Talk:2019–2020 Hong Kong protests/Archive 2

PROPOSAL: create new article about "Art of 2019 Hong Kong democracy movement" (or something like that ...) //  thoughts and suggestions welcome!
Hello, I would like to propose that we create a new page about the art of the on-going democracy movement. It could be similar to this: Art of the Umbrella Movement  --  Would anyone like to help? 65.60.163.223 (talk) 03:10, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Unlike the 2014 protests, where there is a central space for artist expression to thrive, it seems to me that most of the "art" is in the form of collectivised message-boarding. We already have Lennon Wall. What else do you have in mind? --  Ohc  ¡digame! 10:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I am not in Hong Kong, so I don't really know what is going on there ... I just assume there must be something broader happening or an otherwise widespread artistic expression worthy of documentation. Yes, the Lennon Walls do seem to have the biggest visibility right now in the media, it seems. However, what about any of the popular art of, for example, Ai Weiwei, or Badiucao?


 * https://www.hongkongfp.com/2019/06/16/badiucao-cartoon-chinese-artist-satirises-hong-kongs-extradition-bill-debacle/
 * https://www.hongkongfp.com/2019/07/28/badiucao-cartoon-chinese-artist-satirises-hong-kongs-extradition-bill-debacle-part-ii/


 * There also seems to be a lot of digital art going viral on twitter and other platforms:
 * https://qz.com/quartzy/1673655/see-the-posters-and-comics-from-hong-kongs-protests/


 * In terms of music, I know there are a couple of protest songs, and one hip-hop artist that came out with a song about HK police brutality. There have also been a couple of excellent original videos that I've seen on YouTube, explaining the key demands with a professional anime style.


 * I also assume there must be some kind of protest art going on during some of these marches? Parade floats, giant puppets, costumes, banners?


 * And then of course there is probably some excellent graffiti somewhere? I'm sure bloggers are documenting this stuff ...
 * https://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/arts-culture/article/3018925/extradition-bill-art-hong-kong-artists-painting-picture


 * Anyway, I have seen various things over the past couple months and I'm not sure how to bring it all together into an article, especially since it may be difficult to include images of this stuff directly in the article ... but I think it's worth a try maybe? Especially if others are interested. : ) 65.60.163.223 (talk) 04:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I think there has also been some culture jam stuff in other cities ... and the sing for HK event in London. And then of course there is also the mooncake lady:
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5GMayKGOoA&


 * Basically, it seems like there are lots of different distinct forms of artistic expression, but collectively the body of work is significant and inspiring ... especially with the ability to go viral with a global audience, perhaps making it more notable with popularity and reach. Also, I just found this:
 * "100 Hong Kong Arts Organizations Will Protest a New Extradition Bill That Threatens the City’s Independence"
 * https://news.artnet.com/art-world/hong-kong-extradition-bill-sparks-art-world-protests-1569868
 * So the art community is definitely engaged. I'm just not sure what's going on, because I'm not there. : ) 65.60.163.223 (talk) 05:56, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Maybe I will just start putting some of this stuff into the "popular culture" section for now, unless anyone has a better idea? 65.60.163.223 (talk) 22:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay, nevermind ... someone just deleted the "Popular culture" section of the article. : ) 65.60.163.223 (talk) 05:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Another article: "'Be water:' Hong Kong protest mantra influences how art is designed and distributed" 65.60.163.223 (talk) 06:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Conflict at overseas universities (Australia/New Zealand/Canada)
Does this warrant a special section in this article, or the creation of a new main article on the topic?
 * Pro-Beijing Thugs Are Vandalizing Hong Kong Democracy Protests in Australia Now

It seems to be getting worse and more prevalent as time goes on ... and it looks like Beijing central government is somewhat involved.
 * A student attended a protest at an Australian uni. Days later Chinese officials visited his family

65.60.163.223 (talk) 03:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I think it is o to do so.Mariogoods (talk) 22:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay, I will look for a place to start a new section about this. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 03:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Another article: "Hong Kong protests to Uygur camps: how Chinese students became a subject of scorn"
 * And another: Universities Are Turning a Blind Eye to Chinese Bullies 65.60.163.223 (talk) 06:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Junius Ho and the leadership of the pro-Beijing camp
I note that Junius Ho is listed as “Spiritual Leader of Triad Groups” in the “leaders” section. There is of course much evidence concerning Ho’s involvement in the triad attacks, such as that in the Hong Kong Connection programme. However, that he was involved does not establish that he lead the attack: equally plausible candidates might include the person from the Liaison Office who told villagers to drive away protesters. I shall therefore remove him from the list of leaders.

Above there is a list of parties to the conflict; I shall add the triads to that section. It would also be worth adding the organisers of pro-police assemblies.

For what it’s worth, I do empathise with the desire to avenge those who were injured in Yuen Long, but in this case the truth is on the protesters’ side; the best disinfectant is strong adherence to NPOV, not the unnecessary inclusion of Ho in the infobox. (This political view of course in no way affects the manner in which I edit Wikipedia; obviously if it were to I should prefer to retain the current mention of Ho in the infobox.) Docentation (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Calling someone a "spiritual leader" does not actually mean they directed the attacks ... it's more like he's been acting as a cheerleader, defending violent attacks, and promoting and inciting hatred without necessarily calling for specific things to be done. Is there a better term that could be used? 65.60.163.223 (talk) 17:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * These are accurate descriptions of his behaviour, and should therefore appear somewhere else in the article. Crucially, however, they do not seem to indicate that he is a “leader” in a meaningful sense. The 50 cent army in the SCMP Facebook comment section do the same things, but they aren’t “leaders”—they are sympathisers etc.; it would be odd to put them in the “leadership section”. Docentation (talk) 10:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We follow the sources, not the desire for some sort of payback. If the sources state that Junius Ho is the leader, it is fair game to include it.Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * To be fair, wikipedia is a tertiary source. Accusation may worth to include in the article, but should not use "fact" wording. News report are reporting the accusation but they did not confirm the accusation as fact. Matthew hk (talk) 18:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * “We follow the sources…”—I agree (hence what I said at the end of my initial comment). But I am not sure that the sources show that he is “the leader”: they show him defending those behind the attack and shaking hands. These actions are not equivalent to leading the attack. I don’t think the issue here is accusation v fact. The actions imputed to Ho, whether with sufficient evidence to qualify as fact for Wikipedia or simply accusations, would not suggest that he was a leader. Docentation (talk) 10:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I had raised the same concern at . Novice wiki editors are flooding rumour and their own speculation into the wikipedia. If we break that rule, Chinese propaganda can be added to the article for the same excuse. So, stick to the rule that use secondary source and no original research and no synthesis of sources. Matthew hk (talk) 13:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Background
I still thought the background section of this wiki article need rewrite. See also the background info that The Guardian was reporting. See also may last thread in the talk archive. Matthew hk (talk) 13:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Also, the opinion of Anson Chan in the interview. Matthew hk (talk) 13:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I took the liberty to start Draft:Causes of 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests. Matthew hk (talk) 10:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

New Article should be created for a timeline.
The article seems to be getting quite large, I think it would be advisable to move the event timeline part of the article to a new article dedicated to a timeline of these protests.

There is now 4 months worth of events and these protests are likely to go on for quite a lot longer.Theprussian (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 190628 New York Times, HK anti-bill advert.jpg


 * Yup, it is from Apple Daily and most probably copyrighted and not suitable to upload to wiki-common. Matthew hk (talk) 08:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

page moved?
Umm, why was the page moved? 65.60.163.223 (talk) 03:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I am also quite curious about the sudden move. I wonder if we should be more specific (include "2019") or just ignore it (as there are no any other Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests). Update: it has been moved back. –Wefk423 (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Yeah, good ... I think moving it back to the original title was the right thing to do. It fits more with the current naming scheme, considering the other major article is titled "2014 Hong Kong protests" 65.60.163.223 (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Any bold move are eligible to revert if deemed "controversial" . The proper way to move is documented in WP:RM. i.e. start a discussion thread with proper templates. Matthew hk (talk) 08:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

International reaction spam
When a major world power speaks out on this issue, can we please limit ourselves to one statement per party within that power? We don't need multiple statements each from Pelosi and Trump to know that the US has opinions on how its biggest rival should handle this matter. Simonm223 (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. Isn't there some form of precedent on Wikipedia for international reactions to these events? --Bangalamania (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup, it need to be trimmed. Also, may be opinions from "nobody" should be deleted. Party leader, President are good cutting line, but may worth to discuss a lower bar. Multiple opinions should also included, given the context in June and in August may different. Matthew hk (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Do double check the next time you decide to remove material as you did here. You removed the event (i.e. Trump's condemnation) that caused the senators to issue their statement. Without it, the reader would be left wondering: why the hell did the senators do that in first place? Also, please refrain from making personal commentaries about certain actors as you did here. Obviously this article is attracting lots of emotion, edits, etc. so there really isn't anything particularly special about your point of view. Perfectly fine if you put that on your talk page or your blog, but an edit summary really isn't the place for those kinds of remarks. Besides the claim factually incorrect (this would be obvious to anybody who read the article) and is not one that you really believe in it anyway (you'll notice how you decided to remove just the reactions of the United States and leave the reactions by the other countries intact). Flaughtin (talk) 04:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Please stop pestering me with pings on multiple articles. The US section is over-long and needs trimming. Simonm223 (talk) 11:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Trim better next time. Flaughtin (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The Americans don’t act with one voice, so it’s probably worth noting what both said. Docentation (talk) 20:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree but he (op) is just going to yammer and complain about how it's "too long". That (and others like him) is the main issue here. Flaughtin (talk) 01:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree but he (op) is just going to yammer and complain about how it's "too long". That (and others like him) is the main issue here. Flaughtin (talk) 01:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Revert
Please explain in more detail this revert of yours. How was it unhelpful? Flaughtin (talk) 02:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

News from Xinhua
http://www.xinhuanet.com/gangao/2019-08/07/c_1124849007.htm

Mariogoods (talk) 13:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Any and all news from XinHua should be placed under Sec.11 "Chinese government and media" Phileo (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Phileo, There is no such consensus. However, due to COI and POV (they are stated-owned propaganda machine), they should be used carefully. Matthew hk (talk) 07:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Cite error
A sprawling list of cite errors is below the references list. Goes like "Cite error: A list-defined reference named "_____" is not used in the content (see the help page)." Does anyone else see this, and if so, how do we fix this? Kamako, carpenter 04:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I see it too. Geolodus (talk) 05:53, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Some people converted the wiki code to use a pair of  instead of usual  . See also Help:Footnotes if you can understand why i mean for the "former"


 * The former would be good if the article is static, which grouped all citations into reflist. However, this is not good for this article. You see the error, because the citation still embedded in the reflist, but did not use in the mainbody of article.


 * To solve it, easy method: chopped all unused citation. Hard method, read the wiki article page history as well as the citation, and figure out why the citation was chopped from the mainbody. Matthew hk (talk) 06:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Well it seem due to the split (see Matthew hk (talk) 06:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

riot
I saw that "methods" in info template have "riot". But is it suitable in this case? Calling "riots" should be careful since it may be unsourced or poorly sourced. Especially debates over "riot" or "protest" has been emeged outside the Wikipedia.Mariogoods (talk) 09:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Creating "List of 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests"

 * 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.

As I am writing this new section the article is currently 328,388 bytes in size. So, my proposition is to split the events section into a new article entitled, List of 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests. In doing so, a summary could be provided in the events section with a main article template linking to the list. Jay Coop &middot;&#32;Talk &middot;&#32;Contributions 21:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Vote

 * I am thinking that it would be appropriate to include all of the counter-demonstrations on this new page as well, correct? 65.60.163.223 (talk) 00:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, one section for the demonstrations and another for counter-demonstrations. Jay Coop &middot;&#32;Talk &middot;&#32;Contributions 06:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, the article has become way too long. Splitting it is a good idea. –Wefk423 (talk) 07:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 07:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support The protests continues. Dividing it is nesserary. But should we check words in every section first?Mariogoods (talk) 08:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 *  Support split - Article is long and should be split. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not everyone will navigate over to read the events section if it is split into its own article, so I suggest at least a good summary in the current article. Phileo (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support split – Awks now, needs dividers, new article = easier reading too long nowWivescoals (talk) 22:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support for this, and for any other thoughtful efforts to make this article shorter and more readable. Magnabonzo (talk) 16:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - It's quite long, it would definitely be better to put the details of each protest on a different (set of) page(s) and trim the existing page down to a broader summary. MSG17 (talk) 02:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support split as per the reasons above, although as mentioned we should probably include a brief summary on this page before redirecting readers. --Bangalamania (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support split with a caveat that each incident on the list should be supported as a notable protest by reliable sources. Simonm223 (talk) 18:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support without a doubt, as per reasoning above.Theprussian (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Strongly support - Jay Coop PLease do this already. It is getting to the point where you can't even load the article. Flaughtin (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 *  Comment -, I have posted at WP:ANRFC. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 *  Reply - I have boldly split the article, and reduced its size by more than 29%, albeit much of the size is the 150 kB of list defined references. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on implementation

 * I'm sure a lot of people would support this split, as the article is getting longer and longer. I think it's time to discuss how to summary in this article should be after the split. This is a long protest, and different event has different highlights. How should we include all (or how much)? The lead section of the article already has a brief introduction, should the summary be more detailed than that one? –Wefk423 (talk) 16:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I think kept this article and create sub-articles (3: June, July, August for arbitrary) is fine. But due to WP:INDISCRIMINATE, it rather need discussion to trim down the detail of some minor protest to allow people to easily read the articles to have a brief understanding. No doubt notable would be "12 June", "1 July", "21 July", "27 July", "28 July" "3 August" (which notably quite a lot of protesters did not follow the police approved route) and "5 August", which police is increasing violence and protesters started to be more accused as violent too. But break down one whole event to 7 articles may be way too hard for people to understand, so may be arbitrary by months ? List of 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests already created as a redirect (and easily converted to a list that just as point form / one paragraph for each day timeline form as well as link to individual sub-articles if any), so i would rather ask people how many articles you want to split from. Matthew hk (talk) 15:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Since this main article will be condensed and divided between new main page articles for the sub-topics, it may be nice to include an interactive graphical outline or horizontal timeline of some sort that would really help illustrate the protests and make the collection of related articles easier to navigate and more readable. I do not know if any other "big content" topics have something similar here on Wikipedia, or if there is some precedent to follow for this? 65.60.163.223 (talk) 20:20, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Timeline of WWII? The problem of this sub-articles would be how much detail for the notable protests, and should be just keep one single sentence for minor protests. We are talking about over 2 months of protests and many accusation of police violence. (And to be fair on NPOV, some "violent" act of the protesters should be added to the articles as comparison. As well as those detail of "arresting" people by violently hitting the hat or near CITIC using tear gas to people without any protective gears, or just recently, a woman just walked nearby . Matthew hk (talk) 11:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


 * interactive graphical outline, while a very nice idea in concept, might be impractical in the context of Wikipedia: you cannot publish original research, and you would have to find relevant images that are allowed under fair use. Phileo (talk) 14:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


 * , as a manner, don't insert comment in between. Also, there are lots of timeline made by newspaper and TV channel already, and i don't think these kind of "list of facts" are copyrighted. Also, i knew i should AGF, but seem you took a very long wiki break... Matthew hk (talk) 18:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: I support breaking down the events sections by month, though I don't really agree on using the timeline format which is quite difficult to read. Using headings and subheadings are clearer for people to understand. Regardless of what we are going to do, I think July 1, June 12 and August 11 protests deserve their own articles. OceanHok (talk) 11:28, 16 August 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.

6.5 Adapted Songs

 * Hello everyone, I am translating this page to Dutch (and arrived at this section). I believe it is a mistake in English. I think that "Adopted Songs" is meant. I did not hear any adaptations to the songs. Since it is locked, I am hoping that someone with that power can change it, if I am right.
 * --2019OutlaweD (talk) 10:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

online counter-protests
http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1161776.shtml

As the Global Times says, Chinese netizens on Saturday swept Facebook and Instagram to denounce secessionist posts and show support for Hong Kong police. Should we added the information with the source?

Mariogoods (talk) 06:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The Global Times is owned and written by the Chinese government. I don't think it's the best source for neutral information on this subject. Geolodus (talk) 19:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Questions about the implementation and article split
Umm, hello everyone, I see that the above discussion is closed and the split and move of content is nearly completed, but I had one comment about the final implementation. It looks like, for whatever reason, the Counter-demonstrations section is still on this main page, and has not been sectioned up and split off along with the newly created articles as per the discussion above. Was this simply forgotten about? Thanks. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 08:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


 * It also seems to me that the Other movements section could become a summary, and then these specific events could be split up across the newly created articles that list protest events by month? So to clarify, what I am saying is, I believe that both the counter-demonstration events and the other movements events could have placement in the newly created articles that list the protests by month. That would help reduce the size of this main article page even more, right? And it seems like an okay thing to do, yeah? 65.60.163.223 (talk) 08:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Can we remove the list defined references?
Good day! The list defined references are difficult to work with, and take up over 100kB. Can we please remove the list defined references? --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * no.
 * --2019OutlaweD (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, Why? --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:18, 18 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, it should be converted back to traditional formatting. Only the protest had ended and the wiki article are toward a stable state, we then consider to change it to list defined referencing format. Matthew hk (talk) 23:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I am still busy translating it into Dutch! If you start messing with the references now, I'll be in trouble!
 * And, given the massive edit war that I am guessing has taken place here (464 references; before moving the specific demonstrations over 600 references even!; and the lock on the topic), I think that I want to cover my basics before any mainland Chinese troll figures out what I have been placing on the Dutch Wikipedia.
 * p.s. Could you add your opinion to my comment just above about adOpted songs?
 * --2019OutlaweD (talk) 08:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * p.s. Could you add your opinion to my comment just above about adOpted songs?
 * --2019OutlaweD (talk) 08:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


 * . Try stick to one version, for example the version before the split Special:Permalink/910944761. Matthew hk (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that is a good idea. I actually should do that, in order to reference my Dutch translation to the source, but I admit to going to the latest edition.
 * Thanks for the tip Matthew hk!
 * You can change my no into a yes :)
 * --2019OutlaweD (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Table in the objectives section
Do we really need a table in the objectives section of this article? It takes up a lot of space and makes the reading somewhat difficult imo. --Bangalamania (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree, something more simple would be nice. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 16:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Number of protesters?
The lead of this article states "Hundreds of thousands of people marched in protests of the bill on 9 June", while the photo caption states "Millions of protesters marching in white on 9 June (top) and in black 16 June (bottom)". Could the size of the marches be harmonized? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 18:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, it would also be worth noting in the lede that one or more of these protests have been record breaking in numbers, compared to other protests in recent history. One of the early marches was perhaps close to a turnout of 2 million people, while another very recent march was possibly as many as 1.7 million. The size is significant, because that is a big percentage of the total population of Hong Kong (about 20% - 25%), and very relevant in terms of an expression of democratic values and free speech and how important that is to the people of Hong Kong as a whole. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Since there is no reliable, independent institute to estimate the figure, we can only stated the organizer that claimed 1 million (9 June), 2 million (18 June) and 1.7 million (18 August). The figure from police is totally not reliable (such as the Tamar Park laughing stock of over 8 people per square metre that derived from their data). The Economist explicitly stated the claims from the organizer of the demonstration may be not reliable. For June for sure some academician-turn-policatiian had expressed their opinion, citing empirical data. Matthew hk (talk) 09:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Hong Kong free press is also reporting it: "“Although the people behind this activity attempted to conceal their identities, our investigation found links to individuals associated with the Chinese government.” "From 2011 footage of South Korean soldiers misrepresented as an impending Chinese “invasion” to doctored photographs exaggerating the size of rallies"
 * --2019OutlaweD (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Title of the article
Should the title of the article be changed? While the protests were initially over the extradition bill, they seem to have morphed into something larger (i.e. general fears of the erosion of 'one country, two systems', opposition to police brutality as well as others mentioned in the 5 demands). I've noticed a number of sources use the term "pro-democracy protests", but I don't know if that's too POV. --Bangalamania (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps for now, until a more permanent name is decided upon, the article could just be renamed '2019 Hong Kong Protests' or something Techno Tron15 (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's probably better (and simpler). --Bangalamania (talk) 21:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I mean, maybe that's kind of vague though? I think "2019 Hong Kong democracy protests" or something along those lines might be okay. But we could also just stick with what we have for now until a better name for the on-going movement emerges. I have seen "hard hat revolution" been mentioned a few times, but that term for these protests is by no means as broadly accepted as the popularized Umbrella Revolution of 2014. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Also the page appears to be "move protected" until November 8. (There is a little green lock icon on the upper-right hand corner of the article.) So any name change would have to be done by an admin. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Any move please start a discussion by following the process stated in WP:RM. Move can be done by page mover which sometimes, non-admin. However, please do not bold move yourself as any new candidate of the WP:article title for this wiki article is controversial. Non-controversial move, sometimes should post in Requested moves/Technical requests. Matthew hk (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I think "democracy protests" would not be good. "Democracy" has not been central to the protests so far. The extradition bill was not an attack on democracy. Waving the British colonial flag does not connote support for democracy. It is not clear at the point what the overall aim of the protests is, and how cohesive the protesters are.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * That's not true at all: have you read the five demands of the movement? The fifth demand is a call for universal suffrage and the rights of the people to be able to democratically elect their politicians and government officials. Currently, a vast majority of the governing officials are Beijing installed CCP puppets. Further, this movement builds on the previous 2014 Umbrella Revolution which was also a call for free and fair elections.
 * It is true that the current 2019 protests began in response to the threat of an erosion of autonomy and a China extradition bill (pushed through by an unelected Chief Executive), but the whole situation quickly evolved and changed into what we have today: a call for greater freedom from mainland China and a more genuine democracy in order to fulfill the promise of one country two systems. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 07:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Here is one good article on the subject: Hong Kong Protesters Are Fueled by a Broader Demand: More Democracy (New York Times). 65.60.163.223 (talk) 07:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, but "democracy" is only one issue, as you yourself make clear. As I said, it's uncertain what the protesters want. Do they really want "one country, two systems" or do they want independence? It seems to me the extradition bill was integral to the concept of one country. It seems that the protesters don't really want "one country" at all.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:04, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Perhaps from China's perspective, an extradition bill is important. But to Hongkongers, because of a recent history of politically motivated kidnappings, and a mainland China judicial system that lacks transparency and due process, the thought of extradition to China is a sobering one. They definitely want to hold on to the promise of "two systems" and in turn want their five demands to be met. "All five and not one less" as is often chanted, with a shift towards democratic reform really being quite an extraordinary thing especially considering China's opposition to it. All of that said, I am not necessarily arguing to change the title of the article ... the current title seems to be okay for now. : ) 65.60.163.223 (talk) 08:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Clearly, there are "two systems" at the moment. But "one country" when there is no extradition law? Maybe democratisation is one of five demands, but it is not the only demand or the main demand, as far as I can see. The question is what future for HK do the protesters want? If the HK government was free from any control from Beijing, it would not be part of "one country". I don't think that the protesters have articulated the answer to this, and so I would be wary of describing the protests as other than against the extradition bill.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Please read WP:CRITERIA first. Until now news reporting from all over the world (may be except those gated behind the Great Firewall and North Korea) use "anti-extradition bill protests". Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Not an outlet of personal opinion and pov pushing or a place of propaganda for the protesters or the Central government. Please read the news article and inform us using WP:RM process if most of the news article had changed the wording. Matthew hk (talk) 10:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What?--Jack Upland (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

All the Stand News picture have been deleted in commons
It is a very sad news that All the Stand News picture have been deleted in commons. But according to Commons:Commons:Village pump/Archive/2019/06, Administrator De728631 mention The Stand News statement like a free licence as in and other users would agree The Stand News statement would be acceptable for Commons. Meanwhile in Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:The_Stand_News, Administrator Yann also say Wcam's deletions without valid justification. The statement is clear and ALL the files should recover--Wpcpey 00:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Someone please ask Stand News to send a permission vis OTRS and thing would be easily done. Or many of them are qualified as WP:NFC as critical commentary (with citation for the commentary), so upload to en-wiki as fair use . We will sort out here as there are more admin in en-wiki. Matthew hk (talk) 06:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * And the link should be Commons:Commons:Village pump/Archive/2019/06. Matthew hk (talk) 08:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Has anyone done it yet? Image2012 (talk) 10:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I have send the request show in below on Monday in facebook private message, but no response.--Wpcpey (talk) 01:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 * It seems we need to write a request letter to The Stand News in their facebook page. Hope they can accept it since Wikipedia lack of photo for the protest. I have tried email before, but no reply. Here is the sample, sorry only have Chinese version.

你好， 根據你們Facebook專頁在6月14日發出的聲明，稱「各機構及個人，可隨便使用《立場新聞》Facebook專頁的直播片段，不用聯絡我們尋求授權，使用後亦不需要通知，唯望避免歪曲事實的刪剪. 」

得悉你們的聲明後，自6月起在維基百科有用戶曾透過截圖的方式使用你們facebook 專頁的直播片段，並上載至維基百科的媒體庫，希望可以讓世界廣大的民眾可以知道反送中運動的真相. 不過該處的管理員，以至部分編輯認為，你們的表述在維基百科而言未達到有關要求，認為「開放轉載不等於開放版權」和「歪曲事實比較難判斷」. 其後管理員提出要求刪除有關截圖，並且已被刪除.

本人懇請 貴facebook專頁明確表明所有在facebook直播片段採用「共享創意 姓名標示 4.0 國際 (CC BY 4.0)」或CC0 “No Rights Reserved”，以符合維基百科的版權條款，而有關授權生效後，就不可逆轉. https://creativecommons.org/faq/#what-if-i-change-my-mind-about-using-a-cc-license

希望你們能夠准許有關的條款，讓反送中運動的過程，以及未來香港的發展，能夠用自由的方式，以及不同的語言傳播世界.

--Wpcpey (talk) 03:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Undue use of RT and Sputnik
I understand the desire to include discussion of the suggestion of foreign interference in Hong Kong, particularly, I understand there are rumours circulating that the US state department has been sponsoring protesters in much the same fashion they previously did in Eastern Europe and Venezuela. But if you want to include discussion of these rumours you have to find a reliable source for them. RT and Sputnik are both well known to be Russian propaganda outlets. Both of these outlets exist for almost the expressed purpose of stirring the pot and introducing disinformation. So no, they're categorically undue here. You're unlikely to find a more sympathetic long-term politics editor on Wikipedia than me to statements of dirty-politics by the United States. So if even I am saying, "these sources are no good," you might want to listen. Simonm223 (talk) 13:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think there's no harm in including these sources if they are properly attributed as "Russian sources". STSC (talk) 13:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking at this neutrally, how is this WP:DUE, in the slightest? Simonm223 (talk) 14:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not "undue" if the readers are also informed about Russian point of view. STSC (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * He didn't explain it properly because the anti-Americanism got in the way. Basically what he should have done is direct you to WP:RSP and WP:PUS where you will clearly see that outlets like RT and Sputnik can be used only for the views of the government of Russia. We stay away from using it for anything else like how you would stay away froma leper in real life. Flaughtin (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, I am sure that some lepers are really nice people! : ) 65.60.163.223 (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell, I think it may be appropriate to use the RT source for what David Stockman has to say, but that's it. Not an expert, but he seems like a notable individual to mention here (although obviously we should be wary of editorialising his comments as RT have). But the other stuff from RT itself and Sputnik should go. --Bangalamania (talk) 19:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We can't use either source for anything other than the views of the russian government. Again as i said WP:RSP and WP:PUS are very clear on this Flaughtin (talk) 01:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I would just bear in mind that WP:PUS is essay and not policy; there is no consensus that RT should only by used for the views of the Russian government as far as I can tell. It is still a propaganda outlet and should be treated as such (i.e. its own claims would be undue in this article unless recorded by secondary sources), but I don't see how that relates to Stockman's comments. --Bangalamania (talk) 02:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No but you see it isn't just WP:PUS you also need to look at WP:RSP as well. Yes it's an essay but that really is a misnomer because it's basically treated like a guideline (i.e. WP:PUS is a defacto guideline). You clearly see how it is used in that way when you look at the judgments over the reliability of the sources made on WP:RSP. It obviously relates to Stockman because Stockman is just a useful idiot not speaking on behalf of the russian government Flaughtin (talk) 03:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No but you see it isn't just WP:PUS you also need to look at WP:RSP as well. Yes it's an essay but that really is a misnomer because it's basically treated like a guideline (i.e. WP:PUS is a defacto guideline). You clearly see how it is used in that way when you look at the judgments over the reliability of the sources made on WP:RSP. It obviously relates to Stockman because Stockman is just a useful idiot not speaking on behalf of the russian government Flaughtin (talk) 03:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Flaughtin, Sorry for not AGF due to you are new but seem know the rule of wikipedia, but for RT, you should search Reliable sources/Noticeboard first. There are no consensus RT is not reliable (note: double negative), or you can interpreted as there are no consensus RT is reliable. Matthew hk (talk) 07:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Read the one (contrvoersial topics) right below it. Flaughtin (talk) 07:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * It is not the matter of use the source or not. It rather WP:DUE or WP:UNDUE or considered it as conspiracy theory that should or should not added to wikipedia. Except the DAB the pro-Beijing rubberstamp lawmaker, Businessman that traditionally pro-Beijing did not considered the protests had any foreign influence. However, since wikipedia did not censor , it depends editorial point of view to add foreign influence as a kind of accusation (or laughingstock? ) Matthew hk (talk) 07:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * After a brief search, it seem it should be included as part of Chinese propaganda / counterdemonstration. The point of view is in the of Chinese state-media. We included them not because it is true, but they are significant POV from involving parties (i.e. Chinese Central Government ). Matthew hk (talk) 07:49, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Is RT and Sputnik not an WP:RS? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * You can just start another query in Reliable sources/Noticeboard to state, 'are RT and Sputnik reliable for "2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests"?'. Matthew hk (talk) 10:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Were they previously deemed not reliable at RSN? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Including photos of protesters waving UK and USA flags
I find it strange that there is not a single photo of the protesters waving American and British flags included in the article when they have been a regular sight during the protests, have been seen at key moments during the protests and definitely has generated lots of debate particularly amongst the fascist officials in mainland China. I think there should be at least one photo of a protester waving a Uk/USA flag included in the article, if only to reflect the reality of what has been going on. I understand that there are other ways that this whole argument can be seen so any input on this would be helpful. Flaughtin (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess the problem with including any picture in this article is the licensing. I'm assuming most of the photographs of protestors flying US/UK flags are copyrighted. --Bangalamania (talk) 19:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There are lots of photos showing the protesters waving uk/usa flags that I found on wikimedia so the licensing isnt the issue. The issue is the aporopriateness (e.g. npov). Flaughtin (talk) 02:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Out of thousands of protesters, it is debatable the events are significant or not. People waving colonial Hong Kong flag (and even ROC flag) as memoirs too. It worth to add a short paragraph about flags to somewhere but the current wiki article is in chaotic state due to no outline and "too long to read". May be yet another sub-articles? Flags in 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests? Adding the throwing of PRC flag into the Vic. Harbour into the sub-articles if needed. Also, i don't think we need photo, or yes, photos of waving British, US, ROC, colonial Hong Kong flags into it. Lastly, for WP:OR issue, it need secondary source as citation and we, as a wiki editors are hardly to decide how significant it is as we don't have the statistical figure to cite. Matthew hk (talk) 08:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * User talk:Matthew hk We can say the flag waving is used as a tactic. Lots of source say this. Flaughtin (talk) 22:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Since there is thousands of protesters, any real citation indicated that most of them agree this tactics? Note that this protests were labelled as decentralization and no leader, and i doubt even you cite the primary source (the forum post / telegram chat record) are sufficient for WP:V. So no, due to no source and very controversial (accused for foreign influence). Matthew hk (talk) 06:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * This has been a notable part of the protests, so I would support including a picture, if there is one available.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

A new main page article about police brutality?

 * 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.

Seeing that 2019 Yuen Long attack has a section named "criticism of police's response", would it be plausible if we create one here? The UN has come out to accuse the police of using excessive force, and one of the five core demands was to investigate the police's behaviors during the protest. There are plenty to include, from misusing tear gas and rubber bullets to rushing into private properties, to allegedly colluding with triads, to rejecting various protest requests, to insulting and attacking reporters and first-aiders. OceanHok (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * It should have this section but the article currently a mess that too long and disoriented. It need someone to wrote an outline and heavily trim the article to throw out some minor detail to allow people to read. Wikipedia article should wrote in a historical context. And police brutality is one of the 5 demands of the protesters. Matthew hk (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a new main article on the subject? 65.60.163.223 (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * A spinoff seems good for the time being, certainly until this article length is reduced by a long margin. --Bangalamania (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I have not edited the wikipedia in many years, so please forgive me if I am not taking proper form in my comments.
 * I think this article should include a LARGE section of police brutality in this case. And not only that, it should also include a section about agent provocateurs. We see demonstrators that supposedly can only afoord a 2m by 1m home in full (expensive) riot gear destroying things, while the normal demonstrators remain peaceful. The violence is giving Bejing an excuse to come in with military, ending the 1 country 2 systems law. It reminds very much of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Tiananmen_Square_protests.
 * That article should be renamed Tiananmen Square Massacre, like everyone has known it for decades. Let us not hide the facts for a totalitarian regime that is willing to shoot down it's own unarmed students with tanks!
 * I just returned from Hong Kong, to visit my wives terminally ill father. The situation is not that the people from Hong Kong are destroying the city. It is Bejing. Everyone knows it.
 * 85.150.152.71 (talk) 07:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Agent provocateurs could only be a minor section due to conspiracy theory nature and hard to really WP:verify. The wording would only be the police admitted they had used spy, and protesters started to accuse EACH other as spy according to SECONDARY reliable source, and a little bit synthesis of source, causing the attack the Mainlander journalist (that without a work permit ) and a tourist that has the same name as Mainland police. Matthew hk (talk) 09:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, it seems like we have some agreement that in fact a new main page article about the topic is perhaps necessary. Currently, there is already this section about HKPF allegations of excessive force, which could be added to and drawn from, in addition to the information that is already in the articles on the current protest movement and the 2019 Yuen Long attacks article. I don't have much free time now, so I ask the community: Who wants to initiate creation of a new article on the topic? Thanks! : ) 65.60.163.223 (talk) 03:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, awesome, someone created this new section: Allegations of HK Police Force misconduct
 * If it expands into a big enough section then we can create a new main article page for this! 65.60.163.223 (talk) 03:39, 22 August 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.

Adding section for Predominant Slogans
I would like to add a new section for the Predominant Slogans used in the protest, with some reference cited explanatory background to the meanings:
 * Be Water
 * Liberate Hong Kong
 * Revolution of Our Times
 * No Rioters Only Tyranny

....any thoughts? Phileo (talk) 20:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Good idea! Maybe we can merge with the current section about songs ... "Songs and slogans of the democracy movement" or whatever.
 * Edit: The "Adapted songs" section is already pretty long. This probably deserves its own section. There was a "Popular culture" section but it has since been deleted. I think we could even make a new main article about the art, slogans, music, and popular culture in regards to the on-going democracy movement. Perhaps later on if others are interested. Also, this is a good article on the proposed topic:
 * 'Revolution of Our Times' Who came up with this protest chant and why is the government worried? 65.60.163.223 (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I would say it seem too many detail. Stick to the 5 demands is enough. Wikipedia is not a propaganda platform of either side and this article already too long to read (See also WP:Split). And Sorry i have to tag you (edit: Phileo 21:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)) for SPA due to edit history. We are the 99 in 1:99 protests in the US is what is needed for a campaign, not listing all the non-notable slogan. For "Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests", may be Edward Leung's slogan is also notable. But according to secondary source and the press conference by LIHKG forum (that was reported in the news due to limitation of wikiepdia on primary source), they can't apply the meaning of the slogan "Liberate Hong Kong, Revolution of Our Times" to other people. Since the secondary source are saying they can't confirm the meaning of the slogan , so did wikipedia should not apply any meaning to the slogan as wiki content. Reporting the slogan as a wiki content is fair enough. Matthew hk (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello. What is SPA?
 * Reporting about the culture of an historical event is not propaganda, it is documenting history! I have already proposed a different article about art of the protest movement, similar to Art of the Umbrella Movement that could include more detailed information about history of songs, slogans, etc., that offer a deeper understanding to the roots of the current issues. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * , SPA. I knew i should AGF. It is acceptable for ip and new user to edit this current affair article. But not a 14 years ago account which only had a few routine edits in recent years, suddenly so interested to suggest edit in this article, and without any global contribution. I am not bossing here as the probably the only active 200 wikipedian from Hong Kong (but not active in Hong Kong topics), but wikipedia is not a propaganda platform but reporting secondary source, i have patient to explain to new user, but not 14 y/o sleeper account. Matthew hk (talk) 09:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * My point is, stick to the major slogan that was reported in secondary source (news article), and this wiki article are way too long and a complete mess to read. We are the 99% had a dedicated article, consider to write a WP:Draft for "Liberate Hong Kong, Revolution of Our Times" or the 5 demands instead. I am not sure it pass WP:GNG or not BTW. Matthew hk (talk) 09:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree ... that is why I proposed to put this extra information as part of a broader, new main article about the art and creativity of the movement. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 20:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It would be good to know more about what the protests are about.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

. Wikipedia is not a webhost service for the protesters. See also WP:What wikipedia is not. We can only include slogans that widely reported by the secondary reliable source in this wiki article. Matthew hk (talk) 21:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Did I propose obscure slogans be included??? I heard there was some Hong Kong grandma who wrote a few cryptic characters on the back of an envelope, but sadly we can't include her thoughts...--Jack Upland (talk) 10:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Split police allegations
This article is over length and I propose to split off allegations of police off the police allegations 2019_Hong_Kong_anti-extradition_bill_protests to a new article to reduce article length. It can be covered in this article in summary. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, this has been an on-going conversation ... see above:
 * Currently, the existing section we have now looks like it needs a lot of cleanup, but eventually a main article about this would be good, I agree. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 05:17, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

question
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/22/british-consulate-china-media-claims-prostitutes

Should we include this in the page? I'm not sure if it has close connection to the topic.Mariogoods (talk) 07:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * In "counter-demonstration" ection? Are there any news report claimed the event is a white terror ? Matthew hk (talk) 07:59, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Maybe not. I think it belongs to Chinese government and media section. Also, I am confused that the meaning of "counter-demonstration" is countermethods the demonstrations or demonstrations aimed to counter the protests.Mariogoods (talk) 08:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Violence and hate speech in the protests section
Shoule we keep it or delete it? We should be careful. Mariogoods (talk) 10:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I am the one who added this. Wiki is neutral. I believe the section is important to provide info from all sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.166.60 (talk) 10:13, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with that adding section about (alleged) protesters' violence is nesserary. Be careful when adding content support of protests and opposion of protests since CoI problems. Mariogoods (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The user worded the sentence in an extremely problematic and subjective manner and the information added needed to be cover by secondary reliable source. OceanHok (talk) 14:39, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * At the moment, virtually all statements in this article lack secondary sources. A lot more work is needed. Please cite problematic sentences. --143.167.166.60 (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I have restored the section. Please make your case first before removing it. --143.167.166.60 (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment – Interesting that the section isn't titled "Alleged violence and alleged hate speech" ... perhaps a more neutral title for this section is appropriate ... although I question if this is prolific enough or well documented enough to warrant its own section in the first place? Why not include references to such behavior in the protest section when and where it happened to give better specific context? 65.60.163.223 (talk) 17:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I have changed the tile adding 'Alleged'. In my opinion, it is important to pair this section with the section on alleged police misconducts to make an easy comparison. --143.167.166.60 (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the update. However, I am also not sure that Hate speech is really the correct term for this. According to the Wikipedia page: "Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or a group on the basis of protected attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, [biological] sex, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity." I wonder if something like "taunts" or "derogatory speech" or "verbal threats" would be better? Other ideas? Thanks. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * "abuses"? --143.167.166.60 (talk) 20:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I think it should be clear that you are talking about speech. So maybe "abusive speech" or "verbal abuses"? Something like that? Thanks. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 22:39, 23 August 2019 (UTC)