Jump to content

Talk:2022 COVID-19 protests in China

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 50.111.216.187 (talk) at 14:32, 29 November 2022 (→‎Protests Died Down?: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Need for images

As of now, I am having difficulty finding fair use images for the article. If people can find or upload images covering the ongoing events, that would be very helpful to convey the current scale of protests. --LatakiaHill (talk) 06:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To specify this request, as the current header image showing the initial protest in Urumchi is going to be deleted soon, there is a need for images/videos of the mass protests and marches in Chinese cities, and not just student vigils. LatakiaHill (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming title?

(Reposting here since the name got moved back) @維基百科最忠誠的反對者 had redirected the page from previously COVID-19 protests in China to Anti-Dynamic Zero Policy Movement in China. While I agree that it is more descriptive, I am worried that it is a bit of a mouthful and might be unintuitive for English-speakers outside China looking to learn more about the recent events. The article itself, related articles such as COVID-19 lockdown in China, and most news articles do not mention the Chinese phrase "dynamic zero COVID", and I do not think the original title would be misleading to a native English speaker given other articles such as COVID-19 protests in the United Kingdom etc. I do however agree that the title could be renamed to something more focused, since I think that the demands and reasoning of the ongoing protests are pretty distinct from protests elsewhere in the world. I appreciate other suggestions that people might have to rename the title (or keep the current one if it works). LatakiaHill (talk) 12:57, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This page needs a lengthy protection so that only admins can make edits. It seems this one person is causing problems (ban evasion being a perfect example). 2604:B000:B137:FF36:A951:E2F9:2B49:BBC1 (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LatakiaHill：First of all, I would like to thank you for informing me of this discussion. In terms of its scope, this is indeed different from other protest movements of Covid-19 in other countries (e.g. calls for the ouster of Xi Jinping、the Chinese communist government and the opening up of press freedom).But while it is my fault for not taking into account the uniformity and perception of other language Wikipedias.
This incident in Chinese wikipedia page is, strictly speaking, more about the massive popular protest movement since November (it is already a separate event), although this page is combined with the Chinese Wikipedia page in the Meta-Wiki database, it is in fact a subset of the same concept， similar to the difference between the Chinese democracy movement and the Tiananmen Incident.
If this page was about three years of Covid-19 protests in China, I would support keeping the name as it is. But if it is about the November protests, I would suggest creating a new page. Of course, if there are better suggestions, I am always open to them. WMLO (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removing phrase

"in response to measures taken by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the Chinese government..."

Mentioning the party is redundant here. The party is the one in control of the government, so it's just as factual and more concise to just replace it with "in response to measures taken by the Chinese government" and perhaps remove bias in the process (seeing the word 'communist' in particular, when the CPC is widely agreed upon to not be communist).

Don't want to edit it myself if it's unpopular so asking here. DevonianShark (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DevonianShark: It is controversial since at the very least CCP still declares that it is a communist party holding a variant of communism. ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 16:56, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of what China calls themselves, I just think its simply not relevant to this topic at all DevonianShark (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it. Mucube (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 November 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Moved. MSN12102001 (talk) 11:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Protests against COVID-19 lockdowns in China → 2022 protests against COVID-19 lockdowns in China – There have been sporadic protests against lockdowns in China going back over the past two years, but the subject of this article seems to be the events of November 2022. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Adding 2022 would keep it focused to the current events. Would also prevent scope creep and confusion if people try to add in info from previous years down the line. --LatakiaHill (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article also specifies specific date in lead sentence. Silikonz (alt)💬 02:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anti-science protests

When protests against lockdowns happened in the West they were labeled anti-science. I remember this rhetoric being used on Wikipedia as well. I think there should be consistency on this. Either anti-lockdown is anti-science or it is not. NatriumGedrogt (talk) 01:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When protests occurred in mid-2020, the motives, the intentions, and the consequences were markedly different to a protest occurring in November 2022, multiple years after widespread adoption of mRNA vaccines in most countries. But I'm sure you were already aware of that. Either way, what suggestion do you have for modifying the article? It seems like you're just soapboxing rather than providing any useful feedback on the article, Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. --benlisquareT•C•E 02:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The protests in China aren't anti-science, they're more anti-authoritarian and pro-democracy. Mucube (talk) 02:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any sources to back-up your theory that governments introduce restriction of citizens' movements are part of a plot to control people? Mintus590 (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree here, as the protests in China generally recognize the efficacy of masks, vaccines and lockdowns. The general purpose here is not to deny the methods; it's to question the necessity of said methods. Foxtail286 (talk) 03:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
False equivalency. The protests in Western countries were labeled as anti-science because their motives were inherently anti-science; they denied that lockdowns had any effect on the spread of COVID-19 and, in some cases, denied the existence of COVID-19 entirely. The protests in China are occurring as a result of China's zero-COVID policy, which had a detrimental effect on people during the pandemic. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Effects from the 2022 World Cup

It might be reason enough to believe the protests were influenced by the 2022 FIFA World Cup. Viewers in China saw large crowds of people not in lockdown, and the Chinese public reacted to that. It's the old reaction to: "If they can do that, why couldn't we?" [1]. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 04:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source does support -- kind of -- a connection by mentioning a WeChat article. Hmm. Artoria2e5 🌉 05:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Status of the New Left?

When these kinda protests crop up, the liberalism movement in China tends to get the focus. But given that there were videos of workers singing the Internationale as well as the anthem, and workers fighting Foxconn and holding up pictures of Mao, I think New Left Maoists and other New Left factions may have a much more significant role in these protests. Genabab (talk) 06:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very good point but media coverage on the Chinese New Left tends to be pretty poor in English sadly, there are journals such as Chuang which focus on it but its likely sources like that won't be available for quite a while compared to the kind of instantaneous 24/7 updates from international Anglophone media outlets. I would add however that these protests largely appear spontaneous rather than being "lead" by anyone so the use of imagery is more likely because the imagery is just well-grounded in China. Totalibe (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


"Dismantlement of the Chinese Communist Party"

I suggest changing "* Dismantlement of the Chinese Communist Party" to "End of One Party Rule" in the goals section. I am not aware of protestors specifically requesting the Dismantlement of the Party, and if they have said so explicitly, I think there should be a citation. Παραλλάξιος (talk) 09:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention, a good chunk of the protestors are members of the Chinese New Left too. I don't think it's fair to say that they want the end of the Communist Party Genabab (talk) 10:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the road in Shanghai

I’d like to point out that the English road name on the road signs in Shanghai goes by the pingying calls the road “Wulumuqi Rd (M)”, where M stands for Middle, as seen here, and not calling it by English as Urumuqi Rd in the article. Should we change it then? SBS6577P (talk) 11:34, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Road name translations have always been a mess; think also stuff like 中山 and 陕西 and 西藏. We could take the official name and add (Chinese: 乌鲁木齐中路; lit. 'Urumuqi Rd (M)') to keep the idea, but in my opinion that’s a bit excessive. Artoria2e5 🌉 15:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Keep the idea of the choice of the street having something to do with the fire.) Artoria2e5 🌉 15:25, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Factional and the dismantlement of the Communist Party

On account of the "merits further discussion comment" I'm making this sectio.

In addition to the above comments from Παραλλάξιος, but as a result of the videos of workers singing the Internationale (as is mentioned in the wiki page) as well as the anthem, alongside workers protesting private companies like Foxconn and holding up pictures of Mao, I do not think it is fair to say that there is a non-factional desire to dismantle the Communist Party. It seems like there is a role in the protests by the Chinese New Left and Maoists. While you *could* argue they may want to dismantle the party in the same way Indian Maoists oppose the Indian Communist Party, that would have a very different character to what more liberal protestors have in mind, not to mention that it is way too early to tell if this is the case. Genabab (talk) 13:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing this as this was the main reason I was hesitant to add the removal of the CCP as a main goal in the infobox. However, this is just a built-in implicit angle of most reliable sources outside of China, and I wouldn't know how to bring in other voices without it becoming a bit soapboxy or doing original research. My personal experience says that part of what made this wave so popular was its direct and clear goal of ending zero-COVID lockdowns, something that resonated with many previously politically inactive. I think that to abstract that away by focusing on a minority presence misses the big picture. At the same time, I am also hesitant to identify say workers protesting at Zhengzhou as the Chinese New Left, as broader worker movements in China tend to draw on socialist imagery and are informed by socialist values, but do not identify with a moniker like New Maoist etc. I will keep an eye out for reliable sources that present a better overview of different/contending ideologies present in the protests. --LatakiaHill (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is overall worth considering that it is too early to tell, all things considered. These protests really started to kick off only recently. Maybe in a few days, more information will come out. Genabab (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, many sources in the article *do* have interviews with many people explaining that they are there simply because lockdowns pushed them too far, or will mention other political ideals. But to synthesize this in the article feels like original research a bit; maybe someone with more experience editing can help me. --LatakiaHill (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In line with the sourcing suggestion made in the "Dismantlement of the Chinese Communist Party" section, I’ve added articles which say the protesters have explicitly called for the resignation of Xi Jinping and the dismantlement of the CCP. If you think that those demands are merely factional, then you need to provide sources which explicitly say that. Otherwise your argument and proposed edits constitute original research. I am notifying User:Amigao of this discussion as that user was the one who made the “merits further discussion” comment Stormandfury (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
> If you think that those demands are merely factional, then you need to provide sources which explicitly say that.
That would assume your sources show that as well? But is there anything there that would suggest this is the majority view? Or the dominant view?
Sure, some people probably agree with it, but if people are going around singing the Internationale or saying "we want to keep the Communist Party, but we want this or that" it's clearly not a hegemonic view. Genabab (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sources do say the protesters have explicitly called for the resignation of Xi Jinping and the dismantlement of the CCP. Just because the sources say those demands have been made by some of the protesters doesn’t make them “factional” anymore than the sources also saying the demand to end the lockdown restrictions have been supported by most of the protesters would them “hegemonic” (your word). No article that is part of the category into which this one also belongs (2022 protests) distinguishes the goals as stated in the article’s respective infobox along a majority-minority axis that you are proposing.
Once again, since you think that the demands related to Xi and the CCP are factional, you will need to provide sources which explicitly say that. Specifically, you will need to provide sources which say the role played by the Chinese New Left and Maoists in the protests proves that the Xi-CCP related demands are not factional. Failure to do either means your argument and proposed edits constitute original research. In addition, aside from your “factional” assertion being at this point unsourced, WP:ONUS stipulates that the “onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content” so the burden falls on you to get consensus for including your description of the Xi-CCP related demands as factional. Please stop reverting until you have done so. Stormandfury (talk) 22:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So as was noted in the edits, you said to ensure consensus was reached. I am reasonably certain that consensus has been reached however, as most people who reply (from what I've seen) agree that the goal of ending the Communist Party is a factional one. And as I pointed out in the edit, even the sources that Stormandfury provided (with the exception of AP) all explicitly stated that this was a factional issue, as they all used words such as:
"*some* protestors called for the resignation of Xi and the Communist Party to be removed."
Which seems pretty defenitive, that it is a factional issue, if the majority of Western news outlets like Reuters or BBC agree that it is a factional issue. Genabab (talk) 07:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One more time: just because the sources say those demands have been made by some of the protesters doesn’t then make them “factional” anymore than how just because they also say the demand to end the lockdown restrictions have been made by most of the protesters doesn’t then make them “hegemonic” (your word). No other article similar to this one distinguishes the goals as stated in its respective infobox in the way that you are proposing. Since you think that the demands related to Xi and the CCP are factional, you will need to provide sources which explicitly say that (and no, your personal interpretation of what other people have said on this page doesn’t count as evidence as that would be original research) Stormandfury (talk) 11:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
> One more time: just because the sources say those demands have been made by some of the protesters doesn’t then make them “factional”
That is exactly what factional means? It means that only *some* of them want that. Not all of them, which fits the defention of factional to a T.
> just because they also say the demand to end the lockdown restrictions have been made by most of the protesters doesn’t then make them “hegemonic”
Yes it does? If the vast majority, or all, of the protestors want an end to the Zero-COVID policy of China, then that means it is the prevailing view and is not factional.
> No other article similar to this one distinguishes the goals as stated in its respective infobox in the way that you are proposing.
How so? I was under the impression that something being factional means it is presented as factional. And as your sources show, it is very much a factional issue.
> Since you think that the demands related to Xi and the CCP are factional, you will need to provide sources which explicitly say that
The sources you provided say that.
> your personal interpretation of what other people have said on this page doesn’t count as evidence
Could you please quote the area where I said this? All I said is that there seems to be a consensus on this talk page that it is factional. I may be wrong but I haven't seen anyone else other than you argue that the end of the Communist party's rule is "non-factional" and supported by the majority or all of the protestors. Again, even the sources you provided disagreed with you on this.
So to summarise:
There seems to be a consensus based on the talk page that these are factional demands. Based off of the evidence you yourself provided (again, with the exception of AP news, but still..) these are overall factional demands. For example, from the Reuters source: " *Some* blamed President Xi Jinping and the Communist Party and demanded their removal from office." and the BBC source: " Some have, however, gone as far as calling for President Xi Jinping to step down." This very clearly shows that the view of the media that has reported on this topic all agree that these protests are not universally about the same thing. They have some over-arching demands, and as shown by the continued and sustained usage of descriptors like "some" and its qualification in other cases with "highly unusual" or "some *even*" (which indicates it's a radical position or not a common position, though that is up to interpretation).
With all that in mind, what reason is there to not use the word factional when pretty much everything indicates that it is, even the sources you used and when there is general agreement that that is the case. Genabab (talk) 12:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
there is no consensus for your views and proposed edits apart from the one that you made up. Some doesn’t mean factional which in any case isn’t even how you defined factionalism in the first place - the initial basis for your definition was the purported role played by the Chinese New Left and Maoists in the protests and not your newfound one which is weight of the demands of the protesters (this is why I said you have the specific obligation to provide sources which say the role played by the Chinese New Left and Maoists in the protests proves that the Xi-CCP related demands are not factional.) If you feel so strongly about this issue then I suggest you go through the process to get it resolved as our attempts to do so clearly aren’t going anywhere Stormandfury (talk) 13:59, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am unclear on WP's defition of "factional" so I will not contest this for now, but I think there is a risk of generalizing and conflating different protests; student vigils abroad (such as those focused on in the citations; Uni of HK, Shinjuku, Paris, etc) are very different from protests in China that often focus on the specific local lockdown policies. I'm deferring to others with more experience on WP here, but I do hope that the nuances of the ongoing protests can be captured. From both personal communication and Chinese sources that unfortunately wouldn't hold up as reliable sources for English Wikipedia, there is also a growing backlash and alienation over how abstract certain demands have become abroad (as also suggested in the cited Reuters article). --LatakiaHill (talk) 20:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
it is worth considering that the sources provided, with the exception of AP, say that "some" protestors call for the end of Communist rule. Which is pretty conclusive imo Genabab (talk) 21:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move 28 November 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to 2022 COVID-19 protests in China. No point in hanging around, this is a highly visible page right now, and the most concise title seems uncontroversial.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:38, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 protests against COVID-19 lockdowns in China → 2022 COVID-19 lockdown protests in China – More concise title. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:22, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support I would go ahead and move it right now as I assume there is consensus on it. Arguably a title like 2022 COVID-19 protests in China would be even more concise. Gust Justice (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Premature move

Two problems with the move made by Amakuru on 28 November 2022 at 15:38 UTC.

  1. No consensus was developed with muliple editors over several days.
  2. It was not moved as proposed. Proposed was "2022 COVID-19 lockdown protests in China"

What's up with that? N2e (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@N2e: this page is currently linked from the main page and highly visible, and we don't need to spend days arguing about the title. The title was proposed in the RM above, and there doesn't seem much controversy over it as it is WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE, and sums up what the article is about. I would recommend not starting any further RMs at this point.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think Amakuru could have waited a bit longer before the move just to ensure there was more concensus for it. That said, the move itself I would view as unproblematic. Gust Justice (talk) 10:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's the point. There was insufficient time for a move of an important page like this, and many could not therefore weigh in. I view the move as problematic. The term "lockdown protests" got removed from the name that had been agreed to just a few days before. N2e (talk) 12:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chronological

This is a late explanation for the cleanup template. The idea is that a chronological layout would better depict the cause-and-effect of the protests, and to illustrate how the waves have different foci. For example, we have the first wave of SZ & Foxconn workers focusing on livelihood, then after the fire people (of a wider range of occupations) started going harder on wanting freedom. Artoria2e5 🌉 15:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good idea, it's standard for ongoing events for good reasons. The earlier the section is restructured, the easier it will be. Why not just do it? It seems there are no vehement objections.
A map with city names might help give geographic sense as well (the template map has no names and doesn't even flag Shanghai; can someone add editing instructions for it in an adjoining comment?). HLHJ (talk) 02:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"White paper revolution" name?

Only one article of the three Taiwanese articles cited mentions that the title "white paper revolution" or "A4 revolution" "has become known" (by who?); the others only reference that name in the titles of the articles. Since I have not heard anyone in the mainland refer to it as this, I'm removing it for now as possible journalist sensationalism and to possibly cause citogenesis --LatakiaHill (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it seems a bit of an exaggeration to call this "revolutionary" Genabab (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Protests Died Down?

As of today. they seem to be no protest's and it's unlikely we will see anymore soon. converge has also lowered about these events.

Of course we should likely wait until we have more information but from early info so far. It seems these protests have ended in a short amount of time. Cilria (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this is based solely on English-language coverage which tends to be biased towards events in English-speaking or Western countries, then that is not exactly a very good way to gauge the current status of the unrest on an hourly/daily basis, especially after such a short period of time. Totalibe (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal perception of some sort of 'bias' is of no value here. 50.111.216.187 (talk) 14:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With one-party control of news in China, the blocked web, etc., it is difficult to draw any conclusions. Especially from just a day in the endless news cycle. Will need to wait, over time, for verifiable sources to support whatever is said in the article. N2e (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@N2e: I would say that the authorities snuffed out the protests in mainland China per [2],[3],[4],[5],[6]. There were no reported protests held on Monday or on Tuesday according to international media, and Chinese state media is certainly not going to say if there were or not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It's over except for some shouting. God protect those arrested and their families. 50.111.216.187 (talk) 14:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Recent lack of protest reporting can also be connected to increases in violent supression and police patrol. News will likely continue to be ongoing.--LatakiaHill (talk) 23:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LatakiaHill: Of course it could, but that would fall under WP:CRYSTAL. Right now the police are hunting down the people involved in the protests, so it could go either way. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to BBC it died down somewhat [7]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.4.223 (talk) 03:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

died down because the police are clamping down (as the source says). Big difference than just simply saying the protests are dying down Stormandfury (talk) 06:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would amend the infobox to include 11/28/22 or 11/29/22 as the end date for the protestors in Mainland China, but add a line under that which says "15 November 2022 – ongoing".

So like:
15 November 2022 – 28 November 2022 (mainland China)
15 November 2022 – ongoing (abroad)
- Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Complete timeline of protests

I thought the protests could be traced back to as early as the 2022 Shanghai COVID-19 outbreak in late April. The Beijing Sitong Bridge protest on 2022-10-13 could also be added in this article since it's directly related to the topic. Wei4Earth (talk, contribs) 23:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wei4Earth: No source saying so till now. ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 01:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

lede should reflect police clampdown

The cable news stations this morning showed empty streets now in many cities with long lines of police vehicles - so suppression is under way in a major series of operations. The lede needs to reflect this unfortunate (but inevitable) turn of events. -HammerFilmFan 50.111.216.187 (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_COVID-19_protests_in_China&oldid=1124595577"