Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:05, 4 October 2014

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Hong Kong High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Hong Kong To-do: edit history watch purge Attention needed (60) ...needing expert attention (4) • ...without infoboxes (19) Collaboration needed Recommend topic Improvement needed GA-Class articles (60) • B-Class articles (297) Cleanup needed C-Class articles (1,067) Image needed (348) Destub needed Start-Class articles (5,518) • Stub-Class articles (6,677) Deorphan needed ...orphans Page creation needed Requested articles Miscellaneous tasks ...maintain popularity • ...assess the un-Class (379) • ...assess the un-Importance (1,339) Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. China High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology: Social Movements This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the social movements task force.

Talk:2014 Hong Kong protests\Edit guide

Connection to Ferguson Protests “Hands up don't shoot”

It looks like there is a connection to 2014 Ferguson unrest. I think it should be included. Here are several references --Nowa (talk) 06:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

As a Hong Konger, I think (though not 100% sure) most of Hong Kong people do not know what Ferguson unrest is. However, it may be good to put it under "Foreign media". -Hijk910 (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. See this reference. "Instead, the gesture is a result of training and instructions from protest leaders..."--Nowa (talk) 00:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a gesture to show that the protesters are unarmed. Rimsky.cheng (talk) 08:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• I have added within the chronology section. I have also appended dates as sub-heading, as I found it difficult otherwise to follow the sequence of events. Fellow editors might want to check to ensure that the events are under the correct dates and make any necessary corrections. - Mailer Diablo 10:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a universal sign, not based on Fergason. Even the supplied ref says that some observers said it was "reminiscent" of Fergeson, but the article texts says it "mimics" Ferguson. That is not the same thing at all. Legacypac (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

What the hell is Ferguson? Nobody cares about it, it is none of our business and has nothing to do with the situation in Hong Kong. Why does the US media invent such nonsense? The "hands up, don't shoot" gesture is an old, universal sign, please delete these absurd claims and stop spreading misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.47.31.166 (talk) 04:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Why is this even coming up again? I thought I already explained how that confusion spread and provided evidence there's no connection. But it got deleted?Karolle (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Umbrella Revolution

Is this name getting much coverage in HK English-language media, or elsewhere? I've only heard it mentioned in passing in British/American news sources. I'm not sure that wikipedia should be referring to it as such, yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasAndrewNimmo (talk • contribs) 15:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The term has received extensive coverage in Western media sources. (Some examples: , , , , , , and ) Inthefastlane (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Could the reason this "Umbrella Revolution" has such coverage here be that it is fake? Just another in a long line of US backed Color Revolts? For this is almost carbon-copy of many other 'up-risings'. As with Syria, first the 'Free-loving' protester take to the streets - to wait for the an over-reaction by the powers-to-be. Next, if things are running to plan, the US will table its 'concern' at Human Rights outrages in the MSM and at the UN. Given this, will Misplaced Pages class this as a Color Revolt?

78.147.81.109 (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd recommend familiarizing yourself with Misplaced Pages editing guidelines before you make any further Misplaced Pages edits. Inthefastlane (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, that was quick! And yet, just what have I said that goes against the rules? For while my general tone might not be to certain editors liking, does not history indicate that the "Umbrella Revolution" have much in common with the Color Revolts? 78.147.81.109 (talk) 20:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

P.S: And, given that "Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, a battleground or a vehicle for propaganda", I recommend that the whole Umbrella article be totally rewritten to reflect a balanced (non-US centered) POV.

78.147.81.109 (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

My post was quick, but it wasn't as quick as your original post, which, to any serious editor, was soapboxing. Of course nobody is stopping you from adding material that reflects the pro- Chinese government narrative, but given your unsubstantiated (and, frankly, fringe) theories that the Umbrella Revolution is fake and a product of foreign intervention, I would recommend that you thoroughly familiarize yourself with Misplaced Pages editing guidelines before making any Misplaced Pages edits. Inthefastlane (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the article does need more perspectives/reactions coming from the pro-China/anti-occupy side, for a balanced article. Lasersharp (talk) 01:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Inthefastlane's IP is likely linked to the student movement in Hong Kong. Dark Liberty (talk) 04:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

FYI that 遮打革命 has been used by multiple Chinese media also. For those who don't know, 遮 is a Cantonese term for "umbrella", 打 means hit, and 遮打 is the Chinese transcription for Chater Road, a nearby road in the district. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 09:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Since I have no interest in pushing a pro-Chinese government narrative, Misplaced Pages should avoid putting out anti-Chinese information. For the history of Color Revolts has been well substantiated and, frankly, is far from a "fringe" concept. Check out the time-lines of the Syria Revolts and Umbrella Revolutions - they match!

92.16.155.181 (talk) 22:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC) .

Archived Content

this information should be inserted into the body:

Methods:

• Occupation
• Nonviolent resistance
• Civil disobedience
• Demonstrations
• Sit-ins

Stated Goals:

• Universal suffrage
• Resignation of Chief Executive CY Leung
• Immediate withdrawal of the decision on political reform by the National People's Congress Standing Committee

Dark Liberty (talk) 05:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

What about including into the body text?

Methods: Color Revolts - US backed protests

Neo-con goals:

As in Syria, to turn protests violent. This would guarantee a crushing response from the ruling Party and undermine the country's international standing.

84.13.14.146 (talk) 10:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

RM (October 2014)

It has been proposed in this section that 2014 Hong Kong protests be renamed and moved to Umbrella Revolution. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

2014 Hong Kong protests → Umbrella Revolution – Rather than the generic WP:NDESC title that we currently have, I believe we should use the proper name commonly used in reliable sources "Umbrella Revolution". This title is widely used. As an example, one can see these two articles articles from The New York Times, this article from Bloomberg News, this article from The Guardian, this article from The Huffington Post, this article from CNN, and this article from Slate. There is no justification for retaining a WP:NDESC title when an unambiguous proper name is used across the news media, and I believe that this term is "Umbrella Revolution". RGloucester — ☎ 16:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC) RGloucester — ☎ 16:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

well HKP has 10,100,000 google hits; UR has 7,620,000. not much of a consensus there. I sense the nomenclature is political !? 198.24.31.117 (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

"Hong Kong protests" could refer to anything. "Umbrella Revolution" is a proper noun, and is used by reliable sources. RGloucester — ☎ 17:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

well, civil unrest in 2014 is pretty specific. is there a protestor that calls themselves a revolutionary? could calling them one be a political act? 2 states; one solution could be the slogan. 198.24.31.117 (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

This strikes me as WP:OR. Can we follow the sources, please? RGloucester — ☎ 17:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

oh really, I seem to recall many protestors being interviewed in reliable sources: is there a single one that says revolution? or are they calling for strict adherence to Hong Kong Basic Law? do you have sources other than outsiders editorializing? is not this name a POV framing to suit one party, that flouts One country, two systems. 198.24.31.117 (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

your source NYT says: "Hong Kong Protests Are Leaderless but Orderly" . 198.24.31.117 (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it does. It then goes on to talk about the "Umbrella Revolution" as the name for these protests. RGloucester — ☎ 20:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment In any case, I think we should retitle the article into something more specific. Either "Occupy Central protests" or "Umbrella Revolution" is better than the unspecific name we currently have. As a Hongkonger I can say that we have protests every weekend. The Chinese-language media uniformly calls it the Occupy Central movement or protests (佔中行動/佔中示威). _dk (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Only English-language sources matter for discussions of title naming. I favour Umbrella Revolution, as it has really caught on in English-language media over the past few days, as shown. RGloucester — ☎ 17:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid taking opinions of those either from Hong Kong or from China would violate WP:Neutrality and would have a conflict of interest, even if you were in favor of the term Occupy Central. Dark Liberty (talk) 02:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm thinking of the many people that might hear the term "Umbrella Revolution" in passing and not know what it is; they should be able to find an article under the same name on Misplaced Pages. See Commonly recognizable names CatanOverlord (talk) 19:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Neutral Oppose - Why do the media use "Umbrella Revolution"? The whole article discusses protests, not the whole campaign. Unfortunately, Sunflower Student Movement should have been just "2014 Taiwan protests". I don't know which interests the Western media more: Taiwan, a small island across Taiwan Strait; or Hong Kong, a tiny state of China? --Gh87 in the public computer (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Not exactly sure what you mean. Reliable sources refer to these protests as such, as so to should we. That's what our guidelines and policy state. It doesn't really matter why. Names like "2014 Taiwan protests" are examples of what is called a WP:NDESC title. These are only used if there is no commonly used proper name for an event. There was in the case that you mention, and there is here. That's why we use the common name. RGloucester — ☎ 20:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm changing my vote. Also, what happened to applying WP:POVNAME? Is the proposed name colloquial, discouraged by POVNAME? --George Ho (talk) 04:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing "POV" about it, as I said, unless "Umbrellas" have some kind of subversive significance in Chinese mythology. This name is not colloquial, it is used by thousands of reliable sources, including reputable newspapers, as I've demonstrated. Anyway, even if it was "POV", POVNAME states "In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Misplaced Pages might appear as endorsing one side of an issue". RGloucester — ☎ 05:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Keep name I think what we have right now is fine. Umbrella Revolution redirects here so people will find this article if they search on that name.--Nowa (talk) 22:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not an adequate justification for ignoring the commonly-used name by reliable sources. We have guidelines on this matter. RGloucester — ☎ 22:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank for the links to the guidelines. I did some Google searches to see if there was a dominant name. Here are the results:

• “2014 Hong Kong protests” 8 thousand
• 2014 “Hong Kong protests” 1.6 million
• “Umbrella revolution” 0.8 million
• 2014 “Hong Kong protests” – “umbrella revolution” 1.5 million

So at least for me, "Hong Kong Protests" is currently the dominant term. That's not to say "Umbrella Revolution" is not an important term, but we are acknowledging its importance with the redirect.--Nowa (talk) 23:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Google searches are not useful here. "2014 Hong Kong protests" can refer to any other protests in Hong Kong in the past year, and there have been plenty. What's more, articles that use "2014 Hong Kong protests" may well also use "Umbrella Revolution", as you demonstrated with your last search, because "Hong Kong protests" is descriptive, whereas "Umbrella Revolution" is the name of those protests. There are tons of false hits. Reliable sources are calling it these events the "Umbrella Revolution", and describing the Umbrella Revolution as "Hong Kong protests". Just as we should do. I've provided reliable sources, whereas you have not. RGloucester — ☎ 23:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the search term 2014 “Hong Kong protests” – “umbrella revolution” looks for pages that refer to the current “Hong Kong Protests” without using the term “Umbrella revolution”. Here are a few examples from the past week: Washington Post, New York Times, NPR, Straights Times, BBC--Nowa (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

More and more sources are using the term now. Notice that they describe the "Umbrella Revolution" as "Hong Kong protests". This is essential. One must realise that "Hong Kong protests" is descriptive, whereas the proper name for the protests is "Umbrella Revolution". RGloucester — ☎ 23:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I would agree that more and more sources are using the term “Umbrella Revolution”, but I still don't see any evidence that it is the dominant term. But, having said that, we don't need to agree. We can each have our own opinion.--Nowa (talk) 00:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Google searches are very relevant, there is even a pillar about it. As a software analyst with some familiarity with the Wikimedia Foundation and the the code of Misplaced Pages, Misplaced Pages would be some would say, as active, data-driven and crowd-sourced through every link and search that exists on the internet. basically, Misplaced Pages is completely driven by Google searches. Dark Liberty (talk) 03:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support - As stated by RGloucester, there are many WP:RS that use the name Umbrella Revolution plus this name is vague and doesn't go in depth with the protests. There are many protests in Hong Kong and that may seem misleading. Then again this is an opinion but I feel that the name Umbrella Revolution is more appropriate--Acetotyce (talk) 00:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
• Not Yet We don't know if this is even a revolution just yet. The current name has the advantage of being NPOV. Legacypac (talk) 02:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

What is a "revolution" or not is determined by reliable sources, not by our own WP:OR. Reliable sources call it as such, presumably in reference to the colour revolutions (i.e. Orange Revolution), which were not "revolutions" necessarily in the traditional sense. There is nothing "non-neutral" about the proposed title, unless "umbrellas" imply some kind of subversion I'm not aware of. RGloucester — ☎ 02:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Keep name I don't think the term will be known by people a few years down the line, and more than likely it will be described as 2014 Hong Kong protests in history textbooks. We should use the correct nomenclature for historical events. Umbrellas and Sunflowers would be as they perceived it; just as we can't title events based on some failed marketing campaign. If the Islamic State called themselves the Sons of Ra, are we going to listen to them? Dark Liberty (talk) 02:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Er, no. I listen to "reliable sources", like the ones I provided above. I certainly don't use a crystal-ball to divine what these events might be called down the line, as that'd be a bit of violation of Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies. RGloucester — ☎ 03:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

You're going to condone murder by the Islamic State and then self-title them Sons of Ra, like the coronation of Napoleon? Dark Liberty (talk) 03:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll call them "Sons of Ra" if they are most commonly called "Sons of Ra" by reliable sources, but that's neither here nor there. RGloucester — ☎ 03:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

So the sources that state Islamic State are not reliable if Sons of Ra were a more popular term? Dark Liberty (talk) 03:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I really don't understand what you're getting at here with this queer hypothetical. If the majority of reliable sources use a term for an event, we use that term per WP:UCN, barring some rare exception. RGloucester — ☎ 03:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Although your opinion is in the minority, that has no bearing on the title of the article, and I think your opinion should be considered. Although, for example, Sons of Ra would be in the perspective of the Islamic State, and that cannot be used even if most sources (Arabic) would describe it as such. Dark Liberty (talk) 03:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

What bringing up irrelevant comparison to an irrelevant, nonrelated topic? Can we just compare this article to 2014 Taiwan protests? --George Ho (talk) 03:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

You've hit the nail on the head, Mr Ho. That's because there is no "2014 Taiwan protests". It is a redirect to Sunflower Student Movement. RGloucester — ☎ 03:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

When this discussion is closed, I'll propose the move request on that article. --George Ho (talk) 04:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

No need, it already redirects to Sunflower Revolution. Dark Liberty (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I meant, renaming it to "2014 Taiwan protests". --George Ho (talk) 04:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's not going to happen because, as you'll find out, Misplaced Pages isn't exactly the most objective source on recent historical events; you'll find more opposition there in that article than there is support. Dark Liberty (talk) 04:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The idea of "2014 Taiwan protests" or "2014 Hong Kong protests" is absurd at face-value, not even bringing WP:UCN into play. There have been plenty of different protests throughout the year in both Taiwan and Hong Kong. Which specific protests are we talking about, huh? That title doesn't provide the reader with any information at all. What's more, it fails WP:UCN. We use the proper names. We only invent WP:NDESC titles when there is no proper name. There is a proper name, so we don't invent anything out of thin air. Reliable sources uses these names, so too do we. Calling that article 2014 Taiwan protests would be like referring to 2014 Ferguson unrest as 2014 American unrest. RGloucester — ☎ 04:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

What? Ferguson is a city, but I guess non-US readers won't know what "Ferguson" refers to. Also, what about WP:CRITERIA, another section of WP:AT policy? How and why is "Umbrella Movement" (never mind) recognizable, natural, precise, concise, and consistent, especially in a long term? --George Ho (talk) 04:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I have linked all the criteria. The present title is not "precise", as it could refer to any protest during the year in Hong Kong, and there have been plenty. The present title is not concise, as it does not instantly divulge that it is referring to what is now called the "Umbrella Revolution". The present title is not "natural", because it is an artificial construct used for descriptive purposes only. My point, Mr Ho, was that "2014 Taiwan protests" can refer to any protest in the year 2014 in Taiwan, which is a fairly large place. It is completely non-specific and imprecise, and essentially means nothing at all. Naming that article as such would be the same as naming the Ferguson protests as "American protests". It does not adequately define the scope of the article. Regardless, "Umbrella Revolution" meets all the criteria. Firstly, it is the most commonly used name. Secondly, it is precise: there has only ever been one Umbrella Revolution. Fourthly, it is natural: this is the name that arose organically during the protest, and which has come to dominate the headlines. Fifthly, it is concise: it instantly tells the reader what it is about, just as does Orange Revolution. RGloucester — ☎ 05:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

However, any other Hong Kong or Taiwan protests must meet WP:notability. If there is one notable event about protests of the year, then we shall treat it as such. Maybe we could add just a month name to disambiguate protests, like "March 2014 <whatever> protests". I see you live in UK, which occupied Hong Kong until 1997 handover to China, and I wonder if you are directly involved in a campaign in or outside HK. --George Ho (talk) 05:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Aiya! Assume good faith. WP:PRECISE is an article title criterion, don't you agree? RGloucester — ☎ 05:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, so you want to connect the two protests due to analogy rather than make this an encyclopedic entry. I see. Dark Liberty (talk) 03:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• More sources for the Umbrella bit, not surprisingly. I'm sorry, fellows, but this is what this event is called. RGloucester — ☎ 04:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Not yet As the media either use 'HK protests' or 'Umbrella Rev' interchangeably right now, I would recommend waiting until a consensus is reached by the press as to what they are calling this. Lasersharp (talk) 05:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a consensus. If they use "HK protests", they used it as a description of what "Umbrella Revolution" is, not as a proper name to refer to the events. Furthermore, the present title is extremely flawed, as I've demonstrated. RGloucester — ☎ 05:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

You know what? Maybe it's time for you to take a short break from this. I see you focusing on the content of this article, so why not solely fix content issues then? As for consensus, they said, "not yet". Don't you see? --George Ho (talk) 05:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, but IMHO, after doing a search of recent news stories about this event, there are still a lot of reporters using only the HK protests name to describe the event, without referring it as Umb Rev. Lasersharp (talk) 05:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose for now -- The name "Umbrella Revolution" is certainly widely used but is not clearly the most commonly used term for the event. Until a clear and persistent majority expands beyond lines like "some have dubbed the movement the “umbrella revolution”" there's no reason to make a change. We have the fortune of being an encyclopedia here, not a news source, and thus our focus is on long term notability. We can wait and see if this is a term that will stick, like Orange Revolution, or fades away.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not the common name yet. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Sources? RGloucester — ☎ 13:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose for now, as per above. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
• Not yet I certainly agree with RGloucester that the name is gaining currency with both the English speaking and Chinese medias, but that in itself is not surprising, the media likes names optimized for soundbytes and Umbrella Revolution fits the bill. I also agree that the naming is reminiscent of the color revolutions, and that there are obvious parallels, but this early in the protests it remains to be seen whether any lasting changes to HK society or electoral process will be effected. Remember that the western media is pro-democracy (a bias I share) and is also quite anti-Chinese in general, so making this out to be a David-and-Goliath-style toppling of an authoritarian mainland decree is pushing a sort of POV. The name "Umbrella Revolution" and the comparison to the Color Revolutions furthers that agenda. While the current title is admittedly boring, it has the benefit of being free for the moment of any particular systemic bias. If and when this particular series of protests results in unconstrained universal suffrage in Hong Kong and thus guarantees itself a place in the history books as something different from the many, many pro-democracy protests Hong Kong has had before, we can make the change. Until then a redirect seems sufficient.Eniagrom (talk) 08:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Failed movements are just as notable as successful ones. This is a false proposition. Regardless, that's WP:CRYSTAL and not at all appropriate. RGloucester — ☎ 12:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding WP:CRYSTAL. Saying let's wait and see what happens before we rename an article because a term currently in vogue may not satisfy WP:LASTING isn't a violation of that. And beyond even that, the reality is that the term Umbrella Revolution has a very definite POV, which when dealing with politically sensitive topics such as this one should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. I do not oppose a move in principle, I just oppose one now. There are no deadlines at WP, and I do not feel like you've made a good case for the urgency of this move. Why is moving it now rather than in two weeks when the dust settles so important?Eniagrom (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Because falsely constructed titles like the present one here feel disgusting in my mouth, and also because they do not adequately reference this particular event. Proper names are preferred to false constructs, and this is the proper name. RGloucester — ☎ 15:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

This sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and while I empathize, I still feel WP:POVNAME and WP:NDESC apply for now. Eniagrom (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

It would only be "I don't like it" if it wasn't backed by policy. For example, WP:UCN and, yes, WP:POVNAME. I provided many sources to that effect. In fact, POVNAME supports my argument, it does not hinder it. Whilst I don't agree that "Umbrella Revolution" has any POV, even if it did, POVNAME says that we should use the most common name even if it contains some elements of POV. Your comments on the success or failure of the movement are irrelevant. As an example, the Orange Revolution ultimately failed at the 2006 parliamentary elections, but that doesn't mean that we now rename it as "2004–2005 Ukraine protests". We use the common name, as described by reliable sources. Proper names are preferred to constructed WP:NDESC names. RGloucester — ☎ 16:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Nonviolent Movement?

I re-included the goals of the movement, but not the methods, we're not sure if it will sustain as non-violent. I hope it will turn violent soon, as that would guarantee a crushing response from the Communist Party and severely cripple Beijing's international standing, who knows, a new arms embargo? Dark Liberty (talk) 04:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

What the fuck, man. _dk (talk) 07:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Some Wikipedians want to watch the world burn. --benlisquare_T•C•E 08:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

it would be wonderful, american stock exchange would suffer immediate cardiac arrest — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.43.238.10 (talk) 10:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

To "severely cripple Beijing's international standing, who knows, a new arms embargo" - sound like a policy aim of the US neo-cons. Do not agree? Check out the events that led up to many of the 'Color Revolts'. Why is it that they all have a certain sameness as to events and timelines? 84.13.14.146 (talk) 10:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

RGloucestor

As you are the only one shifting hard the POV in favor of another term as of October, with the rest of us with rather lukewarm support, I would like to inquire why you are in favor the phrase, and is trying so hard using logical fallacies in order to justify support for this phrase. Remember, I am not in favor of any neologism for any article. And do not give me "I'm helping Misplaced Pages". I want to know why you desperately do support the phrase at this stage, in favor of all opposition.

"The idea of "2014 Taiwan protests" or "2014 Hong Kong protests" is absurd at face-value, not even bringing WP:UCN into play. There have been plenty of different protests throughout the year in both Taiwan and Hong Kong. Which specific protests are we talking about, huh? That title doesn't provide the reader with any information at all. What's more, it fails WP:UCN. We use the proper names. We only invent WP:NDESC titles when there is no proper name. There is a proper name, so we don't invent anything out of thin air. Reliable sources uses these names, so too do we. Calling that article 2014 Taiwan protests would be like referring to 2014 Ferguson unrest as 2014 American unrest." -RGloucestor

here is your argument repeated, and here are the problems: 2014 Taiwan protests and Hong Kong protests are both valid, not absurd, as you would think unfortunately, and most readers would agree. Are intelligence agencies aware of every single protest that occurred during the year? I doubt it. And Calling 2014 Ferguson riots as "American unrest" would be equally as absurd.

Like monkeys trying to call a deer a horse. Wrong political opinions are not relevant here; we're better than that. Misplaced Pages is for human beings. Have some pride in your humanity.

Cheers, Dark Liberty (talk) 06:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Because constructed titles are not preferable, natural ones are. The present title is an un-natural aberration, just as "2014 Taiwan protests" would be. When a natural, common, and precise title exists, there is no excuse for using such a construct. RGloucester — ☎ 12:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

If you mean that 'Umbrella Revolution' is an un-natural construct - agree. For what costly and high-profile PR firm came up with this MSM-friendly spin? 84.13.14.146 (talk) 11:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

External Links

I recall a WP policy somewhere that the external links should not just contain links to news stories? Should we delete these redundancies in this section? Lasersharp (talk) 07:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree, particularly if they are redundant with the references.--Nowa (talk) 12:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

An editor added a link from Globalresearch.ca under EL section, which I'm not familiar with. Is this source a reliable source? Lasersharp (talk) 05:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Seems like the site is maintained by Michel Chossudovsky. I will keep the link in EL section for now, unless someone can sort this in the reaction section.

Change lead image

Per wp:bold I’ve changed the lead image from "Tear gas" to "Cell phone vigil". My reasons are:

• "Cell phone vigil" is more emblematic of the notable nonviolent, social media driven nature of these protests.
• "Tear gas" is a publication of Voice of America and is therefore per se propaganda.--Nowa (talk) 12:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

That would violate POV on the basis of the points you mentioned. Dark Liberty (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Tear gas image is hardly propaganda. Restricting the image in China is a form of propaganda/censorship. either image is fine and both should be in the article somewhere. Legacypac (talk) 18:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Public Reaction section

Are there any polls about the public support/disapproval of either the protest or China's decision on the 2017 elections? I see the value of taking some representative views, but without the polls, it is very hard to put in context. I have searched myself and could not find any.LedRush (talk) 14:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's a reference Wall St. Journal--Nowa (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Someone could just as easily insert a poll from Beijing to counter the statement. We should wait for a new Gallup poll. Dark Liberty (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the University of Hong Kong fabricated a poll to say that only 27% of Hong Kongers support the protestors?LedRush (talk) 01:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Domestic reactions

No matter how you judged my first post, but the article still needs a section depicting the general opinion of mainland Chinese. --2.245.121.108 (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think their opinions are relevant here per One-Country, Two-Systems. Dark Liberty (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

May be difficult to get in a military-dictatorship state; NPR interviewed a few people yesterday, and while their opinions varied and were interesting, it is not possible to do a proper sampling for such a poll. We could always reference the NPR report, but it would have to be clear the onesie/twosie nature of the report.HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

We can include information on how those from Hong Kong not involved in the protests feel about the events and how it may have adverse effects on the economy, but those from China, their statements carry very little undue weight here, because China's government promised to grant Hong Kong autonomy. and excessive quotations from state tabloids aside from the White House visit should be removed some time in the future. Dark Liberty (talk) 17:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Only until 2047. --2.245.121.108 (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Goal of Universal Suffrage

Although it is welcome that editors in Hong Kong take an active role in this article. I encourage all parties to ponder what Misplaced Pages is about before editing. Intrinsically, we shouldn't even allow people in China to edit (or talk) the articles.

Mr. Leung, or whatever his name is, is quoted to have considered holding talks with the protestors. Secretary of State John Kerry stated that China should resolve the crisis through dialogue, rather than militarization. Joshua Wong, then in turn, refused to hold talks with the Hong Kong government.

If we want the movement be credible, or at least, portray the movement as it is as editors should, we should avoid the refusal of dialogue, which I believe to be a mistake. There are a lot content here of that in the eyes of Americans, which Misplaced Pages caters to, that is viewed as either dubious or rather, not credible.

That being said, Self-advocacy generally is not allowed on Misplaced Pages, and portraying the protestors as too positive such as a "high degree of organisation, politeness, tidiness" severely undermines the movement's ability to succeed, as readers generally make their own conclusions on Misplaced Pages articles.

A democratic movement should embody the principles of democracy, and because Misplaced Pages is a democratic means of conveying information, we should keep POV edits to a minimum, and honesty, rather than dishonesty.

Dark Liberty (talk) 01:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The civility section is not POV. Google any search terms like "Hong Kong, clean, protests". The fact that the protesters have been tidy has received an extraordinary degree of media attention which is certainly worth mentioning. I also find it disingenuous that you seem to be presenting yourself as some outside observer with little interest in the matter, or as a sympathiser with the protests. You have been making a lot of critical reverts and abrasive edit summaries which subtly push a different worldview. Two users have already reverted your hitherto unexplained blanking - please stop unilaterally blanking sections of the page which are well-sourced and NPOV. Citobun (talk) 02:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, it is not POV, but appears in multiple sources. Yesterday I noticed that the same editor had blanked large sections including material I had added about Chinese censorship - ironically - sourced to the South China Morning Post, with the edit summary explanation "Global Times is not a credible source". I restored some of the material today, assuming an honest mistake. Now, an IP and the same editor have repeatedly blanked sections, within minutes of each other, again. zzz (talk) 03:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and the IP and this user have both used the same distinctive phrase in their edit summaries, "improper synthesis". Somebody might need to review WP:SOCKPUPPET. Citobun (talk) 03:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I've restored the rest of the "Chinese government and media" section from yesterday, as no reason was given for its removal.zzz (talk) 03:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Censorship is what China does. Misplaced Pages is not a marketing campaign, and as you will discover. Having a logistics section amounts to self-advocacy, and trying to target me will find you in a very bad position within the Misplaced Pages community, despite our mutual agreements on most issues. Dark Liberty (talk) 12:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, you have no rationale for blanking the logistics section. It is both NPOV and well-sourced. You've now violated the three-revert rule, by the way. 208.103.235.34 (talk) 12:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

To Signedzzz

Please don't insist to put "Umbrella Revolution" in the Infobox because the Infobox title should be the same as the article title. You may put it elsewhere in the main text if you like.

Also please don't remove this relevant external link from a RS. STSC (talk) 08:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• US Openly Approves Hong Kong Chaos it Created

We are in no business of putting op-eds in the external links section. _dk (talk) 08:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It is a relevant article by the Centre for Research on Gabalization. When time allows I'll put its content into this article's main text. STSC (talk) 08:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

You were removing locations of protests in the info box & claiming they were shut down (with no references). zzz (talk) 09:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you're just sitting in an armchair somewhere in Europe, if you don't have any access to live local news and don't know what's happening on the ground then don't argue. STSC (talk) 09:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't you live in Europe? Citobun (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

NPOV Reminder

I haven't edited wikipedia in ages, but the article has areas where there are NPOV failures (edit: attempted to fix Day 3's content). Even when citing from SCMP, it frequently only includes quotes from one side of the story. There's also the fact that sources which may present another POV are not (imo) included in chronology. Ex. BBC/SCMP are both (imo) pro-occupy (SCMP depending on if the article is an opinion piece). But that aside, given the contentious nature of this event, it's important that everyone try to remain neutral whenever possible.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 11:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

.

I second this request. I would like to ask as editors to stop labeling the movement as autonomous. Being autonomous would imply that the movement has already reached a critical mass as in tiananmen square. There are at least two logical fallacies that would imply as a result, that would mean that the movement no longer adheres to its core tenet of nonviolent means, and second, it means it has spiraled out of control. And yet, recent edits conflict with this statement, and state that Joshua Wang is leading the movement. Slow down the editing if you are from Hong Kong. I know this sounds counterintutitive, but it will be cooler heads that will determine the outcome of the movement, and it has nothing to do with Misplaced Pages.

Comment: "Another anti-occupy spokeperson Chan Ching-sum stated that occupying the roads is nothing about democracy; it's to destroy Hong Kong people's daily li." I would hardly believe that the movement is to destroy Hong Kong people's daily lives, but rather to force a hand through economic means so that the government of Hong Kong would have to cooperate. Dark Liberty (talk) 12:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Yes I doubt it is true as well, I think he may have meant to "criticize the tactic of occupying roads as not promoting democracy, but getting in the way of people's lives." ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 12:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Archived Content

This section is for removed content, for reference:

(Logistics section)

"Numerous stations were set up by the protesters as a base for food and water distribution, waste collection and medical care. Hong Kong Red Cross also provided medical service from their premises in the heart of the Admiralty protest."

Hong Kong Demonstrators are Disciplined

Dark Liberty (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• The reason I removed it is because I feel it would be better elsewhere in the article instead of a 2 liner section. There are also other organizations than just the HKRC providing logistics, not sure why specifically they were singled out. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 13:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It became a two liner section because someone removed the rest of the section by calling it "marketing", despite it being referenced with reliable sources. Merely reflecting what the media has said isn't advocacy, people. _dk (talk) 13:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Do not talk here. Dark Liberty (talk) 13:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

On what authority do you give these commands? _dk (talk) 13:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Organization

Before we get into an edit war, my 2 cents on the organization section: Yes it deserves a mention, but the current wording/length makes me feel like we are giving undue weight to it.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 13:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Addon comment: The article also includes narratives from the anti-occupy protests, not just occupy. I'm more in favor of shortening the section and then merging it somewhere into a previous section, either on background (something like 'occupy organizers planned to clean up in the morning') or chronology. Also, there was some news articles I read in SCMP today about barricades that had to be disassembled to let emergency ambulance through, so I'm not sure if 'cleanest' still applies. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 13:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

We cannot only give light to the violence without showing what the protests themselves are like, especially when they are covered by reliable sources. I'm open to rewording, but not outright removal. The removal of barriers for emergency vehicles was negotiated and ultimately agreed to by the protesters. _dk (talk) 13:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's undue weight. The subject of cleanliness has been the specific subject of countless international news articles. Citobun (talk) 13:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: When you make a movie, the best thing to do to sell your movie is to tell people how you made your movie. This is a classic in the Hollywood book. Logistics, or anything related to logistics, in my opinion, does not pertain to encyclopedic standards. Leave the article be, we should all add information on Day 2 3 4 5 6 etc. so that no one has a conflict of interest, and if we have a future discussion, it should be on say, a discussion on October 12. Dark Liberty (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It's one thing if people are referencing themselves, but that section is sourced from Slate and BBC. Unless you are alleging that the Occupy protests is manufactured by Western media, your removal by saying this is "marketing" amounts to censorship, and Misplaced Pages is WP:NOTCENSORED. _dk (talk) 13:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't censor, China censors. Look what censorship did to the country. You virtuous individuals need to realize that just because editors removed something doesn't mean they are opposing you, On the contrary, they are following what editors should do during an important event. Dark Liberty (talk) 13:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

My point remains that there should be some coverage about the behaviour of the protesters themselves as frequently noted by the media. _dk (talk) 13:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

User:Dark Liberty has removed the organisation/logistics/civility section numerous times in the face of reverts from several users over the past 24 hours:

2. (from an IP)

He or she is also behaving in a disingenuous and disruptive way by making numerous "extreme" political comments in an attempt to appear to sympathise with the protesters and ostensibly to give them a bad name...?

• I hope the protests turn violent so Beijing's international standing is crushed
• Mainland Chinese opinions don't matter
• we shouldn't allow people in China to participate in the discussion

Yet, the sum of his/her edits amounts to pushing the opposite worldview.

• ironically, censoring a section on Chinese censorship

And generally behaving incivilly:

• accusing user of ""sponsorship"
• "do not talk here"

And it goes on. Stop it with the dishonesty and the disruption, please. Citobun (talk) 13:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

_dk and Citobun

these two users from presumably Hong Kong are especially militant towards American supervision of the edits, and should probably be restricted from editing for a period of time, which echoes their convictions in an almost religious fervor. Democracy comes through consent. If you can't even establish basic consent among editors, how can the movement succeed? I am opposed to contentious conduct. If you don't want me to be present on the article, Goodbye. Dark Liberty (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and you talked in an Archives section where you're not supposed to discuss there. Dark Liberty (talk) 14:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Look at the page history. I haven't even touched the page in almost 12 hours. And now look at the frequency of your own unilateral blanking of NPOV, well-sourced text in the face of disagreement from numerous other editors. Talk about pot calling the kettle black. Citobun (talk) 14:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The removal of a well-known reddit.com marketing campaign section is not NPOV, it is fact, and I have done as any editor should have done. Goodbye. Dark Liberty (talk) 14:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm in the blind of this supposedly well-known reddit campaign. Care to show a link?_dk (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Revolution News! reliable?

Revolution News! is being used as a source. Is there any evidence that it meets wp:rs?--Nowa (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Have noticed a sprinkling of information throughout alleging US is funding the protests. The sources cited—Revolution News as you mentioned, and Zero Hedge as another example—aren't looking great, though. Doesn't look like these posts are fact-checked or run by editors, and they're basically just cross-linking / quoting each other. Writer "George Washington" in that cited Zero Hedge post concludes, "It's not beyond the realm of possibility that the U.S. egged on democracy protesters in Hong Kong," and while yes, it's not impossible, these posts seem to amount to little other than conspiracy theory at this point. Haven't found other more reliable sources speaking to the allegations on US funding, so if anyone does, please share. Karolle (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• There's a source from a canadian research website about something like this iirc, also RT of course says this. Though RT isn't always reliable. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 18:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• The White House has already released a press statement implying their support for Occupy, so that anti-Occupy forces would not be able to cite the funding against the United States. Dark Liberty (talk) 19:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

TeleSUR/Wikileaks

TeleSUR, a South-American TV network, has apparently claimed that Wikileaks has "claimed" that the US has funded/organised/whatever the protests. No evidence provided. Wikileaks clearly hasn't claimed anything. If TeleSUR wants to promote themselves in this way, they can (no one will bother to sue them), but Misplaced Pages shouldn't be used as their promotional tool. If anyone can be bothered they should remove the 6 or 7 uses of this "reference". zzz (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikileaks is the propaganda department of Russia and China, and cannot be used as a source other than on their own article. Dark Liberty (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikileaks doesn't actually "claim" things in any case. It publishes documents from other sources. It hasn't published anything about these protests. End of story. zzz (talk) 19:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

POV pushing every 2 seconds

Two individuals here have been very diligent here in undoing the work of several American and European editors:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2014_Hong_Kong_protests&diff=628249246&oldid=628248240

For example here, they removed all the stated and put back the weasel with terms as "threatened, claimed, complained" words they are so accustomed to.

They went ahead and changed the language and context of every paragraph on the article in favor Against journalistic tone. I don't really mind the changes as it is a healthy process of editing, as I can undo these good faith edits in a single second with the help of a few Wikitools. but theses (students?) edit once every minute 24/7. I would like to inquire why.

Dark Liberty (talk) 20:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Misleading word

Re: The People's Daily stated in a front page commentary on 4 October that the protests "could lead to deaths and injuries and other grave consequences."

Using the word "stated" makes it sound like a threat. I would suggest using "warned" which sounds more nature as it warned people about the grave consequences. STSC (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Hong Kong articles
• High-importance Hong Kong articles
• WikiProject Hong Kong articles
• C-Class China-related articles
• High-importance China-related articles
• C-Class China-related articles of High-importance
• WikiProject China articles
• C-Class politics articles
• High-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class sociology articles
• Unknown-importance sociology articles
• C-Class social movements task force articles
• Social movements task force articles
• Requested moves