Talk:2011 Chinese pro-democracy protests/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Chinese Wikipedia entry

Here are some points I have gathered from the Chinese page, which I think would be helpful since this is a Chinese incident.

Out of the thirteen cities planned, only BeiJing and ShangHai had any form of 'protest', but also in unplanned cities NanNing and Hong Kong. A few people got arrested and most were 'asked politely' (in the article itself) to leave. In BeiJing, a few hundred people gathered around the Wang Fu Jing area. Some were taken away by the police and most were asked to leave. The Tian an men Sqaure was not in high security, but people's bags were checked. There were some in ShangHai too, but there wasn't much going on and they were rumours (says so in the article) In Nanning, there were a few hundred too and apparantly some were taken away by the police. In Hong Kong, paper airplanes with Jasmine on them were thrown into a government building.
So, if those sources are to be believed, then to be honest, nothing happened. There were protests, ok, I see that. But not every protest needs its own Wiki article and this one is small, really small. There wasn't a lot of people involved (a few hundred is a small number in China, especially in big cities like BeiJing and Shanghai), there wasn't violence involved, nobody got injured. Things like this happen in China, I won't say everyday, but often enough so that it doesn't deserve its own article.
Of course, the Chinese sources might be wrong but someone else has to check them since I don't have the time to do it now and I am not exactly an experienced Wikipedian.Zlqq2144 (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
The Chinese-language version of the article does not seem to me to be under a proposal for deletion. Is there discussion there for deleting the zh version of the article? Boud (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, quite a few editors in the Talk page are propsing deletion. Some also propose merging or renaming.Zlqq2144 (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Just looking at the zh article, the number of towns for 27 Feb planned "strolls" seems larger than that for 20 Feb. Boud (talk) 02:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, though I doubt that it is going to be any better than the 20 Feb one. Zlqq2144 (talk) 04:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Other side of the argument?

I am not familiar with Wikipedia rules and regulations so I though it would be better to put this on the Talk page before I edit anything.

[1] It came from a pro-China website, but then again, most references used in this article are anti-China western media. Also, it is under the opinion category, does this pass the POV check?

Nevertheless, it raises a notable issue within this event and balances out the argument (because as of now, the article just sounds like Chinese government is trying to suppress angry people), so I hope someone can find more references on the other side of the argument to keep Wikipedia neutral. Zlqq2144 (talk) 01:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Per their [[2]] they appear to be an activist site and not a site with a reputation for accuracy and fact checking Active Banana (bananaphone 01:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I realised that, which is why I didn't edit the page. Though I would like to raise the issue that maybe we need to find some sources supporting the other side of the argument?Zlqq2144 (talk) 01:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
We report what the reliable sources report in proportion to what/how they are reporting it. Do you have relialbe soruces that are stating something other than what is being presented in the article?Active Banana (bananaphone 19:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

RESPONSE

THIS IS A RESPONSE TO Maheshkumaryadav

Firstly, the speronews sources doesnt actually say that Chinese sources censored the words 'egyptian protest', it says that information reminding the people of the 1989 China incident was censored.

Secondly, the speronews sources is not true.

Various sites have news articles about China which have pictures, etc. [3] [4] [5][6]

It is a major news, for example, a leading portal site 163 has a special topic on it. [7] and from huanqiu.com, created by a government controlled media: [8]

These are all big sites, equivalent of BBC, The Guardian, CNN, etc in China. They easily proves that the speronews site is not true.

Jasmine is censored, yes, Jasmine revolution, however, cannot be counted as another one since its the 'jasmine' thats censored, not 'revolution' or the phrase.Zlqq2144 (talk) 06:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, sorry about removing the sources in the earlier revert, I chose the wrong version...im a newbie...Zlqq2144 (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Another point, the image with all the reporters is not sourced. Where did it come from. I don't want to start an edit war so i am asking here before any edits.Zlqq2144 (talk) 06:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Huntsman, the ambassador's name is not blocked [9], even his microblog is still up and running [10], there are lots of discussions on the internet about why he appeared at the protest site and none of them or any other news articles are blocked [11] is an example. This [12] is the news search result with concerning huntsman, none of them blocked. Zlqq2144 (talk) 12:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the issue may be a bit sensitive over the internet and the government is controlling/deleting some of the comments, but no, there isn't a major block.Zlqq2144 (talk) 13:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Article title

2011 Chinese protests is not a very good title, because there are a lot of protests in China, and presumably a lot already this year, most of which receive very little media attention. They are usually concerned with some much more specific, local issue. They are a very different animal from the sparsely-attended but much-talked-about democracy/prosperity protests on Feb. 20, but the current title would seem to include both. How about Chinese Jasmine movement as a more accurate title? The "movement" includes both the online calls for protests and the protests themselves.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree, though I'm also not ready to endorse the alternatives you offer - I'll let other editors weigh in on that. But yes, there are tens of thousands of protests (some say hundreds of thousands) per year in China, so an article title "2011 Chinese protests" would be expected to discuss them. I'm not convinced about the merits of this article myself yet. The most notable things about it to me are the arrests of Chinese rights lawyers that accompanied it, and what will likely be the ongoing saga around the appearance of the U.S. ambassador. Homunculus (duihua) 23:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I think that any change of the title will probably come after the AfD discussion, since this article might get deleted and merged, or renamed in the AfD anyway. Zlqq2144 (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Silent protestors? Really?

This was mentioned in the AfD discussion, I want to expand it a bit here.

In the call for everybody to protest, the organisers said that (something along the lines of this) you dont need to show support, just walk by silently will do. Because the government will obviously try to stop it if everybody went shouting slogans.

Really. Ok, then. I would like to announce that everybody at the Times square today were just answering to my call from some secret place online to protest against the US government. Huge success! This should be made into an article immediately!

I mean, really? They chose crowded places like shopping centres. No wonder they had many supporters. Zlqq2144 (talk) 10:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The western mainstream media reporters seem to be able to judge that on 20 and 27 Feb there were higher crowds than usual.
Please read Critical Mass and critical mass (sociodynamics). Whether you and i and other wikipedians agree with the dissidents' tactics is irrelevant. So far they have gained major international media attention and major reactions by the PRC government - including the bashing up of a reporter for Bloomberg L.P.'s subsidiary - for just the first 9 days of their project. Boud (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Both Deutsche Welle[13] and the WSJ[14] said that there were no demonstrations. The WSJ said that there was more people than usual in Shanghai(however there were no signs of protest), but not in Beijing.Atoms78errt (talk) 04:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
That same WSJ article also says "and the huge security operation in Beijing disrupted normal shopping and attracted many curious bystanders." "Many curious bystanders" means essentially the same thing as "higher crowds than usual".
Regarding "no demonstrations", WSJ (and other journals) are in some difficulty because of the protest tactics of gaining critical mass (sociodynamics) while minimising physical/legal risk. Unless we limit ourselves to pure quotes (which can be necessary when there is controversy among wikipedians about common sense interpretation), it makes sense to summarise the substantive meaning of the sources in plain English, it seems to me. WSJ at the same time reports higher crowds and "many curious bystanders" in Beijing and Shanghai but also reports "no signs of actual protests", i.e. literally speaking it is inconsistent with itself, given that it has also report the "stroll" tactic. The WSJ knows that the demonstration tactic is strolling, so if it wrote carefully enough, it would have said that there were "many curious bystanders-of-whom-some-in-principle-might-have-been-strolling-protestors". It chose not to go into such pedantic details. Either we can go into lengthy quotes, or we can summarise the obvious intended meaning: there were no overt protests (people obviously identifiable as protestors) but there were higher crowds than usual (whose role as "strolling" protestors or as genuine bystanders can only be guessed), without trying to make any claim regarding the proportion of bystanders who were strolling protestors, since the WSJ itself did not attempt a guess. Boud (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Although the attraction of international attention and massive police intervention into these 'protest sites' did occur, that is not enough to say that a protest did occur. For a protest to occur, actual protesters must actually materialise. And what we have seen so far is either fabricated images taken from the Anti-Japanese protests years ago, or simply the protest organisers claiming that they had supporters from people strolling around, which would probably have simply been strolling around to reach their shopping centre. And just because the PRC beats up a reporter does not mean a protest is taking place. You seem to be assuming that the reality can be judged by people's actions, and that is not true at all. 220.245.6.72 (talk) 11:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Wenjiabao webchat

[15] this is the third time, the last one was the same time last year, it was planned. End of. Also, I've read the full transcript of the talk, nothing on this, and he talks about corruption, housing, education, etc every time. What else do you think he'd talk about? (response to Boud)Zlqq2144 (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

So last year's talk was on 27 Feb 2010, and the previous time was 20 June 2008? Do you have any RS evidence that the repeat date of 27 Feb 2011 was planned prior to 19 Feb 2011? We can add the counterclaim from the Mandarin article if there are no English sources. There are several credible possibilities of how the talk was in effect a response to the protests:
  • the protestors knew that Wen Jiabao gave a webchat on 27 Feb 2010 and wanted to give him a "face-saving" chance to respond to the protests with a date easy for him to choose
  • the protestors knew that Wen Jiabao planned to give a webchat on 27 Feb 2011, and chose their dates to match this
  • the PRC authorities remembered that the previous two webchats were on 20 June 2008 and 27 Feb 2010, and they could make the new chat on 27 Feb 2011 and pretend that it had been planned long in advance.
We don't have the sources to separate any of these hypotheses, so we give the POVs of France 24 and of China News. Boud (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

[16] He said last time that he would come back same time next year. Sure, it wasn't confirmed, so I am looking for more. Zlqq2144 (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Please add whatever you find and help WP:NPOV that paragraph. i'm not actually suggesting that my list of 3 hypotheses go in the article, i'm just giving them to show that the France 24 POV is credible in its claim. That doesn't prove that France 24 is right. Boud (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I really don't think that this is relevent, or at least, important enough to put on this article. He answered some questions on corruption, housing and education, so what? He and other government officials do that all the time, another one 3 months ago [17] when he was visiting a radio station. There's also a thing on the government website [18] where people can leave messages to high level government officials. So, this really isn't that important. Though, of course, i'd like to discuss it first before editing to avoid an edit war of some kind. Zlqq2144 (talk) 00:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I mean, sure, we need to include different, perhaps POV views from different media sources, but that doesn't mean we should just stick every media source we find in there, just the important ones that are closely related. Zlqq2144 (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

proposed sentence for the lead

How about the following as an NPOV description for the WP:LEAD (introduction)?

A 27 February [[web chat]] by Premier [[Wen Jiabao]] that "blanketed the nation over the internet, television and radio" for two hours<ref name="FT_blanketed" /> was interpreted by ''[[France 24]]'' and ''[[The Financial Times]]'' as an "apparent bid to defuse"<ref name="webjiabao_webchat" /> the call for weekly gatherings<ref name="harshest_crackdown" /> and by ''[[China News]]'' as a web chat planned long in advance.<ref name="ChNews_innocentwebchat" />

Boud (talk) 00:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

That is fairly NPOV to me though you don't seem to get my point. How is this extremely important that it should be in the lead, or even mentiond? Please read my comments above. Zlqq2144 (talk) 00:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
It's notable according to the POV of France 24 and The Financial Times: they see it as the Premier of the world's most populous nation trying to overwhelm all major media (tv + radio + internet) in PRC in order to give an impression that the government is listening to citizens' concerns and responding to them. China News apparently claims it's just a coincidence.
Also, the lead should compactly summarise key points from the text, and not introduce new points. The first paragraph in the domestic reactions section is a bit messier - it includes the WP:WEASEL word "analysts" without saying which analysts; it should have double quotes " not single quotes ' - see WP:MOSQUOTE i think - but for a high level official to react to the protests by referring to the possibility of a jasmine revolution in the PRC (even in the negative) is IMHO notable enough. i guess that if nobody else works on that paragraph, maybe i will, depending on the deletion debate closure (the lack of clear consensus should in principle imply non-deletion, but someone independent has to close the debate tomorrow or later). Boud (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
The 'analyst' came from the original article, so I have no idea who, but does that count as quote, not WEASEL?
Also, I think the lead should just say (better wording obviously) 'there had been some protests in China organised by activists on 20 Feb and 27 Feb, claiming to be inspired by the MENA events. There was few obvious protests though some suggest it is to do with the police presence.' Actually, I don't think that, I think this article should be deleted. Though if it is kept then that's what I think is appropriate. All the media coverage and POV stuff should stay in the related sections. Zlqq2144 (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Jon Huntsman

Zlqq2144 is making an error by making this edit: [19], in violation of WP:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight, and the statement: "it still led to a lot of people wondering the role of the US government had in this event." is WP:Original Research, or maybe Zlqq is trying to add some element of conspiracy into this article? Either way, the content should be removed. Arilang talk 05:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Is the U.S. really stupid enough to send its ambassador to a protest it instigates?
    • Firstly, that's not for us to comment really. Secondly, well, maybe yeah, if everybody think what you think. Also, he wasn't immediately recognised, there were lots of foreign reporters there, and he brought his family (which was why they issued the statement saying he was just passing by).Zlqq2144 (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the wording can be improved, but it was not original research: [20] 'It is particularly controlversial', [21], suggesting consipiracy. I am looking for more sources whilst trying to improve the wording.Zlqq2144 (talk) 05:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, here are some more sources. [22] Suggests possible US government support for pro-democracy movement. [23] note last paragraph, speculation from some Chinese bloggers, etc. [24] cotroversies suggested too. Zlqq2144 (talk) 05:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

There are more sources available if you want them, but I will move on to editing the article for now. Zlqq2144 (talk) 05:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Even though there are lots of reliable sources and references, that content still need to be removed from the lede, because the presence of Huntsman was only a very minor incident among all the things that had happened. By including it onto the lede, the article is now unbalanced and not neutral. Arilang talk 06:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Firstly, it is a significant part of this whole thing as it leads to question who actually started/helped it, as the first calls came from online. Secondly, it is mostly the view of pro-chinese people and POV, however, the lead also has views from the Chinese Human Rights Defenders, an anti-government view. POV from different sides, balanced, achieves NPOV. Zlqq2144 (talk) 06:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


After reading Adrienne Mong's report, it is very clear that the video's original source is " M4.cn is a retooled version of Anti-CNN.com", which is maned by extremely biased "Hate USA, Love China" patriotic young Chinese. Editors can sort of "smell" the motive behind the release of the video on internet. All I am saying is, the content can be included somewhere in the article, not at the lede, per wiki rule:Neutrality. Arilang talk 06:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Anti-cnn.com is an activist website/forum. So are the Chinese Human Rights Defenders. Delete that?
Also, anti-cnn.com actually had a video (solid evidence) and was cited/commented/analysed by multiple outside sources whereas Chinese Human Rights Defenders just gave their POV. Zlqq2144 (talk) 06:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see the comments made by Chinese Human Rights Defenders are deleted by Ohconfucius. I agree with that. Update on my opinion about huntsman thing, it was cited by numerous sources with their own, outsider anaylysis/comment. It involves the US in this mess, so it is important. Zlqq2144 (talk) 06:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Huntsman was spotted, and the image of him at the rendezvous is all over the internet, along with the speculation that the Americans endorse or may have a hand in fomenting regime change is fact. I don't see how it can be removed without falling foul of WP:NPOV. We could perhaps rewrite the text in a more non-partisan manner. CHRD's comment was just speculative hyperbole. Notice that they used the conditional 'may', and one might contend that security arrangements around the award of the 2010 NPP to Liu Xiaobo, or one of the many other security clampdowns like Tibet or Xinjiang, was heavier. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


Huntsman, and in the broader sense, USA's alleged role in this "revolution" is just media gossip and self promotion hype, and it will remain a rumor, and stay that way. Editors should not try to promote rumors when they see one. Arilang talk 10:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
This protest, in the broad sense, is kind of a media gossip and self promotion. The huntsman issue is about just as well sourced (not as in comparing numbers) as this whole protest, it is significant and important, within this topic. Zlqq2144 (talk) 11:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

美國駐北京大使洪博培（Jon Huntsman）與其中部分記者見面後發表聲明指出，記者受到這種對待令人無法接受，並深感不安。他並譴責中國公安騷擾和毆打若干外籍記者。共和黨籍的 洪博培考慮出馬角逐美國總統大位，他曾任猶他州（Utah）州長，即將卸下駐北京大使職務。

他說，「對於中國公安當局未能保障外國記者執行職務時的安全和財物，本人感到失望。」並呼籲中國政府追究騷擾和攻擊無辜人士犯行者的責任，並要求尊重外國記者在中國境內採訪報導的權利。http://times.hinet.net/times/article.do?newsid=4705502&option=mainland I shall try to locate the English source. Arilang talk 23:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

"This type of harassment and intimidation is unacceptable and deeply disturbing. I am disappointed that the Chinese public security authorities could not protect the safety and property of foreign journalists doing their jobs," Huntsman said in a statement.

"I call on the Chinese Government to hold the perpetrators accountable for harassing and assaulting innocent individuals and ask that they respect the rights of foreign journalists to report in China."http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/02/28/china-usa-media-idUKTOE71R07J20110228

Arilang talk 23:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

That should be put under the international response/reporters get beaten up section. Zlqq2144 (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Stability maintenance, known as “weiwen” in Chinese

See http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/world/asia/01china.html If this language is being used by the Chinese government we should use it. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

NOTHING happened

This is just some overhyped event where pretty much nothing happened. Check the definition of revolution please. 140.180.14.79 (talk) 07:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually it happened a lot (see the list of events and facts in the article). The name of the article already has been changed from Jasmine Revolution to "Chinese protests", which is exactly what happened. If the protests continue each Sunday as announced, one might consider to rename it to "Jasmine Revolution". We should observe the development and decide on the relevance of this article in about a month from now. Zhangjiandong (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Uhm...no it wouldnt be a revolution even if it carries on every sunday. See definition of revolution [25]. Also, Chinese protests is a very bad name. How many protests have there been in China? 2011 Chinese protests is not a lot better, since there have been other Chinese protests. Zlqq2144 (talk) 00:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Western Media Bias

see this thread [26] for more details. OK, this is an activist forum, so its contents shouldn't be counted as RS, however, the content of this thread is actually supported by RS. I am not familiar with Wikipedia so I don't know if it can be used (so I am putting this in the talkpage, not edit), but using my common sense, there is no reason why not.

For those who don't understand Chinese(actually, some pictures are annotated with English): These are screenshots and link from news websites (mainly western media but also Hong Kong and Taiwan media) which reports the 'protest'. However, the pictures used have nothing to do with this protest and some are balatantly clear for ANYONE who undertands ANY chinese.

For example, one of them shows people holding signs and slogans, making the readers believe that they are the protestors. However, it actually says 'looking for workers' on the slogan, as in they are looking for workers. at a job market. It has job information written on them like what type of people they want do to what, etc.

The first picture shows people protesting, with a Chinese flag, making people believe that it is from this protest. No, it is not, this picture came out in 05, according to Baidu News Search. And it has nothing to do with the Jasmine thing, it is a protest against Japan changing their textbooks to hide the fact that they invaded China. But that is another story.

Other images include: using images from the 7.5 Urumuqi incident, using a picture from protest in Taiwan, using animation (the police had machine guns, thats just ridiculous), using the image of a criminal sentenced to death bring carried away to be injected as police arresting.

Most of these evidence are supported by screenshots of the pictures being used in older news articles or that the picture itself would be clear to anyone who understands Chinese that this has nothing to do with a protest.

Also, the thread says that it will update when it finds more evidence, so I will keep a close watch.

And now some POV: it kind of shows that nothing happened, because if something DID happen, then why use images from 5 years ago about something else or just random images with Chinese people on them and say that this is the protest. I mean, the images used are so far from the truth and so far from this incident (job market, really?) that I, personally, begin to doubt the motives. But, as I said, that was POV, ignore if you wish.Zlqq2144 (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Whilst waiting for people to respond to this, I am going to be working on putting this in the article. The draft will be in my userspace. [27] Srarch that, I don't have enough time. Someone else can do it. (edited:Zlqq2144 (talk) 06:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC))Zlqq2144 (talk) 05:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

As Richard at Peking Duck points out, that anti-cnn thread is BS. None of the examples they give of Western media bias are from serious Western news outlets except for the one from the Irish Independent, i.e. the website of one newspaper in a small country. It's bitterly ironic that a website complaining about misleading news coverage would provide such misleading coverage itself.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 07:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Hence I haven't added anything to the main article. Zlqq2144 (talk) 07:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Also, calm down. Zlqq2144 (talk) 07:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
On a completely off topic issue (hence i'll only comment once), 打倒anticnn？,they are not rubbish at everything, e.g. tibet 08, hence the name. Zlqq2144 (talk) 07:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
j/k!—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 03:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Next step

Anyone know what the next step is? Zlqq2144 (talk) 08:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

  • If the article survives the AfD, I shall probably propose that it be moved to Reports of 2011 Chinese protests, because this is what is notable; there are no protests as such, except in the imagination of some media outlets. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 10:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree, media hype. Zlqq2144 (talk) 10:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I think that's a loaded title because it suggests there were no protests. It's a matter of opinion whether there were any protests. After all, one could claim that protests were planned and/or would have gone ahead in a more visible form had it not been for the security crackdown.
If your logic is valid, one could equally propose the article be renamed to "Suppression of planned 2011 Chinese protests". John Smith's (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

See here:中国“茉莉花革命”3月6日.. #cn306.. 简讯：网上出现茉莉花集会新通告 Chinese Jasmine protest might be a more suitable name? Arilang talk 10:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

  • My suggestion was not so much a moniker for the protests, but that we should be focussing on protests at all, seeing that there isn't all that much actual protesting. The use of 'Reports of' is meant to change the emphasis away from 'protests'. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

At the moment it just looks like an over-reaction of the Chinese police over a non-event(lack of real protesters), but come 6/3/2011, when Hong Kong planned mass rally come along, there may be some real protesters show up in some of those 35 cities. Let's have some patience. Arilang talk 14:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It will either become bigger and bigger, with actual people protesting in the traditional way, or the government will realise that the public isn't actually interested in this and stop the police thing, which means that this will die out since there will be nothing to report about. Or, in a miracle, it might start a new way of protesting, where you don't actually see any obvious protestors. I, of course, support the 'die out' opinion. But we'll see Zlqq2144 (talk) 10:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Our definition of notability is verifiable information in reliable published sources. Some exist and our article more or less reflects the published information: calls for protests; little public response; big police response; continued calls; little, if any, public response; intense interest by the international press; police response and internal censorship, etc. It's real and notable, but it is what it is, not what people hope or fear it might be, although that too may be notable. We should simply continue to report what happens, not hype it or attempt to dismiss it; that is not our place. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Though most of the media coverage also mentions that this is inspired/started/a result of/etc the MENA events, and the actual thing is small, so why not merge it there? Zlqq2144 (talk) 14:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
See the discussion of length in WP:SPLIT. Boud (talk) 20:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
As I said in the AfD discussion, there are larger and more violent protests inspired by the MENA article, most of them got a few short paragrahs. This isn't notable enough to get its own article and it can be condensed into a few short paragrahs. If split, I'd say a split of the main MENA article and create 'events inspired by MENA events' (better name) article and dump everything in there. Zlqq2144 (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Getting consensus on condensing this whole article into just a few short paragraphs would be extremely difficult: it's not easy to judge which bits are most notable without doing original research or WP:SYNTH. Remember that Wikipedia is not paper: WP:NOTPAPER. There's no sign of the weekly gatherings of bystanders, possibly-strolling-protestors, police and journalists in (at least) Beijing and Shanghai stopping, so the article is more likely to get longer than shorter. Also, after all the energy invested in the deletion debate, probably it's best just to work on improving the quality of the article, and give it a few weeks or so for a slightly longer term perspective to build up. Boud (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Article name: my suggestion is something like 2011 weekly Chinese gatherings. Certainly lots of police and journalists and bystanders have gathered on both 20 and 27 Feb. At least some protestors were present on 20 Feb and we don't have RS reports on how many gathered on 27 Feb. But there seems to be little controversy that these are (so far) a weekly series of gatherings. We could try to get "Jasmine" into the name, since that is what the organisers overtly refer to, but that would make it longer, unless we have e.g. 2011 Chinese Jasmine gatherings ??? But IMHO a descriptive title is safer. Any thoughts on 2011 weekly Chinese gatherings ? BTW, i suggest that after the deletion debate is closed, if we seem to approach consensus on a name, we should use a proper requested-move template procedure to confirm the apparent consensus, which would give 7 days to make a cool decision (and not a move war as happened for the MENA protests article...). Boud (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
2011 Weekly Chinese Jasmine gatherings sounds OK to me. Arilang talk 22:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
To name it 'weekly gatherings', Jasmine or not, suggests that it is becoming something that happens every week. It may well be the case, but we don't know. Per WP:Crystallball. My opinion is that it will only become 'weekly gatherings' if this event continues for at least 2 to 3 months or so (8-12 weeks) with continued media focus, continued heavy police presence, and arguably actual protestors. Before that, I don't think that we can involve 'weekly gathering' as a point in AfD, or the possible change name/merge/etc discussion. As of now, it is still a (arguably) notable/not notable/part of MENA/etc short term event as it has only happened twice (proposed 3rd time) and is unlikely to have any prolonged future effect. Zlqq2144 (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Why not simply 2011 Chinese Jasmine gatherings? "Weekly" doesn't add much. 2011 might not be necessary, but I would have a hard time saying there have never been any other gatherings in all of Chinese history that have something to do with jasmines in some sense.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I still think that this article should be deleted/merged into related MENA section, but compared to 2011 Weekly (Jasmine) Gatherings, I prefer '(2011) Chinese (Jasmine) gatherings', at least until I can think of something else. Zlqq2144 (talk) 01:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  • How about 2011 Boxun incitement to stroll in protest --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
    Something along the lines of that would be fine, IMO. Zlqq2144 (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Ohconfucius. Colipon+(Talk) 16:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
New name should include "Jasmine", since it is the theme of this whole show(of nothing). Arilang talk 07:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Might there be any legal problem with "Boxun incitement" as an article name? Arilang talk 00:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Why would there be? They started this, all the notices and stuff are posted on their websites. Zlqq2144 (talk) 05:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Whatever people here want, I presume that a formal proposal to move the page will be made on Wikipedia:Requested moves. John Smith's (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Taiwan part of PRC?

That some people believe Taiwan is part of China is their thing, but if you argue like this, Taiwan is part of ROC and not PRC. Why then are Taiwan's protests mentioned in this PRC article? 快樂龍 23:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Also edited the country name in the box from China to PRC according to the flag. If it would write China, than this flag should be shown, too:  ROC

FYI I moved the section on Taiwan to "international". John Smith's (talk) 23:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Geographically Taiwan Island is part of China, but politically Taiwan is administrated by the ROC gov, these are indisputable facts. So if we are talking about China as an umbrella term Taiwan should be included, but if we are just talking about mainland China (which is administrated by the PRC) then Taiwan should be excluded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The006 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

International condemnation

"This type of harassment and intimidation is unacceptable and deeply disturbing. I am disappointed that the Chinese public security authorities could not protect the safety and property of foreign journalists doing their jobs," Huntsman said in a statement.

"I call on the Chinese Government to hold the perpetrators accountable for harassing and assaulting innocent individuals and ask that they respect the rights of foreign journalists to report in China."http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/02/28/china-usa-media-idUKTOE71R07J20110228

  • Deccanherald US condemns 'harassment' of foreign journalists in China.
  • China CNN 'illegally' harasses journalists, U.S. ambassador says
  • HRW China: Investigate Police Assaults Against Foreign Journalists Beatings and Intimidation Flout Media Freedom Commitments.
  • [28]Foreign Journalists Face Off With Foreign Ministry
  • aljazeeraWhat we're witnessing is the equivalent of an elephant being brought in to crush an ant.
  • AP News "the worst aggression against the foreign press we've seen since the Olympics in 2008."]
  • NYTimes Chinese Move to Stop Reporting on Protests

Would someone add the above content into the article? Arilang talk 03:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The US ambassador accused the Chinese government of not being able to 'protect the safety of foreign journalists' and urges them to 'hold the erpetrators accountable for harassing and assulting innocent individuals' and 'respect the rights' of the reporters.
Is this alright? Zlqq2144 (talk) 05:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Just quote him directly, it is a short quote anyway. Arilang talk 05:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
The quote is somewhat sided (case in point: "harassing and assaulting innocent individuals" ;_; baww, poor innocent individuals *holds tissue to eye*); it would be better to phrase it neutrally in a short mention. Try not to quote when you can paraphrase in your own words instead. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
What a public official says should be quoted exactly, not paraphrased. It is in the public domain anyway as a work of an employee of the United States government while in the performance of his duties. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion Debate

I would prefer to keep this article as there have been many articles created on the recent protests in various countries, as can be seen on the 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests article. The article now has a neutral name and there's little reason to delete it, at least no more reason to delete it than any of the other articles created regarding the recent protests. Quite vivid blur (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep Seeing the tight control over internet and press in China, the local media is not able to print and fully cover such events, so its possible that persons it in a different cities in China might not be able to get the whole information and would undermine the importance of the article. Thought the amount of protests might not be that big but the response of Chinese government by blocking the 'jasmine' word and moderating billions of mobile phones and internet searches and content makes the article itself more important, as its not commonly seen elsewhere. So the contents or name of article can be improved, but the incidence, events and topic is worth and very important to be listed in this separate article --Maheshkumaryadav (talk) 13:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    • >and content makes the article itself more important, as its not commonly seen elsewhere
      but that doesn't give you the right to violate WP:RS and WP:OR, which are core Wikipedia policies. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Seeing how there has been nothing mentioned of this protest on major publications 2 days after it was mentioned on the 21st, there is no reason to believe this is notable at all. 69.166.114.139 (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Simply because there has been no serious mention of the events for the last few days does not mean the protests are not notable. Really, any form of political protest in China is notable, even accounting for any kind of "Western" bias I might have. The only reason the events are not getting airtime in the West right now is because of its preoccupation with the significantly more violent situation in Libya right now. Sixer Fixer (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
    • >Really, any form of political protest in China is notable
      You serious? Given how often they occur, we would have 280 articles per year on them. I don't think you are right at all. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep, at least for now. The response in China to the broader 'Jasmine revolution' movement, including this attempt at mimicry, is currently a topic in the news and is of interest to China-watchers. It may very well be that posterity shows that the event had no lasting or significant impact, and if that is the case, I would suggest that deletion may be in line. But it is too early to make an assessment on notability. In the mean time, there are numerous ways that the article could be improved. —Zujine|talk 16:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong delete though this should really be dicussed at the AfD. Per everything i said at AfD. Zlqq2144 (talk) 08:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Perspective From Somebody Who's Lived in China

Hey, I'm not sure if I'm violating any rules in commentating here; I don't do that much editing on wikipedia, so I'm not entirely familiar with the procedures. But I can tell you that, having previously been in China for several months, that the picture there is NOT A PROTEST. That's just a bunch of people in a crowded street corner trying to go shopping. I've seen plenty of places exactly like the one there while I was in China, and there's nothing particularly special about this one. It's like going to Times Square on a particularly crowded day, taking a picture of everybody, and calling it a protest against the American government. There are plenty of protests in China (hundreds per year, or more); go to the rural areas where you have farmers angry about losing their land to corrupt officials and you'll find them. But this isn't one of them. Hadoren (talk) 06:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually the protesters were not only people going shopping. In front of the Peace Cinema in Shanghai, about 100 people gathered and did not walk at all. There was no bus stop, nothing to wait for. Also one of the protesters in Shanghai, an old lady, was interviewed while protesting: "Our country has no proper legal system, it's a one-party dictatorship, a tyranny, that suppresses the citizens. There is also land eviction. Many people are beaten to death in many land eviction cases." I have lived in China too and are frequently there. So if you do not notice anything, it might have something to do with what the aims of the Jasmine revolutions are: To provide more information to everybody. Zhangjiandong (talk) 01:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Similar page needed in Chinese wikipedia

It would be better if someone translates this page on to the Chinese Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maheshkumaryadav (talk • contribs) 14:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The Chinese-language page: zh:中國茉莉花革命 has existed since 2011年2月19日 (六) 17:34 : [29]. It seems a little strange to me to expect content to flow from the English-language version to the Chinese-language version. Chinese-speakers should surely have access to a lot more reliable sources and be better able to judge the reliability of those sources. You could try asking on the talk page: zh:Talk:中國茉莉花革命 for people at zh to help at en and in the en deletion discussion (without advocating either for or against deletion). Boud (talk) 21:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the user actually looked at the chinese wikipedia page. Their article is more comprehensive than this. --haha169 (talk) 01:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Since the Chinese page is existing, this thread of the discussion page should be closed. Zhangjiandong (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
If you don't know how talk pages on Wikipedia work, I suggest you read WP:TALK. And thoroughly. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Revolution or protests?

There was no "revolution" in China or even anything notable. My perception of the article is that it was intended to overblow things for whatever political purpose. A more democratic China is certainly a good thing, but this isn't the place to promote political opinions. Of course one must assume good faith. This may just be an attempt to document current events. However, it is incorrect documentation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NyuclearTrigger (talk • contribs) 10:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the movement calls itself "Jasmine revolution", see boxun.com, currently not accessible. Everybody also calls the "People's Republic of China" by its given name, although nobody really would assume that this is a Republic legitimized by or representing the people. The correct name of the article is "Jasmine revolution protests". Only if the protests become a revolution, e.g. by changing the semiautoriatarian system into a democracy, the name of the article should be changed into "Jasmine revolution". Zhangjiandong (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Uhm, maybe you don't, but i see PRC as a people's republic. Don't be too quick to represent 'everybody'. Also, according to your logic, then things like Tibet 08 should be named '2008 Tibet independence movement', or from the gov's point of view '2008 tibet attacking,destroying violence started by evil people'. In this incident, if we follow the gov's POV, then it should be named 'nothing happened'. Really? We should give it a neutral title. It is discussed below, in the Next Step section. Zlqq2144 (talk) 01:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
>although nobody really would assume that this is a Republic legitimized by or representing the people
cool story bro. Go make a blog. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Government media conference regarding the reporters getting beaten up issue

[30]I think we need to refer to this, as it is the department of foreign affairs answering. For those who don't understand Chinese, I will pick out a few points and do a quick translate below. ('cmt' are my comments, not in the article)

  • There's a media conference held by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 1 March. Jiang Yu, the spokeswoman answered questions.
  • Foreign reporters bombarded her with questions. 30 of them asked the same question (cmt: wtf?) and in the end she had to announce no question on the Wangfujing issue can be asked (cmt:though she actually answered most questions beforehand anyway).
  • Foreign reporters asked 'who were the plain-clothed people, why did they use violence and why couldn't the reporters report the events at Wangfujing?'. Jiang Yu said, a lot of people did not follow the number 537 regulation, stating you have to get a pass to cover events at Wangfujing. It is because too many reporters are there, and many just stay there constantly, disturbing public order. The police asked them to co-operate and go. Most did co-operate and went peacefully. Only a few had problems communicating with the police (cmt: as in, reluctant to leave, not language difficulty) and had to go the police station for further investigation.
  • Jiang Yu said that the reporters were the trouble makers. If they were there to actually report something, then they should be able to understand and co-operate. If there was any violenc, then they should be reported to the police. (cmt: as in, the violence part was illegal)The police will investigate the violence incidents carefully. She also said that 'at the site, you are allowed to ask the plain clothed men to prove that they are the police.'
  • A German reporter complained about the violence involved he Jian Yu said 'I give you my sympathy. But did you apply for a pass before you go there? the police at the site said that you need a pass to take photos, you ignored them, that's why you were taken to the police station.
  • Jiang Yu also asked the reporters in response 'A huge amount of reporters were gathering at Wangfujing, who gave you these orders? Or who called for you to go there? That's my question for you' 'You got in trouble with the police but many didn't, why is it always you (cmt: as in, always these reporters and the media behind them) that get in trouble? We are curious about that!'
  • She also said 'you are all very experience reporters so you should understand that you need to obey chinese laws, like it or not'
  • and she emphasised 'Which Chinese law / regulation says that foreign reporters can report whatever they want, whenever then want, wherever they want? Find this law for me (cmt: directed at the reporter asking the question).' She then looked around the room and repeated 'Is there any?'
  • In a report released later by the government regarding this conference, it says 'we will continue to protect the rights of reporters in China and provide assistance.'

Done please discuss and organise and whatever these and put it in the main article. I assume its importance is out of question since it came from the government Zlqq2144 (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

My summary of important points (of course, all are POV of government):
  • There were too many reporters basically 'stationing' at Wangfujing and it disturbs public order, since Wangfujing is a busy shopping centre. Hence the need of a pass.
  • Many people didn't get into trouble with the police.
  • They didn't follow chinese laws. Ignored warnings from the police. Hence arrests.
  • The beating up thing was not directed by the government. It was the police themselves and it will be investigated. Though the arrests are legal.
  • They were troublemakers. Zlqq2144 (talk) 09:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

We should include statements made by the Chinese government or verifiable information about their position and the reasons for their responses to the subject of this article. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

http://china.dwnews.com/news/2011-03-01/57448495.html does not load. If it is a video of a press conference it is a primary source and could not be used. However this New York Times report of the press conference could be. Perhaps there are also other material issued by the Chinese government which are authoritative sources for government views. A statement like 'A huge amount of reporters were gathering at Wangfujing, who gave you these orders? Or who called for you to go there? That's my question for you' is easily answered by Westerners, they are reporters and sticking their nose into such things is what they do, but as asked by a PRC official is perhaps made in good faith. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
It loads fine with my proxy and it's not a video. Though many other sources reported it with similar content. [31][32] [33]The NYT source doesn't seem to contain all of the responses of Jiang Yu (it's mostly response from reporters and Hunstman, and its own views). I'm not saying it can't be used but we might need to refer to other sources as well (like the ones I put). Zlqq2144 (talk) 22:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for doing the translation work. I don't see a problem using a primary source as long as the context is clear, and it is self-referential. Also, the page loads fine for me. Homunculus (duihua) 03:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Edits by The006

This material by The006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) contains useful information, although part is duplicative. The problem is that it is the form of debate rather than a restatement of information:

"China is a large country with many complex issues, and according to Chinese government's official records there were over 10,000 protests in China last year. Which means there are, on average, dozens of protests going on in China on any given day - this is not unlike what is happening in the United States or any other large countries.[citation needed]"

That there is much unrest in China is true and there is an elaborate well-funded, $77 billion in 2010, internal security apparatus which is attempting to deal with it.[1] The assertion that the situation is similar in the United States has elements of truth, but not only is the assertion unsourced, this article is not about the 2011 Wisconsin budget protests, or other events in the United States and how such events are handled by the authorities, but about events in China and how they are handling them. We could conceivably have an article about internal security which had information about such comparisons, but this is not it. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I suggest find sources on the number of protests in large countries like the US, then remove US and just say 'other large countries'.Zlqq2144 (talk) 13:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
"Other large countries" = weasel words. Also you can't take raw data and combine it yourself into "facts". You need reliable sources to make the analysis and then attribute those sources properly. You should also avoid relying on highly partisan sources in such a context. John Smith's (talk) 22:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I posted the fact that there are tens of thousands of protests in China every year so that readers can have a frame of reference. It will be helpful for an average English speaking reader to understand that while there are laws and rules on protests in China, protests are not forbidden, in fact it is pretty common. I mentioned the US for comparison purpose because most English speakers are more familiar with the US than other large countries. User:The006

What is strange about this "Jasmine Revolution" in China is that Western reporters seems to know in advance exactly all the protest schedules in any Chinese cities, but yet there were very little domestic Chinese participation. By CNN reporter Eunice Yoon's own admission, there were no protesters at all at the Beijing protest, only a bunch of Western reporters.[2]"

Nothing strange at all that people, the Chinese public, whose information is censored don't have information that people who have complete access to information, international reporters, have. Going and taking a look is their job. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually I agree, at least in part, with The006. The government does censor this, but it is talked about over the internet and in real life. A lot of people are aware of the censorship issue and try to bypass the firewall (e.g. me, with proxy) or that they just talk about it in real life. Just talking about it (without action) privately won't harm you , even if a government official knows about it (spreading the word to lots of people will, though). Going and taking a look does not mean the loss of their jobs, that's an outdated view of China. A LOT of people talked about tibet 08, urumuqi 09, etc. Also, the government is loosening its control over the years, with lots of media critisising the government. But nothing like '89 has happened since. If you understand Chinese, search 南方周刊 on the internet and see what kind of articles they publish. So, yeah, in the end, under the same circumstances, there might be more protestors had it happen in a western country, but not a lot more, China is not that closed off. Zlqq2144 (talk) 12:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I have to disagree with the blanket statement that "information is censored" in China because that can imply there are no information flow in China which is obviously not true.
I work in IT in the US and from my first hand experience I can tell you that every single piece of online information is subjected to censorship here in the US, and in just about any other countries. But as Eunice Yoon pointed out, Chinese gov seemed to be quite paranoid and that is a plausible explanation of the stricter Censorship Standard in China compare to most Western countries.
As a result of excessive censorship mainland China media can be quite biased, but that's not to say that Western media are not biased, in fact when it comes to news material about China, Western media tend to be even more biased than mainland Chinese media. Western media often portray China as a closed, repressive regime with a lot of unhappy citizens and that China can have a revolution a la Egypt in any given moment. But if you look at research by PEW (a Washington DC based research group) the Chinese citizens are actually the most satisfied bunch:
http://pewglobal.org/database/?indicator=3&response=Satisfied
According to PEW, 87% of Chinese are happy with the way things are going in their country, compare to only 28% in Egypt. Any non-biased reader can easily see that there can be no parallels what-so-ever between the two.
I mentioned earlier that there are dozens (if not hundreds) of protests going on in China everyday, the vast majority of these protests are about getting higher salary, better benefits, reducing pollutions, etc, the protesters don't want to overthrown the PRC gov because as shown in the PEW annual researches, the vast majority of Chinese citizens are very happy with their gov and they seemed to become even happier each year according to PEW. Which explained why there are virtually no support for "jasmine revolution" amongst Chinese.
It seems like the Western reporters (and Mr. Huntsman, the US ambassador to China) are the only supporters for the "jasmine revolution", and they seemed disappointed that so few protests showed up, so instead of bashing China via the coverage of the protests, they chose to write some other negative (and biased) stories about China, like alleged police brutality. I would have to say that in the coverage of the "jasmine revolution", the Western reporters are acting more like movie directors- they want to the events to unfold according to their imagination, rather than just reporting facts- most Chinese are very content, starting a revolution seems to be the last thing on their minds.User:The006
You've got the western media pegged, but you have no source as to Chinese opinion, maybe they just don't favor being shot to no purpose. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
The spokeswoman of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs questioned the motives of the journalists? (see the section above) Also, I can probably find quite a lot of sources questioning the motives, though most will be classified as propaganda/un-notable opinion. Since this subject is half-banned in China, no major media gives an opinion on this. However, some major media sources have questioned the motives of foreign journalists in the past, reagarding other, similar issues which are not censored, do you want me to digg for those sources? And also, it's probably just my bad english, but what does 'favor being shot to no purpose' mean? Zlqq2144 (talk) 14:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

"Only 20 people showed up in a Hong Kong protest (Hong Kong is considered one of the freest cities in the world).[3]"

Good information here that should be included in the article. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

This has caused many people to wonder what are those Western reporters' roles in the Jasmine Revolution, what are their motives, and who is funding their operations?[citation needed][who?]"

The implication drawn is unwarranted. We don't have information about what the Chinese people would do if they had information about the proposed protests; or even to what extent they have information. If the Chinese government, or other observers, have suspicions about the motivation of the international press and they are verifiable in a reliable source that information can be included in the article. Simply engaging in debate within the text of a Wikipedia article is inappropriate. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
The suspicion about the motives of the media is briefly mentioned the government media conference. I am also quite sure I've read about it in some other source which I'll have to find. Zlqq2144 (talk) 13:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ Andrew Jacobs; Jonathan Ansfield (February 28, 2011). "Well-Oiled Security Apparatus in China Stifles Calls for Change". The New York Times. Retrieved March 1, 2011.
  2. ^ Yoon, Eunice (2011-02-28). "Getting harassed by the Chinese police". CNN. Archived from the original on 2011-02-28. Retrieved 2011-02-28. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  3. ^ http://www.cnngo.com/hong-kong/life/jasmine-revolution-sluggish-hong-kong-803484
Quite a lot of people knew about the incident, after the 20th Feb one, if not from the start, see the comment above. The suspicion about the US involvement is associated with the Huntsman issue, already in the article. Zlqq2144 (talk) 13:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
When is the last time reporters showed up at a crime scene before the bank robbers? And if the bank robbers didn't show up, is it still a crime scene?
We have this "jasmine revolution" going on in China with the aim to topple the current regime, but there is virtually no Chinese participation, not even in Hong Kong. We have the US ambassador, a former governor and a potential presidential candidate showed up at a protest and hundreds of Western news crew showed up but only a handful of Chinese protesters show up, and you don't think its fair to question their motive?
Imagine if some rich Chinese sponsor a "Native American Justice League" with the aim to topple the US gov (or at least demand the independence of various Indian Nations), they organized protests across a dozen major cities in the US, with hundreds of Chinese reporters showed up at the DC protest, the Chinese ambassador showed up but there were only a few Native American protesters, what do you think the reaction would be? User:The006
The Constitution of the United States is not just a scrap of paper. Political demonstrations are strongly protected. (even if nothing else seems to be sacred) User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I hold my doubts on that. Zlqq2144 (talk) 14:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

This material, by a new editor who has edited no other article has been removed a couple of times but the user keeps putting it back.

New editor or not, as long as the content is valid, we should use it. (though I'm probably just saying that because I'm new as well) As of now, it seems like it can be improved but not deleted completely. Zlqq2144 (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
The main problem is the presentation in the form of a debate with argument. That is a typical new editor mistake, and forgivable, but should not remain in the article. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree Zlqq2144 (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
New editor notwithstanding, it is important for English readers to have access to unfiltered information on the jasmine protests in China. And perhaps we can include a section on Western media reporting standard, any suggestions?User:The006
I agree though I doubt anyone else will. It will be classified as OR. Zlqq2144 (talk) 08:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
There is occasionally good analysis of media bias, so it is possible, the BBC reporter here seems quite eager to gin something up. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
A lot of media reports in the reference section sounds like that. I don't like these kind of sources, but according to Wiki rules, it came from a notable media (in this one, BBC) so it can be used. Zlqq2144 (talk) 14:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I've removed a few lines from the International section. It seemed like Original Research to me, or worse essay-style commentary. It also, to be quite honest, was awful to read. It sounded like usual Chinese propaganda - "China is a big country, it has many problems". Well, yeah, which country doesn't have problems? Tell me something new! John Smith's (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it should be removed and worked on, because it's original research, not Chinese propaganda, that's just POV. I could say that the whole article is sounds like American propaganda, with a bunch of media reporting on nothing. And a new thing for you: it's not as bad as all the western media says? Though that would be POV. Zlqq2144 (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I said it sounded like Chinese propaganda. I didn't say it was Chinese propaganda. John Smith's (talk) 23:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Stop looking at everything through your colored lenses and you will see a colorful fascinating world- one that is very different from what is being portrayed by the main stream media. User:The006

Comment Wow, The006, you are even more radical than me! From the POV side, I like it, it's what I think. Though I can predict that a lot of people will classify it as WP:OR. Though I consider it as common sense and reasoning. Oh well, we'll see what happens. Zlqq2144 (talk) 08:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I can hardly hope to keep up with the pace of this discussion, but wanted to weigh in on the original statement of 10,000 some annual protests in China. The number is actually substantially higher, though it has become somewhat more difficult to obtain these statistics from an authoritative source since 2005. In 2005, there were 87,000 "mass incidents" (protest). That number continued to climb subsequently, and a number of sources suggest it has since far exceeded 100,000 / year. The suggestion that there is a compelling parallel between this and protests in the United States and other "large countries" is not helpful, and is furthermore unsupported by any reliable sources. If done well, I am in favor of noting these other protests in China. However, without good references, we should not postulate on what the abundance of 'mass incidents' says about the central government's tolerance for protests unless we have reliable sources commenting on this. The notion, by the way, that 100,000+ annual protests means that the Party tolerates protests is also overly simplistic. The protests are often met with violent reprisals. To the extent that they are tolerated, and that some are successful in exacting their demands, it is because the targets or the protests are very localized, and they therefore pose no threat to central authorities. The 'jasmine revolution' protests fall into a different category in that their target seems to be the central government. I hope that the editors working on this article can try to refrain from editorializing and original synthesis. There are reliable sources writing about this issue, and a great deal more sources available that can fill in relevant background information on protest movements in China. I can suggest some if it would be helpful. As to including a section on Western press coverage, I would actually be quite interested to see something analyzing the Western discourse, even in a critical fashion. Find reliable sources commenting on this and I will support its inclusion. Homunculus (duihua) 03:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

tagged concerns

Below i'm starting individual sections for the three tagged concerns. One is new, two are old. The tag guidelines generally say that they must be accompanied by specific concerns, not just general feelings. Quote from the lead of Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute: Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, ... Boud (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I added the 'weasel words' tag but didn't specify my concerns; I apologize. 24.118.163.177 (talk) 02:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

No great harm done :). But it would be nice to clean up the error. Go down to the section a few lines down about weasel words, and give more details. If you think you can improve the wording in a way that is likely to be accepted by others as non-weasel, NPOV, etc., then edit! If you want to make sure that people can easily find your changes, you could paste links to the diffs (differences between edits, using the History tab) into that section, and say, for example, these are all the changes i made to avoid weasel words and i hope they're ok.
If you feel that you can see the problem but don't quite see how to fix it, then at least say clearly in which sections/paragraphs/sentences you see the problems.
Once you see the problem is solved, remove the tag.
See the links from the rendered tag (in the article when you read it) for a better and fuller explanation of what i've just said. :) Boud (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. I don't see any weasel words any more due recent changes to the article. I'll remove the tag. 24.118.163.177 (talk) 04:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

WP:NPOV dispute#How_to_initiate_an_NPOV_debate Then, on the article's talk page, make a new section entitled "NPOV dispute [- followed by a section's name if you're challenging just a particular section of the article and not the article as a whole]". Then, under this new section, clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why.

As of 19:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC), the part XXXXX of this article seems to be NPOV because YYYYYYY. Someone please give details, otherwise the tag will be removed by someone else after some reasonable delay. Boud (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the tag was added in this edit: [34]. My guess is probably the "inappropriate tone" tag was what was intended (and that tag was already present). What notable POV is still missing in the present version? Reactions/Domestic seems to contain the PRC's de facto POV in response to the weekly gatherings. Boud (talk) 10:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
That POV tag was removed. A new POV tag was inserted in this edit on 25 Feb: [35] by an IP editor. No explanation in 7 days from posting a tag should be sufficient to remove the tag. Boud (talk) 10:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Removed. Boud (talk) 20:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

No original research

As of 19:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC), the part XXXXX of this article seems to contain original research because YYYYYYY. Someone please give details, otherwise the tag will be removed by someone else after some reasonable delay. Boud (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems to have been this edit on 25 Feb: [36] by an IP editor. No explanation in 7 days from posting a tag should be sufficient to remove the tag. Boud (talk) 10:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Removed. Boud (talk) 20:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Avoid weasel words

As of 19:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC), the part XXXXX of this article seems to contain many weasel words. For example, ZZZZZZZ. Someone please give details, otherwise the tag will be removed by someone else after some reasonable delay. Boud (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Closed by the person who orginally posted the tag - see above. Boud (talk) 09:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Psychological warfare, Category:Chinese democracy movement

This is just a blog, but I think captures the essence of the event: Advocates for democracy in China are successfully engaged in a campaign of psychological warfare. We can note that here, but should not participate in it ourselves; we should just report the facts. This article needs to be tied more to the Chinese democracy movement and included in that category. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Famous Chinese saying by the God of War: 孙子:不战而屈人之兵： To force enemy soldiers kneel down without firing a single shot. Melissa Chan, being a Chinese herself, understand the Chinese way of game playing; unlike westerners, she also knows the thousands years of long written Chinese history. Her analysis is precise and profound. Good on her.

I enjoy her analysis:

Arilang talk 13:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

  • I don't think that we should include this in the article. Although I do actually agree with most of what she says, it is, as you say, just a 'blog'. Melissa Chan is not notable as far as I know, so her views are not notable. The fact that this 'captures the essence' is very POV, even though POV-ly I partly agree. Zlqq2144 (talk) 14:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
We rarely accept blogs as reliable sources. But I found her viewpoint very good at orienting my thinking about this incident. We'll have to wait a bit to see how the history books treat it. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Here you go: "Resolving social contradictions is intrinsically a game process" User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks FB for your link, exactly what I need for this sandbox article. User:Arilang1234/Draft/中央维护稳定工作办公室 Arilang talk 21:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I laughed when I saw the source of that report 南方周末, though I do not have evidence (yet), I consider this source to be at least half-activist. Ignore me if you wish since this is probably just POV (before I can find any evidence) though if you look at articles published by 南方周末, they are mostly pro-democracy and pro-western-ideas-of-freedom kind of things. Just saying. Zlqq2144 (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
From an NPOV side though, this was published almost a year ago, should we really use it here (instead of aticles like democracy in China or something, if they exist). Zlqq2144 (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
It's a good reference for National_security_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China#Police_and_Internal_Security which I am working on. I do want to reorganize this article so that internal security efforts can be properly credited. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I will be leaving this article

I will stop participating or contributing to these pages (article, talk and AfD or any further move/rename requests,etc). I will unwatch these pages so please don't direct any questions or comments at me as I am unlikely to know. See my user page for more information since I don't want to spam the talk page with my personal issues. Zlqq2144 (talk) 04:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, scratch the 'unwatch' bit, I will watch the AfD just to see the results. Though I won't participate anymore. Zlqq2144 (talk) 04:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Too many people have POV here (including me)

Why do people always assume that a pro-democracy movement is always good and anything trying to stop it (i.e. the CN government) is bad? Going further, why is 'western-style-democracy' always good and 'Chinese-style-democracy-i.e.-communism-with-chinese-characteristics' always bad?

Too many people have POV here. Including me, I support the PRC, says so on my userpage. Though I don't think that it will, or can change, since this is a controversial topic. And the definition of controversial means that there will always be people on both sides of the arguement. Zlqq2144 (talk) 00:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
No problem, but the sources which support your position are nearly all confidential. The government is not in a position to unambiguously reject human rights and democracy and openly support the kleptocratic system princelings practice. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
If China adopted the American system, corporations could fund campaigns by politicians and own television channels and newspapers; China would move into the broad sunny uplands of freedom. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
'Reject...democracy' What democracy are you talking about? The Western everybody-gets-a-vot-multi-party-democracy? That has a lot of flaws and is not as good as the mass media presents it. For example, the coporations could fund politicians, money links with power, leagally. I don't see a problem with rejecting that. Democracy as in people-rule-people? It is present in China. Although you can argue that there are some corruption, but the system is in China and it is working mostly. People's congress? Zlqq2144 (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC) (there was an edit conflict.)
Examples of flaws in the American system (which I call Western Democracy): Mob rule, the fact that bribery becomes half-legal, the fact that most countries are dominated by 2,3 parties which are not different at its core? Zlqq2144 (talk) 01:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This article is not supposed to claim either that the protests are good nor that they are bad. Claims by protestors and/or governmental authorities and/or domestic or international pundits and national leaders that the protests are good or bad can be documented as notable POVs. Readers will make their own judgments, probably taking more notice of the factual information than of the opinion information. Boud (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Security operations

I want to reorganize the article to collect all known internal, and external, security operations by the government in one section; for example, the events in this NYT's story and similar government operations. User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

POV

There is no such revolution in China even if a few people are CALLING for one. That is pov and a neologism.Lihaas (talk) 01:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that the language used in this article is absolutely atrocious. It is entirely non-neutral and tries to paint the Chinese government as being cowed and afraid of the protesters. SilverserenC 02:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
If nothing else, this whole thing is totally overhyped by foreign ("western") media in the country and nothing much happened, not even in Urumqi. Not only is this article POV and full of speculation (even if it is from RS), it is simply not very notable. I'll nominate it for AfD. Colipon+(Talk) 02:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
anyone want to AFD it?Lihaas (talk) 05:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
It was already sent to AfD a while ago. See the template on the article page? SilverserenC 05:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I've just edited in a variety of facts between 17:45 and 19:45 to give this highly biased article a more balanced view, also with less concealing of statements and sources of information/time-line that the biased-editors wish to maintain to try and fool lesser readers. TAKE NOTE OF RANGOON11 who is hot on my heels to stop all the helpful information I've included for a truly democratic presentation of this subject. Funny how RANGOON11 claims that I'm "entitled to my views" and then proceeds to delete all my factual and properly sourced edits. RANGOON11 wants to nothing more than keeping this article dumbed-down. —Preceding 66.214.168.122 comment added by 66.214.168.122 (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, i am in China right now and ive never heard about this until i saw this article.Zlqq2144 (talk) 07:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thats kind of the point. the Chinese keep control over the internet so the organizers were not able to publize it. I say keep, because this is supposedly a dry run, a beginning for the protests. They should become more notable in the weeks and months to come.--Dudeman5685 (talk) 16:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
What is the basis for your prediction? Perhaps this article should exist after the protests take place. Added POV and OR stickers. In case the article is kept, the quality of content needs to be drastically improved.204.197.182.144 (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
The AP article I read said "organizers" or "sources in the opposition movement" were saying this was a dry run for something bigger. Don't know where that article is, but we'll see if they were right in time--66.68.164.245 (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
So this article should be deleted, until the 'bigger' something happens.Zlqq2144 (talk) 03:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Maybe I need to clarify this, I live in Wuhan, one of cities where the protest was proposed. I was near the site on the day and didn't hear or see (or smell) anything. I am, of course, no RS.Zlqq2144 (talk) 08:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Article needs to be more balanced using a variety of sources, it will be at risk of WP:COATRACKing from advocacy groups and using synthesis of information for partisan screeds. --Takamaxa (Talk) 11:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Regardless how one might evaluate the small number of people who actually attented the demonstrations, people were beaten, arrested, sentenced and journalists were captured, abducted and their films were take away. The call for demonstrations at least resulted in a change of the rules of press freedom - before only the permission of the person being interviewed was necessary, now one has to ask for permission by the authorities first. These are clearly facts and not POV! Zhangjiandong (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The government gave a valid reason for the need of permission to report at Wangfujing, see media conference section. Foreign jounalists were basically stationing there, disturbing public order. Also, according to the government at least, the people who were arrested ignored the police asking them to go away. No matter what you think about the laws in China, you have to follow them if you are in China. The arrests are reasonable. Zlqq2144 (talk) 23:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Page title

Now that the article is known to be sticking around for a while, I'd like to request a move to a more specific title. Should we discuss first which new title to request? I prefer 2011 Chinese Jasmine gatherings. Although, "Jasmine revolution" is perhaps the most common description, I would prefer to avoid having "revolution" in the title as it is grossly misleading. I think Chinese-language boosters might be switching toward using terms equivalent to "Jasmine movement" more than "revolution" at this point, so we might also consider Chinese Jasmine movement.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 06:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

  • I agree with dropping the word 'revolution'. I feel that '2011 Chinese Jasmine gatherings' might still be overstating matters because no source has been able to prove that there have been any gatherings. Adding qualifiers such as 'calls to' or 'reports of' might be necessary to avoid any pointedness. As to 'Chinese Jasmine movement', although I'm not vehemently opposed, I'd probebly say that a couple of incitements to protest in a dissident website, without any corresponding response on the ground do not a movement make. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
One thing is certain that there will be some sort of "show" on 2pm every Sunday from now on, what exactly might happen, nobody knows. Why not give it a few more week's time? Arilang talk 09:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Ohconfucious, i don't understand "no source has been able to prove that there have been any gatherings". Firstly, police and journalists have gathered three Sundays in a row on the basis of would-be "jasmine" protests. Those are "gatherings". There might be some more neutral, common word. If so, please suggest it. This is independent of whether or not any protestors turned up. Secondly, it also is the case that plenty of RS have reported protestors, e.g. 27 Feb: Shanghai SCMP, HK CNN; 6 March: Shanghai 100 DPA, HK 1000-10000 AFP + DPA. See the article for details.
"Reports of" sound weaselly to me. Everything in WP must be based on reports, it seems to me. E.g. we could shift People's Republic of China to Reports about the People's Republic of China, since it's just a POV whether it's really a republic, whether it's really people-based, and whether or not it really consists of all of China. The United Nations recognises the PRC, but everything in the wikipedia articles is (or should be) based on reports about the PRC. In fact, every WP article could be moved to Reports of (old name), since the alternative is an article based on OR. :)
i understand the motivation for "calls to", that's different. But the fact is that some protestors, many journalists, and many more police have gathered three Sundays in a row. i think to make the decision process clean, it's probably best to go through a proper move proposal. See below. This will give us 7 days to see if we can achieve a near-consensus either for the move or against. If the consensus is against, then in a few weeks' time it should be more obvious, with more perspective, what an appropriate name would be. Boud (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any convention anywhere to include police and journalists appearing anywhere within the definition of gathering where they are in a passive capacity (ie not participating in the protests) – although one might argue being apparently roughed up by the police turns them into the central focus, but I would disagree there because it is still about 'Jasmine something'. The fact is that the only undisputed protests have been in Hong Kong, and there would be no stopping us from writing an article about that if a gathering of 60 people were notable. The postings on Boxun are undoubtedly two fingers at the CPC, and have undoubtedly given the authorities the run around and a bit of disruption, if nothing else. The suggestions of 'Reports of' or 'calls to' were merely my attempts at brainstorming on how to negotiate a title for this article. FYI, the People's Republic of China exists, and is recognised internationally; it is also permanent member of the Security Council, so use of 'Reports of' would indeed be inappropriate. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and I was wondering what 1000-10000-person gathering you were referring to, and then I found the reference in the text, which I have just removed. I'm baffled that news agencies counted this as Jasmine-related. As mostly the case with July 1 marches, numerous causes and grievances are aired. In this case, although the LSD attempted to plant jasmine, they are muddying the waters. However, it is clear to most that the demonstration attended by thousands were rallying against the 2011 budget. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
The HK protest did lay jasmine flowers, and did take place sunday. But the agenda was mostly for anti-budget issues. That is worth a separate article. Benjwong (talk) 05:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
香港也爆发了大规模的“紫荆花革命”, another Flower Revolution. Arilang talk 06:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
User Boud, there is no hurry, give it some time, it will snowball into a bigger and more complex event, because the organizers are calling for actions on Saturday and Sunday at noon, 2pm, 4pm, 6pm as well. The CCP mismanagement of this event is adding more fuel to this gigantic time bomb. Arilang talk 00:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Don't Dismiss a Jasmine Moment in China "Jasmine Moment" sounds good to me. Arilang talk 01:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011_Chinese_pro-democracy_protests/Archive_1&oldid=1142749911"