Talk:2014 Hong Kong protests/Archive 1

Public Reaction section
Are there any polls about the public support/disapproval of either the protest or China's decision on the 2017 elections? I see the value of taking some representative views, but without the polls, it is very hard to put in context. I have searched myself and could not find any.LedRush (talk) 14:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's a reference Wall St. Journal--Nowa (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Someone could just as easily insert a poll from Beijing to counter the statement. We should wait for a new Gallup poll. Dark Liberty (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that the University of Hong Kong fabricated a poll to say that only 27% of Hong Kongers support the protestors?LedRush (talk) 01:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Nonviolent Movement?
I re-included the goals of the movement, but not the methods, we're not sure if it will sustain as non-violent. I hope it will turn violent soon, as that would guarantee a crushing response from the Communist Party and severely cripple Beijing's international standing, who knows, a new arms embargo? Dark Liberty (talk) 04:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What the fuck, man. _dk (talk) 07:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Some Wikipedians want to watch the world burn. -- benlisquare T•C•E 08:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * it would be wonderful, american stock exchange would suffer immediate cardiac arrest — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.43.238.10 (talk) 10:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

To "severely cripple Beijing's international standing, who knows, a new arms embargo" - sound like a policy aim of the US neo-cons. Do not agree? Check out the events that led up to many of the 'Color Revolts'. Why is it that they all have a certain sameness as to events and timelines? 84.13.14.146 (talk) 10:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Archived Content
this information should be inserted into the body:

Methods:
 * Occupation
 * Nonviolent resistance
 * Civil disobedience
 * Demonstrations
 * Sit-ins

Stated Goals:
 * Universal suffrage
 * Resignation of Chief Executive CY Leung
 * Immediate withdrawal of the decision on political reform by the National People's Congress Standing Committee

Dark Liberty (talk) 05:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

What about including into the body text?

Methods: Color Revolts (US backed protests) Neo-con goals:

As in Syria, to turn protests violent. (This would guarantee a crushing response from the ruling Party and undermine the country's international standing)

84.13.14.146 (talk) 10:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

RGloucestor
As you are the only one shifting hard the POV in favor of another term as of October, with the rest of us with rather lukewarm support, I would like to inquire why you are in favor the phrase, and is trying so hard using logical fallacies in order to justify support for this phrase. Remember, I am not in favor of any neologism for any article. And do not give me "I'm helping Wikipedia". I want to know why you desperately do support the phrase at this stage, in favor of all opposition.

"The idea of "2014 Taiwan protests" or "2014 Hong Kong protests" is absurd at face-value, not even bringing WP:UCN into play. There have been plenty of different protests throughout the year in both Taiwan and Hong Kong. Which specific protests are we talking about, huh? That title doesn't provide the reader with any information at all. What's more, it fails WP:UCN. We use the proper names. We only invent WP:NDESC titles when there is no proper name. There is a proper name, so we don't invent anything out of thin air. Reliable sources uses these names, so too do we. Calling that article 2014 Taiwan protests would be like referring to 2014 Ferguson unrest as 2014 American unrest." -RGloucestor

here is your argument repeated, and here are the problems: 2014 Taiwan protests and Hong Kong protests are both valid, not absurd, as you would think unfortunately, and most readers would agree. Are intelligence agencies aware of every single protest that occurred during the year? I doubt it. And Calling 2014 Ferguson riots as "American unrest" would be equally as absurd.

Cheers, Dark Liberty (talk) 06:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Because constructed titles are not preferable, natural ones are. The present title is an un-natural aberration, just as "2014 Taiwan protests" would be. When a natural, common, and precise title exists, there is no excuse for using such a construct. RGloucester  — ☎ 12:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

If you mean that 'Umbrella Revolution' is an un-natural construct - agree. For what costly and high-profile PR firm came up with this MSM-friendly spin? 84.13.14.146 (talk) 11:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

NPOV Reminder
I haven't edited wikipedia in ages, but the article has areas where there are NPOV failures (edit: attempted to fix Day 3's content). Even when citing from SCMP, it frequently only includes quotes from one side of the story. There's also the fact that sources which may present another POV are not (imo) included in chronology. Ex. BBC/SCMP are both (imo) pro-occupy (SCMP depending on if the article is an opinion piece). But that aside, given the contentious nature of this event, it's important that everyone try to remain neutral whenever possible. &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  11:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

.

I second this request. I would like to ask as editors to stop labeling the movement as autonomous. Being autonomous would imply that the movement has already reached a critical mass as in tiananmen square. There are at least two logical fallacies that would imply as a result, that would mean that the movement no longer adheres to its core tenet of nonviolent means, and second, it means it has spiraled out of control. And yet, recent edits conflict with this statement, and state that Joshua Wang is leading the movement. Slow down the editing if you are from Hong Kong. I know this sounds counterintutitive, but it will be cooler heads that will determine the outcome of the movement, and it has nothing to do with Wikipedia.

Comment: "Another anti-occupy spokeperson Chan Ching-sum stated that occupying the roads is nothing about democracy; it's to destroy Hong Kong people's daily li[ves]." I would hardly believe that the movement is to destroy Hong Kong people's daily lives, but rather to force a hand through economic means so that the government of Hong Kong would have to cooperate. Dark Liberty (talk) 12:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: Yes I doubt it is true as well, I think he may have meant to "criticize the tactic of occupying roads as not promoting democracy, but getting in the way of people's lives." &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  12:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Goal of Universal Suffrage
Although it is welcome that editors in Hong Kong take an active role in this article. I encourage all parties to ponder what Wikipedia is about before editing. Intrinsically, we shouldn't even allow people in China to edit (or talk) the articles.

Mr. Leung, or whatever his name is, is quoted to have considered holding talks with the protestors. Secretary of State John Kerry stated that China should resolve the crisis through dialogue, rather than militarization. Joshua Wong, then in turn, refused to hold talks with the Hong Kong government.

If we want the movement be credible, or at least, portray the movement as it is as editors should, we should avoid the refusal of dialogue, which I believe to be a mistake. There are a lot content here of that in the eyes of Americans, which Wikipedia caters to, that is viewed as either dubious or rather, not credible.

That being said, Self-advocacy generally is not allowed on Wikipedia, and portraying the protestors as too positive such as a "high degree of organisation, politeness, tidiness" severely undermines the movement's ability to succeed, as readers generally make their own conclusions on Wikipedia articles.

A democratic movement should embody the principles of democracy, and because Wikipedia is a democratic means of conveying information, we should keep POV edits to a minimum, and honesty, rather than dishonesty.

Dark Liberty (talk) 01:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The civility section is not POV. Google any search terms like "Hong Kong, clean, protests". The fact that the protesters have been tidy has received an extraordinary degree of media attention which is certainly worth mentioning. I also find it disingenuous that you seem to be presenting yourself as some outside observer with little interest in the matter, or as a sympathiser with the protests. You have been making a lot of critical reverts and abrasive edit summaries which subtly push a different worldview. Two users have already reverted your hitherto unexplained blanking - please stop unilaterally blanking sections of the page which are well-sourced and NPOV. Citobun (talk) 02:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it is not POV, but appears in multiple sources. Yesterday I noticed that the same editor had blanked large sections including material I had added about Chinese censorship - ironically - sourced to the South China Morning Post, with the edit summary explanation "Global Times is not a credible source". I restored some of the material today, assuming an honest mistake. Now, an IP and the same editor have repeatedly blanked sections, within minutes of each other, again. zzz (talk) 03:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the IP and this user have both used the same distinctive phrase in their edit summaries, "improper synthesis". Somebody might need to review WP:SOCKPUPPET. Citobun (talk) 03:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've restored the rest of the "Chinese government and media" section from yesterday, as no reason was given for its removal.zzz (talk) 03:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Censorship is what China does. Wikipedia is not a marketing campaign, and as you will discover. Having a logistics section amounts to self-advocacy, and trying to target me will find you in a very bad position within the Wikipedia community, despite our mutual agreements on most issues. Dark Liberty (talk) 12:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Again, you have no rationale for blanking the logistics section. It is both NPOV and well-sourced. You've now violated the three-revert rule, by the way. 208.103.235.34 (talk) 12:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring
User:Dark Liberty has removed the organisation/logistics/civility section numerous times in the face of reverts from several users over the past 24 hours:


 * 1)
 * 2)  (from an IP)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)

He or she is also behaving in a disingenuous and disruptive way by making numerous "extreme" political comments in an attempt to appear to sympathise with the protesters and ostensibly to give them a bad name...?


 * I hope the protests turn violent so Beijing's international standing is crushed
 * Mainland Chinese opinions don't matter
 * we shouldn't allow people in China to participate in the discussion
 * 

Yet, the sum of his/her edits amounts to pushing the opposite worldview.


 * ironically, censoring a section on Chinese censorship

And generally behaving incivilly:


 * accusing user of ""sponsorship"
 * "do not talk here"

And it goes on. Stop it with the dishonesty and the disruption, please. Citobun (talk) 13:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

_dk and Citobun
these two users from presumably Hong Kong are especially militant towards American supervision of the edits, and should probably be restricted from editing for a period of time, which echoes their convictions in an almost religious fervor. Democracy comes through consent. If you can't even establish basic consent among editors, how can the movement succeed? I am opposed to contentious conduct. If you don't want me to be present on the article, Goodbye. Dark Liberty (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and you talked in an Archives section where you're not supposed to discuss there. Dark Liberty (talk) 14:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Look at the page history. I haven't even touched the page in almost 12 hours. And now look at the frequency of your own unilateral blanking of NPOV, well-sourced text in the face of disagreement from numerous other editors. Talk about pot calling the kettle black. Citobun (talk) 14:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The removal of a well-known reddit.com marketing campaign section is not NPOV, it is fact, and I have done as any editor should have done. Goodbye. Dark Liberty (talk) 14:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm in the blind of this supposedly well-known reddit campaign. Care to show a link?_dk (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Connection to Ferguson Protests “Hands up don't shoot”
It looks like there is a connection to 2014 Ferguson unrest. I think it should be included. Here are several references  --Nowa (talk) 06:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As a Hong Konger, I think (though not 100% sure) most of Hong Kong people do not know what Ferguson unrest is. However, it may be good to put it under "Foreign media". -Hijk910 (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. See this reference.  "Instead, the gesture is a result of training and instructions from protest leaders..."--Nowa (talk) 00:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a gesture to show that the protesters are unarmed. Rimsky.cheng (talk) 08:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I have added within the chronology section. I have also appended dates as sub-heading, as I found it difficult otherwise to follow the sequence of events. Fellow editors might want to check to ensure that the events are under the correct dates and make any necessary corrections. - Mailer Diablo 10:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a universal sign, not based on Fergason. Even the supplied ref says that some observers said it was "reminiscent" of Fergeson, but the article texts says it "mimics" Ferguson. That is not the same thing at all. Legacypac (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

What the hell is Ferguson? Nobody cares about it, it is none of our business and has nothing to do with the situation in Hong Kong. Why does the US media invent such nonsense? The "hands up, don't shoot" gesture is an old, universal sign, please delete these absurd claims and stop spreading misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.47.31.166 (talk) 04:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Why is this even coming up again? I thought I already explained how that confusion spread and provided evidence there's no connection. But it got deleted?Karolle (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

TeleSUR/Wikileaks
TeleSUR, a South-American TV network, has apparently claimed that Wikileaks has "claimed" that the US has funded/organised/whatever the protests. No evidence provided. Wikileaks clearly hasn't claimed anything. If TeleSUR wants to promote themselves in this way, they can (no one will bother to sue them), but Wikipedia shouldn't be used as their promotional tool. If anyone can be bothered they should remove the 6 or 7 uses of this "reference". zzz (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikileaks is the propaganda department of Russia and China, and cannot be used as a source other than on their own article. Dark Liberty (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikileaks doesn't actually "claim" things in any case. It publishes documents from other sources. It hasn't published anything about these protests. End of story. zzz (talk) 19:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

POV pushing every 2 seconds
Two individuals here have been very diligent here in undoing the work of several American and European editors:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_Hong_Kong_protests&diff=628249246&oldid=628248240

For example here, they removed all the stated and put back the weasel with terms as "threatened, claimed, complained" words they are so accustomed to.

They went ahead and changed the language and context of every paragraph on the article in favor Against journalistic tone. I don't really mind the changes as it is a healthy process of editing, as I can undo these good faith edits in a single second with the help of a few Wikitools. but theses (students?) edit once every minute 24/7. I would like to inquire why.

Dark Liberty (talk) 20:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Organization
Before we get into an edit war, my 2 cents on the organization section: Yes it deserves a mention, but the current wording/length makes me feel like we are giving undue weight to it. &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  13:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Addon comment: The article also includes narratives from the anti-occupy protests, not just occupy. I'm more in favor of shortening the section and then merging it somewhere into a previous section, either on background (something like 'occupy organizers planned to clean up in the morning') or chronology. Also, there was some news articles I read in SCMP today about barricades that had to be disassembled to let emergency ambulance through, so I'm not sure if 'cleanest' still applies. &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  13:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * We cannot only give light to the violence without showing what the protests themselves are like, especially when they are covered by reliable sources. I'm open to rewording, but not outright removal. The removal of barriers for emergency vehicles was negotiated and ultimately agreed to by the protesters. _dk (talk) 13:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's undue weight. The subject of cleanliness has been the specific subject of countless international news articles. Citobun (talk) 13:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: When you make a movie, the best thing to do to sell your movie is to tell people how you made your movie. This is a classic in the Hollywood book. Logistics, or anything related to logistics, in my opinion, does not pertain to encyclopedic standards. Leave the article be, we should all add information on Day 2 3 4 5 6 etc. so that no one has a conflict of interest, and if we have a future discussion, it should be on say, a discussion on October 12. Dark Liberty (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's one thing if people are referencing themselves, but that section is sourced from Slate and BBC. Unless you are alleging that the Occupy protests is manufactured by Western media, your removal by saying this is "marketing" amounts to censorship, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. _dk (talk) 13:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't censor, China censors. Look what censorship did to the country. You virtuous individuals need to realize that just because editors removed something doesn't mean they are opposing you, On the contrary, they are following what editors should do during an important event. Dark Liberty (talk) 13:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * My point remains that there should be some coverage about the behaviour of the protesters themselves as frequently noted by the media. _dk (talk) 13:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * My 2 cents: I think this section should be kept since it is well-sourced, but the language should be as neutral as possible. Right now I think the section could use some balance, such as criticism to the organization of the protests, and internal disagreements between the different factions. Lasersharp (talk) 03:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Misleading word
Re: The People's Daily stated in a front page commentary on 4 October that the protests "could lead to deaths and injuries and other grave consequences."

Using the word "stated" makes it sound like a threat. I would suggest using "warned" which sounds more nature as it warned people about the grave consequences. STSC (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * "Stated" is a completely matter-of-fact word, devoid of interpretative overtones of any kind. "Warned" suggests a particular intention, and implies that a certain party or parties is/are being specifically addressed. This must be the first time in Wikipedia's history that the word "stated" has been described as misleading, I would imagine.zzz (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The only reason for substituting an alternative would be stylistic, normally to avoid repetition. Given the lack of repetition, not to mention the sensitivity of the subject matter, this reasoning does not apply. zzz (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The "stated" being used in such context is misleading. The "warned" just gives a warning as an intransitive verb; it does not need to address to any party at all. I know making it sound like a threatening statement is probably your intention. STSC (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not Wikipedia's job to give "warnings", especially when using other people's words. My intention is (plainly) to "state" what was stated. zzz (talk) 21:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Definition of "state" (verb):

zzz (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * To declare to be a fact.
 * To make known.


 * It's the People's Daily that gives the warning; not Wikipedia. Wikipedia only reports the warning. STSC (talk) 22:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It's WP:OR to call it a "warning", or "threat", or whatever. What is not in doubt is that it is a "statement". Here's a "warning": please stop inserting words like "uncontrollable" into the infobox. zzz (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * According to the source: "the Communist Party warned that there would be chaos." STSC (talk) 07:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * State is a better phrasing/term than warned imho based on my knowledge of English. &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  08:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Followed by "The new commentary said [=stated that] the mayhem 'could lead to deaths and injuries and other grave consequences'" - the actual sentence in question (not the preceding one which you quoted.) "Warned that it could" would only be appropriate for an outside, foreign observer with no ability whatsoever to affect the outcome. Conversely, "stated that it would" leaves too little room for doubt. That is now pretty definitive... (as I think you'll agree). zzz (talk) 09:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

"Aftermath"
"At the moment of writing (5 October) no one – whether actor or spectator – seems to know how the Hong Kong Occupy Central demonstrations will end." (Forbes) This section may need balancing and/or incorporating elsewhere in the article. The title is inappropriate. zzz (talk) 06:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  06:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary/Undiscussed decision to switch to HK English
I oppose this arbitrary and unilateral decision by RGloucester to use HK English. Not all of the article is written in HK English. None of my contributions are. Before putting up templates, this should have been discussed first, unless someone wants to volunteer to copyedit the article into HK English. &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  02:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Er, I beg your pardon. The article was already templated as being in "Commonwealth English" (EngvarB). I merely switched to the proper Hong Kong template, as that is more specific (and it is the same in terms of spelling). Anyway, WP:TIES applies. RGloucester  — ☎ 02:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed the tag, it seems unnecessary zzz (talk) 05:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, an English sympathizer pushing a POV Shift towards one of that in favor in Hong Kong, makes perfect sense. Gaming the system won't help that those who perceive the protests will markedly be not in that of bad English. Dark Liberty (talk) 03:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

"Other Activities" section
The rallies in other country seems to be somewhat redundant with Foreign Reactions, and could potentially be moved there. Chinese dissent as a subcategory title seems really weird to me and unclear, imo would go better under Chinese reaction section. Neither of these really seem like 'other'. Opinions? &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  08:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Change lead image
Per wp:bold I’ve changed the lead image from "Tear gas" to "Cell phone vigil". My reasons are:
 * "Cell phone vigil" is more emblematic of the notable nonviolent, social media driven nature of these protests.
 * "Tear gas" is a publication of Voice of America and is therefore per se propaganda.--Nowa (talk) 12:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That would violate POV on the basis of the points you mentioned. Dark Liberty (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Tear gas image is hardly propaganda. Restricting the image in China is a form of propaganda/censorship. either image is fine and both should be in the article somewhere. Legacypac (talk) 18:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Tear gas image is much more symbolic.Lmmnhn (talk) 14:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There hasn't been a huge amount of tear gas. I think the present pic better presents the non-violent nature of the protests, which has been a defining characteristic. zzz (talk) 14:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Domestic reactions
No matter how you judged my first post, but the article still needs a section depicting the general opinion of mainland Chinese. --2.245.121.108 (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't think their opinions are relevant here per One-Country, Two-Systems. Dark Liberty (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * May be difficult to get in a military-dictatorship state; NPR interviewed a few people yesterday, and while their opinions varied and were interesting, it is not possible to do a proper sampling for such a poll. We could always reference the NPR report, but it would have to be clear the onesie/twosie nature of the report.HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * We can include information on how those from Hong Kong not involved in the protests feel about the events and how it may have adverse effects on the economy, but those from China, their statements carry very little undue weight here, because China's government promised to grant Hong Kong autonomy. and excessive quotations from state tabloids aside from the White House visit should be removed some time in the future. Dark Liberty (talk) 17:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Only until 2047. --2.245.121.108 (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Chinese CCTV interviewed Hong Kong people who didn't protest (it should be clear that most people didn't protest). Owners of restaurants don't care about democracy, they cared about their own interest which is money. Because there were less tourists and little structure in the city, restaurants only had half of the customers compared to a normal day. So they were mostly against the protests. You may say that CCTV is Chinese propaganda and doesn't count as a source, but our Western media isn't quite neutral either. --2.246.4.138 (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Lead figures

 * The section of leading figures in the infobox is deleted by User:Signedzzz with the claim of being too long. However if you compared to the 2013–14 protests in Turkey it is not long at all. The figures from both sides have been all over the news and media these days and they are taking big parts in the movement so I suggest to keep them in the article. Lmmnhn (talk) 14:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Compare it to the vast majority of infoboxes in Wikipedia and it is way too long. It is controversial to specify who the lead figures are, so it is best to let readers decide, by reading the article. Providing a list of names you have selected provides no information other than one POV. zzz (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * To take the example of 2013–14 protests in Turkey, I don't see a problem of having the words "Non-centralized leadership" on the left and a list of the responsible government officials on the right. _dk (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It doesn't provide any additional information. It's just a list of the leaders of the groups already mentioned above. zzz (talk) 14:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The list of leaders may ultimately be a matter of opinion. But China should definitely not be removed from the box. The Russia/Ukraine comparison does not apply here. The protest here is with the Chinese policy; the Ukraine protest was with their own government, not a foreign govt, which would have made no sense. zzz (talk) 14:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's an infobox, its purpose is to extract relevant information from the prose. It's uncontroversial, for example, to state that the leader of the Hong Kong government is CY Leung and it's important to put it in the infobox since the people on the streets calling for his resignation. Finally, to prevent another edit war, we should discuss and determine what is the consensus here and not just declare something should be excised for fear of controversy. _dk (talk) 14:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed; as I said, it is mainly just a point of presentation. However, one (no, make that two) of the leaders mentioned does not even have his own WP article, and is not mentioned anywhere else in this article. It can't be right to present him at the top of the page as an important figure, imo. zzz (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've removed " Lester Shum (Deputy Secretary-General of Hong Kong Federation of Students)", since there's no need to have 2 from the same org, (and it was this item that was enlarging the box most of all). And I removed the leaders of anti occupy groups because they are not mentioned in the article, or notable. zzz (talk) 15:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * And now, someone has added "Non-centralised leadership, these people do not lead the event but they led the 'Occupy Central with Love and Peace' protest which has partially led to this Revolution", which it's hard to argue with, thus extending the box to ludicrous and unjustifiable proportions once again. I propose removing the controversial and unhelpful list of names entirely. zzz (talk) 17:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It is too long. I think people are a bit confused about the term 'Lead Figures', this term imo is fine and does not need such a long disclaimer. Lead figures is not the same as centralized leadership. The infobox is intended to provide information at a glance, it DOES NOT need TWO disclaimers about decentralization given the section above it already has it. &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  17:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, people are confused - they see it as misleading. And they will continue to see it as misleading. The only solution is to remove the list of names, which would not detract from the usefulness of the box. zzz (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Speaking of confusion, the field "Parties to the civil conflict" is not very stable since "Chinese government" keeps being added and removed. My initial understanding of the field is that it refers to the actual people on the ground, while zzz says it should include who the protesters are really protesting against. This should be discussed as well. _dk (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Chinese govt was added last night by another editor, and I think it should be kept. The HK govt answer to their bosses in Beijing, so it is logical to include both. zzz (talk) 18:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * HK govt are no more "on the ground" or relevant than China govt - less relevant, in fact, since it is central govt policy that is being protested. zzz (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Their bosses have kept their hands off and have repeatedly said things to the effect of "we trust the Hong Kong government can handle this themselves". It is important to keep One Country Two Systems in mind with its promises of high autonomy when we're talking about HK. _dk (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The reason they need to say things like that is that they are the ultimate authority, not the HK govt. The validity of One Country Two Systems is what is under dispute (in the protests, I mean - I don't think we need to be trying to settle it for them on this page!) zzz (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with dk, HK government is the one making decisions. The HK police is the one being criticized. Federation of Students asked for CY Leung to resign earlier in the protests. PRC government has nothing to do with handling the protests. There is no substantial difference between their statements and other international/foreign statements. 216.113.168.148 (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Lead
Please do not delete the summary of the Chinese govt & media section because it is "redundant". A short summary of the main points in the article is what the WP:LEAD is for. Thank you. zzz (talk) 13:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That might be true, but we generally should not have quotes in the lead as those are the things that should be summarized and not repeated. _dk (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It is definitely true, and the section is comprised largely of quotes, one of which is presented in the lead in a shorter version. It is a short summary of an important section of the article, and there is no reason to delete it. "we generally should not have quotes in the lead" is not a policy, so is not a reason to delete the summary, which is a perfectly good summary. zzz (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * State-run media in mainland China is known to be biased, and also they have been writing articles every day with stronger and softer tones. I have strong doubt of emphasizing this particular strong tone of accusing foreign intervention on the lead section.--Lmmnhn (talk) 16:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course it is known to be biased. And in case it isn't, it is described as "state-run". The section is not attempting to present it as un-biased. I am not aware of any Chinese "softer tones". The Chinese accusation of foreign intervention is a running theme, and is well-referenced to non-Chinese sources. zzz (talk) 16:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * From what I have read on the People's Daily so far, the CCP is not very much running the "US intervention" theme this time. For example  on 1 October, it only accuses the protests as "disrupting social order and harming Hong Kong’s economic livelihood" which has been the general tone so far. The strongest accusation was on yesterday/the day before yesterday which it accuses the protestors' intention of launching a colour revolution in the mainland. I hardly see any "US intervention" accusation from the largest state-run media and the Beijing officials. Therefore I still think it is very inappropriate to emphasize it on the lead section. --Lmmnhn (talk) 16:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * See, BBC China's report on Chinese media. First paragraph of report: "Mainland media are urging people in Hong Kong to 'boycott' Occupy Central, while accusing the West of playing an 'instigating' role." It is therefore necessary to cover this.zzz (talk) 16:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Though it is not the official tone of the CCP government so far if you read the other articles on the People's Daily and news report on CCTV as I stated. It is not that important to be included on the lead section.Lmmnhn (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Your reading of other People's Daily articles is WP:OR. Anyone else's reading may differ: that is why it is important to only report what RS's say. zzz (talk) 18:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That doesn't even make any logical sense zzz, your reading of BBC would then be considered WP:OR. BBC isn't necessarily a RS either, they have a POV too. If other sources contradict BBC and those sources are more official, then other sources should be used rather than BBC 216.113.168.148 (talk) 19:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's another RS in overwhelming agreement with the BBC's (and my) analysis: zzz (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Images on the page
Per WP:OR, WP:NPOV, potentially WP:SPA, WP:COI, I suggest that images uploaded by UmbreRevolution be replaced whenever possible by non-original work (ex. from media, public domain) or uploaded by a more neutral, uninvolved editor (preferably established editor per WP:SPA). I feel there is POV pushing going on in the article by a subset of editors who are attempting to portray their view of the protests (lack of leaders, rejecting the leadership, saying the Student Federation doesn't represent the protesters, which incidentally, does not show up as the dominant narrative on SCMP or other media portals) as the singular situation happening on the ground. The reality is much more complicated. &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  17:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What a long list of accusations. To address the main one (?), any free-use picture is likely to have been taken by an editor. It is not WP:OR - this policy is completely irrelevant with regards to the authorship of photographs. zzz (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying we shouldn't have them, I'm saying there would be more reliability of the images if they were not uploaded by UmbreRevolution, ex. replaced with images from more reliable or more neutral sources. &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  19:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Uh, we can only use "free" pictures, so they more or less have to be taken by editors. Otherwise they'd be copyrighted. RGloucester  — ☎ 02:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Remove sections
"Public opinion towards police action" and "Hong Kong government" are both completely unsourced. I think they should be removed. They don't say anything interesting, anyway. zzz (talk) 03:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I moved the 2 sections down instead. zzz (talk) 04:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Moving the controversial (and trivial) cleanup, organisation section down. zzz (talk) 04:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So-so on reordering, not sure if logical neighbor order would be better (domestic reaction with chinese reaction then foreign media) &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  06:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I moved the domestic reaction & HK govt. down to avoid the urge to delete it - it is a long paragraph without a single reference, essentially a mini-blog. zzz (talk) 06:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I've moved them up with a tag, so the Table of Contents (which seems a bit long) makes sense. zzz (talk) 06:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The domestic reaction section should highlight key reactions, not just anything generic. At the moment it doesn't divide by known groups either. It should be as high quality as international section. Let me look into it. If it isn't fixable we might have to delete it. Benjwong (talk) 05:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This edit of mine removed sections that had no sources. Feel free to find sources for them and put them back. Benjwong (talk) 04:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Archived Content
This section is for removed content, for reference:

(Logistics section)

"Numerous stations were set up by the protesters as a base for food and water distribution, waste collection and medical care. Hong Kong Red Cross also provided medical service from their premises in the heart of the Admiralty protest."

Hong Kong Demonstrators are Disciplined, Slate Magazine

US Openly Approves of Hong Kong Chaos it Created, Global Research

Dark Liberty (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The reason I removed it is because I feel it would be better elsewhere in the article instead of a 2 liner section. There are also other organizations than just the HKRC providing logistics, not sure why specifically they were singled out. &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  13:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It became a two liner section because someone removed the rest of the section by calling it "marketing", despite it being referenced with reliable sources. Merely reflecting what the media has said isn't advocacy, people. _dk (talk) 13:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Do not talk here. Dark Liberty (talk) 13:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * On what authority do you give these commands? _dk (talk) 13:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, are you freedom-lovers not concerned as to why 'Dark Liberty' is allowed to give out his orders?

78.147.81.82 (talk) 13:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Solution
Here is a suggestion for everyone. We use my version or Noian's, with the infopanel updated, minus the External links, and all parties change Nothing except for Day 2, 3, 4, etc, and every section will be locked from editing except the Days. I'll submit this request personally if all parties agree.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_Hong_Kong_protests&oldid=628206253 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_Hong_Kong_protests&oldid=628205646

I've been supporting the movement and supervising neutrality, in which everyone generally agreed to for the few days, until you two editors came in and started changing the Article en-mass with phrases including "spontaneous movement of the masses", "People of Hong Kong", and "suspected Triads" implying that it was a unanimous movement of Good vs. evil.

Alas, Immoral actions can never be justified, no matter how noble your cause.

Dark Liberty (talk) 21:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * You have been reported already for deleting sections you don't like. I suggest you quit insulting the integrity of editors. zzz (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Here's another solution, Dark Liberty: stop edit warring, trolling, blanking sections, pushing your POV, being disingenuous about your real intentions and and generally being disruptive. I'm surprised you haven't been blocked for violating the WP:3RR, having blanked one paragraph eight times in 24 hours. Citobun (talk) 21:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * He is now. _dk (talk) 07:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Spontaneous movement of masses and people of hong kong are phrases that should be changed since they aren't clear like Dark Liberty says. I'm so-so on the suspected triads in the infobox, since I'm not sure whether or not it would be better to have an other label above it to separate it from the above two groups since there's no definitive/objective link they are related. Otherwise, I'm in favor of keeping the organization section, but rewording it to be more neutral and going into details that were suggested a few sections up by another editor (Lasersharp).
 * (Quote: My 2 cents: I think this section should be kept since it is well-sourced, but the language should be as neutral as possible. Right now I think the section could use some balance, such as criticism to the organization of the protests, and internal disagreements between the different factions.) &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  08:25, 5 October 2014 (UT
 * Addon: At a minimum, I think the section should include mention of differences in opinion among different occupy groups as to protest tactics, and some mention of barricades. The section as currently written (imo) implies implicitly that the protests have little or no side impact on Hong Kong (via language emphasizing the cleanliness of the protests and barely visible trace left over in the morning). &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  08:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

(outdent) I have gone ahead and modified the organization section to be more concise and neutral, as well as to contain something I read on SCMP recently (can't remember which page though, wasn't an opinion piece). Furthermore moved suspected triads to others based on this opinion piece (http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1610220/hong-kong-protesters-lose-support-name-democracy) and others like it which establishes that there links between triads and anti-occupy movements aren't necessiarily objectively proven to be true. I also removed a sentence on fire chat which I feel is advertising. I believe these edits help create a more NPOV base for these sections. &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  22:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that we don't want to be commercial, but all of the references I've seen regarding FireChat emphasize that this is a significant part of the protesters' communications with 100's of thousands of downloads. The current words in the article of "started to use" really doesn't reflect what the references are saying.--Nowa (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:BEBOLD - Please insert a useful summary of the sources. zzz (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I did but there was concern about the apparent commercialism The key issue was putting in the number of downloads as an indicator of the impact. Hence wp:brd.--Nowa (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That first diff looks good, not "commercial" at all. If the deletionists don't wish to justify their objections, I suggest you put it back (and possibly edit it for brevity). zzz (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Correction: it doesn't need editing. It should not have been deleted. zzz (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It needs to be incorporated into the information that is already there (obviously). zzz (talk) 21:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I'll go ahead and update the section.--Nowa (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

To Signedzzz
Please don't insist to put "Umbrella Revolution" in the Infobox because the Infobox title should be the same as the article title. You may put it elsewhere in the main text if you like.

Also please don't remove this relevant external link from a RS. STSC (talk) 08:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * US Openly Approves Hong Kong Chaos it Created
 * We are in no business of putting op-eds in the external links section. _dk (talk) 08:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a relevant article by the Centre for Research on Gabalization. When time allows I'll put its content into this article's main text. STSC (talk) 08:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You were removing locations of protests in the info box & claiming they were shut down (with no references). zzz (talk) 09:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe you're just sitting in an armchair somewhere in Europe, if you don't have any access to live local news and don't know what's happening on the ground then don't argue. STSC (talk) 09:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't you live in Europe? Citobun (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The so-called "Centre for Research on Globalization" is not an RS, and is known for being a fringe conspiracy site. It is the personal mouthpiece of Michel Chossudovsky. RGloucester  — ☎ 04:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Apparently its "rife with anti-Jewish conspiracy theory and Holocaust denial." Nice. User STSC was also repeatedly inserting it on Occupy Central with Love and Peace. zzz (talk) 04:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Leadership
A number of edits have been made in regard to the leading figure of this campaign/protest. I am not sure whether the current version is good or not, because in the article it already states that this is NOT Occupy Central with Love and Peace. And as a matter of fact, the participants do not regard them nor the Federation of Students as leaders, shall we still keep this section? Thanks. --Umbrevolution (talk) 18:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The main problem as I see it is in the infobox, where there is a long list of supposed leaders. I believe this list should be removed (as I have proposed above), and many editors feel the same way. The only argument for keeping it is that on 2013–14 protests in Turkey there is a similar list (which is irrelevant). This list should be removed, to improve the clarity of the infobox. (I haven't checked the article for other WP:UNDUE mentions of "leadership", yet). zzz (talk) 18:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Disagree, leadership != lead figures. Like I stated. Umbrerevolution has been pushing for the POV that there are no leaders, and therefore has a COI in removing the section, not for clarity, but for POV pushing. SCMP and other media has consistently covered these organizations and when they make statements they are covered. They are Lead Figures. This is different from leadership. &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  19:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * They were lead figures, as everyone agrees. I completely agree with Umbrevolution that for some time now, they have been sidelined and their instructions have been ignored. This has been commented on in RS's.zzz (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If they are being ignored by everyone then why is the lead figures still prominently in the media today?

There has been consistent POV pushing by Umbrevolution to push one subfaction of the protesters who don't follow the established leadership figures. It was reported that protesters who complained about lack of leadership, true. At the same time it was reported the number of protesters in the same area number in the hundreds. Ignoring the fact that not all of the protesters have the same beliefs as Umbrevolution, even if we counted all of these protesters as having the same opinion that the lead figures don't represent them, this is a small portion of the protesters that showed up in the first days when the lead figures did. Where is the proof that the majority of protesters reject the leaders? That there is none? All I see is likely self made posters uploaded by Umbrevolution, who has an ulterior motive to upload those pictures and asserting it represents everyone. . If you believe Umbrevolution's viewpoint represents the majority of protesters then you are gravely mistaken. reliable sources isn't just a claim. &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  23:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note Occupy Protests. There is not a single article on the front page of SCMP or other websites which use the term Umbrella Revolution.
 * "Representatives of Hong Kong's pro-democracy protesters have agreed to hold formal talks with the government."
 * "Hong Kong protest leaders agreed to hold two rounds of talks with the city's government"
 * "Hong Kong protest leaders agreed to hold two rounds of talks with the city's government"
 * "About 60 protesters are planning to stay overnight outside CY Leung's office. Outside the Legislative Council building, about 80 students are resting or sleeping on the ground."
 * "Causeway Bay: Numbers remain strong at Causeway Bay this evening, with around 200 people remaining at the Hennessy Road protest camp. "
 * "Mong Kok: About 500 sit-in protesters"
 * Hi. I will admit I haven't specifically researched this issue (I am relying on a few passing references I've seen, backed up by Umbrevolution's first-hand knowledge - I see no reason not to WP:AGF rather than WP:BITE), hence my lack of actually citing RS's, as you have done. Didn't the protestors ignore Benny Tai's request for them to leave a protest site at some point (I'm sure I read that somewhere, and other persuasive examples - also see Umbrev's post above explaining when the split first began). None of the sources you supplied here seem to address the question. The original leaders are in the talks now, sure, but if and when the talks break down and these same 'leaders' advise the protestors to give up and go home for their safety, I very much doubt anyone will listen. zzz (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

That Noian is probably a leftard as what he said is heavily biased, you criticizing umbrevolution of being a new account, but can't someone join our team just because he feels engaged in? you said that he has conflict of interests,what can he earn them by saying that there is no leader? instead for me it seem that you are promoting the three trios, federation and Scholarism in orde to gain political asset. i thus delete the lead figures as this is what majority thinks.stop hijacking--124.217.139.2 (talk) 04:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Noian is a right-wing advocate, from my experience of reflecting upon his contributions, zzz. Do not accuse editors of rather non-good faith. Dark Liberty (talk) 10:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)