Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Rfc on including Junius Ho in the infobox of this article which use Template:Infobox civil conflict[edit]

Rfc on including or excluding Junius Ho in the infobox of this article , especially |leadfigures2= or other field as a suspect. Matthew hk (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

!vote[edit]

  • Exclude On the basis that accusing somebody of being a suspected perpetrator of a purported triad attack is a pretty serious accusation of criminal misconduct. Per WP:BLPCRIME we should not be doing so prior to a conviction. Simonm223 (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Listing a notable and influential politician as one of many leading figures does not involve any accusations whatsoever. He is frequently on record with the media, using his own words, in strong support of police, the establishment, and against the protests. Fact. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@Flaughtin:. Man, did you read the citation and explain to me, from the citation, how do you concluded Ho is the lead figure of the government camp or triad group, just due to advocate and shake hand with possible triad? Those advocates that also a member of the de facto cabinet, which also the one of the parties leaders of the pro-government/Beijing camp in the LegCo, may more fit to the fact/accusation as "leader", such as Regina Ip.[1] (My personal commentary: not sure most of the RTHK articles have bilingual version but this one did not have English version.) Matthew hk (talk) 08:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
We can say is a leader...which is he in real life. Flaughtin (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Please provide citation and you can use {{tq}} to quote. Matthew hk (talk) 07:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Exclude - He's just one of many politicians opposing the protest. STSC (talk) 15:40, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Include -- Ho is an iconic and influential pro-establishment politician. He regularly receives significant attention from the media, makes bold statements, and his involvement is notable. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Re 65.60.163.223. This violate Wikipedia:Five pillars, as well as WP:V, WP:OR. Please provide reliable source for the claim. Or a simple common sense (such as 1+1 = 2, those simple calculation) that not violate WP:Original research. Someone had boldly added President of LegCo, Andrew Leung (which also from the pro-Beijing camp of lawmaker and he made a lots of work for the camp by abusing his presidential power) into the infobox (and it seem it was removed again), which i would say it seem more "common sense" he was a leader, rather than personal opinion. For Ho, it seem entirely your personal opinion he is an important leader and merit to add to the infobox. Matthew hk (talk) 09:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Ahem. It is not my opinion or imagination that the name of Junius Ho has appeared rather frequently in western media sources. It also seems that Andrew Leung would be good to list as well, for the reasons that you stated. You had also suggested to add Regina Ip, so why not? No need to oversimply the narrative. How does limiting access to information help the readers trying to understand this? 65.60.163.223 (talk) 01:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Please kindly respect the wiki policy of WP:V or WP:OR. I consider this is a warning . Or i just ask WP:ANI to review the matter and may be a block is sufficient. Matthew hk (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
You are not at all responding to the questions that I raised. You only threatened to block me because you disagree with my vote. Matthew, this is why we have a vote! We are allowed to disagree. My vote is not so important. : ) Anyhow, I have not made disruptive edits ... and am positively contributing to the article. And yes, I am new here, but it seems like you are being rather aggressive. Please Assume Good Faith and chill a bit. This is a controversial subject, so please be civil and calm. Thank you. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Include There is a NYT article today on the Junius Ho [1] that should provide the RS necessary to start to create a section. Certainly enough to elevate Ho's status sufficient to include in infbox. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
There are way many "villain" figure in the Lennon Wall of the protest, and the NYT source did not explicitly use the wording "leader" or some sort. But by some degree, along with the DAB chair Ms. Li and Ms. Ip, Mr. Ho is one of the "key figures" due to his notoriously image and his personal opinions. Matthew hk (talk) 12:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

For context, there is a discussion in Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Remove "suspected perpetrator" field in Template:Infobox civilian attack which waiting to be closed. Junius Ho, was a LegCo lawmaker, which media discovered that he shake hand with the white mod that attack innocent people in 2019 Yuen Long attack. This seem totally WP:UNDUE to list him as the leader of the triad group or one of the leader of antipro-government camp at all (edit: a serious typo due to auto spell check was fixed 07:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)). Accusation is Accusation , fact is fact. Accusation may still worth to mention in the main body of article, but infobox should contain only fact. Matthew hk (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

See also above discussion thread #Junius Ho and the leadership of the pro-Beijing camp. Someone had stated The actions imputed to Ho, whether with sufficient evidence to qualify as fact for Wikipedia or simply accusations, would not suggest that he was a leader.. Matthew hk (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Also here are the citations originally in the infobox. [2][3][4][5][6] Some of them are Chinese and hope you can understand them by Google Translate. Matthew hk (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
For more context of the Rfc. the wording of the infobox was originally labelled Ho as triad gang leader, and then after the start of RfC, it was changed to pro-Beijing leader , but only contained Ho as one and only name. And then it was boldly removed by me per WP:BLP. "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" and per #Junius Ho and the leadership of the pro-Beijing camp. Certainly Ho and may be more name may be reinserted depends on the consensus of this RfC. Matthew hk (talk) 07:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

So it seems that it would be fair to mention on the infobox that Junius Ho strongly supports the triad groups and their agenda (this is well documented fact). He seems to have strong political power, but if he is not a "leading figure" then what infobox field would be best to make this distinction or designation more clear? 65.60.163.223 (talk) 20:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I think we should still list him as a lead figure. He is an 'iconic' pro-Beijing legislator with his outstanding comments during the whole protest. Despite his involvement in the Yuen Long attack, we should also consider how he has strongly supported the police while opposing the protesters. He is, in my opinion at least, an important figure in this whole protest. –Wefk423 (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
That is true. "Leading figure" is not the same as "leader" ... leading figure does not necessarily imply official leadership role, it implies influence and impact, which Junius Ho definitely has and definitely intends to exert his power.
Edit: The infobox currently lists Junius Ho as "Pro-Beijing" along with other HK government officials. So because he is no longer listed on the infobox in relation to triads, maybe the issue is solved already? It seems fair to just stick with the "Pro-Beijing" designation, and leave details about triad connections to the article. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 07:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Not to be that guy, but the RFC clearly states that its main purpose is to decide on "including or excluding Junius Ho in the infobox of this article", not what his stated allegiance should be. It seems to me that the above discussion of "leading figure" vs "leader" is more relevant to the purpose of having him in the infobox. PraiseVivec (talk) 11:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
@PraiseVivec: Ho was one of the pro-governemnt LegCo member, and the infobox was just changed from "triad gang leader" to "pro-government" after the Rfc. For latter role, yes he still expressed his opinion on the bill after 12 June, but he is neither DAB party leader, (the pro-government LegCo faction that brutally vote the bill during the first reading), nor the Chairman of the LegCo, that abuse his power in order to pro-governemnt in the Legislation meeting. Moreover, on the wiki policy, none of the reliable source to merit Ho as the lead figure, or he is UNDUE to be the only "non-government official" to have list in the infobox. Matthew hk (talk) 15:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I think using accurate language is important here. I do not believe the infobox ever stated that Ho was a "triad gang leader" ... he was listed as a "spirtual leader" which is very different. And it currently lists "Pro-Beijing" which is factually correct.
According to the Wikipedia page about Junius Ho, it says on the infobox that he is an incumbent member of the legislative council. The article states in the very first sentence that he is currently an acting politician. So he is either currently a politican, or he just recently finished a term. If he is no longer a politician, where does it state that it is undue to include someone for that reason? He clearly holds political power and is using it. He is one of the most outspoken people with Pro-Beijing politics, and he gets significant media attention and is influential, which is notable. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Further, the infobox does not make any claims that Ho is "the lead figure" ... simply that he is one of many lead figures listed. An important and significant difference. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Back to the question, it is according to you to list him as the one and only one "non-government official" in the pro-government side of the infobox, or according to reliable source? There is some other reliable source merit to Starry Lee or Andrew Leung, but not merited the "non-government official" leading / key figure to Ho. Either included a dozen of names of "non-government official" on pro-government side. Or none and definitively not listing Ho as the only name. Matthew hk (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Nobody is stopping anyone from adding more names to that list. If there are other public figures who similarly engage in the same type of inflammatory anti-protest and pro-Beijing rhetoric, and they are also influential and getting media attention, then why not include them as well?
@Matthew hk: You seem to know a lot about this, feel free to add others that merit mention if you so choose. That's my personal opinion about it, anyway. What do others think? Thank you. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────

I don't see anything resembling that it's a well-documented fact that Ho openly supports triad activity. He was seen glad-handing guys in white t-shirts prior to the attack. But there's been a hell of a lot of mistrust on both the pro-China and anti-China sides of this dispute and I wouldn't be willing to trust explicitly anti-China sources stating he's definitely in the know that the white-shirts A) were triad members B) were about to go and beat people up C) were doing so without provocation. (I mean the black-shirts were detaining journalists as recently as today so it's pretty clear that there's a fair bit of misbehaviour on both sides of this.) When issues surrounding a crime are unproven in a court of law, Wikipedia should not be proffering an opinion and should instead state only what reliable sources claim, with attribution.Simonm223 (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I understand you responding to what was written above but the key is not whether he openly supports triad activity - it's most likely he does. The key is whether Ho is a leading pro-establishment bootlicker figure - which I'd say he is and there are lots of sources which support that assertion. As for your claim of moral equivalency between what happened at Yuen Long and the airport, there is none. What happened at the subway station was a borderline terrorist attack while the protesters who detained the so called journalist actually turned out to be a fascist. Flaughtin (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Okay, bottom line is that Junius Ho is a relatively powerful and influential public political figure, holding political office, and a staunch supporter of certain pro-establishment positions. He is very outspoken, makes frequent inflammatory statements which receive media attention and circulate widely, and folks of various positions also strongly react to and are encouraged by his perspectives. He obviously plays an important role in this whole on-going thing, and his participation is notable and inclusion of information about Junius Ho helps the reader to better understand the dynamics of this complex protest movement. There is no need to make any accusations about anything, just listing Ho and linking his wiki page from the infobox is enough. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 20:41, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Some off-topic. For Andrew Leung, original research is not required, reliable source had documented how he used his LegCo presidential power in the second reading of the bill[7][8] (or abuse according to what source you read), as well as protester vandalized his portrait (oil painting) on 1 July [9] as well as protester particularly against him this time[10][11] and in the past[12] due to his vast power as the president(chair). It is not like Junius Ho as a leader of the pro-government (pro-establishment/ pro-Beijing), a slippy slope opinion. Matthew hk on public computer (talk) 04:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment This RfC and discussion seems to be violate WP:NOTFORUM. I would be helpful if sources could be added to the proposed infobox inclusion. Maybe if this figure is tied to the protests in the RS he should be added to the infobox as related figures, rather than leader, etc. It seems this movement is widely believed to be leaderless, but certainly there are some notable figures associated with each side of it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:41, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
@Jtbobwaysf: Not sure i am wasting my time or not. The two "!vote" include were SPA which one of them registered in July 2019 and another have all the edits around this article since July 2019. I would be happy if they ever put their citation on the table and discuss whatever that citation is supporting or not supporting the RfC. Matthew hk on public computer (talk) 04:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
@Matthew hk on public computer: Its likely this article is the subject of paid contributions of pro-beijing supports as well as maybe paid and/or passionate SPA accounts that are pro-hkg movement. Thus we need a clear RfC proposal to really vote on this. The talk page discussion can drag on forever. If Junius Ho is associated with the pro-beijing side in the RS he should be reflected and summarized as such in the infobox (but maybe not as leader, as there seems to be no leader, we all know XiJinping is the leader of the pro-beijing side). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
I would say those SPA are overly passionate pro-protest editors. I admitted i can hardly backoff from POV due to my HK roots, and i am keep telling myself to read many sources. For SPA, SPA keep on adding personal opinion instead of content derived from secondary source, would made this article some sort of bias and OR and POV pushing. It would further ruined by cherry picking external source to try to support their point of view, but intentionally excluding other important citation that not fit to their propaganda. For example, The article should reflected the fact that at least minor (1? a dozen?) of protesters are also using force (violence, force but not physically hurting people). Vandalism from Mainland China tag team, seem relatively minor. By inspecting the article history, before 21 July, the pro-government side of the infobox were listing the pro-government parties leaders, but after 21 July, it just censored and only Ho , as an accused (spiritual) triad gang leader, remained. The wording as triad gang leader only changed by someone (not me) after the start of RFC. Matthew hk on public computer (talk) 05:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Actually, we SPA are obviously CIA!! ; ) 65.60.163.223 (talk) 05:05, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "葉劉淑儀支持透過法律手段以緊急條例禁止示威" (in Chinese). RTHK. 2019-08-15.
  2. ^ Sum, Lok-kei; Su, Xinqi (22 July 2019). "Yuen Long attackers were defending their home, says lawmaker". South China Morning Post. ISSN 1021-6731. OCLC 648902513. Retrieved 22 July 2019.
  3. ^ "Junius Ho got chummy with Yuen Long assailants, calls their values 'heroic' in presser". Coconuts Hong Kong. Retrieved 22 July 2019.
  4. ^ 【元朗黑夜】網傳何君堯 向白衫人豎拇指:辛苦你!你哋係我英雄. Hong Kong News. HK01 (in Chinese). 22 July 2019. Retrieved 22 July 2019.
  5. ^ 【元朗懷疑警黑勾結事件】何君堯上周獻計鄉事派組「民團」 將示威者打到「片甲不留」. Politics. The Stand News (in Chinese). 22 July 2019. Retrieved 22 July 2019.
  6. ^ 【香港白衣人之亂】港議員何君堯握手動粗白衣人 還讚「你是我英雄」. Politics. Mirror Media (in Chinese). 22 July 2019. Retrieved 22 July 2019.
  7. ^ "Hong Kong's extradition bill could pass next week as Legislative Council President Andrew Leung limits debate time". South China Morning Post.
  8. ^ "Hong Kong extradition bill: pro-Beijing lawmakers in no hurry to push contentious law through and could extend debate". South China Morning Post.
  9. ^ "Hong Kong protesters' damage to Legislative Council building could exceed HK$10 million and take weeks to repair". South China Morning Post.
  10. ^ "Hong Kong protest: police fire teargas at demonstrators – as it happened". The Guardian. p. 5.
  11. ^ "Hong Kong politician swamped by protesters". Reuters. 2019.
  12. ^ "Hundreds protest to defend separation of powers, calls for LegCo Pres. Andrew Leung to step down". HKFP. 2016.


New article[edit]

Should we created a new article aimed to describe boycott and pressure against notable pro-protests figures? Mariogoods (talk) 09:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Just briefly explained in Tactics and methods surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong protests. Matthew hk (talk) 12:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
That section has not been updated since August though, and the boycott action escalated quite a lot in September. OceanHok (talk) 16:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
So edit it then. With reliable sources. Following WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. Simonm223 (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes plz Falcon of the wikis (talk) 05:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

15-year old girl reported dead by suicide.[edit]

https://www.inmediahk.net/node/1067856 Earlier this week, a 15-year old girl was reported dead. Within a few days, it was a confirmed suicide. Could somebody update, as I still don’t know much. Sometaintedlove (talk) 00:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I can only use google translate to read the article you cited, but it does not seem to say her suicide had anything to do with the protests. Did I miss something? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
She is dead. But no indication that her suicide is caused by the protests (no letter left behind, no last wording at IG/facebook/internet). Meanwhile, the media alleged that she was killed by someone else and throw into the sea. Either version cannot passing WP:V (and latter, WP:BLPCRIME related). Matthew hk (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
ok, more news report point to suspected murder. Apple's interview with a forensic expert. Without violation of WP:BLPCRIME, it seem it need careful wording for adding to the section. Also the section "Suicide" should change to level 3 title and add a new level 2 death to cover death and murder. Matthew hk (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Update: Covered by police. Multiple videos have surfaced, such as an Instagram story and being surrounded by plain-clothes officers. A friend reportedly found her phone, with the sim card removed. Sometaintedlove (talk) 23:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Those detail are not encyclopedic. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. May be worth to mention as death that cause people to criticize the police investigation (her death causing the protesters protested at her school (and then some of them vandalize it after releasing edited CCTV), online campaign, etc), but without firm accusation of suicide or murder. Matthew hk (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Cause in infobox[edit]

Should we change the content to Diverse (see causes of the 2019 Hong Kong protests)?Mariogoods (talk) 09:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

The 5 demands still mainly point to democracy not puppet state of CCP. People still participate the demo for supporting U.S.' Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act. Matthew hk (talk) 22:16, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Lack of moderation to ensure NPOV[edit]

It seems like this Wikipedia page is being pushed by a POV brigade. I hope that the moderators involved are responsible enough to ensure the article is NPOV even though sinophobia is the latest popular fad.

Here are some major misconduct committed by the protests over the past months which are barely documented here (if at all). Please consider adding at least some of that.

1. Local businesses are being targeted and ransacked by protesters either for being from mainland China (e.g. Bank of China) or for opinions expressed in public (e.g. Maxim's restaurants). Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-49983767

2. Protesters beating other civilians and allegedly making death threats: http://www.thestandard.com.hk/section-news.php?id=212525&sid=11&sid=11

3. Students vandalizing schools: https://www.hk01.com/%E7%AA%81%E7%99%BC/385593/%E6%B2%B9%E5%A1%98%E5%A5%B3%E6%B5%AE%E5%B1%8D-%E5%AD%B8%E7%94%9F%E8%B3%AA%E7%96%91cctv%E8%A2%AB%E5%89%AA%E8%BC%AF-%E9%BB%83%E6%98%8F%E5%A4%A7%E8%82%86%E7%A0%B4%E5%A3%9E%E6%A0%A1%E5%9C%92

4. Subway stations repeatedly vandalized: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3032094/severely-vandalised-mong-kok-and-kwun-tong-stations-among

5. General widespread vandalism happening all the time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=OIqx3YIHntc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.155.81 (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Murder omitted?[edit]

Why does the article state all deaths have been suicides while at least one was shot dead by HK police? 2A02:A459:352E:1:2484:5BA2:66FD:D1EC (talk) 11:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Apparently the protester survived, and he was shot in circumstances that suggest the policeman acted in self-defence.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2019[edit]

This article is written in poor English, particularly the absence of 'the' in many places. I have a BA and PhD in Greek and Latin, and can speak and read French, so I know something about grammar. Poor English can lead to difficulty in reading and understanding a text. Could a registered user please look at this article and correct the grammatical errors? Given that all the information is current, one would have thought that it would be free of such basic errors. Hellenic18 (talk) 07:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.
Also, it's actually the opposite. Since the article is related to a current event, it will see a high-volume of edits, and so grammatical errors occur because the information changes rapidly, and the focus is more on getting the information into the article, rather than the quality of the syntax. NiciVampireHeart 10:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2019[edit]

while police was accused colluding by intentional slow action.[52] Subsequent police operations and alleged misconduct prompted a general strike and a city-wide protests on 5 August. Change to: "while police were accused of collusion by their intentional slow action. [52] Subsequent police operations and alleged misconduct prompted a general strike and city-wide protests on 5 August." Hellenic18 (talk) 07:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done NiciVampireHeart 10:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Length of article[edit]

Good day! This article is now over 200 kB, and people keep removing the {{2L}} tag from the top of the page. Can we have a discussion about how to trim the article, since there are now pages for months of the history? --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

2019 Hong Kong protests#History need trim a lot. Matthew hk (talk) 18:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
200KB including loads of refs, it's not long at all. If this is a "long" article we will be busy for a very long time trimming thousands of articles which are way longer. It's about readable prose and it makes this article at medium length max. Coldbolt (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Apply WP:10YT. Simonm223 (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Coldbolt. I would say there are very very notable event during the 4 months. But most of the events now circulate on police and democracy, and increasing violence. The article already forked to List of September 2019 Hong Kong protests and Allegations of Hong Kong Police Force misconduct surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong protests, which this main article need to have a reasonable length, or otherwise it would be overlapping with sub article and then sub article would seem WP:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a newspaper or Wikipedia:Too much detail. Matthew hk (talk) 21:18, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Request to remove or edit incorrect wording[edit]

According to Basic Law Chapter IV, Section 1, Article 45

The Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be selected by election or through consultations held locally and be appointed by the Central People's Government.

The method for selecting the Chief Executive shall be specified in the light of the actual situation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. The ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures.

Article 68

The Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be constituted by election.

The method for forming the Legislative Council shall be specified in the light of the actual situation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. The ultimate aim is the election of all the members of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage.

–––––––––––

These two are the ultimate aims of the Basic Law, which is NOT promised or guaranteed how soon it could be achieved [1]. In light of these, HK government and Beijing is respecting and obeying what is written on Basic Law. One of those demands is to request universal suffrage for Legislative Council and Chief Executive elections, which is actually violating the Basic Law principle of gradual and orderly progress by using violence to force the government to accept this demand. Therefore, I request the "promised" to be removed in the article as it's misleading and actually many protesters misunderstood and misused this information as their intention which is incorrect and not rightful. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junyan Qu (talkcontribs) 01:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. It seems like your argument is based on original research or original conclusions drawn. Gaioa (T C L) 08:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

If the article must be locked...[edit]

If the article must be locked, can there be a multinational group allowed to edit to prevent biased views. As a controversial subject, as well as a target of misinformation (across the spectrum), it is important not to lock something from everyone simply because the subject is volatile. The Introvert Next To You (talk) 03:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Articles get locked as a result of persistent edit warring. As you mention, there are likely paid editors working on this article, and surely they have autoconfirmed accounts. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
The article is semi-protected but that's not the same thing as a straight-up lock. Nor will it prevent a "multinational group" from collaborating. Just not random IPs. Simonm223 (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

article naming[edit]

It is my understanding that the protests are no longer related to the extradition treaty. Is my understanding correct? They are often referred to today as a Democracy movement [2] and [3]. Maybe the article should consider that in the naming? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I doubt that's a kettle of fish we want to open considering how disorganized the ongoing protests have been. It's somewhat questionable if there is a central motif beyond "dissatisfaction" at the current. Simonm223 (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Suicide claims again[edit]

The infobox claiming that there have been at least 10 suicides seems to be WP:SYNTH. One source seems to list 9 suicides, but the details are spare and the source is [dubious ] at best. I'm still discomfited with any explicit claim that something that can be as multifaceted as suicide should be linked causally to a political movement in an infobox. Simonm223 (talk) 11:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)