Talk:2019–2020 Hong Kong protests/Archive 11

Why is this called protests, not riots?

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How is it that people throwing petrol bombs are not called rioters? I thought that the definition of a riot was a group of 3 or more causing a breach of the peace. Is it only a riot if people are lower class or if you like what they protest against? Wikipedia should try to be somewhat neutral and change the title to '2019 Hong Kong riots'. The western press shows more pictures of police firing tear gas, but not the arson, violence and vandalism that caused the police to respond.

People who are OK with burning Mainlanders alive should read the same article and insert the word 'Jew' or Black' instead of Mainlander to see another's perspective. How can you be OK with this violence? Do you hate us that much? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.64.90.29 (talk) 00:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The majority of reliable sources refer to the event as the "Hong Kong protests". Among many other reasons, the term, as it is now, will likely never be changed. If you feel the article doesn't have a neutral point of view, please specify exactly what you want to be changed (e.g. "change abc to xyz") in the form of an edit request - but keep it realistic, nobody will agree on changing "protests" to "riots". OfficialBoob (talk) 11:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * there is a problem to that logic though. majority of the English sources would be the Commonwealth or USA. the UK obviously has skin in the game, as does USA. majority of the Chinese sources would be.... well... owned or influenced by PRC. surely, if you search HK riots in Chinese, you will find a lot of results. So.... I m guessing the Chinese version of this article could legitimately refer to these as riots. 192.0.235.66 (talk) 06:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The POV of the writer certainly has an influence on which word is used. Victor Hugo, in Les Misérables, waxes long on the differences between riots, uprisings, and revolutions. Search the book. A Kindle version will allow this, and search an unabridged version. It's very interesting. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it has clearly got to the stage of a riot now.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The actions may be the same, but it's the motivations which determine the proper word, and the participants will use one term, and the oppressive authorities will use another. The participants thus reveal their motives to resist oppression and preserve their historic freedoms, and the authorities reveal their motives to remove those freedoms. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a fairly biased view. The Hong Kong merely introduced an extradition bill, which according to independent observers was unremarkable. There was not attempt to remove freedoms. After all, it was the transition to Chinese rule that introduced elected government in the first place.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for politely responding to my comment above; that is a step forward. I am sure that many people would like the article to be neutral. However there are many sinophobes who want bias.
 * 1) To start with "protests" must be changed to 'riots'. A riot is a group of three or more people who commit a breach of the peace. (The exact wording does vary slightly from country to country.) Throwing bricks at people, throwing petrol bombs at people and hitting them with pipes is easily a breach of the peace. Most Western media sources have an anti-Chinese bias; try to rise above it.
 * 2) Deaths not directly related to the riots must be removed. A second article about suicides might be created. The case of Chow Tsz-lok was used by rioters, but that was a fall from height near a riot. You should need some evidence that the police were with him for it to be anything but propaganda.
 * 3) Give equal weighting to violence committed on the police to violence committed by the police. Do mention that the rioters smash traffic lights, slash tyres on buses, vandalize train stations, block roads, pull down bus signs, attack Mainlanders (and their shops) for their ethnicity, violently attack people who dare to argue with them, publish the details of officers' children and so on. Count the number of times rioters throwing petrol-bombs/Molotov-cocktails is mentioned and the number of times tear gas is mentioned as a measure of bias.
 * 4) Do mention that the extradition amendment contains many safe guards and is similar to laws in the west. There are some technical points in the text that I disagree with. (Yes, I have read it.) However that is not a justification to throw bricks at the windows of Mainland children.
 * 5) Move all the non-violent political issues to an article on the extraction debate. I have no issue with the entirely non-violent protests that happened in the first half of 2019.
 * It is to be hoped for that a neutral approach may serve to limit the justification of violence against people because of their ethnicity. I teach many children who come from the Mainland. How can it be democratic for ten-year-old children to be afraid of violent mobs on the street? These riots are more about internalised sinophobia than anything political. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.3.195.184 (talk) 01:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * So.... back to the topic... is it "protests" or is it "riots"? Looking over at "Yellow Vests", the term riots have been used for a while now. In my view, the labeling riots would be appropriate because a) the official gov't calls it as such - therefore it is a legitimate term (WP:PRIMARY)and is not OR. b) one of their 5 demands is to remove the labeling of "rioters", so clearly they are aware of label riot is in fact being used. and c) every major source now acknowledge that riot police are deployed, every single day, for the past week. many outlets, including those supporting the "protests" now use the term "siege" or "besieged" to describe the situation. d) we now have direct deaths from the incidents. i think the situation has advanced WELL PAST the point of just protesting. 192.0.235.66 (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 1992 Los Angeles riots, Watts riots — what's the difference here?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What about wikipedia's own definition of a riot? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riot   or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_England_riots  - coincidentally, also about alleged police violence. 192.0.235.66 (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Molotov cocktails, rocks etc?--Jack Upland (talk) 10:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * They're protests. Plus it seems like a lot of devastation is coming from the police. Yeah the protestors threw molotovs to stop police charges, but Monday the police shot almost 1,500 canisters of gas at a university full of students and kids in an incredibly dense neighborhood of Kowloon that's inland and next to a busy metro station. I don't know about the rest of you, but if the police started pumping even a few canisters of gas in to my neighborhood I'd be ripping, not to mention 1,500 in a 24 hour period, plus several thousand rounds of "less-lethal" ammunition. There are kids who live there. Seven million people live there it seems almost too stupid to imagine using massive amounts of gas in an incredibly dense city whose population you ostensibly care about it, the Americans and British tried something similar on Dresden in WW2 but the key difference was that they didn't feign the hypocrisy of caring. Gassing someone every day on their way to pick up their kids every day from school is a bizarre way to win hearts and minds. In regard to the OP, no offense meant, but I put Xinhua slightly above Sputnik and RT, its articles tend to be less silly, which is why it gets put slightly above. Alcibiades979 (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That sounds like riots.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The political point of view is irrelevant. Disturbing the peace in large numbers is a riot. Blocking roads and smashing traffic lights is disturbing the peace. Smashing and burning the shops of ethnic minorities is disturbing the peace. Throwing petrol bombs at ANYONE is disturbing the peace and also very violent. What one thinks about a 'cause' does not change the fact that it is a riot. It is violent. Some might even say, if it were not for such rioting the police would not need to use tear gas or rubber bullets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.64.92.130 (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Riots by whom? The protestors or the police pumping civilian neighborhoods full of poisonous gas? New numbers are out, according to the Hong Kong Public Opinion Resarch Institute 83% of the population blame the government, and especially the police, for the increase in violence. In a separate poll 51.5% reported zero trust in the police force, up from just 6.5% before the protest began. "Hong Kongers are appalled that police have lined uniformed schoolchildren against walls for random searches and have arrested 11-year-olds. Reports are growing of physical mistreatment in detention." If you can with a straight face say that you wouldn't care about the police shooting so much gas in your neighborhood that even in your apartment your eyes burn, then clearly the conversation ends here, as you and I evidently have radically different ideas as to how a competent police force conducts itself.Alcibiades979 (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If the police are using excessive force that does not mean they are not riots.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Police force isn't related to the article naming. That said, the majority of sources are using protests. This article covers a long time frame of protests over 2019 that are more recently being referred to by PRC's PR machine as riots. When can expect the IP address (and registered) POV editors to continue to push the renaming issue. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * There have clearly been riotous aspects of the protests. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think editors will stop raising this when Wikipedia stops calling riots "protests".--Jack Upland (talk) 00:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Some of the protests might be called riots by some, but many, especially in the beginning, were completely peaceful. So unless you want to split the article and segregate the "riots" (which would be incredibly contentions and POV), "protests" is the term that covers the entire subject. 123.208.5.31 (talk) 06:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point. However, I think it's got to the point that the term "protests" doesn't cover what's happening. There has been a multitude of attacks on police (with Molotov cocktails, arrows, laser points etc), attacks on civilians, and destruction of property. Since the extradition bill was withdrawn, it's not clear what the movement wants. It is a bit strange to engage in street battles with police in support of a demand for an investigation into police brutality. Perhaps "civil unrest" might be a neutral term.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * as somebody who lives in china, i would like to give my account of the story in hopes that it will help with neutrality. the chinese government calls them "street thugs", "criminals", etc. In this case, the situation has already escalated above the point where it should be called "protest". There is also a viral GIF in china showing how the rioters poured oil directly on an old man opposing their actions and lighting him up with matches. Also, the majority of protesters/rioters are college students. Universities have reported having arrows stolen from their archery ranges and other dangerous equipment stolen. Do "protesters" do that? The police are pumping tear gas canisters into the schools because the rioters have started fires and are taking the unrest into the schools, which affects the education A LOT. in the airports, if u are exposed as a mainlander, there is a 100% chance that u will be beaten up, because the rioters have been blocking exits and even the emergency roads for ambulances every day. I feel "rioters" is a good balance between "protesters" and "thugs/criminals" and adequately describes them. RyanGeLOL (talk) 03:42, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you shouldn't use Chinese propaganda to support your viewpoint. 42.76.107.165 (talk) 04:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You should thoroughly read the article again (especially this section) if you are unclear what the movement wants. Please don't discuss the article without even reading and understand it. 42.76.107.162 (talk) 06:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Most of those objectives relate to the protest itself; it is circular to describe them as objectives of the protest.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:29, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Even if there are riotous aspects, that doesn't classify the whole movement as a riot. Rioting may suit some events, but there are many other tactics other than those "violent acts", such as peaceful demonstrations, lennon walls, strikes, human chains etc. Calling the movement "protest" is nothing wrong. You can call certain events as riots but not rename the article to 2019 Hong Kong riot.


 * Emphasizing some riotous events and concluding the whole movement as "riot" is clearly against WP:NPOV. 42.76.107.165 (talk) 05:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How is Alex Chow Tsz-Lok's death is related to protest?
It's not even proven that he was escaping from tear gas and there were videos shown that someone may be following him. I don't think we should be adding him to the list of casualties until there is substantive sources backed by substantive evidence. This protest movement has a tendency of labeling all suspicious deaths as murder or deaths caused by police and we should be careful with buying into the fake news.

The only confirmed death related to protest is the 70-year old man who was killed by a protester hurling a hard object at him. I think we need to also highlight that it's not a protester being killed to avoid confusion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.247.238.245 (talk) 17:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with both of your points. If a police officer had killed a 70-year-old man, Wikipedians would be so quick to type it into the lead that their fingers would fall off. But since it was, in fact, the protesters who killed a 70-year-old man, he is simply added to the casualties list, the crime is reported in the passive voice, and no responsibility is attributed to the protesters. The way the article is written almost intentionally obfuscates the issue to make it seem like the two deaths were caused by police, when in fact both were caused by the protesters' own actions. This should be clarified.
 * —Tookabreather (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If reliable sources widely associate a death with the protests, we consider it related to the protests. Simple as that. This test has been met with the case of Alex Chow. feminist (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There have been plenty of reliable sources about Molotov cocktails. Simple as that.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this is related to the current discussion. Reliable sources mention the use of petrol bombs (aka Molotov cocktails) by some in the protests, and our article covers the use of petrol bombs as one tactic. I don't see any conflict here.
 * Similarly, reliable sources associate the death of Alex Chow to the protests, so we cover his death in our article. feminist (talk) 01:57, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * They are just upset about not having protester violence covering 99% of the article. 42.76.107.162 (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No, we're upset about an article about the protests giving a biased, inaccurate view, a view that helps absolutely no one understand what is happening. Every editor should oppose this.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Expansion of the "Underlying causes" section
Some explanations about Chinese domestic politic, such as the increasingly authoritative nature of Xi's China, as well as the international political environment( trade war etc) and fundamental difference between HK and Chinese judicial system maybe beneficial for this section. What do you folks think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minche r1 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It depends on what sources say, but those points seem highly speculative.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it would be apropreute to put it is a further reader RealFakeKim (talk) 15:53, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the part about Xi is a bit too underlying and distant to the protests, and the part about the ongoing trade war is a bit irrelevant to the whole protests. I don't think Xi's dictatorship is the real reason why the protests started though since the origin of "mainland fears" can be traced all the way back to the June 4th incident and China has always been authoritarian anyway. I think the part about distrust toward the mainland government's judiciary system is true and sound and we should mention it, though I think China being an authoritarian state (as opposed to HK, which theoretically should have a lot of freedoms), and its infamous track record of prosecuting political dissidents and violating human rights in the past are the key reasons while the differences in judiciary systems were only minor in the bigger picture. OceanHok (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I believed that it is "see also" sections' work and we could add this if the human rights conditions in [mainland] China is reported by reliable sources to be relevant to the protests such as Cause of 2019 Hong Kong protests.(In fact, I'm working on pages about Chinese media and social media during the HK protests)Mariogoods (talk) 23:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Impact on policing
To add? There are now news reports on increase in crimes being committed with multimillion dollar robberies being carried out now due to the curtail of normal policing efforts in relation to the protests. https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3039791/hong-kong-police-hunt-two-men-over-tsim-sha-tsui-robbery https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-and-crime/article/3040137/hong-kong-police-hunt-robbers-who-stole-hk2-million https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-and-crime/article/3040201/second-armed-robbery-less-24-hours-nets-hong-kong robertsky (talk) 03:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think adding them is appropriate. The source really did not clearly state the correlations between the protests and the robberies. Even the police themselves have no concrete evidence that a correlation exists. They simply cannot "rule it out". It would be too early to include anything about this I would say. (On a side note, the police force never claimed they were stretched thin by the protests. They have always insisted that the Force is sufficient/more than enough to deal with the protests, so theoretically speaking there is no impact on policing according to the police.) OceanHok (talk) 07:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you're biased. Anyone can see that massive police resources are being directed to the protests.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * They insisted that the force is capable of dealing with the protests, but that does not mean that there is no impact on normal policing, especially evident when they had to pull back regular patrols to deal with the protests, and deputised correctional officers to support the ongoing police response to the protests as well. Also the police has acknowledged that criminals may be taking advantage of the protests to stage their crimes. https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-and-crime/article/3040395/hong-kong-police-open-fire-street-during-arrest https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-and-crime/article/3042048/armed-gang-loots-mong-kok-watch-shop-robberies-spike https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-and-crime/article/3038039/flying-tigers-join-fight-against-hong-kong-protesters robertsky (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The riot police officers from CSD/Immigration Department should be mentioned in the article somewhere. It is true that they said they have been stretched thin by the protest, and the biggest evidence is probably their (lame) explanation of why they were absent in one of the year's biggest crimes: the Yuen Long attacks. Though one thing I feel very conflicted about is that the overall crime rates have actually fallen, so police doing a shitty job at policing didn't impact much anyway. But if RS mention about the police talking about the impacts of the protests on policing, they can be added to the article. Maybe alongside the OT payment part? OceanHok (talk) 05:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have an opinion on the Yuen Long attacks, but without RS, I will not turn this into a conversation point. Yes, let's include the OT payment. This I presume? https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asia/hong-kong-protests-police-overtime-bill-12183058 robertsky (talk) 05:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's one about the YL attack. Anyway, the OT stuff is mentioned in the impacts on economy right now, though I think it can be moved somewhere else. Maybe another paragraph in the impact section? OceanHok (talk) 06:31, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have placed the impact on policing in the section for society. May need a copyedit. As for the YL attack, the lack of police presence other than the alleged collusion, in my opinion, probably is due to the police underestimating the scope of violence certain people are willing to commit, and even if they didn't, the force was probably still re-calibrating their personnel and equipment deployments. They probably thought the protests would have fizzle out like before. robertsky (talk) 14:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

First sentence
If the first sentence can use the term "water revolution", it can also use the description "riots", which is how the PRC describes the protests.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Unlike Umbrella Revolution, I don't think the 2019 HK protests have become synonymous with the term "Water Revolution" yet. The same goes for anti-ELAB. OceanHok (talk) 06:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with OceanHok. Also, here is why it is not called a riot Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests RealFakeKim (talk) 10:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * My point is if the term "water revolution" is in the first sentence, why not also include the PRC government's description as well. And "water revolution" remains in the first sentence.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I find it hard to argue that "Water Revolution" is notable enough to be used in the opening sentence of lead at all. The origin appears to be the fanciful exonymic self-invention of a FT journalist, with no nativist roots in the protest movement whatsoever. That isn't nearly satisfactory enough to fit the criterion of WP:Offical_Names and the term is too generic, as can be confirmed by a search of Google Trends, to satisfy WP:Article_titles. I'd argue for its wholesale removal as keeping it in lead seems more of a self-promotion than a new synonymous name for the protest. Sleath56 (talk) 02:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I am ok with the removal of Water Revolution, though for anti-ELAB, I forgot that this is its common name in Cantonese, so it is difficult to find English source for it. OceanHok (talk) 03:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Its common name in Cantonese is not important for the English Wikipedia article unless English sources highlight it - keep it for the Chinese Wikipedia article. Based on the above, I will be removing both names.  starship .paint  (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Reuters source
Here https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/hongkong-protests-extradition-narrative/ is a great source for to expand this article. A clear WP:RS. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:12, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://news.rthk.hk/rthk/en/component/k2/1497706-20191214.htm. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. A-NEUN  &#10686;TALK&#10686;  20:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Article name after 2019
It seems unlikely that the protests would end on or before 31 Dec 2019. The name "2019 Hong Kong protests" will be no longer appropriate. It is worth discussing for the new name. Protesters themselves commonly use "Anti-ELAB movement" (or "Anti-Extradition Law Amendment Bill movement" in full), would we consider to use this? If not, at least "2019" should be changed, either using "2019–2020 Hong Kong protests", or "Hong Kong protests (2019–present)". --Fevawo (talk) 05:26, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd support moving the article to 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests. I don't see the protests going past 2020 into 2021, but if it does the name can always be changed again. These protests go beyond the Anti-Extradition law, so that as a title isn't the best option. – ᕼᗩᑎᗪOTO (talk) 15:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 2019-20 Hong Kong protests might be a better option. –Wefk423 (talk) 20:56, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The article is already quite long. Perhaps we should break it out as a new article 2020 Hong Kong protests, with the key elements of the 2019 article as background? --  Ohc  ¡digame! 21:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Not a bad suggestion, maybe Chinese government would do something not so good. Mariogoods (talk) 01:55, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I support moving it to 2019-2020 Hong Kong protests.
 * If it continues to 2021, then make it a Hong Kong protests (2019-present) 1233 ( T / C） 17:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * To expand the question what sould we do about the sub articles especially ones like List of November 2019 Hong Kong protests should it be changed to List of November 2019-2020 Hong Kong Protests it List of 2019 November 2019-2020 Hong Kong protests RealFakeKim (talk) 13:08, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * redirected the page without following consensus that has yet to be established here. It's also important to mention that the user used a hyphen (-) instead of an en dash (–). Jay Coop &middot;&#32;Talk &middot;&#32;Contributions 01:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've tagged 2019–20 Hong Kong protests for deletion pending a move there; and what consensus is going to develop here other than "its no longer 2019 move it to 2019-20"?  Nixinova   T   C   04:08, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Archive links missing
The links to the archived pages are missing on this talk page. The archived pages are still linked to the old page name (e.g. Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests/Archive 1). Jay Coop &middot;&#32;Talk &middot;&#32;Contributions 10:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe all archived pages should be moved to match the article name (e.g. Talk:2019–2020 Hong Kong protests/Archive 1). Hddty. (talk) 12:31, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I support this but there is an ongoing move request so we should wait to see the outcome before changing anything RealFakeKim (talk) 06:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 1 January 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: snow moved. El_C 16:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

2019–2020 Hong Kong protests → 2019–20 Hong Kong protests – Many other articles covering events spanning these years do not give the range's end year in full (e.g. the Australian bushfires, the Premier and Champions football leagues, the NBA and NHL seasons, and even other protests, like the ones in Lebanon and Chile). jack chango  talk  23:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Per MOS:DATERANGE, the first two digits may be dropped for consecutive years. "2019–20" also looks better. If the "2019–20…" page didn't have the bot fixing the double redirects Idve already moved the page to that title.  Nixinova   T   C  05:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support The name change didn’t have a proper vote and this is a more appropriate title. RealFakeKim (talk) 06:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment The context of the article renaming from should be avoiding the creation of 2020 Hong Kong protests since the protests is the continuation of the 2019 anti-ELAB protest (It would be WP:crystal to say are there any notable protest that not related to the "anti-ELAB protest" in 2020 thus need a creation of a wiki list for notable protests in year 2020). I think apart for that reasoning, MOS:DATERANGE also applies. Matthew hk (talk) 07:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – concise, makes sense. Citobun (talk) 07:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Both make sense for me, but the requested move title seems better in terms of conciseness. (disregarding how 20 will be intepreted as 20XX)--1233 ( T / C） 16:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Considering that the protests are enormously significant and do not seem likely to end soon, this article needs to be thought of in the broader context of Hong Kong history. '2019-20' is much less specific than '2019-2020' and therefore is more suitable for the article. Threedotshk (talk) 09:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually 19-20, 2019-20, 2019-2020 are the same thing. It purely "cosmetic" to have a concise title. And it just a more bureaucratic process since i doubt anyone would support to keep the original title . Matthew hk (talk) 12:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support – Per above and Wikipedia policy. I also mentioned this in but was ignored and the article was moved without a proper vote. Other better suggestions could be proposed after this move. –Wefk423 (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Request for revert possible vandalism of the page
Someone has changed the name into 2019–2020 Hong Kong Civil War among other questionable edits. Mariogoods (talk) 09:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done OhKayeSierra (talk) 10:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Automatic talk page archiving
I tried to change the archive period to one day to reduce the size of the talk page, but I was reverted with a 150K archive size which was not agreed to. I left 14 days in place, but I think this time should be reduced. Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:03, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I reverted your edit because the expected behavior was to archive 14 days after last entry of the thread. And the revert came after someone else reverted the archiving. There are many of these threads which would see replies after more than a day or two without reply, but that does not mean that editors are not reading or waiting for others to reply. As for the archive size, I increased it to 150k because primarily the velocity of the section size increase is quite fast and it takes less than 10 sections to fill up an archive page. I don't see an issue with a larger archive size as not many (unsurprisingly) goes into the archives and unless you are having dial-up speeds, 150k should be loading just fine. robertsky (talk) 01:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * FYI, I am open to have a shorter archive period, but 1 day is too short. 7 days would seem more sensible. robertsky (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

RFC for "Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests" talk page size
The talk page for "Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests" is over 100 kB, and should have a shorter archive period than 14 days. Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think a shorter time will stifle discussion. I dont have any problem to scroll down on this talk page. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not the RFc matter, don't mass tag with irreverent topic. Matthew hk (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * This is the same issue as above, and so should be in that section and not a completely separate one. You shouldn't need to go straight for a full-blown thirty-day formal RfC for something as simple as this. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:30, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, I am trying to advertise this RfC to the larger Wikipedia community, and there was no consensus to close the RfC before one week nor remove the publication from the RfC page. The talk page size is going to get worse in the near future if something is not done. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't "close" it - I removed the tag, this does not prevent discussion from continuing. Whilst User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Archive HowTo does state "before setting up automatic archiving on an article's talk page, please establish a consensus that archiving is really needed there", this does not apply in this case because automatic archiving is already in use on this page, you are merely asking for an adjustment to the existing settings. I also cannot find any part of Help:Archiving a talk page that suggests that an RfC should be held before adjusting the archiving settings (or even for setting up automatic archiving in the first place). I don't disagree that discussion is appropriate: but there is no need to publicise it to people who don't care, since all the people who do care will already have this page on their watchlists. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment For what is worth, the article is much longer than the Talk page. For a fast moving, well-covered current event such as this, having a long Talk page and this many discussions at the same time is normal. The automatic archival is simply a tool to trim off dead discussions, but most discussions are still active. If you think there are threads that do not benefit from further discussions, you can manually archive them. robertsky (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * An RfC about the talk page archiving? Is that really necessary? 1 day is way too short. Even 7 I think is too short. You'd expect a large talk page on an article about a major ongoing world event. I'd say leave it at 14 days and manually archive threads that are resolved or otherwise no longer active/needed, rather than shortening the auto-archiving. Alternatively, 7 days I think is the absolute shortest it should be to accomodate editors who do not edit every day. Finally, 150k sounds right for archive size. But seriously–an RfC for this? Can't there by just ordinary talk page discussion and consensus instead? There are already enough RfCs on this page as it is. A general comment, not specific to this RfC, but I'd encourage editors to try to work on compromises on the talk page without punting to an RfC at the first sign of disagreement. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 17:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:SNOW support for a minimum of 14 days, if not a larger period.  I'm joining all previous respondents in stating that an archive period of one day is clearly a non-starter: it is inconsistent with all standard community precedent, and quite frankly, any rational approach to open discourse, transparency, and efficiency in our typical discussion and consensus-forming processes. Guidance at WP:ARCHIVE recommends 30 days as the typical minimum and 90 days as more standard.  Even in extreme cases involving high-traffic articles with numerous daily posts, the advantages conferred by archiving threads over short periods will almost always be greatly outweighed by the costs that come with 1) issues having to be re-opened and re-litigated constantly (because they never had a chance of being properly resolved before being summarily dumped into the archive) and 2) issues involving gamesmanship or over-weighted opinions from those hawkishly guarding the talk page, ready to pounce on every topic they wish to comment upon, while the (typically more restrained and neutral) perspective of broader community input will rarely get in under that wire.  Frankly, given the size of the readership of this article, the degree of controversy involved in the subject matter, and all of the moving parts and need for considered debate that many threads will require, 14 days is probably itself too short a period, and we certainly cannot realistically consider going below that threshold if we want the space to function in a fashion where it will serve to form consensus on complex and controversial topics and otherwise allow for resolution of editorial disputes, rather than just being a conveyor belt of acrimony. <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 02:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * agreed Elinruby (talk) 02:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * On whether 14 days is too long or not, I shall not opine. But one day is way too short, some people only look at their watchlists once a week. This is why virtually all time-limited discussions - whether RFA, AFD or whatever - run for no less than seven days before closure. Similarly, those speedy deletion criteria that have a grace period mostly use seven days, in order to give the page creator a chance to take notice. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support 14 day minimum, for the reasons stated by Snow Rise. One of the busiest talk pages on Wikipedia is Talk:Donald Trump, which has a 7 day archive time.  That talk page is regularly above 150kb, and is sometimes as long as 250kb. Even though that page is long, the discussion there is still very efficient and organized.  This talk page is currently about 150kb and doesn't appear to usually get much larger than that.  If activity on this page were to increase significantly for an extended period of time, maybe I could support that, but I don't think we will get to that position anytime soon.  Mgasparin (talk) 06:48, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


 * At least 14 days (randomly summoned by a bot) This RFC is poorly formed. The first sentence is biased and the question ("Thoughts?") is absurd. Anyway, it's crazy to shut down discussion in under two weeks. If folks are having trouble keeping up, then there is a need to either get better organized or let the anarchy play out. Archiving isn't going to help. Jojalozzo (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose too large page sizes is a problem for some of our contributors, but this has to be balanced against the fact the many people may not find the time to participate in discussions that are curtailed to quickly. I don't know where to draw the line exactly but this is not there yet. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 16:46, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support 7 days I see nothing wrong with shortening the archive period per WP:TALKCOND: "Large talk pages become difficult to read, strain the limits of older browsers, and load slowly over slow internet connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." This page, as of when I am writing this, is approximately 95 KB. A shorter archive period is clearly called for. Granted, 1 day is too short, but 7 seems just fine. --<u style="color:#0000ff"> Puzzledvegetable <sup style="font-family:Century Gothic">Is it teatime already?  18:34, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose 14 days is just long enough to have a discussion, it should not be shortened. HAL 333  18:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Carrie Lam's husband
This of Carrie Lam's husband not signing or clapping to the China national anthem in Macao hit today on twitter. I guess there will be an RS tomorrow. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * It is a trivial event. This kind of tabloid journalism on making up story based on a photo is not suitable in an encyclopedic article. Matthew hk (talk) 04:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Concessions
I would like raise the question whether it is appropriate to have the recent replacement of the Chinese Liaison Officer for Hong Kong being listed as a "Concession given", without violating WP:NPOV. My own view on this is not clear-cut. Discussing this question could help in similar cases that may arise in the future, where actions of the HK or mainland goverment may likewise not be very clearly linked to the protests. CRau080 (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Haven't heard the news, but if true, it's not even a remote demand of the protest, but seems to be an attempt to get a handle of the situation within the CPC hierarchy outside of the limelight. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 18:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don’t think it is relevant as it doesn’t fall under the 5 demands of the protests — RealFakeKim  T  11:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it is relevant to the protests as it signals the change of CPC's strategy, though it is too early to say that it is a concession.--Sir Jorah Moment (talk) 13:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * In view of the unclear motivation, which may actually be not a "concession" at all as per the opinion voiced in, I have removed the replacement of Liaison Officer from the "Concessions given" box. CRau080 (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Killing of Luo Changqing
Hi, there is a discussion at Talk:Killing of Luo Changqing

It may interest you. The first two comments provide most of the context. --Cold Season (talk) 02:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Deliberate omission of context in the lead section
The bill was originally introduced in order to extradite a fugitive murderer from Hong Kong to Taiwan. This is a fact.

The 18-year-old student protester was shot only after striking a police officer with a metal rod. This is a fact.

The protesters have assaulted civilians. This is a fact.

The protesters have burned someone alive. This is a fact.

The protesters were "besieged" because they set fire to the university campuses and threw petrol bombs at police. This is a fact.

All of these facts are supported by reliable sources that I have repeatedly attempted to place onto the article's lead. Every one of my attempts has been reverted for spurious reasons. This article censors information about the protesters' violence and portrays the police's responses completely out of context, and the editors curating it have made sure of that. This article, as written, is a joke and indistinguishable from propaganda. There couldn't be an article more deserving of the POV tag than this one.

—Tookabreather (talk) 12:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree. Those are verifiable and notable facts, and omission skews it per WP:NPOV due to a focus on certain specifics but not the whole. I've noticed, especially, that the 2nd fact has repeatedly been obfuscated by a specific user, but it should be included that it happened and not just "attempted" as cited by reliable sources. --Cold Season (talk) 13:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


 * saying "The protesters have burned someone alive" tends to imply the man was killed. It's more appropriate to say he was "set on fire".
 * I also agree that the article is skewed, and that any mention of the term "riot" or "rioting" have been swiftly purged (except when mentioning "riot police"), even when these are in the context of specific incidents and backed by reliable sources such as the BBC. The images also tend to focus on police violence, and we have yet to see any images of protesters throwing Molotov cocktails. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 13:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The "metal rod" part is disputed. Counter-protesters have assaulted protesters is a fact, and the people protesters have assaulted are not always "civilians" is also a fact, thus mentioning one side only while sacrificing key context is WP:UNDUE. People burnt alive is a fact but people's ears being bitten off or someone's eyes being blinded by rubber bullets or protesters being shot by fireworks are also facts, then why the burning incident should take precedence over other equally ridiculous incidents? It is ok to mention protesters throwing petrol bombs or committing property damages as general characteristics but I oppose listing independent incidents. And we need to admit is that the (alleged) police brutality is a key driving factor for the protests, so it is difficult to downplay police responses. It is rare for RS to use the term "riot" (other than reporting the government/police viewpoint) when they were describing the protests or the protesters, while when you search things like "Indonesian riots" or "Chilean riots", you actually get many results. OceanHok (talk) 14:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Two wrongs don't make one right. Police violence is mentioned over and over again, with examples and linked to the protesters' responses. All the police major incidents against protesters and journalists are mentioned in the article, and it does not serve the cause to be in denial that protesters have shown a high degree of violence too. A man was set alight during a dispute (with someone wearing black?). It may be an isolated instance, but the e ntire protests are a string of isolated incidents, and I see little justification for excluding or downplaying protester violence against police and other civilians. The reason why the attempt at immolation should be given greater prominence is because of the severity of the violence: It is attempted murder by any benchmark. All the prior instances of protester violence were against inanimate targets whereas this was an attempt on a person, and caused severe burns to the victim. Equally not mentioned is the incident where a police officer in plain clothes was the target of a petrol bomb after he allegedly drove his car into a crowd of protesters. Although Molotov cocktails have become a weapon of choice, and protesters throw them in the tens if not hundreds on a daily basis, their use is mentioned in the artice as if they were all isolated occurences. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 15:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not suggesting to downplay protesters' violence, but to give counter-protesters WP:DUE weight when they have commit actions equally bad. If we are going to mention people burning, then why are we not mentioning protesters being knife attacked? With both sides using extreme violence against each other then why only the protesters were singled out as the "violent" groups while counter-protesters were relegated as the peaceful "civilians"? The fact is that they have been assaulting each other, and no one is better than another. I don't oppose adding the Yuen Long plainclothed officer catching fire or other instances that caught RS attention (like the liaison guy being shot with an arrow) in the radical protesters (or maybe the history) section, but using petrol bombs with the intention to murder is not the general characteristic of the protests thus it was not appropriate for the lead. That's why I am only ok with "people are attacking each other" but not "protesters are assulting civilians". OceanHok (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I can understand that you don't want to split with the other in the movement, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor is it a forum for advocacy. I don't see how intent or motivation should come in when it comes to petol bombs. These are among the most destructive home-made weapons used by rioters and terrorists. They have been used by HK protesters like they eat instant noodles since peaceful protests failed, probably even before the 10-1 storming of legco (I haven't been keeping track), and are certainly a hallmark of protest violence if not of rioting in a general sense of the definition, although why the term "rioting" hasnt been used more frequently is because it suits the Western (anti-China) narrative. It's inescapable that thousands of petrol bombs were found in CU and PolyU, even though they were never used. As to due weight, how do you propose to keep a "balance"? How about mentioning one petrol bomb for every teargas canister? How about one rubber bullet injury for every victim nearly killed by protesters? What I'm trying to demonstrate is that the transactional approach to balance is entirely arbitrary. But by not mentioning it, downplaying it, the article fundamentally violates WP:NPOV. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 16:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The dictionary definition of "Rioting", or here in WP is a state of behaviour that makes no distinction between causing injury or damege to people or inanimate targets, so the fact that protesters have only been targeting police and other symbols of the PRC doesn't make the actions any less "riotous" despite the lack of use of the word by reliable sources. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 17:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I will repeat again. I am not suggesting to downplay the violence from the protesters, but to give due weight to the violence from counter-protesters which is equally malicious. Sentences like "Rifts within the society widened as protesters began to assault civilians." (Tookabreather's wordings) obviously is WP:NPOV and Rifts within the society widened as actvists from both sides have assaulted each other (my version) can cover both violent incidents from both sides without digging deep into each of the incident. I mean, unless you want something like Protesters was shot by attackers with fireworks. The protesters became violent and assaulted Celina Ma. Some taxi driver rammed into the protesters and broke someone's legs to show his opposition. But the people beat the taxi driver. To retaliate, pro-Beijing supporters bite off Andrew Chiu's ears. Not happy with that, the protesters set a man on fire. Frustrated, pro-Beijing decided to knife attack a peaceful protester near Lennon Wall, but then the protesters are going to beat this guy with a drain pipe. I mean, this chain of garbage theoretically adheres to WP:NPOV as well. OceanHok (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If you are talking about the WP:NPOV in the other sections, I have added more about petrol bombs in the radical protester's section if this is what you guys want. I don't oppose adding violence of the protesters to the article as long as it is done with WP:NEUTRAL and WP:CONCISE wordings and given due weight. I would draw the line of WP:NPOV at summarizing similar behaviors with just one sentence while singling out the ridiculous ones (People being set on fire/someone shot with fireworks/Pressing people's face against the ground) or if it involves notable people. If incidents cannot be grouped (e.g. Prince Edward station incident, police van ramming into crowds, Yuen Long inaction), then it would stay on its own. If you are talking about why the history has more mentions of tear gas then petrol bombs, that's probably because people are complaining about the article's length and then we trimmed it to just "clashes" and "confrontations" (which is not a bad change I may add, detail weaponry used is mentioned in the subpages) . Regardless of whether RS is biased or not, using "riot" because we think the situation fits the dictionary definition is WP:OR. OceanHok (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's only OR if there are no sources to support the assertion, but there are. I attempted to add two very precise an limited instances, supported by sources, but they disappeared soon enough probably because there's a severe allergy within the movement to the "R word". Anyway, I do not believe that WP:CONCISE and WP:SUMMARY are sufficient to warrant removal of important detail as to the violent nature of the conflict or signature actions of either police or protesters. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 21:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Due weight needs to be given to the counter-protesters/ pro-Beijing mobs and their "equally signature" actions in WP:LEAD, but then that would turn the lead into a chaotic mess where we are going to list out all the heinous actions from both sides without restraints because many things are "signature" on its own. The lead, as it stands, has suggested that both sides are violent with "As the protests dragged on, confrontations escalated as both sides became increasingly violent." The problem is we should not single out one side of the protests when another side has been equally as bad. You only say "both are violent", but not "protesters are violent" without mentioning the other sides. OceanHok (talk) 05:13, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There is clearly an extreme pro-protest POV in this article, which censors protester violence.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There are also extreme anti-protest POV pushers in this talk page, which avoid discussing police violence while trying their best to smear protesters instead. 42.76.107.162 (talk) 03:57, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * With a topic as complex and controversial, it's inevitable. Usually, when it's one's own edits, they are objective, and when it's the opposing viewpoint, it's considered "POV pushing". --  Ohc  ¡digame! 12:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * In my opinion it is unfair to say the article is an 'extreme pro-protest' as the article does reference protester violence and even a man killed by protesters and their is a section about violent groups. I admit it more than like has a pro-protest POV as so editors including me are sympathetic to the protests (apart from the violence) RealFakeKim (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with RealFakeKim's opinion. Another problem is that Chinese government's counteractions not fully methioned. (But it is hard to clearly write Chinese view, since they are believing alternative version of the whole protests.) Mariogoods (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the article has improved. However, I think it has a pro-protest POV. I don't think there's any point in writing an unrealistic article. And I think all editors should agree on that.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:03, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe it is briefly mentioned in the reactions but I agree writing the Chinese view is hard dew to the censorship — Preceding unsigned comment added by RealFakeKim (talk • contribs) 16:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Too long. So don't inserted comment above. It is not a metal rod, it is a plastic rod. Also for the context, it was filmed that the police pulled a gun and approach the rod-welded protester. So it is accused that the police is the side that proactively attack the protester, which the protester is using the rod as self-defense. The version by the police's press relase is a complete COI lie. Yes you can call the "fact" is "dispute" as it is the interpretation of the media on the filmed material. Matthew hk (talk) 02:17, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I've added the following to the lede: an 18-year-old student protester was shot whilst attempting to hit a police officer with a rod and Hardcore protesters conducted vigilante attacks against perceived opponents, including supposed pro-Beijing entities being vandalized, and a man set on fire after arguing with protesters. Meanwhile, I disagree with other proposed additions by.  starship .paint  (talk) 13:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * For Fact 1, while the murder of Poon Hiu-wing indeed sparked the bill, I don't see the main objective of the protests being to support the murderer and prevent his extradition. Rather, protesters seem to be afraid of situations like the Causeway Bay Books disappearances. I don't see the murder being relevant enough to be included in the first paragraph.
 * For Fact 2, the type of rod is disputed and can be left out.
 * For Fact 3, "assaulting civilians" in itself needs context, which I have added in the text above. For the taxi driver incident (which I did not include), Tookabreather's quote was truncated in a one-sided manner:
 * For Fact 5, Tookabreather's description ( does not match the source provided which says that (1) the fires to the entrance of the university were already set when, and (2) the petrol bombs were thrown during the previous night of the siege.  starship .paint  (talk) 13:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I still disagree with the wording. Can we simply have "Rifts within the society widened as activists from both sides have assaulted each other." to summarize all the physical assaults that have happened? The additions do not include the attacks launched by counter-protesters. The weight is still WP:UNDUE, while what we have here is a fairly neutral sentence that criticises both sides adequately already. I am fine with mentioning vandalism and arson because they are (mostly) protester-specific characteristics, but beating people up is not. Why single out the burning incident and why should it take precedence over other equally heinous acts? OceanHok (talk) 04:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * On the points argued above, and the state of  right now, I have no issues with the wording. Thanks to all for your edits and discussion. Regards, --  Ohc  ¡digame! 14:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

- I have removed the orange tag. and have stated that the article is improved. While I don't think anyone got everything they wanted, there has been some attempt at a middle ground. Meanwhile, on 16 December, an uninvolved editor commented that If I had to close that thread now as an admin, it looks like a no consensus. Wouldn't "no consensus" on an NPOV issue mean that it really is generally neutral already?. May I thus suggest that if anyone feels strongly about the inclusion of further items, such as the murder of Poon Hiu-wing, or the man set on fire - to open an RfC with specific proposed sentences, as discussion here has run its course - it's been 14 days already. Thanks.  starship .paint  (talk) 15:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

As per the requested NPOV assessments in this thread, I've amended to elaborate "and a man who died after being struck in the head by a brick, during a confrontation between pro Beijing protesters and pro democratic protesters in Sheung Shui." to "and an elderly man who died after being struck in the head by a brick thrown by a protester during a clash between anti government protesters and local residents that were "trying to clear a roadblock" in Sheung Shui."

HKPF briefings as cited have listed the assessed perpetrator and local articles included those already cited note the nature of the confronted party the protesters clashed with. Further improvements to the sentence structure could allow for a note that the man was a bystander during the confrontation. Citing of the HKPF as the source of the classified COD is also possible. Sleath56 (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The original version is neutrally worded. Your version implies that the pro-democratic protesters are not "local residents". Citobun (talk) 06:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The original version is the one established on Talk, which explicitly distinguishes they aren't. There is no 'implication' of it. Per a RS: "In a video circulated online, Luo was shown being hit on the head by a brick during a clash between protesters and Sheung Shui residents. Police said he was filming the fracas with his mobile phone." You're welcome to believe they are personally, but as RS does not indicate it, its wholly immaterial to an encyclopaedic entry here. I'd contest that a reduction of clarity to "two camps" is just a preference for weasel wording and exactly what the RfC allegations of 'omission of context' pertained. Sleath56 (talk) 08:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Really? Protesters were all polled on their place of residence? Where exactly are you reading that? Citobun (talk) 12:00, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That is how RS have the distinction of "between protesters and Sheung Shui residents." Instead of posing further leading questions, you're welcome to address the point of orders I've made. Your preferred wording is a perplexing choice for a reduction of clarity that directly revolves around the RfC allegations of 'omission of context' in the very thread you're commenting under right now. You need to provide clear reasons why Wikipedia, not you, should want your preferred phrasing instead of the original established wording of "protesters and Sheung Shui residents," based as has been stated back when establishing it, is how local RS have reported it and is also how its stated on the death page. Sleath56 (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

It's not a fact that the universities were besieged after protesters threw petrol bombs at the police. If the police weren't there in the first place, how could anyone throw anything at them? Prof. HL Chow FRAS (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * No matter what your views are on the way police have and are handling the protests, blaming them for being at a demonstration is unfair as there has been clashes between counter protesters and violence/vandalism from the protesters. — RealFakeKim  T  16:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Do you now feel that the article has improved to be more neutral? — RealFakeKim  T  08:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

RFC for 2019–20 Hong Kong protests
It has been debated whether or not the following information should be included within article 2019–20 Hong Kong protests:
 * 1) ''The bill was originally introduced in order to extradite a fugitive murderer from Hong Kong to Taiwan.
 * 2) ''The 18-year-old student protester was shot only after striking a police officer with a metal rod.
 * 3) ''The protesters have assaulted civilians.
 * 4) ''The protesters have burned someone alive.
 * 5) ''The protesters were besieged because they set fire to the university campuses and threw petrol bombs at police.

--Jax 0677 (talk) 05:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Survey

 * No RFC is incorrectly formatted and we are also not going to add a list to the lede per WP:MOS. This is a mess and this rfc should be pulled. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

 *  Comment - Someone at WP:ANFRC refused to formally close the above discussion without an RFC. I have revised the RFC per request. --Jax 0677 (talk) 06:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Noting for the record that I declined the request for closure of the above discussion, because it did not advance a specific proposal, and there is not enough context to form a closing statement. This RfC would probably be more effective if each of the five bullet points were in a separate section (example) and accompanied with suggested phrasing. —  Newslinger  talk   06:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment That is something can't handled by RfC. Each bullet point would led to long debate on the "fact" and timeline based on news coverage. Matthew hk (talk) 06:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment 1, 2, 3 and 4 are covered in the artical and for 5 the artical says that they through petrol bombs but dosen't directly say that's why they were besieged. — RealFakeKim  T  17:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment We should have more Wikipedians to check these statement and the source supporting the claim, since any important content suggesting protesters and counter-protesters' fault could be used as evidence to attack each other outside the Wikipedia. Mariogoods (talk) 02:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Strike RFC Incorrect format WP:SNOW. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Death toll/ number of death and other numbers in the info box
<div class="boilerplate archived" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The number of death is not yet undetermined, however, the notation of solid number of 2 is way less presentable. It gives an impression that the movement is small-in-scale if compared to the social events in the other nation. I suggest that a meaning of ambiguity should be given to the number, say "2(event continuing)", "2(as of xx January 2020)" or "2(indeterminate)" to give a more accurate info and not misleading reader of that the event is already closed or the number is actually referencing to a reputable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.92.205.91 (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: It would give more information that would be useful to the reader as the protests haven't finished but Oppose: it may indicate to some readers that there have been more deaths or that people have covered up deaths — RealFakeKim  T  11:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Changed opinion as in the date section it say ongoing so a reader shouldn't be misslead — RealFakeKim  T  16:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Agree with @RealFakeKim that the unintended tone of the conspiratorial would make stating such a caveat counterproductive. Sleath56 (talk) 06:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose: As per 's counterpoint. This is an ongoing event anyway, it is expected that the death count may change as long as the event has yet to end. robertsky (talk) 06:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: Someone please put back the suicides !!!!!! They were directly related to the protests Dr. Universe (talk) 10:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment This is not a WP:RfC. Wikipedia did not use voting system to form consensus. Also, it is big no-no for offsite (onsite) canvassing. Matthew hk (talk) 12:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I have a related question that is not a response to this: Are suicides typically not included in deaths? There have been people who killed themselves clearly as a result of the protests.Prof. HL Chow FRAS (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I will still maintain my view that the first 4 suicides should count in the death toll. Marco Leung, in particular, suicide to protest. OceanHok (talk) 17:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree that it should at least mention them in the section but say the number is disputed — RealFakeKim  T  16:08, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


 * This has been established in the RFC. --Cold Season (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * , wikipedia, an encyclopedia, is a tertiary source. There is no reliable source or between newspapers they had conflicted numbers of the actual number of death and cuicides, as well as wiki editors had argued that different newspapers did or did not contributed some suicides' root cause is the protests. Thus, by the RfC, we don't have a solution on how to report the death number. Matthew hk (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Came back after a short wiki-break | to this hilarious aspersion which reminded me about this. While I do not work for China, I would still say the death toll should only be added once the events have ceased, but that's personal opinion and if it is to be overruled by consensus then that's absolutely fair. - Yeetcetera @me bro 16:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes to deaths in the infobox including suicides. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with OceanHok. Suicide counts and Marco Leung, in particular, should be included. –Wefk423 (talk) 11:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Omit. There are far more deaths that are suspected to be linked to the protests than formally linked to the protests, and the fact that we're debating here about the exact number seems to point towards a certain amount of original research being required to pin down an integer. Best to leave it out of the infobox and let our readers decide from the text. Deryck C. 19:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Stop. This is  not a RfC  as User:Matthew hk has pointed out, and as User:Cold Season states, this has already been discussed through proper RfC procedure Sleath56 (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.