Talk:2011 Chinese pro-democracy protests

Requested moves

Move proposal 1 -- to 2011 Chinese Jasmine gatherings

2011 Chinese protests → 2011 Chinese Jasmine gatherings — The numbers of protestors estimated by foreign journalists for the first 3 Sundays have been small, but the numbers of foreign journalists gathering have been significant and the numbers of police gathering (and beating and arresting journalists and "strollers" suspected of casually walking in a politically provocative fashion) have been even more significant. The proposed new name (from discussion on the talk page) is intended to be a non-judgmental descriptive title, where "Jasmine" is the name used by protest organisers and media (and apparently one senior PRC official). If the proposal is accepted, the lead would need to disambiguate in explaining that the article is not about the literal gathering of a flower. The "J" is capitalised since it refers to the Western media's usage of the proper noun "Jasmine Revolution" regarding the Sidi Bouzid Revolt#Naming. Boud (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Also note previous discussion of this issue in the sections above. I support a move in general since the current title is both vague and a bit inaccurate and the use of "Jasmine" in the title. Oppose the use of "revolution". —  AjaxSmack  04:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Semi-support - the proposed title is definitely better than the current title, which is highly inappropriate, since it doesn't cover notable 2011 protests in China, only those from the "Tunisia wave". 65.93.14.50 (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support - The Jasmine gathering name is ok. It has the Jasmine word. And doesn't emphasize the protest part. Benjwong (talk) 04:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - "Gatherings" is a meaningless description of what happened. An uninformed reader might think this was about a flower expo. Moreover, I have heard no description of this as a "Chinese Jasmine gathering". We need to go by how these events are described in the English language world, not how individuals here think it should be described. Even if the protests weren't successful in that a lot of people got together to shout slogans, protesting was the point of what happened. I do wonder if some people deliberately want to underplay the protesting nature. John Smith's (talk) 08:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose CNN, Reuters, ABC, CBS, indeed all the mainstream media call this event(or non-event) as "revolution", or "protest", or "moment". No one ever call it "Gatherings". Why would editors want to say something is Blue, when mainstream media reporters say it is Red? Arilang ^talk 08:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • If mainstream media says that grass is red, does that make grass red? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment

  Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. WP:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight

Benlisquare, editors are here to add "viewpoints...in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." This "gathering" viewpoint is not "significant", I am afraid. Arilang ^talk 23:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but neutrality would include describing an event with the proper name. It is clear that the word 'revolution' was a gross exaggeration, but the word 'protests', although not a million miles away, is still an overstatement because nobody has been able to demonstrate that there have been notable demonstrations. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the media use a variety of terms to describe these events, and they often point out that there have been no major protests and certainly no revolution. In other cases, the media refers to "protests" or a "Jasmine revolution". When the terms and descriptions used in the sources are inconsistent or contradictory, we have no choice but to attempt our own description.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 01:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Conditional support of name change being necessary, and the proposed name seems reasonable. An alternative name might be 2011 Chinese unprotests ;-) --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
• Conditional support for a name change to something more realistic, as long as it is within reasonable boundaries. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. I support a renaming, and was prepared to reluctantly agree to this proposal. That was before I read John Smith's flower expo comment, and now I cannot get the delightful imagery out of my head. I agree that we should adopt a naming convention employed by published, reliable sources. Unfortunately, the most common term found in the sources is of a "jasmine revolution," and this is no revolution. "Jasmine protests" also turns up with great frequency in the english-language media reports, though it often appears in the context of "calls for" protest, rather than referring to the protests (unprotests?) themselves. There does not seem to be an elegant solution here, but "2011 Chinese Jasmine Protests" may be the closest we will come, partly because it is the most likely term to be searched for, short of "revolution." Articles titles cannot always bear the burden of explaining the precise nature of an event or topic, and in this case, we may need to let the article do most of the explaining.Homunculus (duihua) 05:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support. (i'm the proposer.) Several of the arguments above relate to different parts of Wikipedia:Article titles: see the sections
  • Wikipedia:NAME#Common_names
  • Wikipedia:NAME#Non-neutral_but_common_names
  • Wikipedia:NAME#Non-judgmental_descriptive_titles
  • Wikipedia:NAME#Precision_and_disambiguation
  • "Jasmine gatherings" is clearly not the common name, even though "Jasmine protests" or "Jasmine revolution" are common among Western mainstream media, so the "Jasmine" part of this is common
  • "protests" to some degree could be considered OR or POV, since not all sources agree that these were protests (though i agree with John Smith that protests do not necessarily mean carrying banners and shouting slogans)
  • As i say in the proposal, the proposed new name falls under the Non-judgmental_descriptive_titles principle. "Gatherings" is not widely used, but that's not a counterargument. The question is whether or not this is a neutral and NPOV description of what the topic consists of.
  • John brought up the ambiguity problem: the reader might first think that the article is about Chinese gathering jasmine flowers in 2011. However, "Be precise, but only as precise as necessary." As stated in the proposal, the proposal is 2011 Chinese Jasmine gatherings, not 2011 Chinese jasmine gatherings. In scripts with the lower/upper case distinction, such as latin script, the difference between Jasmine and jasmine can be quite important (but varies between Different Languages or author styles...). This should alert the reader that the topic is not about gathering flowers.
• i don't know if anyone will change his/her position following my explanation here. If we fail to get obvious consensus for the present proposal, then someone can make a new proposal (my guess is we should try for 2011 Chinese Jasmine protests, with big J and small p), or else we just stick with this title for a month or so and then a new name might become obvious. Boud (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Definitely an improvement over the current title. I agree with Boud.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I hear quack, quack. Those gatherings were intended as a sign of protest, end of story. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose.
  • These protests have far more forms than just "gatherings": Strolling, ordering menu no. 3 and jasmine tea etc.
  • These are protests, no gatherings, see the infobox at the top right corner.
  • All the other language editions of this article have either "Jasmine-Revolution in China" or "2011 Chinese Protests" as a title. Why should the English version become a gathering? There are far more important gatherings in China. But if it comes to protests, these are simply the most important protests since 1989. Waikiki lwt (talk) 09:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Move proposal 2 -- to 2011 Chinese crackdown

2011 Chinese protests → 2011 Chinese crackdown on dissidents Proposing to move this article from 2011 Chinese protests to 2011 Chinese crackdown on dissidents (or 2011 Chinese crackdown on activists and journalists or just 2011 Chinese crackdown on activists/2011 Chinese crackdown on dissidents). The major news story is China's horrendous crackdown and detainment of human rights activists and foreign journalists, not the actual protest. The crackdown was a result of calls for protest, but the protest itself was a non-event, as supported by numerous sources and the content of this Wikipedia article. The title should make this clear.--hkr (talk) 01:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

"Chinese crackdown" is also being used by mainstream media outlets to refer to this event.--hkr (talk) 01:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Who are "Chinese" and who are they cracking down on - nuts? Again, a meaningless title. If there was consensus that this was acceptable, I would prefer "Chinese protest crackdowns". There was more than one crackdown and it was done regarding people trying to protest. I should also point out that the previous move proposal has not been closed yet. John Smith's (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, "2011 Chinese protests" is just as vague, for the same reasons. Who among the Chinese are protesting and what are they protesting for? And "2011 Chinese crackdown on dissidents" is another option, one that's more specific. Also, the other move proposal is to another title, and one that most users are opposed to (I know it hasn't "officially closed", but the consensus is against it).--hkr (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose -New proposed name would only add more confusion, in the sense that Chinese communist regime had been "cracking down" on dissidents since 1949, and if this name gets the OK sign, we could have titles like 2010 Crack down, 2009 Crack down, 2008 Crack down, so on and so forth. Arilang ^talk 23:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

But the same applies to "2011 Chinese protests". Chinese protests occur in the PRC every year, regardless of how much the PRC ruthlessly tries to suppress it. 2011 Chinese protests can refer to any of these protests, not just the (attempted) one that this article is dealing with. The PRC does send its goons to beat up/jail human rights activists and journalists every year, but the current title needs to be more specific.--hkr (talk) 14:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Nice try, but this presents the same problem as the current title. Just as "2011 Chinese protests" should rightly describe all major protests of 2011, "2011 Chinese crackdown on dissident" would have to describe all crackdowns on dissidents in the calendar year, which extend well beyond the scope of this particular crackdown. We don't want to head in that direction.Homunculus (duihua) 02:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. I agree that the PRC regime is intolerant of any expressions of dissent, and routinely rounds up dissidents in a pre-emptive or precautionary manner. There may be many during the course in one year. We already have coverage in most cases where dissidents are cracked down upon because they are closely related to notable events, such as 20th anniversary of Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, 2008 Summer Olympics or 2010 Nobel Peace Prize, and I feel such an approach is sufficient. This crackdown is a knee-jerk reaction from a paranoid bunch of old men to the 'call for protests', thus needs to be related to it. I think there is general consensus that we seem to be talking around the protests as if they were real (as opposed to hypothetical, based on the government reaction). It also seems there are few notable protests in this round, and would therefore suggest perhaps '2011 calls for pro-democracy protests in China'. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  • "2011 calls for pro-democracy protests in China" just might work! It's better than the current title.--hkr (talk) 14:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose.
  • Not the crackdown is important, but the protests. Since the protesters are so difficult to grasp, the crackdown so far is not successfully.
  • All the other language editions of this article have either "Jasmine-Revolution in China" or "2011 Chinese Protests" as a title. Why should the English version become a gathering? There are far more important crackdowns in China. But if it comes to protests, these are simply the most sweeping and profound protests since 1989. Waikiki lwt (talk) 09:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Move proposal 3 -- to 2011 calls for pro-democracy protests in China

2011 Chinese protests → 2011 calls for pro-democracy protests in China
Per Ohconfucius. This title is more specific than "2011 Chinese crackdown on dissidents" or "2011 Chinese protests". Protests and crackdowns on dissidents happen every year in the PRC, but "calls for pro-democracy protests" are much rarer. We need to make it clear that this was a call for pro-democracy reforms, and not just one of the more frequent protests over property rights or local corruption. This is more preferable than the "Jasmine"-related titles, since the title makes it clear that the online calls are about democracy, and not the flower (although the use of Jasmine Revolution is widespread in the media, neither the Tunisian Revolution or 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests articles include it in the title).--hkr (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support, as stated above. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support, as the current title is descriptive [there is no universal name for the events]; the proposed title just does it better. Quigley (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Overly complicated and "calls" is far too vague. John Smith's (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. So far the main theme is Jasmine, a name that comes up in nearly every reference. The next name that comes up persistently is "revolution", be it underground, phantom, shadowy, call it whatever you may. Looking at the rapid and all powerful responses of the regime, my conclusion is that the Chinese government is engaging in a psychological warfare against an invisible enemy. Give it a few more weeks, maybe a real revolution is around the corner. Arilang ^talk 23:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd like to use the word "Jasmine", but the Tunisian Revolution article isn't even titled the Jasmine Revolution. "Pro-democracy" is better than just "Jasmine", and it makes it clear that this is about democratic reforms, not the flower. And "maybe a real revolution is around the corner" is WP:CRYSTALBALL-y, so there's no way we can include that in the title. If it does become a real revolution, we should change the title, yet before that happens, we need something more specific than "2011 Chinese protests" (which could refer to anything!). But, you do agree that the current title is too vague?--hkr (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I could agree to leave it a few weeks, but my prediction isn't so cataclysmic as Arilang. I believe the regime has succeeded in merely buying time.. Using a cooking analogy: the flames are being turned up by this movement, but the safety valve on this pressure cooker is still effective but working harder. The temperature needs to rise by a lot, and very fast for the pot to explode. We are more likely to see the challenge from the 'invisible enemy' fizzle out than gain momentum this time around – it's more likely to happen with a political trigger unforeseen by the regime, or perhaps when North Korea or Myanmar collapses. But I digress... because it's all just ball-gazing. As to the title proposal, it's no more "vague" than the calls themselves, made anonymously through the diffuse online media (Boxun and Twitter etc). Inserting 'Boxun' or 'Boxin.com' into the name might make it less vague, although I see that as being largely unnecessary for the title when '2011 calls for pro-democracy protests in China' is adequately descriptive. The consensus away from "Jasmine revolution" was already demonstrated when the article was at AfD. Anyhoo, I find '2011 calls for pro-democracy Jasmine revolutionary protests in China' [sic] to be a real mouthful. ;-) --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion "2011 calls for China underground Jasmine uprising ", or "2011 calls for China Jasmine uprising (underground)" See 地下教會 地下教會:Translation:Underground Church.

Arilang ^talk 03:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment On response to user OCF's comment:"We are more likely to see the challenge from the 'invisible enemy' fizzle out than gain momentum this time around ", if the enemies prefer to remain invisible and nameless, and the online revolutionary call comes every week, I seriously doubt the regime's ability to catch anyone of the phantom warriors. The reality is, Chinese police manpower operate in the real world, and every police operation costs $, whereas phantom warriors just need to punch some keyboards from nowhere, without setting foot on neither KFC nor Big Mac. Who is going to win at the end? "Elementary, Mr.Watson." Arilang ^talk 06:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• Both you and I are speculating here, which is why I drew a line under my digression. This discussion is off-topic, as it does nothing to improve the article. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose.
  • Not the calls are important, but the protests. Every protest in history has been called for by some kind of opinion leaders, might it be sophisticated exile intellectuals or the leaders among the angry mob. So that the protests have been preceded by calls is logical, but not important.
  • The proposed new title is misleading: It looks like there were only calls, but no protests. Why do you have to arrest 25 people and supervise 200 other, if there is no protest? We have video coverage of participants protesting and telling the cameras what they protest for. Dear friends proposing this, you might have the power to rewrite history in the PRC, but not in Wikipedia.
  • All the other language editions of this article have either "Jasmine-Revolution in China" or "2011 Chinese Protests" as a title. Why should the English version become "calls"? Waikiki lwt (talk) 09:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Move Proposal 4

• 2011 calls for China Jasmine uprising(underground)
• 2011 calls for Chinese Jasmine protests
• 2011 calls for Chinese Jasmine Revolution

Any comments? Arilang ^talk 08:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Would you consider amending your proposal to "2011 calls for Chinese Jasmine protests"? "Protests" has been used more frequently in connection to this event than "uprising." Moreover, It's unclear why the "underground" qualifier is necessary. I'm not even really sure what it means in this context. Boxun is not underground...Homunculus (duihua) 03:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

That would be the current title with the word "Jasmine" added. You should just add it now. Is trivial. It shouldn't need a vote. Benjwong (talk) 04:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

"calls for protests" and "protests" are in two entirely different realms. No one have ever witness any real protest yet, and there might not be any real protest to be seen for another X number of weeks, still, the weekly "calls" keep on coming, and the weekly police responses are highly visible. Arilang ^talk 05:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I am fine with calls for protests. There are too few voters however. Benjwong (talk) 06:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

'calls for protests' is acceptable to me too. I'm not so keen on the Jasmine, because it really applies to the Tunisian Revolution, but the name is still more apt and descriptive than the current. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

As long as the word jasmine is mentioned somewhere in the article, it should be ok. The reason why I wanted to not plainly call it "Chinese protest" is simply because the name can be confused with other "Chinese protest". Benjwong (talk)

So, do we have consensus for changing the title to "call for pro-democracy protests"? Although they haven't !voted, Benjwong and Homunculus look to be in favour. I'm not against the idea of mentioning Jasmine in the title, but pro-democracy is much more specific than Jasmine, especially if reader isn't aware of the Tunisian Revolution.--hkr (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

If "Jasmine" is being excluded from the title, and nearly every reference carries the word "Jasmine", then the article would suffer violation of WP:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight. Arilang ^talk 00:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose.
  • Just keep the title as it is. Remember the long nfd discussion and we did not find a good solution, but protests are better than calls. Of course following offical sources there are some 80,000 other protests each year in China, so the title is not more than ambiguous. The matter would be best addressed with "2011 Chinese Jasmine Protests", but our special Chinese friends participating in this discussion have the order to avoid the word "Jasmine" and they are the only ones working on this article night and day using different alias.
  • All the other language editions of this article have either "Jasmine-Revolution in China" or "2011 Chinese Protests" as a title. Why should the English version be 'calls'? Have the calls not been heard? Has there been no protest? Waikiki lwt (talk) 09:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
• General comment. Move proposals 1-4 are all awkward circumlocutions, and the current "2011 Chinese protests" violates at least four of the five WP:TITLE principal criteria. Some titular variation of "Jasmine Revolution" or "Jasmine" seems essential. Sixteen of the current article's 66 References have "Jasmine Revolution" titles and seven others have "Jasmine". Phrasal searching Google News finds 133 "Chinese Jasmine Revolution", 33 "Jasmine Revolution in China", and 0 "2011 Chinese protests". Keahapana (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Requesting semi-protection tag

Since this article has become a battleground for editors who are into editing warring and POV pushing, a {{::Edit semi-protected}} tag would solve a lot of headaches, as well as save a lot of precious time for everyone. Arilang ^talk 02:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Wait until there actually are disruptive IP edits. Currently there are none. "Preemptive strike" is not a reason for protection, as WP:PILLAR encourages that all people are allowed to edit. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The currently blocked IP editor was being disruptive. Let's see how he behaves when he comes off the block, or whether anyone takes over for him. John Smith's (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Pro - I vote for a semi-protected tag even though this suggestion might not have been intended to vote on. There has been so many important things removed in this article and now it reads like a real mess with repititions, broken structure etc. Let us also think of the readers! Waikiki lwt (talk) 09:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Protection is based on whether there is any persistent edit warring or vandalism. I have never seen this being decided on by vote. There is no action here suggesting protection/semi-protection is necessary. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

March 13 Contradiction?

13 March There were several hundred police in the Wangfujing and Xidan districts in Beijing, including uniformed police with dogs, paramilitary police, plain-clothes police, special forces units and security guards.[37] More than 40 police were present at the Peace Cinema in Shanghai.[37] According to the Agence France-Presse (AFP), "there was no massive police presence [at Wangfujing] as seen on previous Sundays."[27]

- Contradiction?... i am not sure how to proceed here... can someone actually find a proper source that gives the right information? 173.230.178.111 (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not a direct contradiction, it depends on whether "hundreds" is "massive" or not. DPA gave more details, while the quote from AFP does not say that there were no police at all, just that the presence was not "massive" at Wangfujing (saying nothing about Xidan and Shanghai). In any case, i've WP:NPOV'd this into one paragraph. If you can find more reliable sources, please add them and their notable information content if it's new/different. Boud (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Times Square, the US, and WP:UNDUE

Wow. 20 people. That's smaller than the anime club at the University of San Francisco, and that's not even something. Don't you think the article is giving a little bit too much WP:UNDUE weight here? 20 people, in the way I look at it, is a negligible quantity of people. I mean, simply for this reason, there's an excuse to add the United States flag to the infobox - but is this necessary at all? What tells that this wasn't just some after-school thing organised by a few kids disgruntled with the CCP? Back in middle school I've done the same thing with a much larger group in front of the Japan Embassy in Canberra, and this was back in 2005. Is this Times Square thing even notable at all? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Yea, the League of Social Democrats routinely has 15 people ready to come out and demonstrate at whatever anti-government cause there is in Hong Kong; the 20-person demonstration in the centre of New York really needs to be put into some sort of global context. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The crowd at Hong kong and Taipei is not much better than those at Times Square, the USA flag should be treated as an equal to any other flags. Arilang ^talk 09:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Er, yes. The League of Social Democrats would have had a higher headline participation rate if they had been astute enough to ask for sympathetic "strolls" in Causeway Bay next to the semi-permanent Falun Gong demonstration outside Sogo, instead of marching to the Central Liaison Office ;-) --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Still, the removal of the Shannxi University reference by OCF is a bit premature, what about this link:http://sankei.jp.msn.com/world/news/110321/chn11032114080001-n1.htm, the crowd is 500 strong. Arilang ^talk 08:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Removal was more out of sourcing and verifiability concerns. Epoch Times is a Falun Gong newspaper whose declared mission is the downfall of the Communist Party. It routinely publishes stories that are either unverified or unverifiable, and is only 'reliable' where it reports on the position of the FLG. I see there report that Apple Daily has reported it too. That's not a huge improvement. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Apology to OCF for my immature protest against his decision to remove the Shannxi University reference, which looks increasingly more like a piece of ill manufactured fake news. Arilang ^talk 01:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

No worries, mate. You did mean "premature", I assume ;-) --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

China / Taiwan naming conventions

Just noticed reversions to the article over the naming convention employed to refer to Taiwan and Mainland China. WP:NC-CHN#Political NPOV suggests that in instances where one is trying to differentiate Taiwan from the mainland, that "Republic of China (Taiwan)" and "People's Republic of China" be used in lieu of the more ambiguous "China" and "Taiwan." For the section dealing specifically with Taiwan, I suggest that we change the title to "Republic of China (Taiwan)", refer to Taiwan was RoC, and use PRC to refer to Mainland China. Is there agreement here, or does this require further discussion? Homunculus (duihua) 19:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I would say that this is unnecessary. We're talking about protests happening in Taiwan the island. This is not a discussion of Taiwanese politics or State to State relations. In circumstances like this it's much preferable to refer to "Taiwan" because everyone knows what it means. "RoC(Taiwan)" is a compromise to help identify Taiwan whilst referring to the formal title that it goes by.

Also the editor that originally wanted to make the change has left a message on my talk page to say he's happy keeping things as they are, though he might be interested in discussing it further. John Smith's (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright, good to know it's resolved (at least for now). Homunculus (duihua) 20:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

New suggestion

Rather than open another new move request, I wanted to put the idea forward informally. How about "2011 Chinese protest movement" or "2011 Chinese protest campaign"? It keeps the word "protest", which is important because that's what everything was about, whilst also suggests that this was a campaign/movement to get protests happening and perhaps the protests themselves weren't the most important thing.

Thoughts? John Smith's (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• Myeah. Saw your edit and summary. Soon, it will become clear that nothing is going to happen because the screws have been turned so tight inside the PRC. The Tsunami might one day happen, though my guess is that it won't be now or six months time, but is that enough to keep the status indicated in the article as 'ongoing' indefinitely? The dissidents will lose face if they formally called off their thang, so it's just going to turn in to a joke, but funny thing is that it isn't funny (haha). --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

"Campaign" in China is used only for government incited movements. "Movement" fits better to this civil protests. It also makes clear that the protests are not so important, but that a civil society is developing. However, I would prefer "Jasmine Revolution in China", like suggested in an earlier discussion. This corresponds also to the Chinese and Japanese article. Waikiki lwt (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• Waikiki lwt, I have some serious issues regarding the edits you are making. In essence, you seem to be introducing quite a bit of material which appears to violate WP:NPOV.Your comment above indicates that particular bias. I believe you have already been reverted once, yet you persist without further discussion. This is unacceptable. Please discuss your changes. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
• BTW, using edit summaries does not constitute 'discussion'. Thank you. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

"Jasmine Revolution", while being the common name of this movement, can be misleading as a title. At least to me, the word "revolution" implies that something much bigger than a "protest", or even an outright overthrow of the current regime, is going on. In reality, this event is (as far as I, an ordinary man in PRC, know) nothing close to a "revolution" - it has not even gained nationwide attention. In fact I knew absolutely nothing of it before I saw it on WP today - it is not like I don't read news... Blodance the Seeker 03:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, I concur that "campaign" is used mostly for official movements. Blodance the Seeker 03:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Ai Weiwei

Should it be noted that Ai Weiwei was recently arrested. It clearly was political. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.60.230.254 (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added it. Waikiki lwt (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)