Open main menu

Talk:2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests


RfC:Change titleEdit

I am prepared to change the section title Censorship into Censorship and propaganda. However, "propaganda" may be suggestive because it is often used as derogatory term which may discredit Chinese media’s every report are totally propagation. The reason why I change the title is for presenting current changes (such as Sina Weibo allows the topic appear but must maintain an official view) Should we change the title or not, or we have better choices?Mariogoods (talk) 22:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

A less emotionally charged term may be "press releases" or "government reporting". But there may be other kinds of disinformation or opinion changing attempts you want to cover. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
How about the term "disinformation" ?? And maybe just making it a separate section, as that is different than censorship, though the two are clearly related and connected in various ways. (talk) 05:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I believed that censorship and propaganda can't be separated.Mariogoods (talk) 06:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Then how about "Censorship and disinformation" ? (talk) 08:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
The related section has been greatly changed. Maybe it is time to close this.Mariogoods (talk) 12:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
How about we treat pro-China POV RSes just like we treat anti-China POV RSes and not try to wall them off as "propaganda" as if Apple Daily was a bastion of journalistic honesty beside Xinhua. Simonm223 (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Firstly Apple Daily isn't "anti-China" it's stance is pro-democracy. There is a difference - subtle, but significant nonetheless. On top of that your suggestion would violate Wikipedia policy; WP:PUS and WP:RSP are pretty clear. By way of illustration treating Apple Daily on the same level as Xinhua would be like treating the Der Sturmer/Daily Stormer with Deutsche Welle. Flaughtin (talk) 02:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I would say "Censorship and disinformation" may be more NPOV. Apple Daily may be not a good reliable source for their articles quality (i can found lots of bad example for their reporting, but would be off-topic), but in the other hand, those Chinese sources are state-owned, and in turn the state was owned/controlled by the party. There is a serious COI for those sources as well as people by common sense can verified their reporting as disinformation (by using sources other than Apple, such as Stand News, Western media, or even more neutral to pro-establishment media: HKEJ, SCMP, etc.), such as false caption, did not show the full video footage of the incident, etc. There opinions and editorial may be worth to report in this wiki article, however. Matthew hk (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
WP:PUS and WP:RSP is clear you can cite outlets like Apple Daily, but state run ones like Xinhua aren't good for anything aside from citing the views of the government of mainland china. Flaughtin (talk) 02:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
By the CUHK survey of creditability (citizens as the interviewee of the quantitative survey), Apple Daily had quite a low score, it just like Daily Mail of Hong Kong. Yes they had full teams of journalists to live broadcasting events, but sometimes they also add speculations and their personal opinions into it. Thus, it can only be used sometimes as citation for fact and chopping speculations . But yes, compare to Mainland which all the media are controlled and owned by the Party, you can't really use them due COI and POV. Matthew hk (talk) 08:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes that is what I am saying. Use Apple Daily but put Xinhua and other Mainland Chinese state run sources on the blacklist. Flaughtin (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Xinhua was not blacklisted in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (WP:RSN). However, as i remembered Daily Mail had be credited as not reliable in WP:RSN. The point is, both Apple and Xinhua need to be used carefully. The former due to their quality of journalism and sometimes tabloid journalism, the latter most often a propaganda. Some off-topic, if the section was named as "Censorship and disinformation" , TVB should/may be added to the section. They even failed to report the full slogan of today Ad of Li Ka Shing. Meanwhile, RTHK had more neutral POV despite funded directly by the HK government. However, for not violating WP:OR, such criticism of Chinese state-media and TVB (or by sarcasm, CCTVB), should citing criticism made by external secondary source , but not criticisms written by wiki editors themselves. Matthew hk (talk) 07:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Creating "List of 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests"Edit

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.

As I am writing this new section the article is currently 328,388 bytes in size. So, my proposition is to split the events section into a new article entitled, List of 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests. In doing so, a summary could be provided in the events section with a main article template linking to the list. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 21:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


I am thinking that it would be appropriate to include all of the counter-demonstrations on this new page as well, correct? (talk) 00:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, one section for the demonstrations and another for counter-demonstrations. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 06:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Support, the article has become way too long. Splitting it is a good idea. –Wefk423 (talk) 07:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Support. (talk) 07:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Support The protests continues. Dividing it is nesserary. But should we check words in every section first?Mariogoods (talk) 08:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Support split - Article is long and should be split. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Not everyone will navigate over to read the events section if it is split into its own article, so I suggest at least a good summary in the current article. Phileo (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Support split – Awks now, needs dividers, new article = easier reading too long nowWivescoals (talk) 22:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Support for this, and for any other thoughtful efforts to make this article shorter and more readable. Magnabonzo (talk) 16:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Support - It's quite long, it would definitely be better to put the details of each protest on a different (set of) page(s) and trim the existing page down to a broader summary. MSG17 (talk) 02:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Support split as per the reasons above, although as mentioned we should probably include a brief summary on this page before redirecting readers. --Bangalamania (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support split with a caveat that each incident on the list should be supported as a notable protest by reliable sources. Simonm223 (talk) 18:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Support without a doubt, as per reasoning above.Theprussian (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Strongly support - Jay Coop PLease do this already. It is getting to the point where you can't even load the article. Flaughtin (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Reply - I have boldly split the article, and reduced its size by more than 29%, albeit much of the size is the 150 kB of list defined references. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on implementationEdit

I'm sure a lot of people would support this split, as the article is getting longer and longer. I think it's time to discuss how to summary in this article should be after the split. This is a long protest, and different event has different highlights. How should we include all (or how much)? The lead section of the article already has a brief introduction, should the summary be more detailed than that one? –Wefk423 (talk) 16:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I think kept this article and create sub-articles (3: June, July, August for arbitrary) is fine. But due to WP:INDISCRIMINATE, it rather need discussion to trim down the detail of some minor protest to allow people to easily read the articles to have a brief understanding. No doubt notable would be "12 June", "1 July", "21 July", "27 July", "28 July" "3 August" (which notably quite a lot of protesters did not follow the police approved route) and "5 August", which police is increasing violence and protesters started to be more accused as violent too. But break down one whole event to 7 articles may be way too hard for people to understand , so may be arbitrary by months ? List of 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests already created as a redirect (and easily converted to a list that just as point form / one paragraph for each day timeline form as well as link to individual sub-articles if any), so i would rather ask people how many articles you want to split from. Matthew hk (talk) 15:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Since this main article will be condensed and divided between new main page articles for the sub-topics, it may be nice to include an interactive graphical outline or horizontal timeline of some sort that would really help illustrate the protests and make the collection of related articles easier to navigate and more readable. I do not know if any other "big content" topics have something similar here on Wikipedia, or if there is some precedent to follow for this? (talk) 20:20, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Timeline of WWII? The problem of this sub-articles would be how much detail for the notable protests, and should be just keep one single sentence for minor protests. We are talking about over 2 months of protests and many accusation of police violence. (And to be fair on NPOV, some "violent" act of the protesters should be added to the articles as comparison. As well as those detail of "arresting" people by violently hitting the hat or near CITIC using tear gas to people without any protective gears, or just recently, a woman just walked nearby . Matthew hk (talk) 11:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
interactive graphical outline, while a very nice idea in concept, might be impractical in the context of Wikipedia: you cannot publish original research, and you would have to find relevant images that are allowed under fair use. Phileo (talk) 14:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
@Phileo:, as a manner, don't insert comment in between. Also, there are lots of timeline made by newspaper and TV channel already, and i don't think these kind of "list of facts" are copyrighted. Also, i knew i should AGF, but seem you took a very long wiki break... Matthew hk (talk) 18:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I support breaking down the events sections by month, though I don't really agree on using the timeline format which is quite difficult to read. Using headings and subheadings are clearer for people to understand. Regardless of what we are going to do, I think July 1, June 12 and August 11 protests deserve their own articles. OceanHok (talk) 11:28, 16 August 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.

Questions about the implementation and article splitEdit

@Jax 0677: Umm, hello everyone, I see that the above discussion is closed and the split and move of content is nearly completed, but I had one comment about the final implementation. It looks like, for whatever reason, the Counter-demonstrations section is still on this main page, and has not been sectioned up and split off along with the newly created articles as per the discussion above. Was this simply forgotten about? Thanks. (talk) 08:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

It also seems to me that the Other movements section could become a summary, and then these specific events could be split up across the newly created articles that list protest events by month? So to clarify, what I am saying is, I believe that both the counter-demonstration events and the other movements events could have placement in the newly created articles that list the protests by month. That would help reduce the size of this main article page even more, right? And it seems like an okay thing to do, yeah? (talk) 08:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletionEdit

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Yup, it is from Apple Daily and most probably copyrighted and not suitable to upload to wiki-common. Matthew hk (talk) 08:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

page moved?Edit

@Javierjoy: Umm, why was the page moved? (talk) 03:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I am also quite curious about the sudden move. I wonder if we should be more specific (include "2019") or just ignore it (as there are no any other Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests). Update: it has been moved back. –Wefk423 (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, good ... I think moving it back to the original title was the right thing to do. It fits more with the current naming scheme, considering the other major article is titled "2014 Hong Kong protests" (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Any bold move are eligible to revert if deemed "controversial" . The proper way to move is documented in WP:RM. i.e. start a discussion thread with proper templates. Matthew hk (talk) 08:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

News from XinhuaEdit

Mariogoods (talk) 13:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Any and all news from XinHua should be placed under Sec.11 "Chinese government and media" Phileo (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Phileo, There is no such consensus. However, due to COI and POV (they are stated-owned propaganda machine), they should be used carefully. Matthew hk (talk) 07:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Adding section for Predominant SlogansEdit

I would like to add a new section for the Predominant Slogans used in the protest, with some reference cited explanatory background to the meanings:

Be Water
Liberate Hong Kong
Revolution of Our Times
No Rioters Only Tyranny

....any thoughts? Phileo (talk) 20:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Good idea! Maybe we can merge with the current section about songs ... "Songs and slogans of the democracy movement" or whatever.
Edit: The "Adapted songs" section is already pretty long. This probably deserves its own section. There was a "Popular culture" section but it has since been deleted. I think we could even make a new main article about the art, slogans, music, and popular culture in regards to the on-going democracy movement. Perhaps later on if others are interested. Also, this is a good article on the proposed topic:
I would say it seem too many detail. Stick to the 5 demands is enough. Wikipedia is not a propaganda platform of either side and this article already too long to read (See also WP:Split). And Sorry i have to tag you (edit: Phileo 21:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)) for SPA due to edit history. We are the 99 in 1:99 protests in the US is what is needed for a campaign , not listing all the non-notable slogan. For "Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests", may be Edward Leung's slogan is also notable. But according to secondary source and the press conference by LIHKG forum (that was reported in the news due to limitation of wikiepdia on primary source), they can't apply the meaning of the slogan "Liberate Hong Kong, Revolution of Our Times" to other people. Since the secondary source are saying they can't confirm the meaning of the slogan , so did wikipedia should not apply any meaning to the slogan as wiki content. Reporting the slogan as a wiki content is fair enough. Matthew hk (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
@Matthew hk: Hello. What is SPA?
Reporting about the culture of an historical event is not propaganda, it is documenting history! I have already proposed a different article about art of the protest movement, similar to Art of the Umbrella Movement that could include more detailed information about history of songs, slogans, etc., that offer a deeper understanding to the roots of the current issues. (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
@, SPA. I knew i should AGF. It is acceptable for ip and new user to edit this current affair article. But not a 14 years ago account which only had a few routine edits in recent years, suddenly so interested to suggest edit in this article, and without any global contribution. I am not bossing here as the probably the only active 200 wikipedian from Hong Kong (but not active in Hong Kong topics), but wikipedia is not a propaganda platform but reporting secondary source, i have patient to explain to new user, but not 14 y/o sleeper account. Matthew hk (talk) 09:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
My point is, stick to the major slogan that was reported in secondary source (news article), and this wiki article are way too long and a complete mess to read. We are the 99% had a dedicated article, consider to write a WP:Draft for "Liberate Hong Kong, Revolution of Our Times" or the 5 demands instead. I am not sure it pass WP:GNG or not BTW. Matthew hk (talk) 09:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I agree ... that is why I proposed to put this extra information as part of a broader, new main article about the art and creativity of the movement. (talk) 20:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I disagree. It would be good to know more about what the protests are about.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── @Jack Upland:. Wikipedia is not a webhost service for the protesters. See also WP:What wikipedia is not. We can only include slogans that widely reported by the secondary reliable source in this wiki article. Matthew hk (talk) 21:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Did I propose obscure slogans be included??? I heard there was some Hong Kong grandma who wrote a few cryptic characters on the back of an envelope, but sadly we can't include her thoughts...--Jack Upland (talk) 10:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Rfc on including Junius Ho in the infobox of this article which use Template:Infobox civil conflictEdit

Rfc on including or excluding Junius Ho in the infobox of this article , especially |leadfigures2= or other field as a suspect. Matthew hk (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


  • Exclude On the basis that accusing somebody of being a suspected perpetrator of a purported triad attack is a pretty serious accusation of criminal misconduct. Per WP:BLPCRIME we should not be doing so prior to a conviction. Simonm223 (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Listing a notable and influential politician as one of many leading figures does not involve any accusations whatsoever. He is frequently on record with the media, using his own words, in strong support of police, the establishment, and against the protests. Fact. (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@Flaughtin:. Man, did you read the citation and explain to me, from the citation, how do you concluded Ho is the lead figure of the government camp or triad group, just due to advocate and shake hand with possible triad? Those advocates that also a member of the de facto cabinet, which also the one of the parties leaders of the pro-government/Beijing camp in the LegCo, may more fit to the fact/accusation as "leader", such as Regina Ip.[1] (My personal commentary: not sure most of the RTHK articles have bilingual version but this one did not have English version.) Matthew hk (talk) 08:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
We can say is a leader...which is he in real life. Flaughtin (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Please provide citation and you can use {{tq}} to quote. Matthew hk (talk) 07:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Exclude - He's just one of many politicians opposing the protest. STSC (talk) 15:40, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Include -- Ho is an iconic and influential pro-establishment politician. He regularly receives significant attention from the media, makes bold statements, and his involvement is notable. (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Re This violate Wikipedia:Five pillars, as well as WP:V, WP:OR. Please provide reliable source for the claim. Or a simple common sense (such as 1+1 = 2, those simple calculation) that not violate WP:Original research. Someone had boldly added President of LegCo, Andrew Leung (which also from the pro-Beijing camp of lawmaker and he made a lots of work for the camp by abusing his presidential power) into the infobox (and it seem it was removed again), which i would say it seem more "common sense" he was a leader, rather than personal opinion. For Ho, it seem entirely your personal opinion he is an important leader and merit to add to the infobox. Matthew hk (talk) 09:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Ahem. It is not my opinion or imagination that the name of Junius Ho has appeared rather frequently in western media sources. It also seems that Andrew Leung would be good to list as well, for the reasons that you stated. You had also suggested to add Regina Ip, so why not? No need to oversimply the narrative. How does limiting access to information help the readers trying to understand this? (talk) 01:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Please kindly respect the wiki policy of WP:V or WP:OR. I consider this is a warning . Or i just ask WP:ANI to review the matter and may be a block is sufficient. Matthew hk (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
You are not at all responding to the questions that I raised. You only threatened to block me because you disagree with my vote. Matthew, this is why we have a vote! We are allowed to disagree. My vote is not so important. : ) Anyhow, I have not made disruptive edits ... and am positively contributing to the article. And yes, I am new here, but it seems like you are being rather aggressive. Please Assume Good Faith and chill a bit. This is a controversial subject, so please be civil and calm. Thank you. (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


For context, there is a discussion in Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Remove "suspected perpetrator" field in Template:Infobox civilian attack which waiting to be closed. Junius Ho, was a LegCo lawmaker, which media discovered that he shake hand with the white mod that attack innocent people in 2019 Yuen Long attack. This seem totally WP:UNDUE to list him as the leader of the triad group or one of the leader of antipro-government camp at all (edit: a serious typo due to auto spell check was fixed 07:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)). Accusation is Accusation , fact is fact. Accusation may still worth to mention in the main body of article, but infobox should contain only fact. Matthew hk (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

See also above discussion thread #Junius Ho and the leadership of the pro-Beijing camp. Someone had stated The actions imputed to Ho, whether with sufficient evidence to qualify as fact for Wikipedia or simply accusations, would not suggest that he was a leader.. Matthew hk (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Also here are the citations originally in the infobox. [2][3][4][5][6] Some of them are Chinese and hope you can understand them by Google Translate. Matthew hk (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
For more context of the Rfc. the wording of the infobox was originally labelled Ho as triad gang leader, and then after the start of RfC, it was changed to pro-Beijing leader , but only contained Ho as one and only name. And then it was boldly removed by me per WP:BLP. "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" and per #Junius Ho and the leadership of the pro-Beijing camp. Certainly Ho and may be more name may be reinserted depends on the consensus of this RfC. Matthew hk (talk) 07:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

So it seems that it would be fair to mention on the infobox that Junius Ho strongly supports the triad groups and their agenda (this is well documented fact). He seems to have strong political power, but if he is not a "leading figure" then what infobox field would be best to make this distinction or designation more clear? (talk) 20:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I think we should still list him as a lead figure. He is an 'iconic' pro-Beijing legislator with his outstanding comments during the whole protest. Despite his involvement in the Yuen Long attack, we should also consider how he has strongly supported the police while opposing the protesters. He is, in my opinion at least, an important figure in this whole protest. –Wefk423 (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
That is true. "Leading figure" is not the same as "leader" ... leading figure does not necessarily imply official leadership role, it implies influence and impact, which Junius Ho definitely has and definitely intends to exert his power.
Edit: The infobox currently lists Junius Ho as "Pro-Beijing" along with other HK government officials. So because he is no longer listed on the infobox in relation to triads, maybe the issue is solved already? It seems fair to just stick with the "Pro-Beijing" designation, and leave details about triad connections to the article. (talk) 07:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Not to be that guy, but the RFC clearly states that its main purpose is to decide on "including or excluding Junius Ho in the infobox of this article", not what his stated allegiance should be. It seems to me that the above discussion of "leading figure" vs "leader" is more relevant to the purpose of having him in the infobox. PraiseVivec (talk) 11:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
@PraiseVivec: Ho was one of the pro-governemnt LegCo member, and the infobox was just changed from "triad gang leader" to "pro-government" after the Rfc. For latter role, yes he still expressed his opinion on the bill after 12 June, but he is neither DAB party leader, (the pro-government LegCo faction that brutally vote the bill during the first reading), nor the Chairman of the LegCo, that abuse his power in order to pro-governemnt in the Legislation meeting. Moreover, on the wiki policy, none of the reliable source to merit Ho as the lead figure, or he is UNDUE to be the only "non-government official" to have list in the infobox. Matthew hk (talk) 15:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I think using accurate language is important here. I do not believe the infobox ever stated that Ho was a "triad gang leader" ... he was listed as a "spirtual leader" which is very different. And it currently lists "Pro-Beijing" which is factually correct.
According to the Wikipedia page about Junius Ho, it says on the infobox that he is an incumbent member of the legislative council. The article states in the very first sentence that he is currently an acting politician. So he is either currently a politican, or he just recently finished a term. If he is no longer a politician, where does it state that it is undue to include someone for that reason? He clearly holds political power and is using it. He is one of the most outspoken people with Pro-Beijing politics, and he gets significant media attention and is influential, which is notable. (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Further, the infobox does not make any claims that Ho is "the lead figure" ... simply that he is one of many lead figures listed. An important and significant difference. (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Back to the question, it is according to you to list him as the one and only one "non-government official" in the pro-government side of the infobox, or according to reliable source? There is some other reliable source merit to Starry Lee or Andrew Leung, but not merited the "non-government official" leading / key figure to Ho. Either included a dozen of names of "non-government official" on pro-government side. Or none and definitively not listing Ho as the only name. Matthew hk (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Nobody is stopping anyone from adding more names to that list. If there are other public figures who similarly engage in the same type of inflammatory anti-protest and pro-Beijing rhetoric, and they are also influential and getting media attention, then why not include them as well?
@Matthew hk: You seem to know a lot about this, feel free to add others that merit mention if you so choose. That's my personal opinion about it, anyway. What do others think? Thank you. (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


I don't see anything resembling that it's a well-documented fact that Ho openly supports triad activity. He was seen glad-handing guys in white t-shirts prior to the attack. But there's been a hell of a lot of mistrust on both the pro-China and anti-China sides of this dispute and I wouldn't be willing to trust explicitly anti-China sources stating he's definitely in the know that the white-shirts A) were triad members B) were about to go and beat people up C) were doing so without provocation. (I mean the black-shirts were detaining journalists as recently as today so it's pretty clear that there's a fair bit of misbehaviour on both sides of this.) When issues surrounding a crime are unproven in a court of law, Wikipedia should not be proffering an opinion and should instead state only what reliable sources claim, with attribution.Simonm223 (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I understand you responding to what was written above but the key is not whether he openly supports triad activity - it's most likely he does. The key is whether Ho is a leading pro-establishment bootlicker figure - which I'd say he is and there are lots of sources which support that assertion. As for your claim of moral equivalency between what happened at Yuen Long and the airport, there is none. What happened at the subway station was a borderline terrorist attack while the protesters who detained the so called journalist actually turned out to be a fascist. Flaughtin (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Okay, bottom line is that Junius Ho is a relatively powerful and influential public political figure, holding political office, and a staunch supporter of certain pro-establishment positions. He is very outspoken, makes frequent inflammatory statements which receive media attention and circulate widely, and folks of various positions also strongly react to and are encouraged by his perspectives. He obviously plays an important role in this whole on-going thing, and his participation is notable and inclusion of information about Junius Ho helps the reader to better understand the dynamics of this complex protest movement. There is no need to make any accusations about anything, just listing Ho and linking his wiki page from the infobox is enough. (talk) 20:41, 18 August 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ "葉劉淑儀支持透過法律手段以緊急條例禁止示威" (in Chinese). RTHK. 2019-08-15.
  2. ^ Sum, Lok-kei; Su, Xinqi (22 July 2019). "Yuen Long attackers were defending their home, says lawmaker". South China Morning Post. ISSN 1021-6731. OCLC 648902513. Retrieved 22 July 2019.
  3. ^ "Junius Ho got chummy with Yuen Long assailants, calls their values 'heroic' in presser". Coconuts Hong Kong. Retrieved 22 July 2019.
  4. ^ 【元朗黑夜】網傳何君堯 向白衫人豎拇指:辛苦你!你哋係我英雄. Hong Kong News. HK01 (in Chinese). 22 July 2019. Retrieved 22 July 2019.
  5. ^ 【元朗懷疑警黑勾結事件】何君堯上周獻計鄉事派組「民團」 將示威者打到「片甲不留」. Politics. The Stand News (in Chinese). 22 July 2019. Retrieved 22 July 2019.
  6. ^ 【香港白衣人之亂】港議員何君堯握手動粗白衣人 還讚「你是我英雄」. Politics. Mirror Media (in Chinese). 22 July 2019. Retrieved 22 July 2019.

A new main page article about police brutality?Edit

Seeing that 2019 Yuen Long attack has a section named "criticism of police's response", would it be plausible if we create one here? The UN has come out to accuse the police of using excessive force, and one of the five core demands was to investigate the police's behaviors during the protest. There are plenty to include, from misusing tear gas and rubber bullets to rushing into private properties, to allegedly colluding with triads, to rejecting various protest requests, to insulting and attacking reporters and first-aiders. OceanHok (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

It should have this section but the article currently a mess that too long and disoriented. It need someone to wrote an outline and heavily trim the article to throw out some minor detail to allow people to read. Wikipedia article should wrote in a historical context. And police brutality is one of the 5 demands of the protesters. Matthew hk (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps a new main article on the subject? (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
A spinoff seems good for the time being, certainly until this article length is reduced by a long margin. --Bangalamania (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I have not edited the wikipedia in many years, so please forgive me if I am not taking proper form in my comments.
I think this article should include a LARGE section of police brutality in this case. And not only that, it should also include a section about agent provocateurs. We see demonstrators that supposedly can only afoord a 2m by 1m home in full (expensive) riot gear destroying things, while the normal demonstrators remain peaceful. The violence is giving Bejing an excuse to come in with military, ending the 1 country 2 systems law. It reminds very much of
That article should be renamed Tiananmen Square Massacre, like everyone has known it for decades. Let us not hide the facts for a totalitarian regime that is willing to shoot down it's own unarmed students with tanks!
I just returned from Hong Kong, to visit my wives terminally ill father. The situation is not that the people from Hong Kong are destroying the city. It is Bejing. Everyone knows it. (talk) 07:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Agent provocateurs could only be a minor section due to conspiracy theory nature and hard to really WP:verify. The wording would only be the police admitted they had used spy, and protesters started to accuse EACH other as spy according to SECONDARY reliable source, and a little bit synthesis of source, causing the attack the Mainlander journalist (that without a work permit ) and a tourist that has the same name as Mainland police. Matthew hk (talk) 09:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


Okay, it seems like we have some agreement that in fact a new main page article about the topic is perhaps necessary. Currently, there is already this section about HKPF allegations of excessive force, which could be added to and drawn from, in addition to the information that is already in the articles on the current protest movement and the 2019 Yuen Long attacks article. I don't have much free time now, so I ask the community: Who wants to initiate creation of a new article on the topic? Thanks! : ) (talk) 03:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, awesome, someone created this new section: Allegations of HK Police Force misconduct
If it expands into a big enough section then we can create a new main article page for this! (talk) 03:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Title of the articleEdit

Should the title of the article be changed? While the protests were initially over the extradition bill, they seem to have morphed into something larger (i.e. general fears of the erosion of 'one country, two systems', opposition to police brutality as well as others mentioned in the 5 demands). I've noticed a number of sources use the term "pro-democracy protests", but I don't know if that's too POV. --Bangalamania (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps for now, until a more permanent name is decided upon, the article could just be renamed '2019 Hong Kong Protests' or something Techno Tron15 (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that's probably better (and simpler). --Bangalamania (talk) 21:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I mean, maybe that's kind of vague though? I think "2019 Hong Kong democracy protests" or something along those lines might be okay. But we could also just stick with what we have for now until a better name for the on-going movement emerges. I have seen "hard hat revolution" been mentioned a few times, but that term for these protests is by no means as broadly accepted as the popularized Umbrella Revolution of 2014. (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Also the page appears to be "move protected" until November 8. (There is a little green lock icon on the upper-right hand corner of the article.) So any name change would have to be done by an admin. (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Any move please start a discussion by following the process stated in WP:RM. Move can be done by page mover which sometimes, non-admin. However, please do not bold move yourself as any new candidate of the WP:article title for this wiki article is controversial. Non-controversial move, sometimes should post in Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. Matthew hk (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I think "democracy protests" would not be good. "Democracy" has not been central to the protests so far. The extradition bill was not an attack on democracy. Waving the British colonial flag does not connote support for democracy. It is not clear at the point what the overall aim of the protests is, and how cohesive the protesters are.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
@Jack Upland: That's not true at all: have you read the five demands of the movement? The fifth demand is a call for universal suffrage and the rights of the people to be able to democratically elect their politicians and government officials. Currently, a vast majority of the governing officials are Beijing installed CCP puppets. Further, this movement builds on the previous 2014 Umbrella Revolution which was also a call for free and fair elections.
It is true that the current 2019 protests began in response to the threat of an erosion of autonomy and a China extradition bill (pushed through by an unelected Chief Executive), but the whole situation quickly evolved and changed into what we have today: a call for greater freedom from mainland China and a more genuine democracy in order to fulfill the promise of one country two systems. (talk) 07:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
@Jack Upland: Here is one good article on the subject: Hong Kong Protesters Are Fueled by a Broader Demand: More Democracy (New York Times). (talk) 07:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but "democracy" is only one issue, as you yourself make clear. As I said, it's uncertain what the protesters want. Do they really want "one country, two systems" or do they want independence? It seems to me the extradition bill was integral to the concept of one country. It seems that the protesters don't really want "one country" at all.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:04, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps from China's perspective, an extradition bill is important. But to Hongkongers, because of a recent history of politically motivated kidnappings, and a mainland China judicial system that lacks transparency and due process, the thought of extradition to China is a sobering one. They definitely want to hold on to the promise of "two systems" and in turn want their five demands to be met. "All five and not one less" as is often chanted, with a shift towards democratic reform really being quite an extraordinary thing especially considering China's opposition to it. All of that said, I am not necessarily arguing to change the title of the article ... the current title seems to be okay for now. : ) (talk) 08:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Clearly, there are "two systems" at the moment. But "one country" when there is no extradition law? Maybe democratisation is one of five demands, but it is not the only demand or the main demand, as far as I can see. The question is what future for HK do the protesters want? If the HK government was free from any control from Beijing, it would not be part of "one country". I don't think that the protesters have articulated the answer to this, and so I would be wary of describing the protests as other than against the extradition bill.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Please read WP:CRITERIA first. Until now news reporting from all over the world (may be except those gated behind the Great Firewall and North Korea) use "anti-extradition bill protests". Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Not an outlet of personal opinion and pov pushing or a place of propaganda for the protesters or the Central government. Please read the news article and inform us using WP:RM process if most of the news article had changed the wording. Matthew hk (talk) 10:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

What?--Jack Upland (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

International reaction spamEdit

When a major world power speaks out on this issue, can we please limit ourselves to one statement per party within that power? We don't need multiple statements each from Pelosi and Trump to know that the US has opinions on how its biggest rival should handle this matter. Simonm223 (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I completely agree. Isn't there some form of precedent on Wikipedia for international reactions to these events? --Bangalamania (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Yup, it need to be trimmed. Also, may be opinions from "nobody" should be deleted. Party leader, President are good cutting line, but may worth to discuss a lower bar. Multiple opinions should also included, given the context in June and in August may different. Matthew hk (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
@Simonm223: Do double check the next time you decide to remove material as you did here. You removed the event (i.e. Trump's condemnation) that caused the senators to issue their statement. Without it, the reader would be left wondering: why the hell did the senators do that in first place? Also, please refrain from making personal commentaries about certain actors as you did here. Obviously this article is attracting lots of emotion, edits, etc. so there really isn't anything particularly special about your point of view. Perfectly fine if you put that on your talk page or your blog, but an edit summary really isn't the place for those kinds of remarks. Besides the claim factually incorrect (this would be obvious to anybody who read the article) and is not one that you really believe in it anyway (you'll notice how you decided to remove just the reactions of the United States and leave the reactions by the other countries intact). Flaughtin (talk) 04:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Please stop pestering me with pings on multiple articles. The US section is over-long and needs trimming. Simonm223 (talk) 11:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Trim better next time. Flaughtin (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
The Americans don’t act with one voice, so it’s probably worth noting what both said. Docentation (talk) 20:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
@Docentation: I agree but he (op) is just going to yammer and complain about how it's "too long". That (and others like him) is the main issue here. Flaughtin (talk) 01:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Table in the objectives sectionEdit

Do we really need a table in the objectives section of this article? It takes up a lot of space and makes the reading somewhat difficult imo. --Bangalamania (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree, something more simple would be nice. (talk) 16:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Undue use of RT and SputnikEdit

I understand the desire to include discussion of the suggestion of foreign interference in Hong Kong, particularly, I understand there are rumours circulating that the US state department has been sponsoring protesters in much the same fashion they previously did in Eastern Europe and Venezuela. But if you want to include discussion of these rumours you have to find a reliable source for them. RT and Sputnik are both well known to be Russian propaganda outlets. Both of these outlets exist for almost the expressed purpose of stirring the pot and introducing disinformation. So no, they're categorically undue here. You're unlikely to find a more sympathetic long-term politics editor on Wikipedia than me to statements of dirty-politics by the United States. So if even I am saying, "these sources are no good," you might want to listen. Simonm223 (talk) 13:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I think there's no harm in including these sources if they are properly attributed as "Russian sources". STSC (talk) 13:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Looking at this neutrally, how is this WP:DUE, in the slightest? Simonm223 (talk) 14:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
This is not "undue" if the readers are also informed about Russian point of view. STSC (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
He didn't explain it properly because the anti-Americanism got in the way. Basically what he should have done is direct you to WP:RSP and WP:PUS where you will clearly see that outlets like RT and Sputnik can be used only for the views of the government of Russia. We stay away from using it for anything else like how you would stay away froma leper in real life. Flaughtin (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Hey, I am sure that some lepers are really nice people! : ) (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
From what I can tell, I think it may be appropriate to use the RT source for what David Stockman has to say, but that's it. Not an expert, but he seems like a notable individual to mention here (although obviously we should be wary of editorialising his comments as RT have). But the other stuff from RT itself and Sputnik should go. --Bangalamania (talk) 19:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
@Bangalamania: We can't use either source for anything other than the views of the russian government. Again as i said WP:RSP and WP:PUS are very clear on this Flaughtin (talk) 01:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I would just bear in mind that WP:PUS is essay and not policy; there is no consensus that RT should only by used for the views of the Russian government as far as I can tell. It is still a propaganda outlet and should be treated as such (i.e. its own claims would be undue in this article unless recorded by secondary sources), but I don't see how that relates to Stockman's comments. --Bangalamania (talk) 02:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
No but you see it isn't just WP:PUS you also need to look at WP:RSP as well. Yes it's an essay but that really is a misnomer because it's basically treated like a guideline (i.e. WP:PUS is a defacto guideline). You clearly see how it is used in that way when you look at the judgments over the reliability of the sources made on WP:RSP. It obviously relates to Stockman because Stockman is just a useful idiot not speaking on behalf of the russian government Flaughtin (talk) 03:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Flaughtin, Sorry for not AGF due to you are new but seem know the rule of wikipedia, but for RT, you should search Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard first. There are no consensus RT is not reliable (note: double negative), or you can interpreted as there are no consensus RT is reliable. Matthew hk (talk) 07:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
@Matthew hk: Read the one (contrvoersial topics) right below it. Flaughtin (talk) 07:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
It is not the matter of use the source or not. It rather WP:DUE or WP:UNDUE or considered it as conspiracy theory that should or should not added to wikipedia. Except the DAB the pro-Beijing rubberstamp lawmaker ,[1] Businessman that traditionally pro-Beijing did not considered the protests had any foreign influence. However, since wikipedia did not censor , it depends editorial point of view to add foreign influence as a kind of accusation (or laughingstock? ) Matthew hk (talk) 07:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
After a brief search, it seem it should be included as part of Chinese propaganda / counterdemonstration. The point of view is in the editorial of Chinese state-media. We included them not because it is true, but they are significant POV from involving parties (i.e. Chinese Central Government[2]). Matthew hk (talk) 07:49, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Is RT and Sputnik not an WP:RS? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: You can just start another query in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to state, 'are RT and Sputnik reliable for "2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests"?'. Matthew hk (talk) 10:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
@Matthew hk: Were they previously deemed not reliable at RSN? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ 葉國謙不信示威無「大台」拉幕後策劃者才能止暴. Bastille Post (in Chinese). Hong Kong. 8 August 2019. Retrieved 16 August 2019.
  2. ^ 2019年8月2日外交部发言人华春莹主持例行记者会 (Press release) (in Chinese). Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China. 2 August 2019. Retrieved 16 August 2019.

Including photos of protesters waving UK and USA flagsEdit

I find it strange that there is not a single photo of the protesters waving American and British flags included in the article when they have been a regular sight during the protests, have been seen at key moments during the protests and definitely has generated lots of debate particularly amongst the fascist officials in mainland China. I think there should be at least one photo of a protester waving a Uk/USA flag included in the article, if only to reflect the reality of what has been going on. I understand that there are other ways that this whole argument can be seen so any input on this would be helpful. Flaughtin (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I guess the problem with including any picture in this article is the licensing. I'm assuming most of the photographs of protestors flying US/UK flags are copyrighted. --Bangalamania (talk) 19:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
@Bangalamania: There are lots of photos showing the protesters waving uk/usa flags that I found on wikimedia so the licensing isnt the issue. The issue is the aporopriateness (e.g. npov). Flaughtin (talk) 02:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Out of thousands of protesters, it is debatable the events are significant or not. People waving colonial Hong Kong flag (and even ROC flag) as memoirs too. It worth to add a short paragraph about flags to somewhere but the current wiki article is in chaotic state due to no outline and "too long to read". May be yet another sub-articles? Flags in 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests? Adding the throwing of PRC flag into the Vic. Harbour into the sub-articles if needed. Also, i don't think we need photo, or yes, photos of waving British, US, ROC, colonial Hong Kong flags into it. Lastly, for WP:OR issue, it need secondary source as citation and we, as a wiki editors are hardly to decide how significant it is as we don't have the statistical figure to cite. Matthew hk (talk) 08:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
User talk:Matthew hk We can say the flag waving is used as a tactic. Lots of source say this. Flaughtin (talk) 22:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Since there is thousands of protesters, any real citation indicated that most of them agree this tactics? Note that this protests were labelled as decentralization and no leader, and i doubt even you cite the primary source (the forum post / telegram chat record) are sufficient for WP:V. So no, due to no source and very controversial (accused for foreign influence). Matthew hk (talk) 06:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
This has been a notable part of the protests, so I would support including a picture, if there is one available.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


@Signedzzz: Please explain in more detail this revert of yours. How was it unhelpful? Flaughtin (talk) 02:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

All the Stand News picture have been deleted in commonsEdit

It is a very sad news that All the Stand News picture have been deleted in commons. But according to Commons:Commons:Village pump/Archive/2019/06#A customary licence for The Stand News, Administrator De728631 mention The Stand News statement like a free licence as in {{Copyrighted free use}} and other users would agree The Stand News statement would be acceptable for Commons. Meanwhile in Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:The_Stand_News, Administrator Yann also say Wcam's deletions without valid justification. The statement is clear and ALL the files should recover--Wpcpey (talk) 00:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Someone please ask Stand News to send a permission vis OTRS and thing would be easily done. Or many of them are qualified as WP:NFC as critical commentary (with citation for the commentary), so upload to en-wiki as fair use . We will sort out here as there are more admin in en-wiki. Matthew hk (talk) 06:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
And the link should be Commons:Commons:Village pump/Archive/2019/06#A customary licence for The Stand News. Matthew hk (talk) 08:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Has anyone done it yet? Image2012 (talk) 10:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I have send the request show in below on Monday in facebook private message, but no response.--Wpcpey (talk) 01:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
It seems we need to write a request letter to The Stand News in their facebook page. Hope they can accept it since Wikipedia lack of photo for the protest. I have tried email before, but no reply. Here is the sample, sorry only have Chinese version.

你好, 根據你們Facebook專頁在6月14日發出的聲明,稱「各機構及個人,可隨便使用《立場新聞》Facebook專頁的直播片段,不用聯絡我們尋求授權,使用後亦不需要通知,唯望避免歪曲事實的刪剪。」

得悉你們的聲明後,自6月起在維基百科有用戶曾透過截圖的方式使用你們facebook 專頁的直播片段,並上載至維基百科的媒體庫,希望可以讓世界廣大的民眾可以知道反送中運動的真相。不過該處的管理員,以至部分編輯認為,你們的表述在維基百科而言未達到有關要求,認為「開放轉載不等於開放版權」和「歪曲事實比較難判斷」。其後管理員提出要求刪除有關截圖,並且已被刪除。

本人懇請 貴facebook專頁明確表明所有在facebook直播片段採用「共享創意 姓名標示 4.0 國際 (CC BY 4.0)」或CC0 “No Rights Reserved”,以符合維基百科的版權條款,而有關授權生效後,就不可逆轉。


--Wpcpey (talk) 03:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Cite errorEdit

A sprawling list of cite errors is below the references list. Goes like "Cite error: A list-defined reference named "_____" is not used in the content (see the help page)." Does anyone else see this, and if so, how do we fix this? Kamako, carpenter 04:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I see it too. Geolodus (talk) 05:53, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Some people converted the wiki code to use a pair of
Your sentence.<ref name=/> {{reflist|ref=<ref name=>citation</ref>}}
instead of usual
Your sentence.<ref>citation</ref> {{reflist}}
. See also Help:Footnotes#List-defined references if you can understand why i mean for the "former"
The former would be good if the article is static, which grouped all citations into {{reflist}}. However, this is not good for this article. You see the error, because the citation still embedded in the {{reflist}}, but did not use in the mainbody of article.
To solve it, easy method: chopped all unused citation. Hard method, read the wiki article page history as well as the citation, and figure out why the citation was chopped from the mainbody. Matthew hk (talk) 06:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Well it seem due to the split (see #Creating "List of 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests" Matthew hk (talk) 06:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


I saw that "methods" in info template have "riot". But is it suitable in this case? Calling "riots" should be careful since it may be unsourced or poorly sourced. Especially debates over "riot" or "protest" has been emeged outside the Wikipedia.Mariogoods (talk) 09:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

online counter-protestsEdit

As the Global Times says, Chinese netizens on Saturday swept Facebook and Instagram to denounce secessionist posts and show support for Hong Kong police. Should we added the information with the source?

Mariogoods (talk) 06:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

The Global Times is owned and written by the Chinese government. I don't think it's the best source for neutral information on this subject. Geolodus (talk) 19:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

6.5 Adapted SongsEdit

Hello everyone, I am translating this page to Dutch (and arrived at this section). I believe it is a mistake in English. I think that "Adopted Songs" is meant. I did not hear any adaptations to the songs. Since it is locked, I am hoping that someone with that power can change it, if I am right.
--2019OutlaweD (talk) 10:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Can we remove the list defined references?Edit

Good day! The list defined references are difficult to work with, and take up over 100kB. Can we please remove the list defined references? --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

--2019OutlaweD (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it should be converted back to traditional formatting. Only the protest had ended and the wiki article are toward a stable state, we then consider to change it to list defined referencing format. Matthew hk (talk) 23:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I am still busy translating it into Dutch! If you start messing with the references now, I'll be in trouble!
And, given the massive edit war that I am guessing has taken place here (464 references; before moving the specific demonstrations over 600 references even!; and the lock on the topic), I think that I want to cover my basics before any mainland Chinese troll figures out what I have been placing on the Dutch Wikipedia.
@Jax 0677:
p.s. Could you add your opinion to my comment just above about adOpted songs?
--2019OutlaweD (talk) 08:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
@2019OutlaweD:. Try stick to one version, for example the version before the split Special:Permalink/910944761. Matthew hk (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, that is a good idea. I actually should do that, in order to reference my Dutch translation to the source, but I admit to going to the latest edition.
Thanks for the tip Matthew hk!
You can change my no into a yes :)
--2019OutlaweD (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Number of protesters?Edit

The lead of this article states "Hundreds of thousands of people marched in protests of the bill on 9 June", while the photo caption states "Millions of protesters marching in white on 9 June (top) and in black 16 June (bottom)". Could the size of the marches be harmonized? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 18:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it would also be worth noting in the lede that one or more of these protests have been record breaking in numbers, compared to other protests in recent history. One of the early marches was perhaps close to a turnout of 2 million people, while another very recent march was possibly as many as 1.7 million. The size is significant, because that is a big percentage of the total population of Hong Kong (about 20% - 25%), and very relevant in terms of an expression of democratic values and free speech and how important that is to the people of Hong Kong as a whole. (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Since there is no reliable, independent institute to estimate the figure, we can only stated the organizer that claimed 1 million (9 June), 2 million (18 June) and 1.7 million (18 August). The figure from police is totally not reliable (such as the Tamar Park laughing stock of over 8 people per square metre that derived from their data). The Economist explicitly stated the claims from the organizer of the demonstration may be not reliable. For June for sure some academician-turn-policatiian had expressed their opinion, citing empirical data. Matthew hk (talk) 09:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Hong Kong free press is also reporting it: "“Although the people behind this activity attempted to conceal their identities, our investigation found links to individuals associated with the Chinese government.” "From 2011 footage of South Korean soldiers misrepresented as an impending Chinese “invasion” to doctored photographs exaggerating the size of rallies"
--2019OutlaweD (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Bloomberg Opinion piece regarding the Twitter data setsEdit

Is Adam Minter's opinion in Bloomberg Opinion piece "When It Comes to Twitter Meddling, China's No Russia" (reproduced below) considered due weight in the "Social media" section of the article?

Whatever the backstory, a brief perusal of the database reveals that the vast majority of content tweeted by these accounts wasn't related to Hong Kong and -- most important -- failed to generate retweets, likes or responses. In fact, most of the tweets in the database have no connection to the protests; some of the most popular appear to link to prurient material.

"When It Comes to Twitter Meddling, China's No Russia", Adam Minter, Bloomberg Opinion

I'm not convinced that Adam Minter's brief analysis of the two data sets released by Twitter is due here, as the columnist is not a subject-matter expert. — Newslinger talk 11:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Newslinger: I agree. A myriad of opinion pieces have been written about the topic. Minter's does not seem to have any particular relevance (not a SME) or impact (no further coverage in RS about his opinion). --MarioGom (talk) 13:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, and even the opinion piece itself says that it was a "brief perusal" ... meaning not in-depth or a real analysis. I have read other articles that say the reason many of the tweets and accounts may not have made mention of Hong Kong is because they were very recently purchased old/dormant accounts that had yet to be utilised for the propaganda operation. (Sorry, no source right now ... maybe I can dig it up later). (talk) 19:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation. I've removed Minter's quote from the article. If there are any in-depth analyses of the data sets that are referenced in factual reports (not just opinion columns) from reliable sources, they would probably be a better fit. — Newslinger talk 21:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Zhenqinli reverted my removal despite the consensus in this discussion. — Newslinger talk 22:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I've escalated this to the neutral point of view noticeboard. Please see WP:NPOVN § Bloomberg Opinion piece regarding Twitter data sets in 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests. — Newslinger talk 22:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Tactics, methods and related movements surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protestsEdit

Support split - The article is over 200kB, and parts of the article should be split to a new article entitled Tactics, methods and related movements surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests. Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment I would rather say related movement should merge to the timeline sub-articles. Movement such as 27 July was one of the key movement despite not a legally approved rally due to the harsh law . Many reliable source had blamed the brutality of the police on the arrest, which the "suspect"/protester, seem still hospitalized. Matthew hk (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Return to "2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests" page.