Open main menu

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)
I personally find propaganda more neutral than disinformation. To me 'disinformation' = 'false information', propaganda = selectively amplify certain information (may include false information). An even more neutral phrase would be 'influencing efforts'. Ltyl (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
I am sure International reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests#Censorship and condemnation was the original section and I support closing the discussion. Mariogoods (talk) 08:47, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - I also made a request at WP:ANRFC to close this section. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:18, 1 September 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)
  • Some off-topic. For Andrew Leung, original research is not required, reliable source had documented how he used his LegCo presidential power in the second reading of the bill[7][8] (or abuse according to what source you read), as well as protester vandalized his portrait (oil painting) on 1 July [9] as well as protester particularly against him this time[10][11] and in the past[12] due to his vast power as the president(chair). It is not like Junius Ho as a leader of the pro-government (pro-establishment/ pro-Beijing), a slippy slope opinion. Matthew hk on public computer (talk) 04:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment This RfC and discussion seems to be violate WP:NOTFORUM. I would be helpful if sources could be added to the proposed infobox inclusion. Maybe if this figure is tied to the protests in the RS he should be added to the infobox as related figures, rather than leader, etc. It seems this movement is widely believed to be leaderless, but certainly there are some notable figures associated with each side of it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:41, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
@Jtbobwaysf: Not sure i am wasting my time or not. The two "!vote" include were SPA which one of them registered in July 2019 and another have all the edits around this article since July 2019. I would be happy if they ever put their citation on the table and discuss whatever that citation is supporting or not supporting the RfC. Matthew hk on public computer (talk) 04:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
@Matthew hk on public computer: Its likely this article is the subject of paid contributions of pro-beijing supports as well as maybe paid and/or passionate SPA accounts that are pro-hkg movement. Thus we need a clear RfC proposal to really vote on this. The talk page discussion can drag on forever. If Junius Ho is associated with the pro-beijing side in the RS he should be reflected and summarized as such in the infobox (but maybe not as leader, as there seems to be no leader, we all know XiJinping is the leader of the pro-beijing side). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
I would say those SPA are overly passionate pro-protest editors. I admitted i can hardly backoff from POV due to my HK roots, and i am keep telling myself to read many sources. For SPA, SPA keep on adding personal opinion instead of content derived from secondary source, would made this article some sort of bias and OR and POV pushing. It would further ruined by cherry picking external source to try to support their point of view, but intentionally excluding other important citation that not fit to their propaganda. For example, The article should reflected the fact that at least minor (1? a dozen?) of protesters are also using force (violence, force but not physically hurting people). Vandalism from Mainland China tag team, seem relatively minor. By inspecting the article history, before 21 July, the pro-government side of the infobox were listing the pro-government parties leaders, but after 21 July, it just censored and only Ho , as an accused (spiritual) triad gang leader, remained. The wording as triad gang leader only changed by someone (not me) after the start of RFC. Matthew hk on public computer (talk) 05:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Actually, we SPA are obviously CIA!! ; ) (talk) 05:05, 25 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.
  7. ^ "Hong Kong's extradition bill could pass next week as Legislative Council President Andrew Leung limits debate time". South China Morning Post.
  8. ^ "Hong Kong extradition bill: pro-Beijing lawmakers in no hurry to push contentious law through and could extend debate". South China Morning Post.
  9. ^ "Hong Kong protesters' damage to Legislative Council building could exceed HK$10 million and take weeks to repair". South China Morning Post.
  10. ^ "Hong Kong protest: police fire teargas at demonstrators – as it happened". The Guardian. p. 5.
  11. ^ "Hong Kong politician swamped by protesters". Reuters. 2019.
  12. ^ "Hundreds protest to defend separation of powers, calls for LegCo Pres. Andrew Leung to step down". HKFP. 2016.

Section on protesters aggressive tactics added to Tactics and methods subpageEdit

see Tactics and methods surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests and Talk:Tactics and methods surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests

A bit long. May need to replace it with a summary and move the content to a separate page. Ltyl (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I gave it a quick look ... some of it could possibly be trimmed as a few of the things mentioned are already noted in other sections on this page. Anyhow, I will give it a closer look in the next few days. (talk) 19:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Some the events are buried quite deep in the cited sources. Therefore it might not be obvious that they are indeed there. I would recommend reading the cited sources carefully before you delete something. Ltyl (talk) 19:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I have no intentions of deleting any citations. But, for example, doxxing is already mentioned here:
Tactics and methods surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests#Online activism
Anyhow, I will give it a more in-depth look in a couple of days. (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Given the scale of doxxing and the shaming campaigns, I think it deserves a prominent place. Ltyl (talk) 20:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
The page is called "tactics and methods", but right now it seems like a detailed documentation of what has happened during the protest, which I do not agree. I think when you write it, you can look at the allegations of police misconduct page. For instance, in the "Unlawful use of force" section of the police allegations, in what instance do they hurt innocents, or in what instance when police fired canisters of tear gas on empty roads, or in what instance the police beat journalists, are not mentioned. OceanHok (talk) 04:37, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Agree that it could be summarised better, similar to other sections, as mentioned by OceanHok. (talk) 04:54, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Update: Content moved to separate page. The section condensed. Ltyl (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

138,692 bytes only now. It can be considered condensed. -- hoising (talk) 01:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Potential article on the art of the movementEdit

For those interested in working on such an article: I created a draft with the links from the initial discussion on such an article and added others that I have found since this was abandoned. -- Ohc ¡digame! 10:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately I am too busy to be able to help with this, but it's great that you've created a draft for the topic.
Here are more links:
Hope that helps! Thanks again everyone! (talk) 19:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm kind of curious how this will be due an independent article separate from the tactics article - my understanding is that most of the art consists of either copies of previous protest art projects or graffiti. This article section has already been vulnerable to a lot of WP:NOT bloat. Is this something where substantial neutral sources can be found or will it just be another POV fork running PR for the protesters? Simonm223 (talk) 19:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • That's up to us, I guess. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. In the meantime, let's keep an eye on the availability of quality sources and how the draft develops. -- Ohc ¡digame! 10:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
I support having an independent article split out. There are more Lennon Walls/artworks (poster arts)/Cantonese memes/songs than ever before when compared with the Umbrella Revolution, and there is an extensive list of information in your draft, and perhaps more. OceanHok (talk) 12:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Cato Institute indexEdit

The Cato Institute is well known as a right-wing advocacy group with little reliability for accuracy. Their freedom index is not a useful measurement of anything resembling freedoms. Please do not include it; it's not WP:DUE inclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 13:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

<redacted> yes you are correct. There doesn't appear to be any direct relevance. (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Removed dates from history titlesEdit

The history section of this article is too much in proseline and lacks narrative focus. I have removed the dates from the headings in the history section and moved one of the titles down 2 paragraphs. Yes, I should have done it all in one edit instead of spacing it over 4. Nevertheless, I suspect that many edge cases exist in the history section that should be moved up or down a heading. As tempting as it is to divide the protests by months, I think the topic would benefit from being tied together in a narrative. Rockphed (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

(no title)Edit

In the info-box for parties on the pro Beijing the listing of triad groups is no longer "alleged", why is this the case as the cited sources for their involvment has not changed and I don't believe there is any proof of definitive involvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Article length and automatic archivingEdit

I have put the {{2L}} tag on this long article, but it keeps getting removed. Also, the talk page does not seem to automatically archive. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

It had bot to automatically archive. Just the two RfCs are added hidden code to prevent archiving, as they somehow need a closer. Matthew hk (talk) 02:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Comment - Pinging @Citobun: and @Hoising:. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
As mentioned in my previous edit summary, there's only about 6,000 words of readable prose. It would not seem to meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Article size for being too long. It has already been split up in to several separate pages. Citobun (talk) 02:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion about recent edits to this page at WP:ANIEdit

Suicide should not count as deathEdit

I don't see any reason why only this event counts suicide as death in the infobox. If you Google e.g. "iraq war suicide" you shall find plenty of cases but none of them is mentioned in the related Wiki article's infobox. The 5 (all suicides) might have just given a wiki reader without any background knowledge of the event the impression that these 5 are extreme radicals such as suicide bombers. A boundary should be set up between radicals and those suicided due to anxiety disorder caused by the event. --Fkj (talk) 14:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The "Death(s) 5(all suicides)" in the infobox does sound like they were suicide bombers for their "revolution". STSC (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Partially agree. As the suicides did make an impact in the movement so I would prefer to put it "0 (8 suicides)" Lmmnhn (talk) 08:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I think that would be very confusing. Why do we need this section of the infobox anyway? What does "injuries" mean? If someone got a sprained wrist from throwing a rock, is that an injury? This isn't a war (so far), and shouldn't be treated as one.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
At least 2 suicides were part of their own demonstration. One have banner on the roof of Pacific Place. Another wrote her dying wish and 5 demands on the wall next to the place that she jumped off. It may confusing, but at least two knew their last word would be photographed and published by media. It just the same with somebody burn themselves as demonstration. The other 3 may be removed as we don't know how many suicide are affected by protests but the root cause was their own emotional problem. You can change the infobox wording to 2 deaths by "suicidal demonstrations" or similar wording. Matthew hk (talk) 09:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand the logic of that.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Then what is the different between suicidal bomber and "suicide as demonstration"? In specific, there is live TV coverage for the Pacific Place case that he announced the 5 demands and then jumped off of the roof. Matthew hk (talk) 11:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
If people have committed suicide and if unimpeachable reliable sources have said that it was in protest of the extradition bill / police violence / etc. then it certainly should be included. But a note: recently deceased people (generally within the last 6 months at least) are protected by WP:BLP and those standards apply to them just as if they were alive. So when I say unimpeachable, I don't mean Apple Daily. Simonm223 (talk) 11:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I think the question is why is it in the infobox?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Here's a WP:BOLD suggestion. Let's delete the infobox. Simonm223 (talk) 12:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Start date of the movementEdit

The infobox shows that the start date of the protests is on 31 March, which is stated by some media. However there are much more media outlets show that 9 June is the start date of the protests as it was the beginning of the massive consecutive protests which lasts until today. I originally put 31 March as the start date but now I think it is more accurate to use 9 June as start date. Lmmnhn (talk) 08:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


@Simonm223: - Per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE the current image we have is absolutely decorative that serves absolutely no purpose at all in the allegation section. The current image in the Prince Edward station is definitely relevant. If your WP:NPOV issue is with the word "chaos" then go ahead to change it. If your issue is with the word "stormed" then you should not change it given this is how RS described the incident. OceanHok (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I challenge your assertion that the image you replaced is purely decorative. It shows police using tear gas, and the context in which they used it. I think that's a critical piece of maintaining a neutral perspective on the charged issue of police violence in Hong Kong. Simonm223 (talk) 13:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
It is decorative in this section about police allegations. I don't need a photo telling me that the police is using the tear gas properly. This belongs to the history section up above. If the point of having an image is to supplement the text, the Tsuen Wan image does not suffice. It does not enhance my understanding of this section about police allegations. The Prince Edward incident is a more impactful incident and the screenshot is more relevant to the topic. Given the significance of the Prince Edward incident, ignoring it when we have an usable screenshot is also WP:NPOV. OceanHok (talk) 13:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I find it unconvincing that police use of chemical dispersal against protesters is not a contextualized exemplar of the section subject. Perhaps some other opinions would be good. Simonm223 (talk) 13:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

When to add the year to dates in the textEdit

I am very new to this story (9/14/2019) since I avoid the news in general. As my time allows, I hope to make a few adjustments to improve and clarify some English usage.

Since this is already 'a story for the history books,' I am thinking it would be wise to add the year to each date in the text.

But before I do, is there a WP policy for that?

Comments welcome, of course.

- - Ray Birks [forgot to log in] RayBirks (talk) 17:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
May be MOS:DATE? Since the article title had year 2019 in it, i hope the protest would not last until September 2020. So far it is pretty obvious to understand. Matthew hk (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

History of the 2019 Hong Kong protestsEdit

  • Support split -
Article is close to 200kB, and parts of it should be split to a new article entitled History of the 2019 Hong Kong protests, similar to History of Australia.
Other sections of the article need to be trimmed dramatically, since they now have sub articles.
Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Vehemently oppose This is a protest ongoing since the spring, not a country that was founded over 100 years ago. Just do some cutting. I mean the last time I trimmed down one of these HK articles I managed to excise 32k bytes and so far have only had two small sections reinserted. So there's definitely room to neutrally edit. Simonm223 (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Oppose The history section need to be trim to 400 words. If people want more detail , then it is the function of the List of early 2019 Hong Kong protests, List of September 2019 Hong Kong protests etc. (themselves need trim). This is encyclopedia , but not meant for book length. Matthew hk (talk) 08:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Return to "2019 Hong Kong protests" page.