Talk:Occupy Central with Love and Peace

NPOV objection

what's NPOV? The NPOV objection attached to the Background section has no explanation posted here for the objection. If the editor who lodged the objection chooses not to defend it, I propose removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.170.205 (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC) I have reviewed the section and it does not seem unduly weighted at all. In view of this I am removing the objection. If an editor chooses to reinstate it, please explain the reasons for doing so here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.170.205 (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I can only assume the POV that you want is... one of Communist Mainland China??? 134.148.46.1 (talk) 10:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The basic principle is "assume good faith," but 134.148 does not do that. I, too, question the NPOV, particularly the statement that the use of tear gas was unwarranted or an escalation. TV footage clearly shows the police reacting to provocation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.38.16.51 (talk) 03:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

NPOV issue

Most of the content in this article sounds like promoting the so-called "OCLP", and needs to be rewritten. STSC (talk) 01:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Simply saying "this article is bias" is not helpful. You've done this NPOV tagging on a few pages, but from what I've seen you made no attempt to discuss productively with editors involved in the pages' development before doing so. Your efforts would be better received if you tried talking things through first and give specific suggestions as to what is wrong, why it's wrong, and how it could be fixed? Anyway, if you can't give more concrete explanations for the tag, it will be removed.TheBlueCanoe 12:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

You have no basis on calling it biased. I'm removing the tag. 50.187.216.93 (talk) 03:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

IP editor, if you don't bother to improve the article then don't remove the tags. STSC (talk) 10:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I also think you need to better articulate your concerns. I just skimmed through the whole article and don't see it as promotional. It presents the stated views of the detractors of Occupy Central in a neutral manner. Several people have already asked you to clarify your concerns and you haven't, so I'm removing the tags in the meantime. Citobun (talk) 11:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

You don't remove the tags when you're still waiting for my reply (upto 3 days). The tags will stay when I still dispute the neutrality of the article. When time permits I'll edit the article with an overall neutral undertone. STSC (talk) 11:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Kindly state your concerns now. You don't get three days to do so. William Avery (talk) 11:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

STSC, very civil of you to go after articles I created in reprisal for my comment here...

Anyway, you never told us we were meant to be waiting for you. I don't think that's how it works...you can't hold pages captive without explaining your concerns, especially in the face of consensus among everyone else that the tags aren't justified. You need to articulate your specific concerns with the article, or fix whatever problems you see. If you can't do either then you should leave the article be. However, I don't really have much faith you are editing in good faith after your trying to get some sort of "revenge" on my created articles. Citobun (talk) 15:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Any promotional content which was copied directly from the primary source(the OCLP website) is not acceptable as NPOV (WP:SOAPBOX). I have therefore made my edit accordingly. STSC (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

How about we add some reliable, credible news report like these?

http://www.todayonline.com/chinaindia/china/support-has-fizzled-says-hk-pro-democracy-body

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/02/us-hongkong-china-protests-idUSKBN0GX0OI20140902?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews

According to eye witness reported on Reddit, about 150 people showed up for the protest:

http://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/2f5sbv/occupy_central_live_update/

Surely NPOV edit would mean balance of facts are allowed, no?

Bobby fletcher (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

2014 Hong Kong protests Merge

I have redirected this as much of the same info was also included in this article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand that both articles are similar, although I'd recommend holding off on the redirect. I saw quite a bit of information regarding the specific details of the ongoing protests that was included in the 2014 HK protest article. It seemed to me that it serves as an umbrella article that readers can read and then link to the specific factions of interest. Lasersharp (talk) 03:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Seeing the redirect has been undone I propose a merger then, we cant have two articles overlapping each other this way. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@Lasersharp: I don't see why the information couldn't be merged into the background section here, a majority of the other article is un-sourced as it is. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

2014 Hong Kong protests is basically translated from an Chinese article - zh:9.27添美道集會 - written by me and a few other writers. The Chinese article is well sourced. Source will be added there when I have time. -Hijk910 (talk) 03:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose merge (for now). Let's see how things develop. Occupy Central is more than these protests and these protests are more than Occupy Central.--Nowa (talk) 00:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose merge. IMHO, "Occupy Central" is a proposal that spanned 20 months (Jan 13 - Sep 14) led by the "OCLP trio"; much of the time is spent on idealogy, discussion, preparation and rebuttal to voices of opposition. The 2014 protests (aka Umbrella Revolution), on the other hand, were initally led by Scholarism and Hong Kong Federation of Students and later developed into a spontaneous action. I can't say there is any easy clear cut but I recommend different coverages on these articles.--Jabo-er (talk) 02:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Óppose merge' There is now a clear distinction between the articles at the top of each page. Content is very different now. Leave them both to develop. Legacypac (talk) 22:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Connection to Ferguson Protests

It looks like there is a connection to 2014 Ferguson unrest. I think it should be included. Here are several references [1] [2] [3]--Nowa (talk) 06:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

What??? Legacypac (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

What What?--Nowa (talk) 23:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It's true that protesters in Ferguson made signs expressing solidarity with HK, but what's floating around about Ferguson-inspired HK seems to be US media making this about US. Looks like the rumors started with a click-baiting explainer over at Vox that said HK students appropriated the "hands-up" gesture. Yet, writer provided no sources / confirmation of the connection (and also acknowledged they have no way to confirm, while still headlining the post as if it were fact). That spread around Twitter over the weekend. Other sources just rode along that wave, reporting the same on Monday. Some journalists on Twitter called for someone on the ground to find evidence of the claim – e.g. at least ask a student. Lily Guo at QZ did bother to ask the students, and made clear there's no connection. [4] Vox has since updated the post to include bits of QZ's reporting, but unfortunately it's still being shared on Twitter as a sign of globalization that HK students learned from Ferguson. Karolle (talk) 23:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

That's a great link. Thanks. Any more information on "Instead, the gesture is a result of training and instructions from protest leaders..."?--Nowa (talk) 00:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I would say this saying is not true, either. There are NO leaders behind the protests (although the OCLP trio is framed as nominal leader by local media) and almost all protesters join without any prior "training and instructions". The hand-up gesture is simply a sign to show innocence in front of the police. Although I am aware of the existence of Ferguson events , I am surprised some US-based media tried to liken the Ferguson and Hong Kong protests – it casts some doubts over some of the "reliable sources" Wikipedia is using.--Jabo-er (talk) 02:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

There are leaders, but that's not a reference to OCLP, who moved ahead their separately scheduled sit-in because of the weekend confrontation with the police. I think that's a reference to the student-initiated protests—led by HKFS(?). I'm sure I've seen a handful of specific people from HKFS referred to as leaders/organizers, but can't locate right this second—will revert later if I do. Mainstream media seems focused on portraying chaos (the photos of tear gas) or impending chaos. However, what I'm seeing via FB status updates from friends and friends-of-friends is an impressively organized and civil protest. They have volunteer first aid and doctors, 24/7 hotline for legal advice and other support, organized distribution of resources like food and water, trash pickup volunteers, etc. If someone finds an article that analyzes how the students organized, please do share. This post by a professor does capture some of the activities & sentiments I'm trying to describe: "A Professor’s Open Letter to Her Hong Kong Students."Karolle (talk) 06:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The letter is a wonderful link. Thank you.--Nowa (talk) 08:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

International Reaction

The international reaction section seems to be pretty Anglo (US, UK, AU, CA). Can anyone broaden it a bit?--Nowa (talk) 08:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

What do you recommend to broaden it with?? Views of people from Mainland China - and not Chinese overseas in US, UK, AU, CA??? What a joke! 134.148.46.1 (talk) 10:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually I was thinking of Japan, Korea, Singapore etc.--Nowa (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Help with an article?

I need some help with the article Umbrella Man (Occupy Central Movement, Hong Kong). It's about a specific photograph that is related to the OCM and it needs some serious TLC. It was up for a speedy (which I've declined) but I'm thinking that a merge to the main OCM article would be best due to the limited amount of coverage that I could find. However, I did want to ask around to various WikiProjects and pages to see if they could help out some when it comes to finding foreign language sources or sources I may have missed. Anyone interested? (I've cut/pasted this to various pages.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I have it on my watch list.--Nowa (talk) 23:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I've copyedited the Umbrella Man (Occupy Central Movement, Hong Kong). While that topic is notable in its own right, it would seem logical that it be merged here although I have no strong opinion either way. I don't think foreign (i.e. Chinese) language sources would add anything.  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see Hong Kong media giving this image any particular attention, let alone the Chinese media. I don't think the article can stand on its own. _dk (talk) 07:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Time Magazine has used the photo as its cover in the most recent issue, but whether its notability is enough for a separate WP article is still a question only time can answer. In my opinion, I do think in the long run there will be enough notability for the article to be separate. Lasersharp (talk) 08:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Which would suggest that it should be merged for now and split off again as and when appropriate.  Philg88 ^♦talk 09:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

agreed. Lasersharp (talk) 12:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• As somewhat nominator, I support the merge for now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

"Soapbox"-ing

User:STSC removed a sentence stating that the Alliance for Peace and Democracy (ADP) anti-Occupy campaign's credibility had been called into question. In the edit summary, he/she said it constitutes WP:SOAPBOX-ing. However, it is a referenced, NPOV statement backed up by a South China Morning Post article. Citobun (talk) 02:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The "Timeline" section is for listing the events, not for discussions. By all means, put anything else you want to say in the article Alliance for Peace and Democracy (Hong Kong). STSC (talk) 06:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Please look at other listings, they don't have any discussion associated with them (whether sourced or not is beyond the point). STSC (talk) 10:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Also the claim from SCMP was unproven; as a compromise, the ref is there if someone wants to read it. STSC (talk) 13:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

POV pushing

User:STSC has a long history of pushing his political point of view on any and all China-related articles. Undoubtedly he will assert that this is a "personal attack", but it is solely about content and a necessary preface for anyone unfamiliar with his prolific editing history on Hong Kong/China issues, Senkaku Islands, Chinese territories, Falun Gong, and anything else controversial to do with China.

He has repeatedly changed the following item in the timeline section:

* 18 July to 17 August 2014 - APD's "Anti-Occupy Central" petition campaign collects over 1,500,000 signatures, although the credibility of the campaign came into question as there were "no measures in place to prevent repeat signatures".

to instead read:

* 18 July to 17 August 2014 - APD's "Anti-Occupy Central" petition campaign collects over 1,500,000 signatures.

Here is the reference

The integrity of the voting system was called into question by numerous media sources and the statement is supported by the South China Morning Post (SCMP), a reliable source. The article in the SCMP is focused solely on this issue and the ability to vote more than once was noted by journalists from other media outlets too. The fact that the credibility of this campaign was questioned is an important part of the story and it doesn't make the timeline item unduly longer nor tangential than anything else in the timeline.

User:STSC also tends to bombard my talk page with warning templates when he comes into disagreement with me. I object to his use of an "edit warring" warning template on my talk page with relation to this issue because I have provided a sound reason why I had reverted his deletion.

His reply that "the claim from SCMP was unproven" is nonsensical. If you read the article, the fact that there is no way to prevent repeat signatures is admitted by the organiser of the campaign: "There is no measure in place to prevent repeat signatures as people who sign will be asked for only the letter and first four digits of their ID cards. "We can only ask people to exercise self-respect [and not sign more than once]," Chow said." Citobun (talk) 01:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I just restored the original version which had been stable for a long time.

You still avoid to answer my points above: -

"The Timeline section is for listing the events, not for discussions. By all means, put anything else you want to say in the article Alliance for Peace and Democracy (Hong Kong)."

"Please look at other listings, they don't have any discussion associated with them (whether sourced or not is beyond the point)."

STSC (talk) 11:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The "original version which had been stable for a long time" was added by you, not too long ago, to further your political agenda on Wikipedia. You've come up with this arbitrary rule that the timeline is "not for discussions" because noting the questionable integrity of the APD signature campaign would undermine your political agenda.

As I said above, it's a valid part of the balanced story, it's backed up by a reliable source, and it isn't out of place with everything else on the timeline. You have no valid grounds to remove it. It is inappropriate to delete well-sources edits you happen to disagree with while simultaneously spamming articles with fringe theories which support your worldview ([5], [6]). You need to review WP:ACTIVIST because you are using Wikipedia as your political soapbox, to the detriment of the neutrality and the balanced nature of these protest-related pages. Citobun (talk) 01:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Your source is dated 10 July 2014; and the event occurred from 18 July to 17 August 2014. Actually the speculation before the event's occurrence is not appropriate as per WP:CRYSTALL. STSC (talk) 08:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no speculation. The organiser of the campaign admitted there were no measures to prevent repeat signatures while the campaign was ongoing. Secondly, the content is about the fact that the campaign's credibility was "called into question", which is also not a matter of speculation. Please stop removing reliable-sourced content simply because it doesn't support your own politics. Again, Wikipedia is not for political activism and you have a serious problem pushing your POV on Hong Kong-related articles through long-term revert warring on baseless grounds, as you're doing now. Citobun (talk) 08:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

You're again reminded not to personal attack on other editors with different views. Do you have sources that support the claim after the event? If not then the speculation is unproven. STSC (talk) 09:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

You're always accusing me of "personal attacks" to try to silence my legitimate concerns. Please look up the definition of a personal attack, because for the millionth time, nothing I've ever written constitutes a personal attack on you. I would have the same complaints over anyone with a similar pattern of revert warring (on flimsy grounds) to further their political agenda, regardless of their political views. On the contrary, you bully people who object to your POV-pushing behavior, whether it's through bombarding my talk page with frivolous block warning templates (1, 2, 3) or reporting others for edit warring when you were equally as guilty as they.

Again, nothing in the content at hand is speculative. That the campaign was "called into question" was reported upon as it happened – this is not speculative. The organiser of the campaign admitted there were no measures to curb repeat voting, and that tourists and non-residents could vote – also reliably sourced and not speculative.

I have restored the edit and added numerous additional reliable sources, including material written after the campaign. Repeatedly deleting reliably-sourced content to further a political agenda constitutes Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Citobun (talk) 02:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Their criticism is trivial as no signature petition in the world is 100% error-proof.

I have been editing Wikipedia long time before you appeared on the scene and have helped you being a new editor. I advise you to learn AGF and not to turn Wikipedia as a battleground. STSC (talk) 07:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not a new editor. Abusing warning templates does not "help" me. And if criticisms of the signature campaign have received coverage in numerous reliable sources (including the Hong Kong Economic Journal, South China Morning Post, HK Magazine, and RTHK) then they aren't "trivial".

Accusing me of making Wikipedia into a "battleground" is really pot calling the kettle black given your long history of disputes and tendentious editing over any and every politically-sensitive China-related subject. Citobun (talk) 08:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I have defended you in the AfD dispute when you were a new editor. I have tried to AGF but I can see your real motive just to seek every opportunity to spread a negative image on organizations opposing the Occupy Central. I noted that a faired-minded editor has rightly described you as "abusing the process to suppress different opinions". STSC (talk) 14:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

You can smear me however you like, but our edit histories speak for themselves. You keep adding block warnings to my talk page – if you're really convinced I'm personally attacking you, then I suggest you take it to Wikipedia:Requests for comment, or report me to an admin instead.

I've barely edited Occupy-related subjects (aside from talk page discussion), and I don't recall ever editing the pages of any anti-Occupy groups. On the contrary, you've been constantly boosting these groups for weeks. All I've done is try to balance a small piece of the story on this page, because the fact that some of these anti-Occupy campaigns have been called into question IS part of the story – as evidenced by the ample coverage in numerous reliable sources.

About the "faired-minded editor" – I have no recollection of who you're referring to. You should link to it. Were they blocked?

Anyway, again: instead of constantly plastering my talk page with block warnings, please take it to Wikipedia:Requests for comment or report me to an admin next time. Enough with these false accusations of misconduct – if you really think I've done something wrong, report me. Otherwise you're just being disruptive and distracting from the content-related issue, which is that you're persistently blanking well-cited content, on a variety of flimsy grounds, to further an agenda you've long promoted on Wikipedia. Citobun (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Please don't behave like a schoolboy. I want to end this pointless edit war, I removed the events about ADP. STSC (talk) 10:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Because the items no longer bolster your political agenda... Citobun (talk) 11:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I think that there's nothing wrong with the addition "although the credibility of the campaign came into question..." as it seems to be sourced decently with the SCMP article. WP:NOTCRYSTAL doesn't apply here for obvious reasons, here we have something factual about them having no measures to prevent double voting (no prediction etc). If the list details events, and this was one of them—in addition to a source highlighting this fact about it—I don't see what's wrong with including it. I also request both sides to assume good faith and stick to content, not contributor. Hope this helps, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Occupy Central with Love and Peace. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150701164520/http://www.hkilang.org/NEW_WEB/page/dictionary to http://www.hkilang.org/NEW_WEB/page/dictionary
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141106154510/http://specials.mingpao.com/cfm/News.cfm?SpecialsID=137&News=8ab914df23750540e8fe411732d47722acdc4d613276542c808c1979aaf6640d8a82 to http://specials.mingpao.com/cfm/News.cfm?SpecialsID=137&News=8ab914df23750540e8fe411732d47722acdc4d613276542c808c1979aaf6640d8a82
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://harbourtimes.com/openpublish/article/hong-kong-nationalism-student-editors-not-advocating-independence-its-option-20150120
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.hklii.org/hk/legis/en/ord/2211/longtitle.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=11&art_id=131351&sid=39060291&con_type=1
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?art_id=146299&con_type=3
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?we_cat=11&art_id=146908&sid=42538382&con_type=1&d_str=20140630&fc=1
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.hk.msn.com/sunday/%E4%B8%80%E5%80%8B%E6%99%82%E4%BB%A3%E7%9A%84%E7%B5%82%E7%B5%90
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=30&art_id=147555&sid=42656332&con_type=1&d_str=20140721&isSearch=1&sear_year=2014
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006150214/http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?we_cat=17&art_id=148502&sid=42830506&con_type=1&d_str=20140819&fc=2 to http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?we_cat=17&art_id=148502&sid=42830506&con_type=1&d_str=20140819&fc=2
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://harbourtimes.com/openpublish/article/international-business-mulling-occupy-central-censure
• Corrected formatting/usage for ttp://news.sina.com.hk/news/20130316/-2-2919865/1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

…

Pretty sure they got another one not just too long ago White1306 (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)