Talk:Localism in Hong Kong

Requested move 21 February 2016

 * 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: no consensus. No consensus on which new title to be used (non-admin closure). sst✈ 16:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Localism in Hong Kong → Localism (Hong Kong movement) – While a quite limited number of recent, local sources seem to dub the movement "Localism", this supposedly "newly emerging" movement bears almost nothing in common with Localism, neither does it constitute a distinct ideology. The ethnolinguistic background of Catalonian, Basque or Kurdish separatism, or the religious background of the Northern Ireland conflict may be missing, but quite much like, say, Scottish separatism, the movement constitutes good old separatism with the typical wide spectrum between nationalist/secessionist and regionalist/pro-democracy tendencies. The current title Localism in Hong Kong is inacceptable, as this movement doesn't represent Localism in Hong Kong, not even some Hong Kong flavor of Localism, but constitutes a completely different meaning of "localism". PanchoS (talk) 23:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that Hong Kong localism might be a less clumsy alternative. --PanchoS (talk) 23:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The nominator's arguments seem prima facie correct. If this is the case, Hong Kong localism would also be misleading as it treats this topic as a subset of localism.  —  AjaxSmack   01:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. Good catch; the usage here is significantly distinct from the broader meaning of localism (politics). I would much prefer to use another term, but I am unsure whether any of the alternative words such as "nativism" or "autonomism" are acceptable. So I am leaning towards support of the nominator's proposal, as the least-worst option. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * An RfD might be just as good a solution. The page was trash.  I've spent a little while trying to run some fixes on it but it's really beyond redemption.  It begins from what is probably a false premise, i.e. that the term is capable of definition at all.  Anything can be stuffed into this box and the result is aimless drivel.  Nothing worth keeping here. sirlanz Sirlanz 15:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. I would say to redirect it to Localism (Hong Kong) which is a less clumsy title, although I do not have a problem with the original title at all. I do notice the problems between the Hong Kong localism and localism (politics) and it is quite unfortunate as the media has already picked up "localism" as the translation and is becoming widely accepted. However, since there could be many variants in one ideology, as liberalism can vary from social to economic, classical to neoliberalism. Who has the say that only localism (politics) can be the only explanation of all localisms worldwide? As Thailand has also developed its own localism (see sufficiency economy). I think the original title should be fine as long as it explains itself in the article. Lmmnhn (talk) 12:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Lmmnhn's struggle to put forward any sort of coherent position here is enough said - point made. There's nothing of substance to come to grips with here.  The page can never be more than an interesting discussion forum, way too amorphous.  sirlanz Sirlanz 05:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The very title of the page is a misnomer. What Lmmnhn is really trying to write about is political localists, i.e. the accurate translation of the Chinese term, "Localist Camp" and the entire content should be moved to a page of that name.  "Localism" is a generic English term and should not be hijacked to a political use as it has been here.  To do so in this way and insist upon (reversed edit) displaying the Britain-flavoured independence flag prominently beside the word is worthy of suspicion as an attempt to paint the entire localist sentiment black, serving unworthy CCP interests.  That's simply scandalous and should be removed.  At best, Lmmnh and others are insensitive to any sort of accuracy in the use of English and blithely waltz along wrecking it.  sirlanz Sirlanz 14:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. Localist camp may be a better title. The article can describe a league of political groups who go by that name, instead of a political thought. --Jabo-er (talk) 10:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The article does not only talk about the current faction but also the historical background and variants of localist trends. It cannot be simply put into one category. Lmmnhn (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - I agree that "Localist camp" or "Localist movement in Hong Kong" would be a more appropriate name. STSC (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I would propose to rename the title as "Localist sentiment in Hong Kong" when this move proposal is closed. STSC (talk) 05:12, 7 March 2016 (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.

Unsourced POV + Single-sourced Paraphrase
There is very little support for anything on this page. It's mainly just the polemic of its originator followed by a long synopsis of a single work (which, of course, is just one person's interpretation of history). And with the reinstatement of all his or her own trash English by Lmmnhn, it also reads appallingly. There's every reason to take it down or for the little in it of value to be moved to Localist Politics (Hong Kong Movement) or similar. So, if I haven't made myself clear, I support PanchoS's original suggestion.

Relevance of official identity cards to localist sentiment
None, in a word. Well, that's my view. Lmmnhn has his/hers, too, completely unsourced and insisted upon (reversal of my edit taking it out). It's a total red herring. The suggestion that anyone's putting down cultural roots in a place is strongly or even a little influenced by receiving an identity card is patent nonsense. Most humans on Earth don't have them, so if Lmmnhn is to be relied upon, they're all at sea. It's puerile nonsense. And, by the way, I was here when they were introduced and (Lmmnhn will say I'm insensitive, I suppose) it was an unwelcome adminstrative measure wasting everyone's time having to queue up to get them. That was the only emotional impact it had on the Hong Kong populace. Back to my main point, though, it's completely unsourced POV and must go. Unless Lmmnhn would like to defend it? Hello? sirlanz Sirlanz 14:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The stupid Lmmnhn is just reverting ANY OTHER PERSON's edit... This is surely bad trend of Wikipedia, as Lmmnhn's ugly action will threat new editors! 45.64.240.246 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Localism in Hong Kong. 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://web.archive.org/web/20140714232246/http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=30&art_id=134342&sid=39765760&con_type=1&d_str=20130605&isSearch=1&sear_year=2013 to http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=30&art_id=134342&sid=39765760&con_type=1&d_str=20130605&isSearch=1&sear_year=2013

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) 02:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit by User:Lmmnhn
I am reverting this again. The editor never afforded us the courtesy of an edit summary in the original edit, which introduces a blizzard of egregious grammatical errors.


 * 'Advocate for' - the verb 'to advocate' takes no preposition
 * I am unable to glean any central meaning from the following sentence: The colonial government encouraged the free movement of capital and labour and there was not a strict sense of "Hong Kong residents" or "Hong Kong people" legally, as the Hong Kong identity cards were not introduced as identity documents by the government in 1949 in the light of the influx of refugees fleeing from the Communists' takeover in Mainland China.
 * "unprecedented waves of student movements" requires the plural form "were". Why change it to the incorrect "was"?
 * Replacement of "which emerged" with "came to exist": why has the non-defining relative 'which' been removed? It is indispensable to the grammatical structure.
 * Replacement of the correct "decision to implement" with the incorrect "decision of implementing"
 * "successfully made Chinese to become the official language of Hong Kong" - grammatically incorrect English again replacing a correct construction, without explanation
 * "7.1 People Pile was one of the groups came to exist after the protest." - a necessary relative again removed
 * "the government's decision of implementing" - another incorrect grammatical construction replacing a correct one without explanation
 * "made the government to back down on the policy" - the idiomatic phrasal verb construction is "to make someone do something", not "to make someone to do something".
 * Replacement of "arguing" with "argues" - incorrect grammar replacing correct, again
 * "criticised the western style democracy" : Why has the capital letter on "Western" been removed? Why has the hyphen been removed? Why has an unidiomatic definite article been introduced?
 * "securing of nearly 20 per cent of the vote share" - another piece of incorrect English replacing a correct construction ("securing nearly 20 per cent of the vote"). With what end in mind?

Further point requiring explanation:
 * Why has "radical" been replaced with "right-wing"?

I am willing to correct content if some explanation of why changes are necessary is given, but not without it. Please reintroduce any changes one sentence at a time, with an edit summary explaining each one. William Avery (talk) 09:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Criticism
Does anyone else think this article should have section dedicated to criticism of Localism? It appears to be a very divisive ideology with its anti-mainlander sentiment and its assertion of a separate "Hong Kong" identity despite the fact that most people in Hong Kong are ethnically Chinese. Charles Essie (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2018 (UTC)