA and China, and that is misleading.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Support has to be rather more then "we support you", it has to be practical support.Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose There are quite a few countries that support the Hong Kong protests, should we add all of them to the list too? I think that the Reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong protests article would be better suited at educating the end-user on who supports or condemns the protests. I believe the infobox should be reserved for physical involvement. Lokii192 (talk) 02:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose We don't generally include PR statements or even immaterial aid in such context in infoboxes. If a number of American activists came to HK and were actively participating, it would be another thing, but I don't believe this is happening, is it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:23, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I see no evidence of anything other than the US saying that they support the protestors, which is basically the equivalent of saying “you’re in our prayers”. Sympathy does not count as support. I do think that you could argue for China supporting the the Hong Kong government, however. This is an issue for China, as Hong Kong is a special administrative region of the PRC. The connections between the Hong Kong government and China is sufficient to argue for China’s material involvement. Anasaitis (talk) 22:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support (only PRC flag) - The articles present formulation that shows the PRC flag is accurate, the PRC is actively involved in this conflict and this conflict exists in China after all. I do not support use of other flags, such as USA, EU, etc as I have not seen sources to say any other country supports violent protest. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose stating that you support someone is a different ballgame than actually providing support, whether it be financial or sending over physical assistance, but in this case I don't believe this would be considered support. Cook907 (talk) 20:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support (only PRC flag) There are many sources which could provide evidence that Chinese government has "military or intelligence support" in the HK affairs. Chinese government has helped HK government to mass "propagating" protesters' alleged crime, ordered military force in the border and so on. (But could we put Xi in it since he also expressed support of the counter-protests forces) Mariogoods (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose This is an internal conflict where other countries have made some noise. There have been no concrete actions taken by any other government - even the PRC has been reticent to take any direct action, preferring to leave it to local authorities. Simonm223 (talk) 13:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose symbolic lip service support. symbolic gestures that carry no weight. Lightburst (talk) 23:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support PRC flag - The New York Times says: the Hong Kong government, backed by Beijing. Therefore China is supporting the HK government. This also happened regarding the extradition bill: BBC News [5] Ms Lam's government has backed the bill, which is also supported by China. starship.paint (talk) 02:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support (PRC flag only)—Reasons above. Ifly6 (talk) 00:55, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose until or unless financial, personnel, or material support is documented in RS coming from other countries. In the absence of this, mere statements of support do not typically elevate an actor to co-belligerency. Also oppose PRC flag. Chetsford (talk) 04:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support PRC flag: The protest is anti-China, and with Simon Cheng's case, Telegram DDOS attacks, fundraising for counter-protesters, and PLA "volunteering" to help clear the bricks, China is offering (slightly) more than just "symbolic" support. OceanHok (talk) 16:02, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support PRC flag only – RSes are in agreement that: (1) the HK gov't is backed by China, (2) China has moved additional troos to HK, and (3) there are literally Chinese soldiers on HK's streets (albeit unarmed for now). We are not giving our readers the full and accurate truth as reported by RSes if we don't tell the reader that HK's gov't and China's gov't are on one side of this dispute, with protestors on the other. – Levivich 17:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support PRC flag Per reliable sources. Comatmebro (talk) 04:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose As much as I know, (I think) we cannot call every kind of support as an actual support, since supporting in such issues needs much more supporting (financially, military, …), otherwise a simple sort of support by speech or … might be considered solely as a kind of sympathy or other similar matters, not a serious/pragmatic/effective support -- in the mentioned internal conflict. In the meanwhile, if for instance, we decide to regard such low level of support (of the U.S.A.) in the matter, therefore I assume we ought to add many other countries probable support for it, as well. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 09:06, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support PRC flag: It makes sense! I can not accept the opposition's opinion. Personasiran (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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.