The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hong Kong, a project to coordinate efforts in improving all Hong Kong-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Hong Kong-related articles, you are invited to join this project.Hong KongWikipedia:WikiProject Hong KongTemplate:WikiProject Hong KongHong Kong articles
An interesting list of films, maybe you could add additional years and popularity? A history of chinese film production may add depth, or even differences that occur with films from 1993 and 2019. Royo322 (talk) 04:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)ArroyoReply[reply]
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles
Cheng Ching-Tse (5 October 2019). "Wikipedia becomes a battleground for Taiwan and China". Taiwan News. Retrieved 5 October 2019. According to UDN, the Hong Kong protest page was edited 65 times in one day, mainly on the issue of whether Hongkongers should be referred to as "rioters" or "protesters."
Manas Sharma, Simon Scarr (28 October 2019). "How Hong Kong's keyboard warriors have besieged Wikipedia". Reuters. Retrieved 28 October 2019. A Reuters analysis found a seven-fold surge in edits of the Hong Kong Police Force page over the 10 months to October, compared with a year earlier. Similar spikes occurred in articles about the protests and Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam.
This article is written in Hong Kong English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, travelled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This page has previously been nominated to be moved. Before re-nominating, review the move requests listed below.
RM, 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests → 2019–20 Hong Kong protests, Moved, 1 January 2020, discussion
RM, 2019–20 Hong Kong protests → 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests, No consensus, 2 May 2020, discussion
RM, 2019–2021 Hong Kong protests → 2019–21 Hong Kong protests, Procedural close and moved back to 2019–20 Hong Kong protests, 31 December 2020, discussion
RM, 2019–20 Hong Kong protests → 2019–2021 Hong Kong protests, Moved to 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests, 4 April 2021, discussion
RM, 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests → ?, not moved, 2 July 2021, discussion
RM, 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests → Anti-Extradition Law Amendment Bill Movement, not moved, 10 August 2021, discussion
Older discussions
RM, 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests → 2019 Hong Kong protests, Not moved, 10 June 2019, discussion
RM, 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests → 2019 Hong Kong crisis, Not moved, 2 September 2019, discussion
RM, 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests → 2019 Hong Kong protests, Moved, 4 September 2019, discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was NO CONSENSUS. NytharT.C 08:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support split - To follow up on a previous discussion, since there is consensus to split, I suggest reducing the "Reactions", "Impact", "Local media coverage", "Police misconduct", "Online confrontations", "Background", "History" as well as the "Clashes between protesters and counter-protesters" sections to ONE paragraph each, and having the rest covered in the sub articles. Obviously, I am open to suggestions. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why are we having this discussion every other month... Reducing the sections to ONE paragraph is an absurd idea. For instance, the article for World War II has way more than just six paragraphs. We probably need a short overview on the changes in Hong Kong one year after the NSL was enacted, but other than, this article is completed and shouldn't be changed significantly. OceanHok (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is How to split need to be discuss. Or noone bold enough to throw out the details and leave the real essence to actually summarize the protest and the impact. Matthew hk (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong Support:This article is far too long, and that topic actually needs and deserves an article. You have my full support on this one.! Dunutubble (talk) 22:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dunutubble: we don't need another vote.....the previous discussion has concluded that the article need to be trim . Rather we need discussion on how. Matthew hk (talk) 00:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. Agree with Matthew. It's all about how. I saw his message on an online forum and I agree with his reasoning. 210.6.10.118 (talk) 13:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@210.6.10.118: (i know the ping does not work for ip, i just want the layout) Dude...I don't use online forum to discuss en-wikipedia matter (i do use discord and github to discuss POE wiki matter). Or did someone impersonating me? Or did someone just quote me? I am an old guy that CD-rom at LIHKG , as i don't have email to register there. I do have hkgolden.com account Matthew hk (talk) 23:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@OceanHok:, And World War 2 is a bad comparison. World War 2, is world war, it involve many battle, many countries. If you want to be more impactful for this 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests, dude........can you even do it like 400 words at least in lead? It is way too long as a summary article that people has lost interest to read it. I do read forum that this is new kind of misinfo war by bumping the article with junk or not so important info and detail so that discourage people to actually read it. This article has way many subarticles to place details. Matthew hk (talk) 01:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And for people in forum . Please create account. DONT use sock. I will submit anyone to WP:SPI. Learn to cite newspaper especially wiki widely acceptable source eg. WSJ, FT, The Economist, NYT. Some western media may be bad, some pro-Beijing newspaper may be bad (e.g. HKEJ), but it is necessary evil to use them. (unless they are discussed in WP:RSN to not use them) Buy book or borrow it from public library and drop down points (or scanner? pirating the whole book is not recommended btw), even they are published by Sino United Publishing, again necessary evil. (Of course on apolitical topic as the company is the mouthpiece of Central Gov) or check the author. I read a book that literally challenged the works by 劉智鵬. You can only add the version that other author rebutting 劉智鵬, or add both versions in articles, as it is harder for wiki editors to act as a professional to judge which version of geo history is right. But some are really common sense that you can easily reject and don't need to mention in wiki article. Also, use talk page more often, please leave discussion of HK topic in WP:WPHK page. Wikipedia is not that accepting the reasoning of we have discussed off-site and don't show the discussion to the public. I.e. Telegram group and discord. You can gossip there but "serious" matter such as which news articles should be used should leave it on wiki article talk page. Matthew hk (talk) 02:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I am not comparing the protests to the war itself. What I am trying to say is that I have never seen an article documenting history that has one paragraph per session. This is a stupid and absurd proposal. I agree with further trim (I have been involved with efforts to trim the article last year), but I definitely disagree with trimming the article at such a massive scale. OceanHok (talk) 11:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well said. And that's precisely also what Matthew hk pointed out above on how to split. (And thank you for bringing this up in the forum.) 124.217.189.132 (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Concur with Matthew hk. Thanks for the notice in the private group. 219.76.18.205 (talk) 10:51, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree to split the “impact” part to a separate article, but the idea of having only one paragraph for each section is absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikipedianUser12 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.
While the article has a section about Police misconduct, it is missing a section about Protesters violence. The "Radical group" subsection is created only for violent tactics, and it's not a good place for adding acts of violence which are not part of a tactic.
The violence of the protesters is a reality and the topic deserves to be mentioned in the article. At this moment, Death of Luo Changqing is presented like being part of the event and the article tries to hide the fact that she was killed by a protester, while describing in detail whatever the government and police did wrong. At this moment, protester violence is presented as a somehow heroic tactics of resistance against oppression, tactics that include violence.
The protesters set on fire a construction worker, identified as Mr. Lee, who survived.[1][2]
Luo Changqing, a 70-year-old cleaner, died from head injuries sustained after he was hit by a brick thrown by a Hong Kong protester
Journalist beaten in airport, Hong Kong officer mutilated in acid attack and more - [1]
There is no need for a separate section when these events are mentioned elsewhere in the article. Nor is wanting to specifically highlight "protesters violence" a great reason for creating a separate, redundant subsection. Citobun (talk) 09:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CitobunDgtdddsx123 - So you agree such incidents of violence can be mentioned in the "Radical group" subsection? Barecode (talk) 09:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I concur with Citobun that this shouldn't be a section. Luo and the guy who was lit on fire were already discussed in the article and there is no point repeating again. We tried to avoid discussing singlular incident unless it was very important and notable. This page is not meant to be an exhaustive list of violent actions. I don't see any problem with mentioning violence against police in the radical section. OceanHok (talk) 12:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I haven't noticed that those things were mentioned in the article already. I apologize. Barecode (talk) 13:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Reply[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
