Talk:2019–2020 Hong Kong protests

Deliberate omission of context in the lead section

The bill was originally introduced in order to extradite a fugitive murderer from Hong Kong to Taiwan. This is a fact.

The 18-year-old student protester was shot only after striking a police officer with a metal rod. This is a fact.

The protesters have assaulted civilians. This is a fact.

The protesters have burned someone alive. This is a fact.

The protesters were "besieged" because they set fire to the university campuses and threw petrol bombs at police. This is a fact.

All of these facts are supported by reliable sources that I have repeatedly attempted to place onto the article's lead. Every one of my attempts has been reverted for spurious reasons. This article censors information about the protesters' violence and portrays the police's responses completely out of context, and the editors curating it have made sure of that. This article, as written, is a joke and indistinguishable from propaganda. There couldn't be an article more deserving of the POV tag than this one.

—Tookabreather (talk) 12:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Those are verifiable and notable facts, and omission skews it per WP:NPOV due to a focus on certain specifics but not the whole. I've noticed, especially, that the 2nd fact has repeatedly been obfuscated by a specific user, but it should be included that it happened and not just "attempted" as cited by reliable sources. --Cold Season (talk) 13:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

saying "The protesters have burned someone alive" tends to imply the man was killed. It's more appropriate to say he was "set on fire".

I also agree that the article is skewed, and that any mention of the term "riot" or "rioting" have been swiftly purged (except when mentioning "riot police"), even when these are in the context of specific incidents and backed by reliable sources such as the BBC. The images also tend to focus on police violence, and we have yet to see any images of protesters throwing Molotov cocktails. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 13:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

The "metal rod" part is disputed. Counter-protesters have assaulted protesters is a fact, and the people protesters have assaulted are not always "civilians" is also a fact, thus mentioning one side only while sacrificing key context is WP:UNDUE. People burnt alive is a fact but people's ears being bitten off or someone's eyes being blinded by rubber bullets or protesters being shot by fireworks are also facts, then why the burning incident should take precedence over other equally ridiculous incidents? It is ok to mention protesters throwing petrol bombs or committing property damages as general characteristics but I oppose listing independent incidents. And we need to admit is that the (alleged) police brutality is a key driving factor for the protests, so it is difficult to downplay police responses. It is rare for RS to use the term "riot" (other than reporting the government/police viewpoint) when they were describing the protests or the protesters, while when you search things like "Indonesian riots" or "Chilean riots", you actually get many results. OceanHok (talk) 14:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Two wrongs don't make one right. Police violence is mentioned over and over again, with examples and linked to the protesters' responses. All the police major incidents against protesters and journalists are mentioned in the article, and it does not serve the cause to be in denial that protesters have shown a high degree of violence too. A man was set alight during a dispute (with someone wearing black?). It may be an isolated instance, but the e ntire protests are a string of isolated incidents, and I see little justification for excluding or downplaying protester violence against police and other civilians. The reason why the attempt at immolation should be given greater prominence is because of the severity of the violence: It is attempted murder by any benchmark. All the prior instances of protester violence were against inanimate targets whereas this was an attempt on a person, and caused severe burns to the victim. Equally not mentioned is the incident where a police officer in plain clothes was the target of a petrol bomb after he allegedly drove his car into a crowd of protesters. Although Molotov cocktails have become a weapon of choice, and protesters throw them in the tens if not hundreds on a daily basis, their use is mentioned in the artice as if they were all isolated occurences. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 15:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• I am not suggesting to downplay protesters' violence, but to give counter-protesters WP:DUE weight when they have commit actions equally bad. If we are going to mention people burning, then why are we not mentioning protesters being knife attacked? With both sides using extreme violence against each other then why only the protesters were singled out as the "violent" groups while counter-protesters were relegated as the peaceful "civilians"? The fact is that they have been assaulting each other, and no one is better than another. I don't oppose adding the Yuen Long plainclothed officer catching fire or other instances that caught RS attention (like the liaison guy being shot with an arrow) in the radical protesters (or maybe the history) section, but using petrol bombs with the intention to murder is not the general characteristic of the protests thus it was not appropriate for the lead. That's why I am only ok with "people are attacking each other" but not "protesters are assulting civilians". OceanHok (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• I can understand that you don't want to split with the other in the movement, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor is it a forum for advocacy. I don't see how intent or motivation should come in when it comes to petol bombs. These are among the most destructive home-made weapons used by rioters and terrorists. They have been used by HK protesters like they eat instant noodles since peaceful protests failed, probably even before the 10-1 storming of legco (I haven't been keeping track), and are certainly a hallmark of protest violence if not of rioting in a general sense of the definition, although why the term "rioting" hasnt been used more frequently is because it suits the Western (anti-China) narrative. It's inescapable that thousands of petrol bombs were found in CU and PolyU, even though they were never used. As to due weight, how do you propose to keep a "balance"? How about mentioning one petrol bomb for every teargas canister? How about one rubber bullet injury for every victim nearly killed by protesters? What I'm trying to demonstrate is that the transactional approach to balance is entirely arbitrary. But by not mentioning it, downplaying it, the article fundamentally violates WP:NPOV. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 16:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• The dictionary definition of "Rioting", or here in WP is a state of behaviour that makes no distinction between causing injury or damege to people or inanimate targets, so the fact that protesters have only been targeting police and other symbols of the PRC doesn't make the actions any less "riotous" despite the lack of use of the word by reliable sources. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 17:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• I will repeat again. I am not suggesting to downplay the violence from the protesters, but to give due weight to the violence from counter-protesters which is equally malicious. Sentences like "Rifts within the society widened as protesters began to assault civilians." (Tookabreather's wordings) obviously is WP:NPOV and Rifts within the society widened as actvists from both sides have assaulted each other (my version) can cover both violent incidents from both sides without digging deep into each of the incident. I mean, unless you want something like Protesters was shot by attackers with fireworks. The protesters became violent and assaulted Celina Ma. Some taxi driver rammed into the protesters and broke someone's legs to show his opposition. But the people beat the taxi driver. To retaliate, pro-Beijing supporters bite off Andrew Chiu's ears. Not happy with that, the protesters set a man on fire. Frustrated, pro-Beijing decided to knife attack a peaceful protester near Lennon Wall, but then the protesters are going to beat this guy with a drain pipe. I mean, this chain of garbage theoretically adheres to WP:NPOV as well. OceanHok (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

If you are talking about the WP:NPOV in the other sections, I have added more about petrol bombs in the radical protester's section if this is what you guys want. I don't oppose adding violence of the protesters to the article as long as it is done with WP:NEUTRAL and WP:CONCISE wordings and given due weight. I would draw the line of WP:NPOV at summarizing similar behaviors with just one sentence while singling out the ridiculous ones (People being set on fire/someone shot with fireworks/Pressing people's face against the ground) or if it involves notable people. If incidents cannot be grouped (e.g. Prince Edward station incident, police van ramming into crowds, Yuen Long inaction), then it would stay on its own. If you are talking about why the history has more mentions of tear gas then petrol bombs, that's probably because people are complaining about the article's length and then we trimmed it to just "clashes" and "confrontations" (which is not a bad change I may add, detail weaponry used is mentioned in the subpages). Regardless of whether RS is biased or not, using "riot" because we think the situation fits the dictionary definition is WP:OR. OceanHok (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• It's only OR if there are no sources to support the assertion, but there are. I attempted to add two very precise an limited instances, supported by sources, but they disappeared soon enough probably because there's a severe allergy within the movement to the "R word". Anyway, I do not believe that WP:CONCISE and WP:SUMMARY are sufficient to warrant removal of important detail as to the violent nature of the conflict or signature actions of either police or protesters. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 21:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Due weight needs to be given to the counter-protesters/ pro-Beijing mobs and their "equally signature" actions in WP:LEAD, but then that would turn the lead into a chaotic mess where we are going to list out all the heinous actions from both sides without restraints because many things are "signature" on its own. The lead, as it stands, has suggested that both sides are violent with "As the protests dragged on, confrontations escalated as both sides became increasingly violent." The problem is we should not single out one side of the protests when another side has been equally as bad. You only say "both are violent", but not "protesters are violent" without mentioning the other sides. OceanHok (talk) 05:13, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• There is clearly an extreme pro-protest POV in this article, which censors protester violence.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

There are also extreme anti-protest POV pushers in this talk page, which avoid discussing police violence while trying their best to smear protesters instead. 42.76.107.162 (talk) 03:57, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

• With a topic as complex and controversial, it's inevitable. Usually, when it's one's own edits, they are objective, and when it's the opposing viewpoint, it's considered "POV pushing". -- Ohc ^¡digame! 12:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• In my opinion it is unfair to say the article is an 'extreme pro-protest' as the article does reference protester violence and even a man killed by protesters and their is a section about violent groups. I admit it more than like has a pro-protest POV as so editors including me are sympathetic to the protests (apart from the violence) RealFakeKim (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
• I agree with RealFakeKim's opinion. Another problem is that Chinese government's counteractions not fully methioned. (But it is hard to clearly write Chinese view, since they are believing alternative version of the whole protests.) Mariogoods (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I think the article has improved. However, I think it has a pro-protest POV. I don't think there's any point in writing an unrealistic article. And I think all editors should agree on that.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:03, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• I believe it is briefly mentioned in the reactions but I agree writing the Chinese view is hard dew to the censorship — Preceding unsigned comment added by RealFakeKim (talk • contribs) 16:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• Too long. So don't inserted comment above. It is not a metal rod, it is a plastic rod. Also for the context, it was filmed that the police pulled a gun and approach the rod-welded protester. So it is accused that the police is the side that proactively attack the protester, which the protester is using the rod as self-defense. The version by the police's press relase is a complete COI lie. Yes you can call the "fact" is "dispute" as it is the interpretation of the media on the filmed material. Matthew hk (talk) 02:17, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I've added the following to the lede: an 18-year-old student protester was shot whilst attempting to hit a police officer with a rod and Hardcore protesters conducted vigilante attacks against perceived opponents, including supposed pro-Beijing entities being vandalized, and a man set on fire after arguing with protesters. Meanwhile, I disagree with other proposed additions by Tookabreather. starship.paint (talk) 13:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• For Fact 1, while the murder of Poon Hiu-wing indeed sparked the bill, I don't see the main objective of the protests being to support the murderer and prevent his extradition. Rather, protesters seem to be afraid of situations like the Causeway Bay Books disappearances. I don't see the murder being relevant enough to be included in the first paragraph.
• For Fact 2, the type of rod is disputed and can be left out.
• For Fact 3, "assaulting civilians" in itself needs context, which I have added in the text above. For the taxi driver incident (which I did not include), Tookabreather's quote was truncated in a one-sided manner: A WeChat video of a brutal protesters' assault on a taxi driver, shared by his mother and her friends, did not reveal that the taxi had driven into a demonstration moments before, seriously injuring a young woman.
• For Fact 5, Tookabreather's description (The protesters were "besieged" because they set fire to the university campuses and threw petrol bombs at police. does not match the source provided which says that (1) the fires to the entrance of the university were already set when the siege of the heavily fortified campus entered its second day, and (2) the petrol bombs were thrown during the previous night of the siege. starship.paint (talk) 13:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I still disagree with the wording. Can we simply have "Rifts within the society widened as activists from both sides have assaulted each other." to summarize all the physical assaults that have happened? The additions do not include the attacks launched by counter-protesters. The weight is still WP:UNDUE, while what we have here is a fairly neutral sentence that criticises both sides adequately already. I am fine with mentioning vandalism and arson because they are (mostly) protester-specific characteristics, but beating people up is not. Why single out the burning incident and why should it take precedence over other equally heinous acts? OceanHok (talk) 04:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

On the points argued above, and the state of Old revision of the article right now, I have no issues with the wording. Thanks to all for your edits and discussion. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 14:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

- I have removed the orange tag. Ohconfucius and Jack Upland have stated that the article is improved. While I don't think anyone got everything they wanted, there has been some attempt at a middle ground. Meanwhile, on 16 December, an uninvolved editor Bagumba commented that If I had to close that thread now as an admin, it looks like a no consensus. Wouldn't "no consensus" on an NPOV issue mean that it really is generally neutral already?. May I thus suggest that if anyone feels strongly about the inclusion of further items, such as the murder of Poon Hiu-wing, or the man set on fire - to open an RfC with specific proposed sentences, as discussion here has run its course - it's been 14 days already. Thanks. starship.paint (talk) 15:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

As per the requested NPOV assessments in this thread, I've amended to elaborate "and a man who died after being struck in the head by a brick, during a confrontation between pro Beijing protesters and pro democratic protesters in Sheung Shui." to "and an elderly man who died after being struck in the head by a brick thrown by a protester during a clash between anti government protesters and local residents that were "trying to clear a roadblock" in Sheung Shui."

HKPF briefings as cited have listed the assessed perpetrator and local articles included those already cited note the nature of the confronted party the protesters clashed with. Further improvements to the sentence structure could allow for a note that the man was a bystander during the confrontation. Citing of the HKPF as the source of the classified COD is also possible. Sleath56 (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

The original version is neutrally worded. Your version implies that the pro-democratic protesters are not "local residents". Citobun (talk) 06:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The original version is the one established on Talk, which explicitly distinguishes they aren't. There is no 'implication' of it. Per a RS: "In a video circulated online, Luo was shown being hit on the head by a brick during a clash between protesters and Sheung Shui residents. Police said he was filming the fracas with his mobile phone." You're welcome to believe they are personally, but as RS does not indicate it, its wholly immaterial to an encyclopaedic entry here. I'd contest that a reduction of clarity to "two camps" is just a preference for weasel wording and exactly what the RfC allegations of 'omission of context' pertained. Sleath56 (talk) 08:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Really? Protesters were all polled on their place of residence? Where exactly are you reading that? Citobun (talk) 12:00, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

That is how RS have the distinction of "between protesters and Sheung Shui residents." Instead of posing further leading questions, you're welcome to address the point of orders I've made. Your preferred wording is a perplexing choice for a reduction of clarity that directly revolves around the RfC allegations of 'omission of context' in the very thread you're commenting under right now. You need to provide clear reasons why Wikipedia, not you, should want your preferred phrasing instead of the original established wording of "protesters and Sheung Shui residents," based as has been stated back when establishing it, is how local RS have reported it and is also how its stated on the death page. Sleath56 (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

It's not a fact that the universities were besieged after protesters threw petrol bombs at the police. If the police weren't there in the first place, how could anyone throw anything at them? Prof. HL Chow FRAS (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• No matter what your views are on the way police have and are handling the protests, blaming them for being at a demonstration is unfair as there has been clashes between counter protesters and violence/vandalism from the protesters. — RealFakeKimT 16:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

---

@Tookabreather: Do you now feel that the article has improved to be more neutral? — RealFakeKimT 08:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

References

RFC for 2019–20 Hong Kong protests

The following discussion 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.

---

It has been debated whether or not the following information should be included within article 2019–20 Hong Kong protests:

1. The bill was originally introduced in order to extradite a fugitive murderer from Hong Kong to Taiwan.
2. The 18-year-old student protester was shot only after striking a police officer with a metal rod.
3. The protesters have assaulted civilians.
4. The protesters have burned someone alive.
5. The protesters were besieged because they set fire to the university campuses and threw petrol bombs at police.

--Jax 0677 (talk) 05:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• No RFC is incorrectly formatted and we are also not going to add a list to the lede per WP:MOS. This is a mess and this rfc should be pulled. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment - Someone at WP:ANFRC refused to formally close the above discussion without an RFC. I have revised the RFC per request. --Jax 0677 (talk) 06:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

   Comment: Noting for the record that I declined the request for closure of the above discussion, because it did not advance a specific proposal, and there is not enough context to form a closing statement. This RfC would probably be more effective if each of the five bullet points were in a separate section (example) and accompanied with suggested phrasing. — Newslinger talk 06:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment That is something can't handled by RfC. Each bullet point would led to long debate on the "fact" and timeline based on news coverage. Matthew hk (talk) 06:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comment 1, 2, 3 and 4 are covered in the artical and for 5 the artical says that they through petrol bombs but dosen't directly say that's why they were besieged. — RealFakeKimT 17:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comment We should have more Wikipedians to check these statement and the source supporting the claim, since any important content suggesting protesters and counter-protesters' fault could be used as evidence to attack each other outside the Wikipedia. Mariogoods (talk) 02:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
• Strike RFC Incorrect format WP:SNOW. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

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.

Death toll/ number of death and other numbers in the info box

Closing per request at WP:ANRFC. There is no consensus to change the deaths figure in the infobox from "2" to "2 (event continuing)" or "2 (indeterminate)".

While there is support from some editors in this discussion for including suicides in the infobox, editors continue to disagree on which suicides should be included.

Circumstances have not changed from Talk:2019–20 Hong Kong protests/Archive 10#RfC: how should the Deaths figure in the infobox be shown? in that there is still a lack of agreement among reliable sources about which suicides were caused by the protests. Therefore, the deaths figure in the infobox should continue not to list the number of suicides for now. There is no prejudice against revisiting this if in the future reliable sources begin agreeing about the number of suicides caused by the protest.

Cunard (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

---

The number of death is not yet undetermined, however, the notation of solid number of 2 is way less presentable. It gives an impression that the movement is small-in-scale if compared to the social events in the other nation. I suggest that a meaning of ambiguity should be given to the number, say "2(event continuing)", "2(as of xx January 2020)" or "2(indeterminate)" to give a more accurate info and not misleading reader of that the event is already closed or the number is actually referencing to a reputable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.92.205.91 (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support: It would give more information that would be useful to the reader as the protests haven't finished but Oppose: it may indicate to some readers that there have been more deaths or that people have covered up deaths — RealFakeKimT 11:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Changed opinion as in the date section it say ongoing so a reader shouldn't be misslead — RealFakeKimT 16:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: Agree with @RealFakeKim that the unintended tone of the conspiratorial would make stating such a caveat counterproductive. Sleath56 (talk) 06:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: As per RealFakeKim's counterpoint. This is an ongoing event anyway, it is expected that the death count may change as long as the event has yet to end. robertsky (talk) 06:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support: Someone please put back the suicides !!!!!! They were directly related to the protests Dr. Universe (talk) 10:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment This is not a WP:RfC. Wikipedia did not use voting system to form consensus. Also, it is big no-no for offsite (onsite) canvassing. Matthew hk (talk) 12:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I have a related question that is not a response to this: Are suicides typically not included in deaths? There have been people who killed themselves clearly as a result of the protests.Prof. HL Chow FRAS (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I will still maintain my view that the first 4 suicides should count in the death toll. Marco Leung, in particular, suicide to protest. OceanHok (talk) 17:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it should at least mention them in the section but say the number is disputed — RealFakeKimT 16:08, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

This has been established in the RFC. --Cold Season (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Clh hilary:, wikipedia, an encyclopedia, is a tertiary source. There is no reliable source or between newspapers they had conflicted numbers of the actual number of death and cuicides, as well as wiki editors had argued that different newspapers did or did not contributed some suicides' root cause is the protests. Thus, by the RfC, we don't have a solution on how to report the death number. Matthew hk (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Came back after a short wiki-break to this hilarious aspersion which reminded me about this. While I do not work for China, I would still say the death toll should only be added once the events have ceased, but that's personal opinion and if it is to be overruled by consensus then that's absolutely fair. -Yeetcetera _{@me bro} 16:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• Yes to deaths in the infobox including suicides. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
• Agree with OceanHok. Suicide counts and Marco Leung, in particular, should be included. –Wefk423 (talk) 11:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• Omit. There are far more deaths that are suspected to be linked to the protests than formally linked to the protests, and the fact that we're debating here about the exact number seems to point towards a certain amount of original research being required to pin down an integer. Best to leave it out of the infobox and let our readers decide from the text. Deryck C. 19:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• Stop. This is not a RfC as User:Matthew hk has pointed out, and as User:Cold Season states, this has already been discussed through proper RfC procedure Sleath56 (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

Killing of Luo Changqing

Hi, there is a discussion at Talk:Killing of Luo Changqing#NPOV issues, reliability of sources, and general notability

It may interest you. The first two comments provide most of the context. --Cold Season (talk) 02:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

NPOV issue: "Local residents"

I would like to open a new discussion to resolve this, because the edit warring is getting out of hand.

How should the conflict in Sheung Shui that led to the death of Luo Changqing be described?

• "a confrontation between the two opposing camps", or similarly neutral phrasing, or
• "a confrontation between a group of protesters and local residents [or 'Sheung Shui residents']"?

The problem with the latter is that it carries the dubious implication that pro-democracy protesters are not "local residents", and that pro-establishment demonstrators are not "protesters". This is the same narrative promoted by Chinese propaganda outlets, which portray protesters as "rioters" at odds with "local residents". Some users are enforcing this phrasing on the basis that it is used by some reliable sources. But many reliable sources describe the event differently, making no mention of "local residents":

• "two groups throwing bricks at each other" (BBC)
• "protesters and government supporters hurling bricks at one another" (CNN)
• "clash between pro-democracy protesters and government supporters" (The Telegraph)
• "a clash on Wednesday between protesters and a group trying to clear a roadblock" (The Straits Times)
• "clashes between pro- and anti-government demonstrators" (Radio Television Hong Kong)
• "clashes between pro and anti-government protesters in Sheing Shui" (The Standard)
• "a violent clash between government supporters and protesters" (The Daily Beast)

Why should Wikipedia use dubious or biased phrasing when a neutral alternative is available? Citobun (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

The most neutral cited term is the one that does not make an ideological assumption of who these people are (not even sure what that was based on in the first place, not the police, not the people there), that is, that the group are several Sheung Shui residents. The sources also agree that they were there to clear bricks, no other motives to be found.

• "when residents in the suburb of Sheung Shui fought with protesters" (Telegraph)
• "during a clash between protesters and Sheung Shui residents." (SCMP)
• "during clashes between protesters and residents" (VICE)
• "during a clash between protesters and local residents" (NBC)
• "skirmish between protesters and residents" (TIME)
• "during a clash between anti-government protesters and residents" (TODAY)
• "clash between protesters and local residents" (Shanghaiist)
• "during a clash between residents and black-clad protesters" (EJ Insight)
• "clashes between protesters and residents in Sheung Shui" (Foreign Policy)
• "clash between anti-government protesters and residents in Sheung Shui" (Radio Free Asia)

That you make all sorts of unfounded or as-you-call-it "dubious" inferences from it is your own, thus it is not a credible argument against noting that these people are in fact several residents of Sheung Shui. --Cold Season (talk) 01:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it should be noted that they were residents of Sheung Shui.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

The most neutral cited term is the one that does not make an ideological assumption of who these people are This is farcical. Considering that we are dealing with a series of political protests, the political affiliations of different groups in a conflict is very much key information that must not be excluded. In addition, the SCMP source you quoted above states that the man "died last week after being hit by a brick in clashes between anti-government protesters and their opponents" – i.e. a clash between the opposing camps. feminist (talk) 03:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, opponents, as in they were opponents in a fight. None of the sources actually reveal an ideological-political motive behind the local Sheung Shui residents. The only clear motive in the sources is that the residents were there clearing bricks (which is hardly evidence for what their ideological-political stance is), despite how they are characterized. Therefore, yes, "residents of Sheung Shui" is what they are and is the most neutral. It merits inclusion. --Cold Season (talk) 04:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

That's not a reason to cherrypick sources, though. Suggesting that The only clear motive in the sources is that the residents were there clearing bricks deliberately ignores RS which expressly compare the political affiliations of the two groups involved in the conflict. feminist (talk) 04:53, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this is a point of order at all. As I've said, and still yet unaddressed above, your proposed change is perplexing because its a reduction of clarity that doesn't match the RS when they do clarify and is WP:OR at the least in the speculations on 'the protesting group also being local residents.' All of this for a change that seems to directly contravene discussion on and validate the RfC allegations of 'omission of context' brought up above. If you object the entry of "local residents of Sheung Shui" in preference for nebulous wording like "two camps of opponents" you need to find RS support that explicitly contest the identity of that group as had been described by numerous other RS. Sleath56 (talk) 03:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I see two ways out for this dispute:

• "a confrontation between a group of anti-government protesters and pro-government local residents" (which I think I have at some point adopted for this article); or,
• "a confrontation, variously described as one between the two opposing camps, or between a group of protesters and local residents", citing sources for both parts of the statement.

References

Regardless of which option we end up going with, the political affiliations of people involved in the conflict should be included. feminist (talk) 03:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I believe that "A confrontation between two opposing groups in Sheung Shui" has the most neutral wording, but I support both of Feminist's proposals, which does not "reduce clarity" while being supported by credible reliable sources. I prefer option A for its simplicity. OceanHok (talk) 05:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sleath56: - I would like to point out that the phrase "local residents" have been contested and changed multiple times already and a "RfC" in the "omitted context" part never exists. This goes way beyond WP:BRD. OceanHok (talk) 06:27, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@OceanHok: Can you clarify where it is in Talk that this phrasing was contested? A search only turns up this discussion: 1. Sleath56 (talk) 06:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

No support for the pro/anti-government distinction because there is no citation of who made the allegation of the two groups' government alignment, unlike the former which has the HKPF as the traceable original claim. As such, I don't see this as a case of conflicting RS, as I do not see the latter as RS in this particular instance under the framework of WP:NEWSORG: "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis" with the determination that as the context within the articles that hold the "pro/anti-government" distinction only do so through a passing sentence with no elaboration and that when they do cite an source on the claim, it is the HKPF who themselves report otherwise.

I see another method of resolution, which is to cite the HKPF as the originator of the claim on them being residents, and indeed the entire report on the COD and the nature of the incident, as had been my original proposal:

• HKPF briefings as cited have listed the assessed perpetrator and local articles included those already cited note the nature of the confronted party the protesters clashed with. Further improvements to the sentence structure could allow for a note that the man was a bystander during the confrontation. Citing of the HKPF as the source of the classified COD is also possible. Withdrawn. See below. Sleath56 (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Sleath56 (talk) 07:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes, the Hong Kong Police Force, certainly the most neutral and unbiased figures on a dispute like this. /s Seriously, when police brutality is a main gripe with most anti-government demonstrators, the police force is very much involved in the protests, and its take on this confrontation cannot be presented as fact in Wikipedia voice. If Hong Kong's public broadcaster RTHK describes the conflict as "between pro- and anti-government demonstrators in Sheung Shui", that should be trusted over whatever the police force says. feminist (talk) 07:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I've read through that article by the RTHK and it alleges the "government alignment" distinction with equally passing style same as the others with no elaboration or sourcing of the claim. The article is quite barebones and the on-the-day publishing date makes me frankly further question it under WP:RSBREAKING.

Apart from the existing observation that no RS challenge the HKPF's description and that even articles who use the "pro/anti-government" depiction cite the HKPF as their only source, such as the exceedingly brief Standard article above, I'd contest against the HKPF as being unreliable for providing a rather trivial description like "residents". The RS reporting the incident don't dispute so.

Which is precisely my point in that while I view it is clear that the lack of refutation of those RS who cite "local residents" to the police report render the support for the identification beyond merely the police, I see allowing the readers to determine the merit of the police report enough to satisfy the concerns here for a resolution. Sleath56 (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I've re-evaluated my view and position on the matter. I was under the impression that the HKPF' report was the sole evidence for this entire event, leaving the entire thing suspect as ultimately their hear-say. After watching a shockingly unambiguous video of a man's death, I've withdrawn my previous proposal.

The current statement is fine in my view as is. As I’ve said earlier, the utility ‘local residents’ has not been challenged by the RS who do adopt it, so it would not be wholly accurate to claim it is solely derivative to the HKPF. The sources who do use alternative phrasing are categorically upon examination either WP:RSBREAKING or have no citation or elaboration for them and utilize ubiquitously passing mentions of it. When those sources do reference the HKPF while utilizing alternative phrasing, such as this example here [1], they often attribute the “government alignment” to the police, which a review of police statement releases for the same day that the article cites police statements do not support: [1].

Additionally, adding such a proposed addendum would cast undue MOS:ALLEGED both on the “resident” statement along with the entire entry on the death, which is not in the point of order here, where it’s come to my awareness that no other part of the lead has inline citations for any of the claims therein. As such to necessitate a unique addition of that here is not DUE. Sleath56 (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

"Local residents" has mostly been used in the press I recall. Reviewing police statements is ridiculous (laughable really) in this case. Lot of POV pushing here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I personally prefer "between two opposing groups", because calling it "between protesters and residents" would imply that the "protester" side includes no local residents, which is an overloaded position I'd rather Wikipedia not take. Readers who want further detail can go to the death of Luo Changqing article. Deryck C. 00:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

That's an inference on you. It certainly does not merit the exclusion that these people are in fact "residents of Sheung Shui", thus introducing an omission of context. In contrast, characterization of their political stance is questionable, as none of the sources actually provide the political motives of why they were there. The only actual motive provided in the sources is that they were there to clear bricks. Thus, "residents" is the most neutral descriptor to be used and does not imply anything (it is not much of a good argument to omit "residents"). Multiple sources state it plainly as such. The text between a group of protesters and several Sheung Shui residents can't be less unambiguous and is supported in the sources. --Cold Season (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Yep, residents with no political allegiance would totally clear bricks with sticks and start a fight with people. Talking about "omission of context" maybe we should mention how the fight start. Huge reduction of clarity here. Anyway, "between two opposing groups" implies that they were "opponents in a fight" anyway without revealing too much information about the their political allegiance, and I don't supposed readers would think that people from other neighbourhoods will move to Sheung Shui to fight anyway. OceanHok (talk) 06:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Note the key phrase "appears" (as in speculation) in your source. Meanwhile, the facts are that the protesters first threw bricks and rods at the residents who were in the location clearing the road long before the protesters came [1]. You don't need to be politically motivated to clear a road from bricks and it is certainly not evidence for it.

In any case, to your point: No, I suppose readers probably wouldn't think that, because it is not said. That just highlight how meritless the argument (i.e., that it implies something about the protesters) is to omit that the other group are Sheung Shui residents . --Cold Season (talk) 17:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh yeah, the police, which is clearly not a reliable source in any way. Feminist's proposal sorted out the issue well enough. Sources say clearly that they are government supporters, and it is a viewpoint that should be accommodated. OceanHok (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Cold Season, the opposite inference is equally fallacious: the "protesters and residents" wording also implies the "residents" have no protest agenda. As User:OceanHok has pointed out below, User:Feminist's proposal is a more workable point of view than insisting on using protesters and residents to demarcate the two groups. Deryck C. 12:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Saying that these are "residents" does not say anything about their agenda (which according to sources, beyond hypotheticals, is clearing bricks). This argument for excluding that they are "residents", as used in sources, has no real convincing value. --Cold Season (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• Proposal – I suggest using either the proposed wording by User:Feminist, "a confrontation between a group of anti-government protesters and pro-government local residents", or that proposed by Deryck C., [a confrontation] "between two opposing groups". Both options are clearly more neutral than the current wording. I also think it should be noted that both sides were throwing bricks, a fact reflected in numerous reliable sources (see my original post), yet strangely omitted at present. Citobun (talk) 01:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)