Talk:2019–2020 Hong Kong protests

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Redrose64 (talk | contribs) at 16:28, 5 January 2021 (rv x2: improper use of {{rfc}} - (i) there is no neutral statement; (ii) this appears to be a WP:SPLIT proposal, which is not an RfC matter). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 September 2020 and 11 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Taylortai0205 (article contribs).

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

    Requested move 31 December 2020

    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 section.

    2019–2021 Hong Kong protests → 2019–21 Hong Kong protests – This is similar to the title that has been used in years past, and if 2021 should not be in the title, then "20" should. Jax 0677 (talk) 23:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Strong oppose: Please move it back to "2019–20 Hong Kong protests", it's only the specific end date that needs to be decided. Per my point and OceanHok's view above; there is no evidence that protests have continued beyond November 2020 [1], and expecting more protests to come is just WP:CRYSTAL. There are a lot of aftermath events such as the trial of student leaders and reactions to the NSL, but these are to be listed separately and not under the range of the timeline. If more related active protests do happen in the future, then we can consider adding them in again.
    @Dicmoehtet2400: Considering that you initiated the page move, citing It is still continuing up to 2021, please give the evidence, both here and on the main article.
    PS: note the various subpages (timelines, etc) that haven't been moved, and per my point here, suggest to keep them as is until this discussion concludes. NoNews! 00:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose and move back to 2019-20 Hong Kong protests for now. As I have mentioned before, I don't think the protests would be back anytime soon. We will still be seeing prosecution and further suppression of freedom, but for now, the actual act of protests are unlikely to show up, especially during this pandemic period. Should the protests really show up again in 2021, I would argue that we can start a separate article because I don't think the structure of the current article can accommodate that. OceanHok (talk) 04:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose and should revert to the condition before bold move. Moreover, as other stated, the correct MoS / naming convention is 2019–2021 for period that spawn more than a year (e.g. , 2019–20, 2020–21 are correct, and 2019–21 is not correct). Also it seem OR that large scale protest still exist in 2021. (or even the second half of 2020). Today is 1 January thanks. Matthew hk (talk) 05:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as there is no evidence the protests are continuing. Common sense would suggest there will be no more protests similar to those before given the punishment being meted out. If any future protests do occur (how would we know on the 1st of the year) I suspect they will be sufficiently smaller and different such that we can create a new article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Starzoner: why did you move this without discussion or consensus? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I moved it because Dicmoehtet2400 moved it to 2020-21. I'll move it back now. Matthew hk, OceanHok, Jtbobwaysf. Starzoner (talk) 13:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Can we close the move now, and go back to the previous two discussions (split, end date)? NoNews! 13:54, 1 January 2021 (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.


    Article size split

    Support split - To follow up on the previous discussion, since there is consensus to split, I suggest reducing the "Reactions", "Impact", "Local media coverage", "Police misconduct", "Online confrontations", "Deaths", "Background", "History" as well as the "Clashes between protesters and counter-protesters" sections to ONE paragraph each, and having the rest covered in the sub articles. Obviously, I am open to suggestions. Splitting by year will only help so much, as there are now sections for each month. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I would suggest integrating history/death/clashes into one single history section and then trim it massively while moving the relevent information to Timeline of the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests. Online confrontation and media coverage probably are not long enough to justify a standalone article. The effect section needs to be updated and reworked and maybe combined with the aftermath/subsequent suppression mentioned above. Tactics/reaction/police allegations/background can be further trimmed, but I think they are written in summary style already. OceanHok (talk) 17:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree on split(s)/simplifications, but not as radical to the extent of one paragraph each.
    1. "History" can more or less stay but with unnecessary details moved to the Timelines.
    2. "Clashes between protestors and counter-protesters" -- seems trivial to set a section on its own when the article itself already describes conflicts between two parties -- may be merged into "Tactics and methods".
    3. "Police misconduct" is too detailed for the scope of the general article, and needs to be slashed heavily with the bulk of the text going to the subpage.
    4. "Tactics and methods", "Local media coverage" "Reactions" can also be cut down to at most three paragraphs per subsection with all details (direct quotes from politicians etc) going into the subpage(s).
    5. In particular, "Reactions" need to be differentiated regarding whether they are in response to the protests or to the NSL, each of which have their own pages.
    I'm open to further discussion and suggestions of course. NoNews! 02:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose split Split would be WP:UNDUE since the bulk of sources are for earlier one when there were actual protests. What is being referred to here sounds like an attempt to carve off the aftermath, which is part of the story. As OceanHok states, we can easily trim the timeline as we already have another split article, no need to make a second. I also oppose ever single suggestion by Jax 0677. Clearly all biased suggestions seeking to push a POV. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Support split but doing this one new article at a time. Similar to what OceanHok has said, multiple sections can be combined into one, and can then be split off. WP:UNDUE is completely irrelevant here as this is not determining which content should or shouldn't be on Wikipedia, and it's just as baseless to claim that splitting the article supports a point of view. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @OceanHok: do you support split as Onetwothreeip seems to indicate? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Summary of ideas to split article

    Please comment below as to which ideas you support for reducing the size of this article:

    1. Reduce the "Reactions", "Impact", "Local media coverage", "Police misconduct", "Online confrontations", "Deaths", "Background", "History" as well as the "Clashes between protesters and counter-protesters" sections to ONE paragraph each, and have the rest covered in the sub articles
    2. Integrate history/death/clashes into one single history section and move the relevant information to Timeline of the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests
    3. Update the effect section and rework and combine with the aftermath/subsequent suppression
    4. Trim Tactics/reaction/police & allegations/background
    5. Unnecessary details of "History" moved to Timelines
    6. Merge "Clashes between protestors and counter-protesters" into "Tactics and methods"
    7. Slash "Police misconduct" heavily with the bulk of the text going to the subpage.
    8. Cut "Tactics and methods", "Local media coverage" and "Reactions" down to at most three paragraphs per subsection with details going into the subpages
    9. Differentiate "Reactions" as to whether they are in response to the protests or to the Hong Kong National Security Law
    10. Split only one new article at a time

    --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Strong support for Item 1 and Support for items 2-8 - I support my own idea (Item 1), but I also support Items 2-8. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I support all of these, but I'm not sure if going to one paragraph for each of those is a good idea, at least immediately. I would recommend you be WP:BOLD and take these actions, and editors can revert them if they disapprove. What would be the first new article to create? Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have gone ahead and gave the history section a trim, as well as integrating the death section into different sections. I don't think online confrontation/press coverage is long enough or substantial enough for a split. Other sections can be trimmed, but not as significantly as the one for the history section. OceanHok (talk) 06:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    End date

    I mentioned this earlier and it's a suitable time to bring this up again: it's about time we need decide whether to rename this to 2019-21 protests come the new year; if not, then it's imperative to decide an end date, without any sort of expectation for more protests to come. The last known (and isolated) protest, as far as I know, was in November [2]. The timelines only list events up to October, and even those are mostly NSL reactions (which have their own subpages) rather than actual protests themselves. NoNews! 02:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I wonder how other protest articles handle this? Because most protests gradually fade out and won't actually have an exact end date. I would oppose moving it to 2019-21 protests though. OceanHok (talk) 17:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    OceanHok, I moved it to 2019-2021. Starzoner (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    While popular opinion remains favourable to the protesters and their cause, the actual act of protests have largely faded, and I don't think it would be picking up steam easily again anytime soon. Stuff like "yellow economic circle" are still ongoing though, but I don't think that is a strong enough reason to say that the protests is still continuing. Generally I think the name of the article ("2019-21 HK protests") are too limiting, but I have yet to see RS calling this period of time something else. OceanHok (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree here with OceanHok, these protests are largely over (and I oppose adding 2021 to the name of the article at this time). A new phase of civil disobedience may emerge, but it likley will not resemble the subject of this article (given the heavy handed response by the PRC). I don't support any renaming and I think this article's time period has ended. The question is if we have more current content that cannot be worked into this existing article. Updates on the legal proceedings of past protests obviously continue to fall within the scope of this article. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not actually over. There were demonstrations in the past few days. Say the boat trip in Sai Kung and the procession to the Legislative Council Complex in support of the twelve Hongkongers detained across the border in Yantian. The timeline is not up-to-date. It has to be updated to reflect the events in November-December 2020 and January 2021. 223.197.170.231 (talk) 12:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't call 8964 as 1989 to 2021 China protest, even until recently, there is annual event in Hong Kong that related to 8964. The HK protest are now focus on the court ruling instead of pro-democracy as described by foreign media. Plus there are Chapter 599G of HK Law, many other reason that no large scale protest exist in HK since the start of COVID-19. This fact is well reflected in news report and wikipedia is not a primary source and express your view. Based on secondary source it is well clear it is over. You can add a small section to have some major aftermath described, however. Matthew hk (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Users clamouring to label the protests as over

    @Newfraferz87: regarding this edit summary, multiple sources 1, 2 call this a "protest" or a "demonstration" and it is not your role as a Wikipedia editor to personally decide what constitutes a protest or not. Please review WP:OR. Citobun (talk) 04:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Fine if it has been called a protest, but that doesn't mean it must listed under the scope of this article, which specifically refers to the group of protests with its most noted characteristics (Five Demands, yellow/blue economic circle, Glory to HK etc). Protests and demonstrations occur frequently in Hong Kong (note July 1, October 1 annual protests) but that doesn't mean each protest is this (group of 2019-20) protests continued!
    If you can explain how this protest should be properly grouped under the scope of this article (or cite enough sources that say so), then please do so, and update the history and timeline appropriately. Otherwise it's better listed under Hong Kong–Mainland China conflict or have its own article. NoNews! 05:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It would take some serious mental gymnastics to argue that the CHRF protest of 1 January 2021 is unrelated, considering it was organised by the same group behind the largest marches of 2019 and 2020. Only now they are calling for the release of people imprisoned, in part, for their role in the 2019-20 protests. And the July 1, October 1, etc. demonstrations that you mentioned ARE included within the scope of this article. Citobun (talk) 07:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Whatever is decided, editors really need to absorb/digest MOS:DATERANGE before requesting a new title. 2019–20 is okay and 2019–2020 is okay; to extend it into 2021, 2019–2021 is okay, but 2019–21 goes against the MOS style guideline, which does apply to article titles as well as article content. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 07:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2019–2020_Hong_Kong_protests&oldid=998488575"