Talk:2019–2020 Hong Kong protests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Article milestones
April 8, 2020Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
July 26, 2020Peer reviewNot reviewed
In the newsNews items involving this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on June 11, 2019, June 24, 2019, October 2, 2019, December 3, 2019, and June 5, 2020.

Article size split[edit]

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. (talk) 13:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ (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 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.) (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@, @ You show up as troll for a block too? Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#HK unregistered ip cult again. Matthew hk (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What~!? (talk) 10:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Matthew hk:? (talk) 11:40, 11 November 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 (talkcontribs) 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.

Protesters violence[edit]

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]

Barecode (talk) 06:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
This would be the page you need: One can leave both negative/positive comments for the protests on this page.Dgtdddsx123 (talk) 06:23, 08 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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]
Citobun Dgtdddsx123 - 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]
One can leave both negative/positive comments/own feelings for the protests on this page: Of course, don't be too aggressive:) Dgtdddsx123 (talk) 11:39, 09 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]