Jump to content

Talk:2014 Hong Kong protests/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Requested move

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. It is clear that the terms "Hong Kong protests" 232,000 results, "Umbrella Movement" 248,000 results, and "Umbrella Revolution" 12,800 results are all used in reliable news sources, but it is also clear that the reliable sources do not agree on a particular title; any single list of examples of sources using a particular title is not in and of itself sufficient reason to move the page. Further, while "2014 Hong Kong protests" has been criticized for its lack of concision, it is both usefully descriptive (it locates and dates the protests) and effectively non-judgmental. While "Umbrella Movement" or "Umbrella Revolution" clearly refer to the protests when they are used, it is not clear from the present discussion that they are immediately recognizable titles for the general readership, and "movement" and "revolution" have markedly different valences. Participants did not show a strong general preference for either of the two possibilities, and these versions do not presently seem to fulfill the guidance that such names be used "when the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources." (Finally, move discussions are not a vote. At the same time much, though by no means all, of the support for a move in the present discussion comes from single-purpose accounts. Please do not use single-purpose accounts to try to affect Wikipedia processes.) It is possible that consensus to move the page might be reached in a future request, but the current proposal has not reached a consensus to move and there do not seem to be pressing policy violations that would necessitate a move against consensus in the current discussion. Dekimasuよ! 01:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


2014 Hong Kong protests → Umbrella Revolution – As observed in various media, the name 'Umbrella Revolution' has been frequently used by many people especially in Hong Kong. Also, the original title "2014 Hong Kong protests" could be ambiguous as there are so many protests in Hong Kong in 2014 but this article seems only referring to the protest after 28 Sep happening in Admiralty, Mong Kok and Causeway Bay. Please consider making a change, thanks. --Life is lifelong revolution. --Relisted. Dekimasuよ! 04:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Umbrevolution (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC) * Umbrevolution (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Prefer Umbrella Movement, which has recently become the more dominant phrase. Either way, I strongly support moving away from this title toward Umbrella Movement or Revolution. "Umbrella Movement" is clearly the common name for these protests, and also avoids issues of ambiguity with the present title, which is not WP:PRECISE. No title is more recognisable than "Umbrella Movement". RGloucester — ☎ 16:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I'm changing my mind on this one. Whether it's "Umbrella Movement" or "Umbrella Revolution", either would be more appropriate than the current title.--Nowa (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Umbrella Revolution (but I think Umbrella revolution is better) - instantly recognisable. "Umbrella movement" emerged as an attempt by some protesters to stage-manage their media presence with a euphemism, as explained in the article, and never gained much traction - most media source now avoid using a name, other than "protesters" or occasionally "Occupy protesters". I agree with proposer, we should stick with the more descriptive and authentic "revolution". zzz (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
We can't use lowercase. This is a proper noun, used by the media. Hence, as a proper noun, it must be capitalised. It would only be used in lowercase if we were using as part of a WP:NDESC name. As I said, I'm fine with Umbrella Revolution, if that's what everyone else would like to use. RGloucester — ☎ 17:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Apologies, upper case is fine, then. zzz (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Sadly, Mr Ho, it is not what you see that determines what we call articles. It is what reliable sources see. RGloucester — ☎ 18:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
You have rebutted people who opposed. I'll try to rebut you. Compare Hungarian Revolution of 1956 to 2014 HK protests. To qualify as "Revolution", there must be great conflict between government and civilians and deaths. Also, look at articles containing "Revolution". As for "sources", that is just news corporations trying to gain profits by exploiting a common, average person. Or they are trying to market news about that "Revolution", which hasn't happened much. Also, the significance as "Revolution" hasn't reached the typical level of "Revolution". The protesters want to do-or-die for the causes, but there's not one news of death yet. --George Ho (talk) 18:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
No offense but I find your viewpoint rather narrow. First of all, who said that a 'Revolution' must involve death of somebody? Could Hong Kong's Umbrella Revolution be the first Revolution which does not cause any death? And secondly, the reason why I proposed this retitling is that, there are toooooo many protests in Hong Kong. This article however only focuses on the commonly called 'Occupy Central' protests (though the proposed has already stated that the 'Umbrella Revolution' has no relation with 'Occupy Central' at all. As a Wikipedia writer, I think it's necessary for you to focus on FACT and what you OBSERVE, but not your opinion on whether or not this Revolution/Movement could succeed at last. Pay a trip to Admiralty/Mong Kok/Causeway Bay, every one is calling this 'Umbrella Revolution'/'Umbrella Movement'. Admit it man. --Life is lifelong revolution. 18:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Umbrevolution (talk • contribs) — Umbrevolution (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Are you directly related to protesters? Please read WP:COI if you really are. There's not to be ashamed about. --George Ho (talk) 19:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Have you never heard of the Colour revolutions, which were non-violent? Usage of the word "revolution" has changed. You do not have the right to question sources that are deemed reliable by the community. RGloucester — ☎ 19:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Where is a policy or guideline discouraging me to question them? As for the "Revolutions", I was too oblivious about Rose Revolution, the term used by recent sources. I heard about Orange Revolution, and I forgot about it. --George Ho (talk) 21:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Usage in sources doesn't seem to have changed from the last time this request was closed a couple weeks ago. It's certainly a term used for the protests, but in no way has overtaken the current title in terms of common usage.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • As my Support comment mentions (and your references confirm), "most media sources now avoid using a name, other than 'protesters' or occasionally 'Occupy protesters'". This article needs a name, nevertheless. No one has ever used the name "2014 Hong Kong protests". zzz (talk) 19:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
There is nothing colloquial about it. Reliable newspapers use it. It is the most recognisable name, per WP:NATURALNESS. Newspapers do refer to "Hong Kong protests", but only as a way to describe the "Umbrella Revolution" or "Movement". Most sources refer to this as some variation on "Umbrella X". That's a fact. This is the common name, and has been since the last request. Since when is Time Magazine a "colloquial" publication? RGloucester — ☎ 20:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with you in that regard. There is nothing wrong with the using the term "Umbrella Revolution" if it was the most commonly used name.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Note - I just searched Hong Kong in google news, and unsurprisingly all of the results concerned the protests. I clicked the first 10 -- of these, 2 mentioned the term umbrella (one in the caption of a photo) and 0 used the term Umbrella Revolution. I don't in any way disagree that it is a term used for the protests in reliable sources, and this should absolutely be said in the lead, but it is abundantly clear that this has not become the most commonly term for the event to the extent of Prague Spring, Watergate, or Velvet Revolution.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as the Umbrella Whatever has not become the dominate name. We just went through this exercise several weeks ago too. I have some sympathy for the problem that there are a lot of protests in HK, so suggest 2014 Hong Kong democracy protests as that injects the reason for the protests and disambiguates them from all the other protests in 2014. Legacypac (talk) 20:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
That proposed title absolutely fails WP:CONCISE. Please use the name that is most natural for these protests, which is "Umbrella Revolution". It is the most common name, it is unambiguous, and it is the most WP:CONCISE. RGloucester — ☎ 20:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Note It might be interesting to compare the terms used with Google Trends [1]. I personally have no preference now, except slightly against "Revolution" since the main organizers deny it being one. _dk (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
They were just being polite, as always. We shouldn't deny them their rightful name because of that. Looks from that chart that Umbrella Revolution is indeed most common as well as being unmistakeable. zzz (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
How much do you know Hong Kong culture? Not every English-speaking readers know stuff about Hong Kong. Even when I know Hong Kong celebrities (I'm Chinese), I still am oblivious about Hong Kong a lot. I've never been there, so how is denying themselves as "Revolution" just "being polite"? --George Ho (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Amending comment: Signedzzz, I wonder if you are an expert of Hong Kong culture. Not all of us in English Wikipedia know how Hong Kongers communicate with each other. I am sure you know stuff about Hong Kong civilians, unless I'm wrong. --George Ho (talk) 02:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Read the article, "name" section. And then read 'ad hominem' definition. "Being polite" is shorthand, of course. They were being "concerned for their lives vs. insurmountable odds" also, at a minimum. And I massively misunderstood this comment.zzz (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
"Don't deny them their "rightful name" because they're just being polite!" - That's what we call a fringe theory. STSC (talk) 21:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
So the (well-referenced) article is a fringe theory. I guess you'd better go and write your own, then. zzz (talk) 21:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Strongly support move Charles Essie (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Citations not needed - ask user:George Ho, or any Hong Kong citizen. STSC (talk)
Like you, George has never been to Hong Kong. "Ask any Hong Kong citizen."[citation needed] Editors who post messages here, please read the box above: "Please base arguments on article title policy" zzz (talk) 22:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't like my words being used against me, but I can't stop you. Is "2014 Hong Kong protests" stable per WP:TITLECHANGES? I don't see either "Umbrella Revolution" or "Umbrella Movement" as stable title. By the way, is there a difference between listening and influencing each other? As far as I see, both sides are unwilling to compromise with or influence each other. One side blatantly accuses; other comments whether this "Revolution" fits the typical definition of "Revolution", non-violent or violent. I've not seen one comment about "Movement" much, but I don't think I wanna use "Umbrella" yet. --George Ho (talk) 22:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Almost forgot: from WP:TITLECHANGES, "Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia." Why not wait for events to develop, so we can add them? --George Ho (talk) 22:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I have refer to the comments as listed above, and i find it a bit interesting, esp. George Ho that he has not even been to Hong Kong so how can he know whats happening there? as a matter of fact and mentioned by Umbrevolution, the names, either Umbrella Revolution or Umbrella Movement, has gained wide acceptance among general public. Paying a visit to the protest areas and you will understand. my impression for those who oppose this change is that you guys are too cynical in denying this to be a new form of revolution, are you trying to protest those so-called 'leaders', or are you just trying to avoid irritating China? --1.36.209.129 (talk) 04:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)— 1.36.209.129 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
We are not siding with anyone. Seems to me that you are totally new to Wikipedia. I'll welcome you, but refrain from accusing us of taking sides with either protesters or government. --George Ho (talk) 04:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Let's for further opinion and input from other users, note that the 7-day period will expire on 16:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)and let's set this to be the deadline. --Life is lifelong revolution. 04:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Umbrevolution (talk • contribs) — Umbrevolution (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
RTHK uses Umbrella Movement and then Occupy Central. But TVB uses Umbrella Revolution instead. ATV calls it "Occupy Central protests". I'll check the newspapers soon... --George Ho (talk) 05:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Now we see the difference between Hong Kong press and Western press. As for newspapers, South China uses Occupy, not Umbrella. Well, it mentions umbrella and movement and revolution. The Standard doesn't mention "Revolution" (but Movement). Neither does China Daily (oh, it's China, which controls its own press). --George Ho (talk) 06:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Tabloids like Epoch uses "Umbrella Movement", but let's avoid them. HK Magazine --George Ho (talk) 06:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Sources appear to be very ambivalent about naming the occupation, with some calling it "Occupy Central" and others obliquely "Hong Kong protests", but almost all make some reference to it being called or dubbed "Umbrella Revolution". The kids on site universally embraced the name "Umbrella Revolution" in English and Chinese, and I would be inclined to support the renaming – not just because what the protesters are calling it, but it makes a lot more sense than 2014 Hong Kong protests (we've had a number already this year, including protests from pro- and anti- almost on a daily basis since 1 September) for this memorable protest in a city of protests. For me, there is no obvious first choice, but "Umbrella Revolution" definitely carries on second preference usage. ;-) -- Ohc ¡digame! 05:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • But see, it isn't true at all that almost all make some reference to it being called or dubbed "Umbrella Revolution". Few if any of the top google news results on the subject use "Umbrella Movement" or "Umbrella Revolution", and certainly not enough for it to be called the common title for the event.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
It is true, and I've provided sources as such. RGloucester — ☎ 15:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
No. You've provide sources that show that this event has been called the Umbrella Revolution or movement. I don't disagree with that. No one does. But when you look at the bulk of news coverage, rather than cherry-picking sources, this is not the name used in the majority.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • SupportI found that there have been various discussions on which name, i.e., Umbrella Movement or Umbrella Revolution shall be taken. For me the best way is to pay a visit to the venue and it has been found out that most posters, leaflets and flyers use the name 'Umbrella Revolution', and there are even comments saying that 'Umbrella Movement' is a name trying not to irritate China, thus I would support Umbrella Revolution instead of Umbrella Movement. I know it has not reached the standard of 'Revolution' - but, what's the standard of Revolution in fact? THERE IS NO STANDARD OF REVOLUTION AND IF THE PEOPLE HERE SAY SO, LET'S RESPECT THEM AND CALL IT, A REVOLUTION. --Forfuturewework (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC)— Forfuturewework (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (Blocked as a sockpuppet of the nominator of the page move request. Shame on the nominator! --George Ho (talk) 05:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC))

Note to closing admin -- This request, which I again note is a repeat of the one that was just rejected 2 weeks ago, seems to have drawn numerous single purpose accounts (SPAs), including the nominator, and seems to have a sockpuppet issue as well.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps an explanation for this heavy SPA participation is that the central Chinese government is evidently trying to push for the event to be called a Revolution in order to discredit the protesters.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
A WP:FRINGE theory, that is. RGloucester — ☎ 01:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm just trying to give a possible explanation for the SPAs, and since this was the second result in a google search for umbrella revolution I thought it was possible. Surely you aren't trying to argue that this isn't a SPA ridden discussion right now, are you?--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't care about "SPAs". I care about compliance with our title policy. RGloucester — ☎ 01:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

If the Protest Organizers and Beijing don't want to use the word Revolution, why the heck would we use that word, especially since the accuracy of the word to this situation is debatable. Legacypac (talk) 06:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

All of these points have been addressed. One opposer says China is employing agents to get us to use the name, and the other one thinks we shouldn't because they don't like it. Please base arguments on article title policy zzz (talk) 13:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
You may insist to call me a SPA but I AM NOT. The reason why I am so eager to make edits on this page is related to the passion that this event has brought to me, and I would like to pay effort in recording so. The reason why I am proposing a change is not related to any political matters, I AM JUST STATING THE FACT THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE CALL THIS UMBRELLA REVOLUTION, I think as editor of Wikipedia, the political agenda; and how China thought, shall not be taken into account right? And, tell me the reason why you think China would like to make us believe it's a revolution. Whatever it calls, China can still regard this as a treason - even it's simply titled as 'Umbrella Workshop' or 'Umbrella Playgroup'. People in HK are here to make a change to the political system but what I see from you guys is that, you are just afraid of irritating China through retitling it as 'Revolution'? I would not say you are SPA though as it's wrong to criticize others simply through his comments. --Life is lifelong revolution. 14:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Umbrevolution (talk • contribs) — Umbrevolution (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Wait - There is still no dominant use of any term to describe the protests as of now. Perhaps this debate would be much wiser after the events have ended. There really is no rush. Lasersharp (talk) 03:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
There is no reason to wait, given that it has been demonstrated that this is the "dominant term". RGloucester — ☎ 03:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Why not waiting? Aside from usage by "sources", there have been no significant developments for now. Government hasn't been revamped, election hasn't happened yet, and people are still protesting. --George Ho (talk) 04:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Because sources are what decide what we call an article, not whether the "government has been revamped" or not. RGloucester — ☎ 04:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
The proposed name is still biased to me, but I guess "biased" isn't much relevant these days. By the way, if it is re-proposed shortly one more time and then rejected, perhaps time to do something about Sunflower Student Movement ("2014 Taiwan protests") then. I nearly called it Sunshine Movement; what an unmemorable name. --George Ho (talk) 04:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Not yet - I do not see any substantial change from the last time this move was proposed; in fact, it seems to me that the momentum for the entire movement has deflated somewhat, although perhaps only temporarily. To me this underscores that while we are in the thick of it we really don't know what kind of lasting impact this will have, and I think analogies to the color revolutions seem both premature and politically non-neutral at this point in time. Furthermore, it seems the term "umbrella revolution" has decreased somewhat in western sources. Going to Google News, for example, and searching for "umbrella revolution" gives much less in the way of current articles than "Hong Kong protests" does. At the time of the last vote, that was less the case, and at that time I also opposed the move, so if anything my support for an eventual move has weakened. However, I do not have a crystal ball -- it may turn out that the protests will blossom into something resembling a true revolution, achieve their goals, and have a lasting impact on Hong Kong. When and if that happens, I suspect something more specific than "2014 Hong Kong protests" will be necessary as an article title, although whether that should be "Umbrella revolution", "Umbrella movement", "Occupy Central" (I know it's not the same thing exactly but it is pretty frequently called that in Chinese language sources) or whatever will depend on what kind of WP:LASTING term the media and other pundits end up converging on. There's no deadline here and no rush. Redirects are fine for now. Eniagrom (talk) 09:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
You cannot deny the sources. It doesn't matter whether this event will have lasting impact or not. It matters whether it is called this by reliable sources. It is, as has been demonstrated. This is the most WP:CONCISE and natural title, and even the most WP:PRECISE one. Even if in some odd universe it was not the common name, it would still meet all of the other title criteria much better than this current one. "Umbrella Revolution" has not decreased, though general coverage of the event itself has decreased. These are not the same thing. RGloucester — ☎ 13:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia just cannot use a fancy name like "Umbrella Revolution" or "Banana Revolution" if it is not the common name in the sources. STSC (talk) 14:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Fancy? What the heck does that mean? Anyway, it has been demonstrated above that it is the common name in sources. RGloucester — ☎ 17:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
"Could be a topic"? We do not base our titles on what "could be", as that is WP:CRYSTAL. We base our article titles on what is, meaning that there is no ambiguity. Can you find a source for a "fashion topic" called "Umbrella Revolution" that is notable to the point where it appears on Wikipedia? RGloucester — ☎ 17:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose move for now - The protests that are occurring now are the only notable protests that have occurred in Hong Kong in 2014. I feel that so long as "Umbrella Revolution" redirects to "2014 Hong Kong protests", that all is good, and people will end up at the correct article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
"Comment" the term is still not the how the majority of Hong Kong media and people refer to the event, for the most part 佔中 "Occupy Central" and 佔領行動 "The Occupation" are far more common than 雨傘革命 Umbrella Revolution. However there are notable and very vocal exceptions to this, e.g. Apple Daily, and also it appears our colleagues at zh:wiki, who moved their version of the article to zh:雨傘革命 six days ago. I don't like this name and think it is the wrong one and a move now will be premature, but it looks like it will be the one that will go down in the history books.--KTo288 (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Keep in mind that usage in various Chinese languages doesn't influence how we decide to name our article. We based such matters solely on usage in English-language reliable sources, as is our right, given that this is the English-language encyclopaedia. However, I agree, this is the name that will go down in the history books. It is the most recognisable, and that's why it should be the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎RGloucester (talk • contribs) 18:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Quoting Time Q&A: "The umbrellas became a symbol of the movement and gave it its nickname, the Umbrella Revolution. Though protest leaders say their campaign is not a revolution but a civil-disobedience movement, the name Umbrella Revolution has stuck." -- Ohc ¡digame! 02:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – this is what people call the event when they are talking about it. people don't say "did you hear about the 2014 hong kong protests". no they say "it seems the umbrella revolution is going nowhere". sad, but true, it doesn't seem to be doing anything. doesn't matter tho, because people call it umbrella revolution, so that should be title. if you read newspaper, it says umbrella revolution. on wiki, it is always common name. that's why there is ivory coast or burma. i like parallel of orange revolution. similiar events, different outcome. naming, tho, is the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.16.120.107 (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: It's not a revolution (not yet, anyway). —BarrelProof (talk) 01:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether it is or isn't in your own definition, but whether reliable sources term it as such. They do, therefore, so do we. RGloucester — ☎ 02:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
From WP:AT: "The title may simply be the name (or a name) of the subject of the article, or it may be a description of the topic," and "When this offers multiple possibilities, editors choose among them by considering several principles: the ideal article title resembles titles for similar articles, precisely identifies the subject, and is short, natural, and recognizable." Nevertheless, WP:NCE#Maintaining neutral point of view may discuss titles of events like this, but we can't tell which rule applies. --George Ho (talk) 02:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I think you are well aware, even if the proposed title is distasteful to you, that the proposed title is "short, natural, recognisable, and precisely identifies the subject". The present title fails to do these things. It is not precise, given that there are other Hong Kong protests in 2014. It is not natural, given "Umbrella Revolution" dominates the discourse on this subject, and given that it is so visceral. It is not particularly recognisable, as it could refer to other things. Nothing about the proposed title is non-neutral. It is merely a phrase, nothing more. RGloucester — ☎ 02:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
What about consistency and being recognized per WP:NC? --George Ho (talk) 02:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
"2014 Hong Kong protests" is unrecognisable, whereas "Umbrella Revolution" is extremely visceral, and instantly tells the reader that one is referring to this specific event, as opposed to some other random protest. As far as consistency, you need look no further than the other target of your disdain, Sunflower Student Movement, or perhaps even Orange Revolution (could just as easily be called "2004–2005 Ukraine protests", if you like), or Occupy Wall Street, or Atlanta Student Movement, or Euromaidan. There is a strong precedent for using the common name of protests movements, and it is entrenched in our policies as WP:UCN. RGloucester — ☎ 02:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment - Two of the SPAs, the nominator Umbrevolution and the puppet Forfuturewework, have been blocked for socking. STSC (talk) 05:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Support the renaming of 2014 Hong Kong protest (because it has no meaning) to Umbrella revolution, however you need to understand as the Hong Kong government have stated this is not a single revolution led by one leader. It is a protest from various sectors of Hong Kong, each with their own competing interest. The poor is one such group, revolting against an imbalance in society. Students are another group, because of their education regarding Western democracy, which much of Hong Kong have not been exposed to. Anarchists who have been smashing windows are another group, but they are not legitimate. Pro-democracy pollies are another camp, who have been doing this since the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests. My point is that it isn't a single revolution. It is perhaps better to view the Umbrella revolution as many groups who fall under the same "umbrella" (excuse the pun haha). If you have too many of these numbered revolutions, they have no meaning 220.237.54.154 (talk) 10:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I should also add that like the CY Leung page, because these are Chinese pages, you need to include the Chinese characters on the page: "雨傘革命" which is the name used in Hong Kong for the "Umbrella revolution" 220.237.54.154 (talk) 10:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC) — 220.237.54.154 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I hope you are not one of same users who voted previously. Even if you are not, what's your definition of "revolution" if it's a peaceful, nonviolent resolution? --George Ho (talk) 13:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support The term "Umbrella Revolution" has become widespread enough to qualify as a name for the protests, certainly more so than the non-descriptive one we have now. Besides, it's not like the move will lock the name in place - if some other term sticks in the end, we can always move the article again to match. ↢ RemorA ↣ 18:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support All you need to do is to contrast 28,000 results on Google for "2014 Hong Kong protests" (https://www.google.com.au/search?q=%222014+hong+kong+protests%22) against 484,000 results for "Umbrella revolution" (https://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22umbrella+revolution%22) and you get your answer. For those who have opposed the renaming, there are blatant political reasons for doing so (i.e. usually because they are pro-government stooges, that like in prison where you get renamed a number - want to just give this revolution a number rather than a number, as a form of psychological humiliation). Wikipedia's naming convention is not based upon your political opinion - it is based upon consensus, and the consensus shown by Google that "Umbrella revolution" is used more times on a 17:1 ratio, there simply is no opposing argument to be made that can be legitimate 110.33.216.189 (talk) 03:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC) — 110.33.216.189 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment: Hey, some of us pro-government stooges (like me) actually support the renaming. Don't lump us all into one category like that, good sir =p. ↢ RemorA ↣ 17:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Comment: A google search for "hong kong protests" yields about 856,000 results. Lasersharp (talk) 05:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Just wanted to point out - no matter what the movement is named, a search for "Hong Kong protests" is probably going to generate a match on the body of any news article about the movement. To use another example, searching for "Nixon scandal" is going to get you most of the Watergate news and articles as well; it doesn't mean that "1972 Nixon scandal" is a valid name for it.
As is, the moniker "2014 Hong Kong Protests" is a generic placeholder rather than an actual name. Thus, as long as any name has enough widespread use to replace it we should do so. Google search result comparisons are not reliable for generic titles like this, since of course "Hong Kong protests" will get you all of the articles about, well, a Hong Kong protest.
↢ RemorA ↣ 19:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
You do realise that there have been thousands of protests in Hong Kong over the course of its history, right?. Searching for just "Hong Kong protests" could turn-up any old run-of-the-mill nonsense that has happened on a frequent basis for at least a century. You can't just search for "Hong Kong protests" and assert that it refers to this event specifically. That's about the most bunk reasoning I've ever heard. RGloucester — ☎ 05:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
In HK, there are 4 major protest marches every year (1 January, 4 June, 1 July, 1 October), plus many more smaller or sporadic ones. And those are just the marches. -- Ohc ¡digame! 07:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
In that case, show us the January 2014 protests, June 2014 protests, and July 2014 protests. --George Ho (talk) 07:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Thanks for letting me know that there's more than one protest in HK, I didn't know that before. The 60 pages of results I quickly scanned through with the "hong kong protests" google query were pretty much all about the current one. If you also go through the exercise, you will probably notice that there is no dominant term used by reliable sources to describe the event. Therefore, despite strongly worded opinions here, a move right now is not warranted. Lasersharp (talk) 07:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe that to be the case. The name is as widely used as it is unambiguous. Just mention "umbrella revolution" to anyone who isn't a hermit, and they will know that they are referring to the protests that resulted in yellow umbrellas being seen in some Chinese city captured by all the world's press. The SCMP wrote: "Benny Tai this morning appeared to be struggling with just how much leadership he should offer the Occupy campaign, which is now being widely known as the Umbrella movement". -- Ohc ¡digame! 08:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Er, the question isn't whether there is a problem with the current title, but about whether the proposed title is better. RGloucester — ☎ 18:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
If it ain't broke, don't fix it - "If there is no evidence of a real problem, and fixing the "problem" would not effectively improve Wikipedia, then don't waste time and energy (yours or anybody else's) trying to fix it." STSC (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with the premise of that essay. Compliance with our title criteria is a primary concern, and must be enforced. I've provided the evidence of the problem, which is that this title does not meet those criteria, whether it be common name, naturalness, preciseness, or conciseness. This error must be corrected, for the good of the encyclopaedia and the reader. RGloucester — ☎ 19:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Be it "Umbrella Revolution" or "Banana Revolution", it would fail all the common name, naturalness, preciseness, and conciseness tests; if the mob could overthrow the Hong Kong SAR of communist China, then you may call it a "revolution". I wish you luck! STSC (talk) 21:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Rubbish. It doesn't matter what you think it should be called, it matters what reliable sources call it. You don't get to define the word "revolution". You're not a reliable source. All the sources were provided above, whereas you only provide WP:OR. Go back to whatever PoV cave you crawled out of. RGloucester — ☎ 22:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Split the chronology

Since the chronology is pretty long, shouldn't we split it to a new page? And should we rename to "Timeline"? pcfan500 (talk) 05:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

It's already proposed before and is likely going to fail. See Talk:2014 Hong Kong protests/Archive 3#Timeline of the 2014 Hong Kong protests. --George Ho (talk) 05:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Censorship of photos

I've just reverted User:STSC's edit which removed two photos of the protests in the "November" heading of the chronology section. His edit summary read "too many pointless photos of crowds, just one is enough for MK clearance".

The rationale for deleting the photos I added doesn't make sense. The one remaining photo is not of a crowd, but of a police cordon. And the photos aren't "pointless" – they directly illustrate the events in the text. They are clearly relevant.

I called his deletion of my photos a "revenge edit" in the edit summary, so I will explain here. This user has a long history on this and related pages of boosting anti-protest groups and suppressing anything which might reflect unfavourably upon them. Some time ago, User:STSC added to the timeline section of the Occupy Central with Love and Peace page this item:

  • "18 July to 17 August 2014 - APD's "Anti-Occupy Central" petition campaign collects over 1,500,000 signatures."

to which I made an amendment:

  • "18 July to 17 August 2014 - APD's "Anti-Occupy Central" petition campaign collects over 1,500,000 signatures, although the credibility of the campaign came into question as there were "no measures in place to prevent repeat signatures"."

That the credibility of the "Anti-Occupy Central" petition was called into question was covered in numerous reliable sources in English, not to mention Chinese:

It's definitely a valid part of the story. However, User:STSC reverted this amendment numerous times on a vast variety of flimsy grounds despite counter-arguments I posted on the talk page, the shortening of the timeline item, and the addition of extra citations.

I most recently reverted this censorship yesterday, and suddenly he has deleted my two photos here on similarly poor grounds as his censorship elsewhere. Hence why I suspect "revenge editing", especially since he has displayed vengeful behavior before, for example threatening unrelated pages with deletion after we came into some disagreement elsewhere.

User:STSC has a longstanding history of foisting his political agenda on China-related articles, and his contributions on this and the Occupy Central article are no exception. I try to assume good faith, but there is no scarcity of evidence that this is a single-purpose account here solely for the use of political WP:ACTIVISM.

This user is persistently blanking content to further his political agenda and I am not interested in engaging in another one of his slow-motion revert wars. Citobun (talk) 11:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I advise you to stop your hate campaign on other editors with different views. You're welcome to discuss any personal grievance on my talk page. STSC (talk) 11:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
In regard to the photos, I think three photos on one event are just too many particularly the photos mainly only showing the crowd. STSC (talk) 11:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
This isn't a personal grievance, it's about your endless agenda editing, blanking of legitimate content, bullying and generally disruptive behavior. I've addressed these content issues on talk pages before and all you do is spam my talk page with block warnings over supposed "personal attacks". For the hundredth time, this is all about content. Telling me to stop "behaving like a schoolboy" isn't. Citobun (talk) 11:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
But I've never received any your messages on my talk page. Talk pages on articles are for discussion for improvement on the articles. You should learn to accept in the Wikipedia community there are other editors who hold different views from yours, and please don't be hostile to them just because you don't agree with them. I invite you to discuss on my talk page. STSC (talk) 11:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Nice try, but nobody would be fooled if they took a quick look at your edit history. Between edit warring, trolling my talk page and insulting me and others, it is obvious you aren't interested in discussion nor consensus. I have given my reasons for objecting to your blanking on talk pages numerous times and you simply invent a different contrived reason to censor. This isn't a matter of differing views -- you have a singular fixation on promoting your political viewpoint on Wikipedia. It takes time and effort to contribute photos to Wikimedia Commons, and what is the point if they can be censored by a single-purpose political crusader on such flimsy grounds?
The photos "only showing the crowd" are photos of the protests, the subject at hand. Citobun (talk) 11:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I liked the one with the police cordon, but the other photos of crowd appear to be pointless because the streets had been cleared successfully. STSC (talk) 12:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request:
I don't think the photos should be included. They don't really convey any information. In fact I feel the article contains too many redundant photographs even now. No article really needs photographs of crowds outside government headquarters, outside the Golden Bauhinia Square, occupying Lung Wo Road, watching a live stream of the debates, watching Mong Kok Police officers retreat etc. Wikipedia is wp:not news. Images are supposed to add to the article by illustrating something that can't be conveyed in text. The aren't intended to be proof that an event occurred. One or perhaps two good images adequately convey to a reader the size and nature of the crowds. We really do not need any more. I appreciate that all these crowd photographs are of different location or different days, but unless the nature of the crowd is substantially different, they don't convey any additional information. If the crowd outside the Golden Bauhinia Square on Monday is substantially the same as the crowd occupying Lung Wo Road on Tuesday week, readers don't gain any more information from having two images. And that is the guiding rule for including images: does the reader gain more information for seeing it. My personal acid test is whether a viewer would even be able to distinguish the images by sight alone. If it fails that then if definitely shouldn't be included. If the only way that the reader can tell that it's not just a photo of the same crowd taken from a different angle is by reading the caption, then the photo is redundant. If there is some subtle, important distinction that can be seen in the photos that makes them notably distinct (eg, the police in one are wearing local uniforms, and the in the other wearing national uniforms) then that should be noted in the caption, but that distinction needs to be important and needs to illustrate the same point in the body text. The article comes dangerously close to being over-illustrated in terms of police photos as well. A photo of police passively containing crowds, an an image of police scuffling with the crowd and an image of tear gas use is really all that's needed. They tell the viewer that the police were present, and they took a variety of roles, as described in the text. The multiple other images are probably redundant although not so clearly as the crowd photos. Mark Marathon (talk) 03:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
That's fine. I won't disagree with any third opinion on whether or not the photos are warranted, because my grievance is not actually about these photos. It's about the endless agenda editing, censorship and bullying by STSC. If it's not these photos, it's something else. He is active on any article related to Chinese political controversies and enforces his agenda through censorship on flimsy or downright nonsensical grounds. If somebody disagrees with him, he simply invents new reasoning for deletion and censors again. He has no interest in consensus.
I'm so tired of wasting my time responding to his ever-changing reasoning for blanking legitimate content, because it is simply a distraction from his true intent: non-stop political advocacy which harms the impartiality of the encyclopedia.
Although: I am curious as to why George Ho wrote in the edit summary that the photos of Sai Yeung Choi Street on 26 November looks "misleading" and "out of context". Citobun (talk) 04:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Citobun, File:Umbrella movement Mong Kok November 26 2014 post-clearance 16.JPG doesn't display the police but the crowd. However, it assumes that the crowd is out of police control and is going to riot. Also, it doesn't add much, despite exceptional, exquisite angle. If you want to complain about STSC, go to WP:RFC/U and set up a discussion about one user, or go to WP:ANI. --George Ho (talk) 05:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I very much appreciate user Mark Marathon's expert-like analysis on the issue of redundant photographs of crowds. In some of these photos like the one in infobox, the crowd just looks like street-carnival goers to me; in a normal day with fine weather, you can easily see these similar crowds of happy shoppers in Hong Kong. That's what I called the "pointless photos of crowds". STSC (talk) 11:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Cyberattacks

We've left out the cyberattack angle of the protests (deliberately?). Perhaps we should re-evaluate that now that Forbes has reported on "the largest cyber attack in history [...] hitting Hong Kong sites". [10] _dk (talk) 08:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

When will protests at Mong Kok end?

UU and Jonlau22800 have assumed that protests in Mong Kok ended. I have repeatedly reverted unverifiable claims of this, but they have repeatedly added dates without knowing when protests there ended. Perhaps they have something to say about this. --George Ho (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

There's probably some confusion. The Mong Kok occupy site has been cleared, but the protests are ongoing with the "shopping expeditions" (鳩嗚). _dk (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2014_Hong_Kong_protests/Archive_5&oldid=1040143090"