Talk:2011 Chinese pro-democracy protests/Archive 3

Sources redux
After reverting the lead's grammatically and stylistically necessary alternative name Chinese Jasmine Revolution, Ohconfucius said on my Talk page.
 * I would refer to this edit. I would draw your attention to WP:WEASEL. For such a wording to be acceptable, we would need at least one prominent and reliable source to categorically state that it is commonly referred to as the Chinese Jasmine Revolution, and referenced to the article accordingly. I do not believe such sources exist, and thus I have reverted your change.

I would assume that you overlooked the sources already mentioned above.
 * Sixteen of the current article's 66 References have "Jasmine Revolution" titles and seven others have "Jasmine". Phrasal searching Google News finds 133 "Chinese Jasmine Revolution", 33 "Jasmine Revolution in China", and 0 "2011 Chinese protests".

This is specifically about the alternative name and not the title. The current "2011 Chinese protests" page uses the name "Jasmine Revolution" thirty times, with half in References – including prominent and reliable sources like Time, South China Morning Post, Christian Science Monitor, Guardian, etc. Which obligatory alternative name would be better for the first sentence, Chinese Jasmine Revolution or Jasmine Revolution in China? Maybe with single or double quotes? Keahapana (talk) 04:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I'm getting through... Yes, there are plenty of ' calls for Jasmine Revolution', use of 'Jasmine Revolution' within quote marks; those doing the calling are referred to as 'Jasmine revolutionaries'. Neither of those are referring to the event which is the subject of this article as "Jasmine Revolution" or "Chinese Jasmine Revolution". The real problem I believe is that this article is mistitled. I would have no objection to phraseology such as "calls for Jasmine Revolution in China" or similar, but "Jasmine Revolution in China" or "Chinese Jasmine Revolution" is a gross oversimplification. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree to Keahapana's statement. "Jasmine revolution" is the name of the movement. That the protests of the movement are almost invisible, is due to the underground protest strategies and due to certain users deleting the evidences from reliable sources WP:RS. So the whole article is listing not only the underground protest forms, but also the visible effects of these protests, i.e. the police [over]reaction and the huge number of arrests of dissidents since the start of the movement. It is also explaining very detailed the movement, the organizers and their strategy. After all, the article should be renamed into "Chinese Jasmine Revolution" and list the movement, protests and reactions. The "calls for protest" are a minor thing, they should not at all be included in an article title. At least, Chinese Jasmine Revolution must stay the alternative title, since the same article is called "Chinese Jasmine Revolution" in the Chinese and Japanese WP articles. I will make sure that the alternative title, the original Chinese name is added each time after it will be removed and ask for a vote on a change of the main article name to "Chinese Jasmine Revolution". Waikiki lwt (talk) 10:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am more sympathetic to political change in China than you may think, but this is going about it the completely wrong way. en.wp is not the tool for peddling any sort of revolutionary agenda and the different language projects have different standards, meaning other crap exists. I see you have added back the disputed phrase/title. So much for WP:BRD. To avoid an edit war, I have now tagged the article NPOV. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * > I will make sure that the alternative title, the original Chinese name is added each time after it will be removed And you can enjoy your ban. It is well apparent that you've made clear to everyone that you plan on engaging in WP:POINT behaviour and WP:Gaming the system. You best watch your step, because you're on the borderline of breaking Wikipedia policy.  > and due to certain users deleting the evidences from reliable sources WP:RS  Well that completely defies the point of adding it to Wikipedia, doesn't it? If it's unsourced, why is it here? If they've been deleted, well too bad, that doesn't override WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.  > The "calls for protest" are a minor thing, they should not at all be included in an article title.  lol opinions, how do they work?  > a vote on a change of the main article name to "Chinese Jasmine Revolution"  Well if it hasn't occured to you yet, you're not the first genius to think up that idea, and that it has been done before. There is no WP:CONSENSUS to move the page to that name, and it doesn't matter how many times you ask for a !vote, the outcome will be the same. Your proposed name fails WP:NPOV, as it implies that there has been a successful overthrow of a political group - I suggest you check the dictionary definition of "revolution". In the French Revolution, the absolute monarchy was overthrown and Napoleon Bonaparte came to power, in the Russian Revolution the Bolsheviks overthrew the Tsar imperial family, and in the Chinese Revolution, the Kuomintang were forced to flee to Taiwan by the CCP. Now, what has this, um... "revolution" that you speak of (lol), managed to achieve? (and please don't give me the whole "lol it made china police scared and overreact and lol everybody write on twitter because cool lol" rubbish). WP:NPOV and WP:CRYSTALBALL aside, is there any basis for you to justify that this is indeed, a "revolution", when all that has been shown so far suggests that it is not? --   李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 16:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Benlisquare is correct that Talk page discussions of semantics should be based on dictionary definitions and not idiolectal interpretations. However, dictionaries define revolution with several meanings besides the political one. Following this narrow interpretation, dozens of articles like Digital revolution, Cognitive revolution, Price revolution, Common Sense Revolution, The Triple Revolution, and Passive revolution will have to be retitled.

The present discussion isn't about article titles; it's about the rule that leads contain common alternate terms. "By the design of Wikipedia's software, an article can only have one title. When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, significant names in other languages, etc. (WP:Lead)" Current usages support the lead including either "Chinese Jasmine Revolution" or "Jasmine Revolution in China", with or without quotes for the neologism Jasmine Revolution (N.B. dab). I suggest we stop quibbling over "revolutionary" agendas, agree to follow basic MoS conventions, and collaborate to improve this emerging article. Keahapana (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, as I believe I have amply demonstrated above – and you have not successfully rebutted it, the clean form "Chinese Jasmine Revolution" is almost never used in the media in its unreserved sense that you should wish it; it's just wishful thinking on your part. Most sources are, rightly to my mind, extremely cagey about using the term without the quotes or without suitable qualification. It is normal that such forms you describe are more common in titles, due to the need to be concise; there is also a certain element of editorialising, but WP is not the news. Also, this has sod all to do with the figurative uses that you are advancing. The context here is political, and the narrower literal construct of wikt:revolution (1 or 2) is more appropriate. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree to Kehapana's point. The movement is called "Chinese Jasmine Revolution" or "Jasmine Revolution in China" by the sources. The term has been coined by the organisers themselves and has also been accepted by participants, censors, authorities and media. We should not try to correct the term, even if some of us have suggestions for a better term. Just to add another information: Not only have 16 of the current article's 66 references "Jasmine Revolution" titles and 7 others "Jasmine", but ALL 66 articles mention Jasmine Revolution or Jasmine in the body of the article. It was a mistake to merge the two articles "Chinese Jasmine Revolution" and this one and not to keep the title "Chinese Jasmine Revolution". Therefore I will set up a vote. Waikiki lwt (talk) 02:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't want us to talk past each other any more. You seem to be stating the case from the organiser's perspective, and not from the perspective of Wikipedia's Pillars. At the risk of sounding repetitive, because it's all been dealt with before, I'll just say please refer to the above. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keahapana, examples such as Digital revolution and Price revolution are neologisms and do not reflect the original meaning, however this does not mean that "Jasmine Revolution" follows the same suit. Given the political backdrop of this topic, the usage of "revolution" in this sense is based on the original term and not the same kind of thing as Price revolution. Using such a name may incline people to assume that an actual overthrow of a regime is taking place, because people know that whilst Digital revolution is a neologism, they may believe that it's not the case for "Jasmine revolution" given that it's a political topic. Most sheeple are able to tell that whilst Great power, political power and Power projection are political terms, Nuclear power, Power production in the United States and Power grid are terms relating to energy, and terms such as girl power are neologisms, if you were to similarly invent a term (for example) like "Ai Weiwei power", they would interpret that as a neologism, however if the name was something like "Anti-communist freedom power index" or something, even if the topic was completely full of shit, the name and backdrop of the topic would make people incline that the name is taken literally, and that there is an official measurable scale of how anti-communist and freedom-y something can be. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is written for intelligent readers, and sheep readers; you cannot assume that people won't take a title for granted. There are people out there who see the term "Jasmine revolution" and go "hurr there's gonna be democracy in japan tomorrow, god bless amerkur and rememba perl hubba 19-forty-something!!!". --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 03:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I have just posted a pre-emptive WP:3RR warning on Waikiki's talk page. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Fact-checking Some contributors are repeatedly using "linguistic" arguments against the titular Jasmine Revolution. Cheers, Keahapana (talk) 23:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) "Jasmine Revolution" is a neologism – True This compound is not yet found in English dictionaries, not even Wiktionary. This Google timeline shows diachronic development. (Try adding China to these "jasmine revolution" search terms.)
 * 2) Using quotation marks is "cagey" – False Writing "Jasmine Revolution" within quotes denotes that it is a new or unfamiliar word (see Signaling unusual usage under Quotation mark). Modern lexicographers use corpus linguistics to search for novel phrases within quotation marks that could be neologisms. Since WP:TITLEFORMAT forbids quotes, it could be capitalized as Jasmine Revolution.
 * 3) The "original" meaning of revolution is "a successful overthrow of a political group" – False The OED defines 12 meanings of revolution, beginning with (astronomical) meaning 1 "The action or fact, on the part of celestial bodies, of moving round in an orbit or circular course" (first recorded in 1390); and including (political) meaning 7 "A complete overthrow of the established government in any country or state by those who were previously subject to it" (first in 1600).
 * Gosh, it's getting too esoteric for me ;-) Not that I have been trying to play word games, like you are accusing us of. You've been showing some very deft footwork, and it seems that you may be wanting to tango? -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There are more than one kind of implication quotes have... refer to scare quotes. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 06:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Triva in lead
" US ambassador Jon Huntsman, Jr. was spotted passing by with his family at the site of protest on 20 February. ". That surely doesn't belong. Fences &amp;  Windows  02:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * removed. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Really? I think it's more than trivia. If this jasmine not-quite-revolution has any lasting legacy at this point, it's to be two-fold: first, the intensified crackdown on dissidents and electronic communications, and the shake-up in top-level USG posts catalyzed by Huntsman's appearance in the crowd. I don't think I'm just being contrarian here. I suggest adding the sentence back in, but adding that he resigned soon thereafter, to be proceeded by Gary Locke.Homunculus (duihua) 19:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The "Huntsman's appearance in the crowd." statement, if reintroduced onto the lead, it's only purpose is to serve as a Red herring, an ill conceived Innuendo . Frankly, we can do better than that. Arilang   talk  01:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The "shake-up in top-level USG posts" was because of Huntsman's return to the US, and so far there is no evidence to suggest that his departure is in any way related to his appearance that day, inadvertent or deliberate. In fact, I believe the announcement of his departure preceded the rally. Some Chinese internet users played up Huntsman's presence, but it's significance remains in the realm of trivia or conspiracy theories, IMHO, of course. ;-) -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't mean to lend credence to the conspiracy theories, of course. My recollection of the chronology of events, and of the gossip in Washington immediately after, led me to believe that there was quite a direct connection between Huntsman's showing up at the gathering and his resignation (though I suppose his resignation was inevitable). I could be wrong. Not a big deal, in any event.Homunculus (duihua) 03:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You're right. Maybe we ought to check the chronology. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected. He announced his resignation on Jan 31. Homunculus (duihua) 21:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)