Talk:2019–2020 Hong Kong protests/Archive 12

Rfc: Democracy Index
1. Should the fact that Hong Kong scored 6.02 (0.02 points of Hybrid regime) in the 2019 Democracy Index report be included?

2. Should Hong Kong's steady fall on the Index be included as evidence that HK is lossing its high degree of autonomy?

— RealFakeKim T  18:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Polling

 * Yes: I don't think this needs a RfC. You can just add the content WP:BOLDLY to the Effects section. You can also add the part about political engagement as well. OceanHok (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Noted. I did because here there was a dispute about its reliability. — RealFakeKim  T  19:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, speedy close: This doesn't need to be a RfC unless there's objections on this page here. Or if the RS was discussed in RS/N. Sleath56 (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, speedy close echo above. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion
I did a bit of formatting, seems you are raising two questions. OK? Suggest you add citations for the above claims so we can review the cites. I think without the cites this cannot be properly considered. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for letting me know :) — RealFakeKim  T  19:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Rfc: Large-scale break out
1. Is 'large-scale break out' still applicable?

2. If not when did 'large-scale break out' end? — RealFakeKim  T  09:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Are you referring to the infobox? OceanHok (talk) 09:15, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes — RealFakeKim  T  09:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Do you have a view on how it should be changed? If so, as with the other RfC opened earlier, you're welcome to just follow WP:BRD until someone actually takes objection to it. Sleath56 (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This RfC should be canceled, it is not properly framed and not clear what you are proposing. Do it properly or dont do it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Relentless edit warring and POV-pushing by Sleath56
The relentless edit warring and reverting by User:Sleath56, coupled with his/her unwillingness to discuss or respect any compromise or consensus and BLUDGEONING of any talk page discussion, is really getting to be a bit much. Take these three recent edits: 1, 2, 3. Can you respect the discussion above? Or are you on Wikipedia simply to push your political agenda? Please stop posting utterly frivolous warning templates on my talk page. I have made one revert. You're the one edit warring. It is clear from the bullying and utterly relentless edit warring that you are not here to build an encyclopedia and basically have no respect for core Wikipedia policies. Citobun (talk) 02:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * To reply to your snide comment on my talk page, the reason there are comments on this page to which we have not responded is thanks to your great talent for BLUDGEONING any discussion, case in point above. As if this is your full-time job. Just because you are seemingly always here, always ready to post a wall of text to shut down all discussion, doesn't mean you can unilaterally ramrod all your edits through edit warring. Citobun (talk) 02:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * One: "If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them." Amusingly this is from the template you've posted yourself first. I merely as is my right BOOMERANGed it, seeing as I've made two comments directly above in reply that have gone unresponded to.
 * Second: Derailing a Talk to attack other editors on a local page is inappropriate. I'd suggest you take this to AN/I.
 * You should also try to explain there how proposing to add clarity as backed by RS is "pushing political agenda." I'd be very glad to WP:BOOMERANG the assertion. It's frankly ironic how unwilling you lot are to explain your tendentious edit. You made a series of proposals on how to change the passage. Fine. Questions and concerns have been ignored. Fine. Yet somehow it's become a mandate to push through a passage that was completely undiscussed? It seems you're very happy to make a new WP:PA thread yet ignored the questions I made directly above. In which proposal did the "thrown by a protester" become discussed? It didn't. You need to open a discussion on it, not pretend as if being able to change one part (that was discussed) gives you a mandate to change the entire passage. Sleath56 (talk) 02:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * This is a content dispute related to this article, not a personal attack. You aren't adding clarity, you are (again) merely insisting on parroting the claims of the authorities, who (as others have noted above) should not be considered reliable secondary sources. The passage in question is inextricably tied to that discussion. Citobun (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "not a personal attack"
 * "clear from the bullying"
 * "are you on Wikipedia simply to push your political agenda"
 * "considered reliable secondary sources"
 * You do realize that they are a primary source right. I'm sure I've clarified this matter for you proponents numerous times. Secondary sources are the reliable sources who report the claim, and they have here without contesting it. The entire group of proponents on this talk have not been able to find a single RS, not a single one, that challenges the characterization. That means the assertion you've added is WP:OR. There's a word for the sanitization and deliberately increased ambiguity on gaslit pretences of citing NPOV concerns. It's called WP:CENSOR: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so"
 * Again, there have been zero discussion that any of the proponents found the "thrown by a protester" line objectionable. You've all have listed every single proposal above and that line isn't in any of them. When you conduct the pretence of being that 'thorough' and out of no where contest a line outside the passage, it shouldn't surprise you that you'd receive objections in response. Sleath56 (talk) 03:03, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Posting frivolous warning template on my talk page is a bullying tactic. The police are a primary source who alleged the protesters threw the brick. It's an unproven allegation. As others have mentioned to you, per MOS:ALLEGED, as the allegation has yet to be proven in court, the use of the word "alleged" is appropriate. Please stop ignoring points that people have already made to you. Citobun (talk) 03:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "Posting frivolous warning template on my talk page is a bullying tactic."
 * Kettle meet pot.
 * I'm not interested in continuing this discussion if its going to be co-opted to a self-victimising WP:PA. As said, take it to AN/I.
 * "It's an unproven allegation."
 * According to what? Which reliable source states that it's unproven? MOS:ALLEGED applies to attributed individuals who were convicted of an act. That would apply if it said, "thrown by Bob, one of the protesters". There is literally video evidence of a black-clad protester throwing the brick to Luo's head as posted by reliable sources. It is not 'police hearsay.'
 * "Please stop ignoring points that people have already made to you."
 * I'd challenge you to cite a single point that I have 'ignored.' These assertions throughout, from a "political agenda" to "ignoring points" and "holding NPOV concerns" are the most blatant WP:BOOMERANG bait possible, you should be grateful enough they aren't being reversed. Sleath56 (talk) 04:28, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * My warning template wasn't frivolous. You are edit warring via repeated reverts... I wasn't. The allegation hasn't been proven in court. Police have disguised themselves as protesters during the protest. Until a protester has been convicted of throwing the brick, the word "alleged" is the most neutral way of putting it. I am not pushing any POV here. It's an allegation by police that has not been proven, plain and simple. WP:BLUDGEON once again applies again here... you asked for a source stating that the allegation is unproven. Where is your reliable source stating that the allegation was proven? Citobun (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * One: I don't see two reverts of something I've invited three editors to come to Talk to discuss over the span of two days without reply as edit warring. That's WP:BRD. The template you used is additionally not for edit warring, which should be plain since it says "discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them." The irony of which being that I've been the only one to follow in kind, hence the appropriate WP:BOOMERANG to your frivolous template spam instead of sensibly replying to the already active Talk page where I've been the only one to reply. I'm not responding to your WP:BLUD spam, but I'll remind that in your zeal you seem to have lost the reality that is an essay, not that WP:BLUD is appropriately cited anyways. The enthusiasm in spamming that is amusing seeing that WP:NEUTRALEDIT has been rejected above as "just being an essay."
 * "Until a protester has been convicted of throwing the brick, the word "alleged" is the most neutral way of putting it."
 * That is not, as said, what MOS:ALLEGED represents. If you have a problem with MOS:ALLEGED, you need to take it to the village pump or the Talk page there. You seem to think a description of an event is an allegation. An allegation per ALLEGED would be "Bob, the protester, threw the brick." A description would be "a protester threw the brick."
 * On the Police, Donald Trump has been called a "pathological liar." If he says he ate a bagel and RS report that faithfully, it's not within the role of Wikipedia editors to play detective and assume what RS have reported without contest is suspect. In this is the same. The claim that "Police have disguised themselves as protesters during the protest" is hilariously WP:OR in this situation. Returning to the example, Donald Trump has been accused of molesting women, is every single women he meets bound to be molested by him at default? Obviously not, so the idea that Wikipedia editors should judge where RS have not is original research.
 * That's a non-good faith request since a plethora of sources have been listed above by . Additionally, as you are pushing for a change to the current version, the initiative of proof is on you. Nonetheless. 123456 Sleath56 (talk) 05:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * To the claim (somewhere in the muddled discussion above) that ONLY the police is saying that it was thrown protester, that's not true at all. At least one of the footage is publicly available and the media basing off the video also have numerous times concluded the same in their own voice: that it was thrown by a protester. --Cold Season (talk) 14:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * There are no fixed requirements for WP:ALLEGED to point to a specific people. That's WP:BLPCRIME. Sources have contested using the universal tone by using the term "allegedly" or "reportedly" as well when describing the incident. That's also why we have been using the term "Allegations of police misconduct" instead of simply "police misconduct". Having a video as an evidence to adopt the wikivoice is an invalid argument since it is a primary source and can be subjected ot modification. Anyway, I'd support Luo Changqing, an elderly man who died after being reportedly struck on the head by a brick thrown by a protester. Or alternatively, attributing this incident to the video footage (certainly not ideal but acceptable as I have repeated many times above already because of an attribution). OceanHok (talk) 06:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The video here of the incident shows the brick being throwing killing him. The brick can only be seen in about 4+ frames and is extremely bury in the first and second but is seen to be thrown from a group of people dressed in black. The group is seen to leave so is the protesters. I think in this case Sleath56 is right but it is impossible to tell the political affiliation of the people. I do think  has WP:BLUDGEON a lot of the recent discussions but in my opinion he is right in this case. —  RealFakeKim  T  16:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That video is useful for the entire clash (it's low quality, however). There are much clearer versions of the video out there of the exact moment of the throw to impact. For instance:
 * Here at ~26 seconds
 * Here at ~20 seconds
 * The trajectory is very visible there, and indeed matching the account in the sources that it was thrown by a protester. --Cold Season (talk) 17:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

NPOV issue: "Local residents"

 * 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.

I would like to open a new discussion to resolve this, because the edit warring is getting out of hand.

How should the conflict in Sheung Shui that led to the death of Luo Changqing be described?


 * "a confrontation between the two opposing camps", or similarly neutral phrasing, or
 * "a confrontation between a group of protesters and local residents [or 'Sheung Shui residents']"?

The problem with the latter is that it carries the dubious implication that pro-democracy protesters are not "local residents", and that pro-establishment demonstrators are not "protesters". This is the same narrative promoted by Chinese propaganda outlets, which portray protesters as "rioters" at odds with "local residents". Some users are enforcing this phrasing on the basis that it is used by some reliable sources. But many reliable sources describe the event differently, making no mention of "local residents":


 * "two groups throwing bricks at each other" (BBC)
 * "protesters and government supporters hurling bricks at one another" (CNN)
 * "clash between pro-democracy protesters and government supporters" (The Telegraph)
 * "a clash on Wednesday between protesters and a group trying to clear a roadblock" (The Straits Times)
 * "clashes between pro- and anti-government demonstrators" (Radio Television Hong Kong)
 * "clashes between pro and anti-government protesters in Sheing Shui" (The Standard)
 * "a violent clash between government supporters and protesters" (The Daily Beast)

Why should Wikipedia use dubious or biased phrasing when a neutral alternative is available? Citobun (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The most neutral cited term is the one that does not make an ideological assumption of who these people are (not even sure what that was based on in the first place, not the police, not the people there), that is, that the group are several Sheung Shui residents. The sources also agree that they were there to clear bricks, no other motives to be found.


 * "when residents in the suburb of Sheung Shui fought with protesters" (Telegraph)
 * "during a clash between protesters and Sheung Shui residents." (SCMP)
 * "during clashes between protesters and residents" (VICE)
 * "during a clash between protesters and local residents" (NBC)
 * "skirmish between protesters and residents" (TIME)
 * "during a clash between anti-government protesters and residents" (TODAY)
 * "clash between protesters and local residents" (Shanghaiist)
 * "during a clash between residents and black-clad protesters" (EJ Insight)
 * "clashes between protesters and residents in Sheung Shui" (Foreign Policy)
 * "clash between anti-government protesters and residents in Sheung Shui" (Radio Free Asia)
 * That you make all sorts of unfounded or as-you-call-it "dubious" inferences from it is your own, thus it is not a credible argument against noting that these people are in fact several residents of Sheung Shui. --Cold Season (talk) 01:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I think it should be noted that they were residents of Sheung Shui.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The most neutral cited term is the one that does not make an ideological assumption of who these people are This is farcical. Considering that we are dealing with a series of protests, the political affiliations of different groups in a conflict is very much key information that must not be excluded. In addition, the SCMP source you quoted above states that the man "died last week after being hit by a brick in clashes between anti-government protesters and their opponents" – i.e. a clash between the opposing camps. feminist (talk) 03:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Yeah, opponents, as in they were opponents in a fight. None of the sources actually reveal an ideological-political motive behind the local Sheung Shui residents. The only clear motive in the sources is that the residents were there clearing bricks (which is hardly evidence for what their ideological-political stance is), despite how they are characterized. Therefore, yes, "residents of Sheung Shui" is what they are and is the most neutral. It merits inclusion. --Cold Season (talk) 04:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not a reason to cherrypick sources, though. Suggesting that The only clear motive in the sources is that the residents were there clearing bricks deliberately ignores RS which expressly compare the political affiliations of the two groups involved in the conflict. feminist (talk) 04:53, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why this is a point of order at all. As I've said, and still yet unaddressed above, your proposed change is perplexing because its a reduction of clarity that doesn't match the RS when they do clarify and is WP:OR at the least in the speculations on 'the protesting group also being local residents.' All of this for a change that seems to directly contravene discussion on and validate the RfC allegations of 'omission of context' brought up above. If you object the entry of "local residents of Sheung Shui" in preference for nebulous wording like "two camps of opponents" you need to find RS support that explicitly contest the identity of that group as had been described by numerous other RS. Sleath56 (talk) 03:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I see two ways out for this dispute:
 * "a confrontation between a group of anti-government protesters and pro-government local residents" (which I think I have at some point adopted for this article); or,
 * "a confrontation, variously described as one between the two opposing camps, or between a group of protesters and local residents ", citing sources for both parts of the statement.


 * Regardless of which option we end up going with, the political affiliations of people involved in the conflict should be included. feminist (talk) 03:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe that "A confrontation between two opposing groups in Sheung Shui" has the most neutral wording, but I support both of Feminist's proposals, which does not "reduce clarity" while being supported by credible reliable sources. I prefer option A for its simplicity. OceanHok (talk) 05:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * - I would like to point out that the phrase "local residents" have been contested and changed multiple times already and a "RfC" in the "omitted context" part never exists. This goes way beyond WP:BRD. OceanHok (talk) 06:27, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify where it is in Talk that this phrasing was contested? A search only turns up this discussion: 1. Sleath56 (talk) 06:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No support for the pro/anti-government distinction because there is no citation of who made the allegation of the two groups' government alignment, unlike the former which has the HKPF as the traceable original claim. As such, I don't see this as a case of conflicting RS, as I do not see the latter as RS in this particular instance under the framework of WP:NEWSORG: "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis" with the determination that as the context within the articles that hold the "pro/anti-government" distinction only do so through a passing sentence with no elaboration and that when they do cite an source on the claim, it is the HKPF who themselves report otherwise.
 * I see another method of resolution, which is to cite the HKPF as the originator of the claim on them being residents, and indeed the entire report on the COD and the nature of the incident, as had been my original proposal:
 * 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. Withdrawn. See below. Sleath56 (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sleath56 (talk) 07:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, the Hong Kong Police Force, certainly the most neutral and unbiased figures on a dispute like this. /s Seriously, when police brutality is a main gripe with most anti-government demonstrators, the police force is very much involved in the protests, and its take on this confrontation cannot be presented as fact in Wikipedia voice. If Hong Kong's public broadcaster RTHK describes the conflict as "between pro- and anti-government demonstrators in Sheung Shui", that should be trusted over whatever the police force says. feminist (talk) 07:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've read through that article by the RTHK and it alleges the "government alignment" distinction with equally passing style same as the others with no elaboration or sourcing of the claim. The article is quite barebones and the on-the-day publishing date makes me frankly further question it under WP:RSBREAKING.
 * Apart from the existing observation that no RS challenge the HKPF's description and that even articles who use the "pro/anti-government" depiction cite the HKPF as their only source, such as the exceedingly brief Standard article above, I'd contest against the HKPF as being unreliable for providing a rather trivial description like "residents". The RS reporting the incident don't dispute so.
 * Which is precisely my point in that while I view it is clear that the lack of refutation of those RS who cite "local residents" to the police report render the support for the identification beyond merely the police, I see allowing the readers to determine the merit of the police report enough to satisfy the concerns here for a resolution. Sleath56 (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I've re-evaluated my view and position on the matter. I was under the impression that the HKPF' report was the sole evidence for this entire event, leaving the entire thing suspect as ultimately their hear-say. After watching a shockingly unambiguous video of a man's death, I've withdrawn my previous proposal.
 * The current statement is fine in my view as is. As I’ve said earlier, the utility ‘local residents’ has not been challenged by the RS who do adopt it, so it would not be wholly accurate to claim it is solely derivative to the HKPF. The sources who do use alternative phrasing are categorically upon examination either WP:RSBREAKING or have no citation or elaboration for them and utilize ubiquitously passing mentions of it. When those sources do reference the HKPF while utilizing alternative phrasing, such as this example here [1], they often attribute the “government alignment” to the police, which a review of police statement releases for the same day that the article cites police statements do not support: [1].
 * Additionally, adding such a proposed addendum would cast undue MOS:ALLEGED both on the “resident” statement along with the entire entry on the death, which is not in the point of order here, where it’s come to my awareness that no other part of the lead has inline citations for any of the claims therein. As such to necessitate a unique addition of that here is not DUE. Sleath56 (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

"Local residents" has mostly been used in the press I recall. Reviewing police statements is ridiculous (laughable really) in this case. Lot of POV pushing here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I personally prefer "between two opposing groups", because calling it "between protesters and residents" would imply that the "protester" side includes no local residents, which is an overloaded position I'd rather Wikipedia not take. Readers who want further detail can go to the death of Luo Changqing article. Deryck C. 00:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That's an inference on you. It certainly does not merit the exclusion that these people are in fact "residents of Sheung Shui", thus introducing an omission of context. In contrast, characterization of their political stance is questionable, as none of the sources actually provide the political motives of why they were there. The only actual motive provided in the sources is that they were there to clear bricks. Thus, "residents" is the most neutral descriptor to be used and does not imply anything (it is not much of a good argument to omit "residents"). Multiple sources state it plainly as such. The text between a group of protesters and several Sheung Shui residents can't be less unambiguous and is supported in the sources. --Cold Season (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep, residents with no political allegiance would totally clear bricks with sticks and start a fight with people. Talking about "omission of context" maybe we should mention how the fight start. Huge reduction of clarity here. Anyway, "between two opposing groups" implies that they were "opponents in a fight" anyway without revealing too much information about the their political allegiance, and I don't supposed readers would think that people from other neighbourhoods will move to Sheung Shui to fight anyway. OceanHok (talk) 06:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note the key phrase "appears" (as in speculation) in your source. Meanwhile, the facts are that the protesters first threw bricks and rods at the residents who were in the location clearing the road long before the protesters came . You don't need to be politically motivated to clear a road from bricks and it is certainly not evidence for it.
 * In any case, to your point: No, I suppose readers probably wouldn't think that, because it is not said. That just highlight how meritless the argument (i.e., that it implies something about the protesters) is to omit that the other group are Sheung Shui residents . --Cold Season (talk) 17:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, the police, which is clearly not a reliable source in any way. Feminist's proposal sorted out the issue well enough. Sources say clearly that they are government supporters, and it is a viewpoint that should be accommodated. OceanHok (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , the opposite inference is equally fallacious: the "protesters and residents" wording also implies the "residents" have no protest agenda. As User:OceanHok has pointed out below, User:Feminist's proposal is a more workable point of view than insisting on using protesters and residents to demarcate the two groups. Deryck C. 12:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Saying that these are "residents" does not say anything about their agenda (which according to sources, beyond hypotheticals, is clearing bricks). This argument for excluding that they are "residents", as used in sources, has no real convincing value. --Cold Season (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion Break

 * Proposal – I suggest using either the proposed wording by User:Feminist, "a confrontation between a group of anti-government protesters and pro-government local residents", or that proposed by Deryck C., [a confrontation] "between two opposing groups". Both options are clearly more neutral than the current wording. I also think it should be noted that both sides were throwing bricks, a fact reflected in numerous reliable sources (see my original post), yet strangely omitted at present. Citobun (talk) 01:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, of course I would support my proposed option, but I'm fine with both. feminist (talk) 03:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Since it is agreed among many users here that the text does not reflect WP:NPOV, I have implemented the proposal made by feminist. Citobun (talk) 04:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't say I agree with the assessment per the reasons above, but the edit is fine. --Cold Season (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how you thought imposing a proposal in a three days silent contended discussion just three hours after the suggestion is appropriate. Oppose both proposals for reasons already aired and not addressed, the arguments against as I've personally stated have been made and still stand without response. Sleath56 (talk) 04:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The proposal was imposed in such haste that it neglected to verify the Vice article left as the sole citation even uses the term "pro-government". It does not and in fact states the opposite in its very first sentence:  "A 70-year-old government worker who was hit in the head with a brick thrown during clashes between protesters and residents in Hong Kong died on Thursday night." Sleath56 (talk) 04:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I will once again voice my support for the proposal. The source cluster is absolutely inappropriate, and my oversight is not a reason to contest the argument. OceanHok (talk) 05:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's clear the 'source cluster' is a temporary procedural measure, though not implemented by myself, to reinforce RS of the articles of contention in the lead in the midst of this discussion. I fail to see how tangential cleanup in that regard is relevant to the points of order in the current discussion. Sleath56 (talk) 06:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Source cluster is not a good way to "reinforce" your ideas in any way, especially this is happening in the midst of a discussion. Anyway, it is you who bring up this irrelavant tangential cleanup edit, not me. OceanHok (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Per: "it is you who bring up this irrelavant tangential cleanup edit, not me." -> "The source cluster is absolutely inappropriate" along with your diff edit summary: "rmv ridiculous source cluster". Nonetheless, let's keep discussion non-tangential here, this stem is resolved.Sleath56 (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We could also insert a large cluster of reliable sources to support the terminology "pro-government residents". I do not believe that would be constructive. The neutral wording is already reflected in reliable sources cited within the article and posted here on this talk page. Multiple editors have voiced support for user:feminist's neutrally worded proposal. Please don't edit war over this "local residents" thing because a) multiple editors agree it is potentially problematic, inaccurate, or intended to push a certain POV, and b) neutral alternatives are available that are reflected in reliable sources. Citobun (talk) 00:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hardly, the neutral option is "residents", as that is what they are widely described as and is the most basic descriptor in the sources. The contentious one is "government supporters", as none of the sources establish any political motive for the residents (the only motive given is that they were clearing bricks). In any case as above, I'm fine with the proposal "pro-government residents", but I do not agree that it is more neutrally-worded. --Cold Season (talk) 06:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Stop. It goes without saying that my previous comment was made with the expectation that you’d actually read and address the points of objection made. It’s pretty clear your revision is blatantly knee-jerk when you didn’t even take into account the comedic observation on the totally unsupported RS nor neglected to notice the wrong punctuation. I’m going to ignore your assertion that your three hours implemented proposal can be construed as a mandate of ‘consensus’ when it’s a bald rehash that doesn’t address any of the objections made to it when it was originally proposed where the result was no consensus. Waiting several days does not make the WP guideline framed objections I’ve brought up somehow retracted. As I said, they still stand.

Additionally, I’m not sure if you were operating under the assumption no one knows how to compare diffs to notice the dropping of:who were trying to clear bricks from the road. despite your proposal here at Talk not mentioning a point of contention with that line. Can you explain why you’re trying to remove that line as well?

I challenge the entire premise of argument that the proposals to change the extant entry furthers any ‘neutrality,' the contrary is plain to me that it is indeed creating a new NPOV issue. I find it odd the specific point of concern held on NPOV grounds also happens to be the only prominent segment of the lead that can be construed as ‘anti-protester.’ Through the lack of engagement by the proponents, I can’t help but share the sentiments of that there’s an 'extant POV-push' in this thread. This entire discussion, framed dubiously around 'NPOV concerns’ from the start, seems more like a blatant attempt at white washing under a false proposition that NPOV means 'neutral content’ when you’re seemingly trying to assert a problematic suggestion and appear to hold no interest in engaging in valid WP guideline discussions of its merits, instead by your last comment where the intent is seemingly more interested in sidelining those you hold to not be part of your ‘consensus’ (Not much of a consensus then, is it?). I’d be willing to escalate this to WP:NPOVN if the intent is to invoke WP:UNANIMOUS to stonewall objections, which I hope is not the case and which is clearly not applicable here where there is a complete lack of response by proponents in this thread so far to to address the severe deficit in the proposal’s support by guideline merits. I’ve expressed a mindset of WP:AGF, especially as you maintained this should be discussed through Talk to prevent edit warring in your OP, in my previous responses throughout this so I'd recommend you reciprocate and not accuse people who reject your imposition of a proposal three hours after the suggestion on Talk in a three days silent contended discussion as 'edit warring’.

@Feminist’s proposal of merging the two points to "a group of anti-government protesters and pro-government residents” is blatant WP:SYNTHESIS. One set of sources use the term anti/pro government and the other uses protester/residents. Combining the two for a ‘neutral compromise’ is literally explained in the first lines of that policy.
 * "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here”

,, . The following will be a reassertion of the points I’ve already made with respects to @Feminist's proposals and still stand unaddressed:

I hold no support for proposals that contain a 'pro/anti-government' distinction because there is no citation of who made the allegation of the two groups' government alignment, unlike the former which has the HKPF as the traceable original claim. As such, I don't see this as a case of conflicting RS, as I do not see the latter as RS in this particular instance under the framework of WP:NEWSORG: "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis" with the determination that as the context within the articles that hold the "pro/anti-government" distinction only do so through a passing sentence with no elaboration and that when they do cite an source on the claim, it is the HKPF who themselves report otherwise.

I've read through that article by the RTHK and it alleges the "government alignment" distinction with equally passing style same as the others with no elaboration or sourcing of the claim. The article is quite barebones and the on-the-day publishing date makes me frankly further question it under WP:RSBREAKING. Apart from the existing observation that no RS challenge the HKPF's description and that even articles who use the "pro/anti-government" depiction cite the HKPF as their only source, such as the exceedingly brief Standard article above, I'd contest against the HKPF as being unreliable for providing a rather trivial description like "residents". The RS reporting the incident, which is what matters, don't dispute so. The current statement is fine in my view as is. As I’ve said earlier, the utility ‘local residents’ has not been challenged by the RS who do adopt it, so it would not be wholly accurate to claim it is solely derivative to the HKPF. The sources who do use alternative phrasing are categorically upon examination either WP:RSBREAKING or have no citation or elaboration for them and utilize ubiquitously passing mentions of it. When those sources do reference the HKPF while utilizing alternative phrasing, such as this example here 1, they often attribute the “government alignment” as the police’s words, which a review of police statement releases for the same day that the article cites a police statement has been giving do not support the attribution in the article: [https://www.police.gov.hk/ppp_en/03_police_message/pr/pr_archives.html? 1]. Sleath56 (talk) 05:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If anyone needs to stop, it's you who should stop WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion. You have made your points clear and that should be enough. My first suggestion is not synthesis when sources such as SCMP combine both "between protesters and Sheung Shui residents" and "between anti-government protesters and their opponents" in the same article. And obviously that was not my only suggestion, as I've also suggested "a confrontation, variously described as one between the two opposing camps, or between a group of protesters and local residents" as another option, which would prevent any perception of WP:SYN. feminist (talk) 05:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If my point was made clear enough, I don't consider it WP:BLUD when there has been no response to it since and the result was to bludgeon a proposal directly rehashed. In response, that is still WP:SYN: "Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source."
 * The second proposal is plainly WP:FALSEBALANCE. The only objections to the attributions within RS has been those on this Talk. As I've said, if the preference is for nebulous wording like "two camps of opponents" you need to find RS support that explicitly contest the identity of that group as had been described by numerous other RS. Sleath56 (talk) 05:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * is an obvious WP:BLUDGEON, probably the worst I have ever seen. I continue to support the sources which I have seen to put this as a conflict between residents and others. I think if you cannot stop this WP:POV pushing you should get a ban. You are just making the same arguments again and again, with increasingly non-nonsensical explanations. take a look at this please. Maybe dealing with paid editors here. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer you to open an WP:AN/I directly rather than casually toss sanction aspirations in a rebuttal. I'm sure you'll be willing to provide an explanation on how this is 'POV-pushing' rather than just stating ipso facto without elaboration. Sleath56 (talk) 06:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You already are engaged in an ANI related to this issue, I will comment there as well. No need to also have multiple ANIs. It seems multiple parties have tried to explain concepts to you above and you are not listening. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope, I've requested a new section for the accusation. To the contrary, if you're going to accuse other editors of sanctionable WP:ASPERSIONS, you should have the willingness to present it in the open rather than bury it in another thread. Sleath56 (talk) 07:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I missed the whole discussion because I haven't edited Wikipedia over the weekend. I still prefer the proposal (I don't think it was mine?) to simplify to "he was hit by a brick thrown during a conflict between two opposing groups". There is too much debate about the identities and motives of the two sides. However, if I must choose, I would endorse Citobun's proposal (verbose version) over Cold Season's proposal ("protesters and residents"). Deryck C. 10:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * At the risk of being accused of WP:BLUD again (even though bypassing legitimate minority positions is WP:NOTDEM and WP:VOTE and supersedes advice pages like BLUD (which in any case is only applicable to wholly repetitious comments that have been addressed by others, which I don't hold as the case here)), I've responded since you've pinged me. You've said there is "much debate about the identities and motives of the two sides". As I've asked @Feminist in my response, where is this in the RS, which is my entire point throughout? There is no argument in RS on this matter, even publications that could be construed to be biased for one side like Hong Kong Free Press don't challenge "the identities and motives" as have been presented by other RS on this bit of minutiae. As such, if the sources don't have such a debate, why are discussions of one here relevant? This is entirely a concern wholly derivative to a internal local WP Talk. As said, this seems like a case of not acknowledging that  NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. Sleath56 (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Yelling about WP:NOTDEM is not going to get us anywhere close to a WP:CONSENSUS. You have done nothing to solve our concern, do nothing to make a WP:COMPROMISE, and have shown no effort or interest in making this discussion meaningful by flooding us with the same viewpoint multiple times. 1) "Government supporters" is not a contested description as well. 2) Nearly all the sources provided are equally WP:RSBREAKING or fail WP:RSCONTEXT (many of them are just merely pass-by mentions.) 3) You are cherrypicking the sources, and ignoring their political orientation (duly mentioned by multiple RS) is WP:POV pushing. 4) RS never elaborate that the group of people in question is "residents". In fact, that description seems to become more common after the police labelled them as residents. 5) In addition to SCMP, we also have this source that explains they are "pro-government protesters" and "residents" (to a lesser extent), and I see that as an elaboration on who this group of people is rather than WP:SYNTH.


 * I prefer my original version (between two opposing groups/camps). An alternative is "between two rival groups of protesters" because throwing bricks at a group of protester (who you don't agree with) is an act of protest (regardless of their motivations or if they are residents or not. They are far from being important context because we didn't even mention what the confrontation is. The key idea is that someone died due to that conflict, the rest are tangential details that should be mentioned in the main article). The current wording is excessively long (poor WP:SUMMARY), and WP:UNDUE (considering that other similar (but arguably more impactful and important) deaths such as Chow/Leung do not get the same coverage in the lead). OceanHok (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Ocean, the link you provided is about a different Death of Chow Tsz-lok incident right? Or at least this source you cite talks about both in the same source. I think we are discussing the Sheng Shui attack where SCMP attackers beat residents most of the press is about the assumption that this was plainclothes police and the SCMP police's denial of it. It seems this was one of these incidents where armed thugs beat up local residents, similar to the metro station beating. POV pushing is going on here to try to change that. The arguments made by Sleath above are nonsense hardly are worth response. Was there an antigovt protest on that day in Shueng Shui, or did the thugs just show up and beat the residents? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I am referring to the death of Luo Changqing. It was one of the many incidents that have happened during the citywide strike. The baton incident where gang members briefly kidnapped a girl occurred a day later, also in Sheung Shui. OceanHok (talk) 06:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * That has the least merit of all and is the furthest removed from neutral of all, ignoring much what was said. Say what you will about the motives, but the only motive actually CITED in the sources is that the residents were there to clear bricks. None of this is a convincing argument to exclude "residents" as the most basic descriptor that is widely used in sources. Thus, to your point about WP:COMPROMISE, your new suggestion goes even further away from that than all previously suggested. --Cold Season (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Neither them being residents or their motivations (clearing bricks) are key context. What we need to know here in the lead, per summary style, is that the man died because he was caught up in an incident where two groups of people are hurling bricks at each other. Two "rival groups of protesters" is perhaps the most neutral wordings of all, because we can bypass both the pro/anti-government labeling and the huge logical fallacy that the protesters are not residents (given the strike is all about paralysing traffic in your neighbourhood). Are they both protesting? Yes. Are they two rival groups? Judging by the fact that they are fighting, yes. OceanHok (talk) 06:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I object to the single citation of WP:NOTDEM throughout this discussion, used as a reminder that its merits outweigh the bludgeoning of WP: BLUD to bypass minority objections, as "yelling about it.”
 * My compromise is "during a confrontation between a group of protesters and several Sheung Shui residents,” which is supported by RS which are not WP:RSBREAKING1234 who elaborate on the nature of the incident, and has a traceable origin to the HKPF, rather than the others which do not have a traceable claim on the ‘government’ alignment nor do they elaborate on the assertion, this being what makes them objectionable as WP:RSBREAKING. This is not cherry-picking to note that observation, this is understanding that WP:NEWSORG which advocates Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis. is a valid process. The Strait Times article you cited was the one I referenced in citing the HKPF as the source of the ‘government’ alignments, yes, they attribute that as being the HKPF’s words given on Dec 14, yet a review of police statement releases for the same day don’t mention the confrontation at all, only that those alleged of the murder were arrested 1 This can be affirmed by a RTHK article on the same Dec 14 statement: 2
 * "In fact, that description seems to become more common after the police labelled them as residents” Sure and unless RS explicitly contest the assertion that they were residents, it’s WP:OR to assume that assertion is incorrect nor appropriate to incorporate that sentiment as "drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the NOR policy”
 * I’m not sure how Chow/Leung is relevant here. If the aim is to expand those entries as well, you’d have my support. This incident is notable because its the first incident that has been charged as murder and the length of the context is deemed as relevant. You’re precisely right on that "the rest are tangential details,” so I’m not sure what the point of order is for opening an NPOV charge not supported by RS on such "tangential details", and where the counter proposals seem like plainly not upholding the points of WP:NEUTRALEDIT: neutral editing, not neutral or politically correct content. Sleath56 (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


 * WTF – Needless to say Sleath56 has utterly BLUDGEONED this discussion. I have a full-time job and can't spend all day responding to your mammoth walls of text, where you are just rehashing the same nonsense over and over. Your supposed "compromise" is the same problematic text that multiple editors here take issue with. The Hong Kong Police are obviously not a neutral secondary source that we should wholly rely on. Agree with User:Jtbobwaysf's comment that we may be dealing with paid editors, given the intense and combative editing patterns exhibited across multiple articles related to controversial China topics as of late, and the absolute refusal to compromise or seek consensus in any way. Citobun (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "I have a full-time job and can't spend all day responding," precisely the point. So I'm not sure how you thought your imposition of a three hours suggested proposal and the knee-jerk subsequent revision to it would be acceptable to most editors who aren't sitting on the watchlist for this Talk all day. You're welcome to present substantive points supporting proposals which have guideline merits rather than baldly WP:TAGTEAM casting aspersions. As you say, editors don't have round-the-clock commitment to WP and the allotted time is scarce so I'm not sure why you're opening an unproductive NPOV conjecture that fundamentally doesn't take WP:YESBIAS into account without RS support of this conjectured issue on some ultimately tangential details. Sleath56 (talk) 01:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you deliberately trying to confuse the discussion with blatant falsehoods? We have provided reliable secondary sources that support the alternative proposals made. You're pushing the viewpoint of the Hong Kong Police, which is certainly NOT a neutral secondary source. The proposal wasn't "three hours" old, it was suggested by Feminist a full week earlier and multiple users had already voiced support for it. If you consider the text in question to describe "ultimately tangential details", then why are you so fiercely refusing to compromise in any way? Citobun (talk) 01:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't consider this current proposal a continuation of the earlier suggestions when you expressly framed it as your proposal of adoption. Though I suppose I should consider a continuation here given that I've responded to @Feminist's suggestions, was met without reply and you've rehashed their suggestions and implemented them in three hours time despite knowing above that I've provided objections to those same suggestions on guideline grounds which had been unaddressed. My point is that this taken with your express overtures for discussion in the OP along with the subsequent revision portray a rather inappropriate image. Nonetheless, if you're willing to allow the discussion to refocus on the NPOV discussion, I'll table those sentiments entirely.


 * I'm not sure what you want me to say here. I've reiterated the points of concern already, which have been only responded to with slingings of WP:BLUD and aspersions, which is somewhat bewildering considering how trivial in scope the point of contention is, which belies my entire point questioning in why this is 'fiercely' considered an NPOV issue as you've initiated. I fail to see how pressing proponents of the proposals on their merits vis-a-vis guidelines, considering you did cite this as a WP:NPOV dispute, I imagined you should be able to support it through guideline discussions. It's clear you're invested in this proposal, so why not address those points made directly?
 * I'm going to reaffirm WP:AGF and consider the fault is mine for not being WP:CONCISE to further a constructive progression of this dispute. As a clarification, I assume by "Hong Kong Police, which is certainly NOT a neutral secondary source," you meant to say they aren't a RS. I've cited WP:NEUTRALEDIT several times so I assume you already know that:
 * "There is no policy which dictates that we cannot document, use, and include "non-neutral" sources, opinions, or facts in an article body or its lead. In fact, we must do this. A lack of such content may be an indication that editors have exercised whitewashing and censorship. It is a serious violation of NPOV to use censorship and whitewashing to remove any non-neutral opinions, facts, biases, or sources" This is basic WP:BIASED.
 * The response to the regard of RS issue is that the HKPF is a clear WP:PRIMARY. Their statement is represented through reports by secondary RS, which in this case do not contest the HKPF's statement of events in this instance. This includes RTHK, which others here have stated as a valid RS. If the challenge is for preference of another WP:PRIMARY, it may be a surprising observation to state that all the RS which provide an origin for their identification, whether resident/protester or also pro/anti-government, allude to the HKPF as the source for the claims. Yes, the government alignment supported in this proposal has been alluded to the HKPF, just the same as the protester/resident statement has. The Strait Times article:
 * "Five Hong Kong teenagers have been arrested in connection with the death of a man hit on the head by a brick during clashes between pro- and anti-government protesters last month, police said on Saturday (Dec 14)."
 * As such when the only WP:PRIMARY credited by RS of either identifications is the HKPF, why do I support the "protester/resident" vs. "anti-government?" It's because the former is directly traceable to the HKPF, while the latter has none, the inquiries of which is defended by WP:NEWSORG: "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis." The case of the ST's citation has been stated above.
 * Believe it or not, if there is an explicit objection to the police's claims these were "protesters/residents" within RS, and I genuinely welcome (as this discussion has become far protracted enough) the presentation of those RS if extant and I would immediately retract my current objections. As said, I originally proposed an WP:ALLEGED addendum to explicitly present to readers that this assertion is the HKPF's, but as no other part of the lead hold such tags, adding that upon further consideration here would not be WP:PROPORTION and as no RS challenge the HKPF's depiction as inaccurate in this instance, it would be WP:FALSEBALANCE as well. Sleath56 (talk) 04:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * It is fine for the police to say whatever they want. It is also ok for RS to report on what the police have said. The problem is, police statements (the characterisation of protesters and residents) does not make the characterization true. Sources nearly unanimously called Lam a lame duck. Is Lam a lame duck? Probably, but this cannot be presented as a universal truth with wiki voice, regardless of whether the statement is challenged or not. This needs direct attribution (and therefore cannot be mentioned in WP:WIKIVOICE as suggested in your proposal), but direct attribution fails WP:SS because this is the lead section we are talking about and we should be aiming for precision.


 * You may say Feminist's second proposal also failed WP:SS as well, but at least, the traceable claim came from a bunch of reliable, independent sources instead of a heavily involved party that is also unreliable (HKPF), essentially making everything they say dubious. If HKPF statement can be written in wiki voice, then opinions of all sorts can be written in wikivoice as well, because police press conference is no better than the likes of Citizen Press Conference. Both are trying to reshape the public narrative of the event and if we are going to take their stance on this, we are failing WP:NPOV because we take the police's perspective and presented it as if it is a universal truth. WP:NEUTRALEDIT (not even a guideline) is not really an excuse to utilize unreliable statements, especially when we have other better alternatives. OceanHok (talk) 07:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * This discussion has gone off the rails. It appears the police in unmarked clothing showed up and beat to death and elderly resident and injured scores of others. The PR army is here at wikipedia to try to mop it up and make it look as if it was a fight between protesters, maybe even try to draw the editors into a conflict that doesn't exist. There is no chance this tirade is going to change the facts reported in mainstream media, although Sleath's remarks above gave me a good laugh this evening... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * - We are talking about the incident where government supporters and protesters hurled bricks at each other on Nov 14, not the incident where gang members assaulted civilians, which happened on Nov 15. It is undeniable that one side of the conflict is the pro-democratic protesters, but the descriptor "local residents" for the other group is questionable because they are, in essence, violent counter-protesters. That's where the WP:NPOV concern came from, before this wall of text begins. This is an excessively long discussion about minor wordings, but minor wordings are not trivial matters. Though after reading what you have said, I do realize some problems with "rival groups of protesters" since it implies internal division among the protesters which isn't true. Frankly, we need another section break. OceanHok (talk) 14:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I mean, a counter statement of "It is fine for WP editors to say whatever they want. The problem is, just because WP editors say something, it does not make the characterization true” is just as valid.
 * I’m not sure if you’re expecting me to contest that the HKPF is a biased source or that what they report is the “universal truth". I don’t. However, when you start talking about “universal truths,” that’s a reminder as an editor of WP:TRUTH. Wikipedia is not based on WP:NPOVFAQ ‘truths’ or ‘objectivity. it’s based on facts as derived by extant evidence through reporting in RS. No one here is claiming HKPF statements merit WP:WIKIVOICE when they are a WP:PRIMARY whose statements should be referenced through RS beforehand. Wikivoice itself says that: "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice.” As it’s been four months since the incident yet no RS has come out to challenge the HKPF’s attribution of the participants, as their statement has been relayed by RS who saw no issue to contest it. There is no evidence through RS that what the HKPF said in this matter is an "unreliable statement,” nor have they stated this is a point of controversy, and thus as far as Wikipedia is concerned, the passage is able to stand in Wikivoice.


 * I’m not sure what your second paragraph pertains to. It’s clear the discussion around the HKPF is only on attribution in this particular passage as independent, reliable sources have reported them. There is no mandate or implication that a judgment here carries weight anywhere else. I’ve already discussed the sources who don’t cite any attribution (the summary being they are not RS for this instance). This is speaking hypothetically as no source which doesn’t attribute to the HKPF cite any traceable origins, if their independent assertions did have another attribution, it would not carry weight either as a true NPOV concern which is WP:UNDUE would take effect as "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true”. Sleath56 (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Second section break
Right now we have several ways to go: "Luo Changqing, an elderly man who died after being struck by a brick WP:ALLEGEDLY (may I once again stress the importance of using this term since no one is convicted yet) thrown by a protester during" Now, hopefully, we can get past all the silly arguments (about HKPF, about the non-existent "silent consensus", about WP:NOTDEM), and discuss these five options. Feel free to add any alternative, but don't insert another wall of text. OceanHok (talk) 14:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 1: "a confrontation between a group of anti-government protesters and pro-government local residents who were attacking each other with bricks" (from Feminist and Citobun)
 * Option 2: "a confrontation, variously described as one between the two opposing camps, or between a group of protesters and local residents who were attacking each other with bricks" (from Feminist and Citobun)
 * Option 3: "a confrontation between a group of protesters and several Sheung Shui residents, who were trying to clear bricks from the road" - current wording
 * Option 4: "a confrontation between a group of protesters and several Sheung Shui residents, who were attacking each other with bricks" - current wording with Citobun's adjustment
 * Option 5: "a confrontation between two opposing groups of protesters, who were attacking each other with bricks" (my wording, slightly adjusted)
 * Option 6: "Luo Changqing, an elderly man who died after being struck by a brick during a confrontation between anti-govt protesters and Sheung Shui residents" from SCMP and The Guardian Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support all but option 3, prefer 1/5: Their aggressive actions merit the title of "counter-protester" more than residents. I am also ok with option 4 since it is a competent middle ground (mainly due to the inclusion of the word "several", which is a necessary and important quantifier), but it is still certainly not my first choice. Citobun's adjustment also introduced a very important key context that suggests both sides are relatively violent. OceanHok (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Option 6 First only some sources are blaming this on protester and we can see that the old man is filming a video, and at wikipedia we can use common sense that he might have been hit in the crossfire (barring clear evidence to the contrary). Second the source and other sources clearly state residents. Again we can use common sense that some residents might have wanted to clean up their home and others got angry, started throwing rocks, and the old main got caught in the crossfire. Implying these are two different groups of protesters tends to confuse the matter, as we know there are few pro-government violent protesters (barring the masked mobs that attack people). This probably a local incident that is getting blown out of hand, for sure it is blown out of hand on this talk page. I suppose if we later want to go on and say that these teenagers were charged in the crime, we can explore more. Correct? FYI, I am open to changing my vote if i am wrong. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with your point about the residents cleaning up and some getting angry but I think we can't assume stuff as this is clearly a controversial topic. — RealFakeKim  T  17:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I mean I’d obviously be willing to accept @Citobun’s adjusted option four, if not the current wording which that option parallels in spirit, and also as a demonstration of a willingness to compromise by accepting that, but the question then has to be asked on what this is really about? The NPOV question has been framed as the specific term of "a confrontation between a group of protesters and several Sheung Shui residents” being ‘problematic’ on grounds of RS. The timeline is clear in RS that narrate the incident: the residents were clearing bricks > the protesters approached them > a confrontation with bricks thrown by both sides. The addition of the "who were trying to clear bricks from the road/who were attacking each other with bricks” debate and the emphasis on the latter makes it appear the aim is just for the construction of a false equivalence and to paint the two sides with the same brush at least somewhere in the entry. Sleath56 (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * 5>1>4>3>6>2 from my perspective. I would like to reiterate my position that I prefer to present minimal speculation of the groups' identities and motives; but if we must, we should present a balanced point of view that encompass descriptions from a breadth of reliable sources. Deryck C. 12:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


 * 5 I agree with —  RealFakeKim  T  17:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 5. I believe that the article should merely state that the fight was between opposing factions to conform with WP:NPOV. All sources that specify the origin of the "protesters vs residents" claim all indicate it as an assertion by the police or another department of the HK Government. I had amended the lede to make reference to the government, but it was reverted on a technicality. I would argue that due to obvious crediblilty issues and the HKG ceasing to be impartial in the case, it would be is leading to present this assertion as fact. Neverteless, I can accept inclusion of the word "resident" only if it is made clear that it is according to HKG sources. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 17:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Option 5 – Agree with the arguments made by Deryck Chan and Ohconfucius. It is a neutral wording that describes the event. Citobun (talk) 07:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose option 5, that is, the wording "opposing groups of protesters". Firstly, this is a blatant exclusion of the most-neutral and most-used descriptor residents (see the sources as was earlier stated at the top) in favor for the most-non-neutral descriptor as characterization for the residents. This is on the basis of the meritless argument that fighting back also equals protesting on the part of the residents (a conclusion that is original research). Secondly, if we examine the sources, the only motivation that is actually explicitly given and cited in the sources is that these residents were there to clear the road from bricks (see  for instance). and not a political motivation for why the residents were there. Thirdly, for these reasons, unlike what User:Deryck Chan claims, this does not present minimal speculation of the groups' identities and motives (but the most, that is, the unfounded speculation that the residents were there to protest), because his argument only applies to the opposing groups part but not the rest of it.
 * Support option 3, 4, 6 (in no order), that is, the wording "between protesters and several Sheung Shui residents," which is the least contentious and most neutral per the reasons mentioned.
 * Support option 1 (as earlier indicated), that is, the wording "between anti-government protesters and pro-government local residents," because at least the use of the government supporters part reflects somewhat common use in RS (unlike option 5), even though it is not the most-neutral option but a characterization of some media outlets (as sources agree that the residents were there to clear bricks, which does not bear indication of a political stance). --Cold Season (talk) 10:20, 22 February 2020 (UTC)


 * 1>6>4>5>2>3 As said by but I prefer 1,6 and 4 as both sides were throwing bricks and were being violent . The residents were not protesting so 5 and 2 is ruled out for me. 3 makes it out they weren't throwing bricks.  —  RealFakeKim  T  17:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * My ideal wording would be "a confrontation between a group of protesters and several Sheung Shui residents. The residents were trying to clear bricks from the road but some were also throwing bricks" — RealFakeKim  T  17:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see the problem with Option 5. Here's what I think is appropriate and in line with my comment above:"a confrontation between two opposing groups of protesters, who were attacking each other with bricks" or "a confrontation between a group of protesters and several Sheung Shui residents – according to HK Government sources – who were attacking each other with bricks" (emphasis is purely illustrative). --  Ohc  ¡digame! 12:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I am fine with simply saying they are "two opposing groups". Attributing the statement to the police in WP:LEAD is not the certainly not ideal (due to WP:SS), but it is a compromise I am willing to make. OceanHok (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That's just frankly comedic. So you admit attribution is 'not ideal' due to the fact that lead has no other part that merits an WP:ALLEGED and would go against guideline but this discussion has devolved such that you believe the only exception should be for a statement that no RS challenges. Literally no RS challenges the variant on this, yet this entire discussion has been around the make-believe idea that local talk WP editors know something that RS don't. Sleath56 (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What I am saying is that I did not prefer anything with an attribution (thus I suggest that it is not an option I really want). I am hoping to reach a consensus by making a compromise, and I don't need you mocking me. If you want me to not compromise, I can certainly do that. OceanHok (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see any intent in my response that was meant to be "mocking," though I'll retract whichever that construed such a sentiment. The point of my comment stands, which is that a compromise like that is just based on fixing a local Talk no consensus discussion rather than fixing the section per guidelines and the wider article.
 * Observation 1: There is no other part of the lead that has a WP:ALLEGED.
 * Observation 2: No RS challenges the variant on this, the idea that this requires an WP:ALLEGED is wholly OR.
 * This makes the compromise wholly incompatible in the context of the wider lead. Sleath56 (talk) 06:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The other variant is "government supporters", as we have mentioned above. That's why having a proper attribution is not inappropriate (and as you have mentioned above, the police is its directly traceable origin), but this is not the most idealistic way of handling the whole situation. Of course the best option personally for me is my wording with the adjustments, which at least seems to satisfy most people's concerns while at the same time. OceanHok (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Presenting two bad apples and asking other editors to choose only from the two is not how appropriateness is determined. Yes, compared to the option of "anti/pro government supporters," adding this option is preferable from that perspective, but the observations about WP:ALLEGED still stand. It seems the discussion has moved from the line of "protesters and several Sheung Shui residents" to "clearing bricks on the road." I support that line because that's the uncontested context RS gives. However, I'd be willing to entertain for the spirit of compromise that the point that their "motivation isn't important" and change it to "a confrontation between a group of protesters and several Sheung Shui residents where Luo was a bystander." Sleath56 (talk) 03:58, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, our current wording is essentially the worst apple that has nearly no support, so if we can get an option that is slightly better I call this a win. WP:ALLEGED does not exist in option 5 because clearly, they are two opposing groups and that's uncontested and supported by RS. I am fine with mentioning him as a bystander without using the term "bystander" given no RS has used this description. The part about the man being struck by a brick does not make sense without mentioning the brick-hurling part, so you either have them both or neglect both. I am fine with Luo Changqing, an elderly man who died after being struck by a brick allegedly thrown by a protester when he was filming a confrontation between two opposing groups who were hurling bricks at each other in Sheung Shui with his phone. OceanHok (talk) 09:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I would prefer the wording "Luo Changqing, an elderly man who died after being struck by a brick allegedly thrown by a protester when he was filming a confrontation between two opposing groups who were hurling bricks at each other in Sheung Shui." or "Luo Changqing, an elderly man who died after being struck by a brick allegedly thrown by a protester during a confrontation between two opposing groups who were hurling bricks at each other in Sheung Shui." — RealFakeKim  T  14:01, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes yes, the current wording which is attributed to the wording used by all RS which have in depth coverage of the incident certainly has 'no support.' What you're fine with is a blandly puzzling choice considering you yourself concurred that the actions of the two parties isn't as relevant as to Luo, and being fine with dropping "clearing bricks" and adding "throwing bricks" is frankly disingenuous. The lack of clarity combining "thrown by a protester" and "two opposing groups" is some stark ambiguity. "when he was filming a confrontation between a group of protesters and several Sheung Shui residents with his phone." is fine. Sleath56 (talk) 19:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * All the new wording adheres to RS perfectly so don't pretend your current wording is the only one that has RS verification. The problem is with WP:NPOV and cherrypicking sources as we have always said. I said their "motivation" is not important but I never said what they did is not important, so don't put things in my mouth. Both he being "struck in the head by a brick thrown by a protester" and the brick-hurling part is equally important and you are oversimplifying the issue or presenting an inaccurate description of the conflict by ignoring either one of them. OceanHok (talk) 05:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no pretending. I've addressed the contrary quite frankly above already, and in such thoroughness such that the only responses through the entirety received in kind were whingings about WP:BLUD. I don't see a proponent of reductive phrasing like "opposing groups" which introduces unwarranted ambiguity and decreasing clarity as being capable of levelling charges that others are "oversimplifying the issue or presenting an inaccurate description" with holding any water. Sleath56 (talk) 05:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Being hostile isn't going to help anything. OceanHok is being reasonable and this is going to take compromise from everyone. — RealFakeKim  T  20:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * To the first point (with the revised option 5), that would certainly solve much of the issues with it and wouldn't merit a hard oppose on my part. --Cold Season (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree it would fix most of the problems but I would strongly support the outlining of the innocence of some of the residents. — RealFakeKim  T  17:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I still think it is important to say that some of the residents were only clearing bricks and not throwing them as the video I linked shows. — RealFakeKim  T  17:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * But the confrontation is referring to the people who have thrown the bricks. OceanHok (talk) 04:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes but the wording makes it out that the residents were only clearing the road. — RealFakeKim  T  16:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't believe their motivation is important in this context to be honest. The motive didn't change the outcome in this incident and the part about "clearing bricks" can be put in the Death subsection. OceanHok (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough I'll compromise on that. — RealFakeKim  T  19:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Again. This section is not tagged for WP:RfC and wikipedia did not use voting system to form consensus. Matthew hk (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether this is an RfC and regardless of the voting vs consensus debate, it would be helpful if you would give your opinion on what to do with this particular sentence in the article. Deryck C. 17:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I think it's important to remind editors that brevity is a virtue, and that the community doesn't make decisions based on who has the highest word count. OhKayeSierra (talk) 07:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I can't imagine how "Luo Changqing, an elderly man who died as a result of being struck on the head by a brick thrown by a protester during a confrontation between two opposing groups" is being floated as a valid solution. in response to "I think you're pushing the boat out quite a way," I'd respond that I'm frankly quite glad to when the passage presented lacks any sort of vigor. So let me ask. Who were the two groups? Was this inter-protester factionalism? Was the protester protesting the confrontation or participating as part of it? The deliberate choice to introduce maximal ambiguity is not appropriate when reliable sources provide the answers to all those questions, yet the passage obfuscates the situation's clarity as if they don't.   Sleath56 (talk) 21:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Literally the entirety of the discussion has not involved the "thrown by a protester" line, nor is it mentioned in any of the proposals. You've singlely shifted tried to shift the discussion from residents -> clearing the bricks -> thrown by a protester even though the discussion was only opened on the first part. Settle down with the tendentious editing and talk this through the Talk first which I remind was opened by the proponents here. Sleath56 (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you want me to open three separate discussions based on one sentence? That's stupid. If we have never discussed that part of the sentence in the Talk then my change has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. (I certainly believe I wrote the term "allegedly" in most of the proposals I made and it was not contested by anyone) Of course you are free to start a WP:BRD discussion but your accusation on my editing being "tendentious" and me "edit warring" over things that we have never truly discussed is ridiculous. OceanHok (talk) 05:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I would expect you to actually address them here rather than overeagerly going down the line as if one discussion gives opportunity to change the entire passage which indeed depicts to tendentious editing. I don't see improperly formatting an informal RfC as a valid justification. Additionally this isn't 2019 where this article is viewed hundreds of thousands of time, so I'm not sure what the assumed WP:DEADLINE is. You're invited to respond to the query above as well, since you've drafted your variant. What precisely is the reason to add maximum ambiguity? It seems like the proponents here rarely like to hold the concept that Wikipedia is based on WP:RS, not WP:OR into account. Sleath56 (talk) 06:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If you look at my first argument during this overly long second section break, I don't care whether you named the two groups as "residents/protesters", "anti-government protesters/pro-government supporters" or "opposing groups of protesters". I prefer Option 1 because it also aligns with what the sources say and it was the most expository option, and Option 5 as the residents' act of challenging the protesters can be considered as an act of protest, but I have explicitly stated that option 4 is a good middle ground (at least for me personally, but I know a large group of people here is not happy with the wording with understandable reasons).


 * To be frank, you should wonder why people are not responding to your arguments, when efforts made to refocus the discussion were described as tendentious editing, viewpoints were badgered with walls of text, and compromises were mocked for being "comedic". Don't blame others for not responding. Blame yourself. OceanHok (talk) 10:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "Closure" of Straw Poll - this section break was listed as a request for closureof straw poll by Deryck C. Being mindful of the fact that polling is not a substitute for discussion and that this is not a proper RfC, I do not think it is right to cite this poll as the basis for any consensus (especially with such a large variety of options). That said, if the poll is treated as an effort to test the waters of editor opinion ahead of further discussion around a more discrete number of options, I assess there was a clear set of preferences among editors who were polled as follows: option 6 is the most favoured option while option 1 and option 5 are the next favoured options. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2020 (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.