Talk:Joshua Wong

Comment
Nowhere does it say "turd" in the Fox news article. I don't have a Gibsonian dog in this fight, I just don't like to see poor quality / vandalised articles. 120.148.217.45 (talk) 17:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Someone vandalized the article earlier. Thanks for pointing t out, I have reverted the vandalism. --Dps04 (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * If vandalism from numerous IP persists, we may consider requesting for page protection. --Dps04 (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Per consensus arguments. Philg88 ♦talk 09:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Joshua Wong ( student activist) → Joshua Wong Chi-fung – Articles use the proposed name also. The Hong Kong name formatting should be used per WP:NATURAL. George Ho (talk) 22:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The first 10 sources (English language) all refer to him as "Joshua Wong". Zero say "Joshua Wong Chi-fung". Stickee (talk) 02:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You're wrong, Stickee. Most out of 91 articles results use the proposed name. --George Ho (talk) 03:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What link are you looking at?
 * 5,320 results - Joshua Wong
 * 14 results - Joshua Wong Chi-fung
 * (Screenshot) Stickee (talk) 04:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Joshua Wong Chi-fung: Today (Singapore), South China Post, Stuff (New Zealand), Ventura County Star. Umm... the "Joshua Wong" results lead to only 111, not 100,000+ or 60,000+, because I could not pass the 12th page. I'm just using News, not Search, to narrow down usage. Which one is preferable, the parenthetical disambiguation or the natural disambiguation? --George Ho (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. There's no official recognition of this so-called "HK-name formatting", and is just randomly applied in sources. Keep at the current title; sources seem to favor the name Joshua Wong. --Cold Season (talk) 15:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There have been renamings recently. Connie Mak Kit-man, Raymond Chan Chi-chuen, and Jasper Tsang Yok-sing are examples because of requested moves. Perhaps request moves there? --George Ho (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Support local style attested to in sources outside of HK as well as in HK per George's news results. As this is an HK person, HK style can be used to naturally disambiguate titles. It also has the advantage of showing both recognized partial names (Chinese name, English name) at the same time. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - Do we still identify him as "student activist" when he's 60 years old? "Joshua Wong Chi-fung" does not have this kind of time constraint. STSC (talk) 07:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose EL sources don't use "HK-name formatting". It's a good point about "student", though - there's definitely no need for the word. Since the pre-existing Joshua Wong "article" actually redirects to Wong brothers, I think the entire parenthetical qualification is unnecessary, and the disambig page should be deleted and replaced with a hat-note. Approximately no one is actually looking for the mid-C20 Chinese-Indonesian film-maker. zzz (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I will remove "student" soon; signedzzz, Joshua Wong is now a disambiguation page. --George Ho (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, George. It seems fine now, but I would still suggest deleting the disambig page Joshua Wong, and adding a hatnote to this article directing to Wong brothers. zzz (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - There's no clear evidence that "Joshua Wong" is significantly more common than "Joshua Wong Chi-fung". We'll need to choose the full name as per WP:PRECISION. STSC (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No idea how reliable Googlefight is, but the result is 13,500 vs. 1,700,000: 'Joshua Wong' wins (KO, round 1). zzz (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Google includes blogs and fansites and other unreliable sources, according to what WP:DIVIDEDUSE says. Let's stick to reliable sources and move away from statistics for now. --George Ho (talk) 05:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * For God sake, there're many other Joshua Wongs in this world. STSC (talk) 06:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I hope this helps: Joshua Wong Chi-fung (13,000+) vs Joshua Wong activist (100,000+). --George Ho (talk) 06:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That result of Joshua Wong + activist would also include Joshua Wong Chi-fung + activist because they share the same key words Joshua Wong. Besides, the Googlefight is only a fun site, not designed for serious information retrieval. STSC (talk) 15:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Google - SCMP, NYT + Quartz vs. - CNN, BBC, Guardian, Time, FT, etc. And it doesn't get better on the next pages. I don't recall seeing 'Joshua Wong Chi-fung' before. Many readers would be led to believe we don't have an article. zzz (talk) 16:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Add "activist" and you get 500,000+ results; use Umbrella instead, 420,000(?). --George Ho (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Activist: SCMP, Economist, CNN, BBC. Umbrella: CBC, HuffPo, SCMP, Reuters. But I can't be certain because additional words are scattered around descriptions. --George Ho (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Wait... Scrap "Joshua" and you get 443,000+. EJ Insight uses his Chinese name but also uses Joshua separately. --George Ho (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose We need to avoid using long titles such as 'Joshua Wong Chi-fung' per WP:TITLE, it should be either 'Joshua Wong (activist)' or just 'Wong Chi-fung', per WP:NC-ZH. Plus media refer him as 'Joshua Wong', which per WP:NATURAL, makes 'Joshua Wong (activist)' a valid title. T he Avatar (discuss–?) 18:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Correction, Tavatar: "(activist)" is two characters longer than "Chi-fung" (eight characters). --George Ho (talk) 19:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * (activist) is a disambiguation. T he Avatar (discuss–?) 19:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You are so grateful because AutoComplete exists to help you search easily. Too bad I or anyone else would type the whole article title. Can a reader think "activist" or "Chi-fung" logically? --George Ho (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Mild support per WP:NATURAL, though current notability as (activist) is reasonable. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose I am used to seeing this format in HK newspapers, but it's natural only to people accustomed to reading English-language newspapers and sites from HK and Macao and nowhere else. I dislike intensely the name format, which I think is sooo confusing for outsiders. It's one thing to recognise names in Chinese format, like Leung Kwok-hung or Xi Jinping, it's quite another thing to introduce to WP a heavily local variant where the surname is buried somewhere in the middle of the name cluster. I would support a move of the article to the undisambiguated namespace Joshua Wong instead. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 03:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The student activist is not more notable than the long-time filmmaker of Wong brothers. --George Ho (talk) 04:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think disambiguation pages are only used when there's more than one alternative. And the alternative in this case isn't even an article with the same name. zzz (talk) 11:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You only need a dab page if there's more than two notable pages per WP:2DABS. Otherwise just stick with a hatnote. T he Avatar (discuss–?) 17:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

1) I cannot see why "Joshua Wong Chi-Fung" would be more significant than "Joshua Wong (activist)". Moreover, I wonder whether it would be counterproductive. I think that the title "Joshua Wong (activist)" is just enough. The full name at the very beginning of it, is just fine, in case that clarification is needed. 2) If we check Joshua's personal profiles in his social media, the English name he shows is simply "joshuawong1013." You can also look at this video: in the minute 1:32, and 2:11, he displays his profile at Facebook and the English name is shown simply as "Joshua Wong." [Edit]: Here's the link of his English profile at Facebook: "Joshua Wong." 3) There're might be other "Joshua Wongs" in this world, but I don't know yet about any other world-wide known activist named Joshua Wong. If you know about another promiment activist named Joshua Wong, I would totally agree with this article being renamed, but I think this is not the case, as far as I know. 4) I think that in international media, he has also became known simply as the young activist "Joshua Wong." In English we can check at the BBC, or The Telegraph, or at CNN, at The New York Times, or at Times Magazine, an other sources. None of such sources mention him as "Joshua Wong Chi-Fung", and it is also the context which tells to which Joshua Wong were're referring to. We can see the same trend in sources in other languages, like in Italian, in French, in Portuguese, or in Spanish. All these sources simply refer to him as Joshua Wong.--Goose friend (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose: on the basis of the following arguments:
 * I have been searching for the proposed name from non-HK and non-China sources from last 30 days. Enquirer Herald (South Carolina), Associated Press via Dispatch (Columbus, Ohio), and The News Tribune (Tacoma, Washington) use the Chinese/English name. Some Caucasian guy working for Chinese press uses Joshua Wong Chi-fung. --George Ho (talk) 03:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That there are sources which use the full name, I do not deny. But we still have the most-well known sources referring him simply as Joshua Wong. In any case, that covers my argument 4), but there are other three arguments.--Goose friend (talk) 05:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sometimes, even well-known sources may be detested by anybody, especially non-Americans, for its blatant misleads and shoddy works. I don't know, but perhaps Western press would rather choose "Joshua Wong" and activist, leader, or protester, while Asian sources would choose either name for further distinction. --George Ho (talk) 17:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Valid points made, I think changing the title to "Joshua Wong Chi-fung" would make the article less notable, almost every major media resource refer him as "Joshua Wong" and dab (activist) in the end just means he's the only notable activist in the world named "Joshua Wong". Without prior knowledge of his Chinese name, I would find Chi-fung confusing. T he Avatar (discuss–?) 21:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I must say I had exactly the same impression Tavatar had. I couldn't have said it any better.--Goose friend (talk) 01:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This article is a biography, not a who's who in the news. Wikipedia suggests not just news sources to establish the common name; there're also books, scholarly literatures, encyclopaedias, JSTOR, etc. STSC (talk) 06:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There aren't any books, scholarly journals, et cetera about him yet. Just popular news articles and magazines. --George Ho (talk) 08:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Name again
Getting back to last year's discussion about his name—do we really need that Chi-fung part at the top of the article? Does anybody outside of Hong Kong refer to him as Joshua Wong Chi-fung? Wouldn't it make more sense if the article started: "Joshua Wong (Chinese: 黃之鋒, born 13 October 1996) is a Hong Kong student activist..." The romanization of his Chinese name could then be added to the box on the right, or somewhere in between those brackets that follow  Joshua Wong .

(Also, I'm translating this article for the Russian Wikipedia—where it does exist, but is pitifully short. Could somebody tell me if the "Hong Kong name formatting" mentioned in the discussion above holds any sort of official power? Or is it just a convenient way people use to squeeze the English and Chinese names together?) Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If a source uses "Chi-fung", removing it would be detrimental to others. However, for Russian-language sources, what is his name in Russian language? See MOS:LEAD and MOS:ZH for more details on editing English-language pages. --George Ho (talk) 14:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, in the media they call him Джошуа Вонг, which is just 'Joshua Wong' in cyrillic. I would personally go with that, but the current version of the article that I'm planning to expand puts his Chinese and English names together, and no one really knows him as Джошуа Вонг Чи-Фун. But whatever, I think I'll do what I think is right and see if it sits well with the other editors of the Russian Wiki. Thanks for your reply! :) Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 16:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * For Russian version, just use whatever most Russian-language sources consistency use for Russian-translated name. I'm unsure about including English name, but include Chinese-language name. --George Ho (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * However, for lead, do not remove "Чи-Фун" if at least one Russian source uses it. --George Ho (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * english-givenname chinese-family chinese-givenname is the standard way way of using names in Hong Kong. My nephew is Jim Wong Yuk-Cheung, there are the actors Tony Leung Chiu-Wai, Tony Leung Ka-fai and Moses Chan Ho. I would expect to see the subject of this page to be refered to as Joshua Wong Chi-fung. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.251.53 (talk) 01:37, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Post-Umbrella Movement is absurd term.
"Post-Umbrella Movement" is absurd, because the "Umbrella movement" is real current movement when people in Hong Kong are going out on the streets on the demonstrations with the umbrellas, so the paragraph title looks here like "Post-Feminism Movement" or "Post-Black Lives Matter", that is absurd. Maybe the term for paragraph "Consequences of Umbrella Revolution" or just "Umbrella Movement" are more appropriate. --PoetVeches (talk) 10:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Personal life - need new section
Much useful material on his personal life, and more, in this interview with his father SCMP. Cossaxx (talk) 21:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 9 October 2017

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

The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain t/ c 14:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Joshua Wong (activist) → Joshua Wong – The existing disambiguation page at Joshua Wong is trivial - the only other article is of low interest and already cross-referred in a hat-note here. Cossaxx (talk) 21:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support per Cossaxx zzz (talk) 21:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support It's clear from the |Joshua_Wong|Wong_brothers small number of hits for the other possible namespaces that the activist is the most sought after page. There is no page for the other Joshua Wongs, and the disambiguation role could be performed by a hat note on the page of the activist's biography. --Ohconfucius (on the move) (talk) 12:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support per nominator and others. Citobun (talk) 13:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Delete the DAB page per WP:TWODABS.  —  AjaxSmack  00:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support per above, it is clear Joshua Wong the activist is the primary topic here. --Dps04 (talk) 13:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joshua Wong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130430065154/http://news.sina.com.hk/news/2/1/1/2785007/1.html to http://news.sina.com.hk/news/2/1/1/2785007/1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism
Hi, I just reverted an edit in Heiko Maas' article that called him a "white colonialist" -- I think the 914990069 edit here, very close temporally to that one, is an attempt to smear the subjects involved re: their gathering and China's discontent at that. I'm not terribly interested in learning Wikipedia conventions and running it through the proper channels, but thought I should make a note to those willing to examine this. 212.8.100.248 (talk) 16:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The revision history shows inconsistencies in the treatment of vandalism. Some such edits are completely greyed and crossed out while others are not. I would like to call for the remaining ones to also be treated in the former fashion.--CRau080 (talk) 05:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Referred website in infobox
I would like to suggest the removal of the "Website" entry in the infobox. By all appearances, this (Wordpress) site of Joshua Wong has not been updated since 2013. --CRau080 (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we should keep the website but add his Twitter page, where he actively posts. --Johnnyyiu (talk) 07:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)