Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests

Why is this called protests, not riots?

How is it that people throwing petrol bombs are not called rioters? I thought that the definition of a riot was a group of 3 or more causing a breach of the peace. Is it only a riot if people are lower class or if you like what they protest against? Wikipedia should try to be somewhat neutral and change the title to '2019 Hong Kong riots'. The western press shows more pictures of police firing tear gas, but not the arson, violence and vandalism that caused the police to respond.

People who are OK with burning Mainlanders alive should read the same article and insert the word 'Jew' or Black' instead of Mainlander to see another's perspective. How can you be OK with this violence? Do you hate us that much? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.152.165.10 (talk)

The majority of reliable sources refer to the event as the "Hong Kong protests". Among many other reasons, the term, as it is now, will likely never be changed. If you feel the article doesn't have a neutral point of view, please specify exactly what you want to be changed (e.g. "change abc to xyz") in the form of an edit request - but keep it realistic, nobody will agree on changing "protests" to "riots". OfficialBoob (talk) 11:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

there is a problem to that logic though. majority of the English sources would be the Commonwealth or USA. the UK obviously has skin in the game, as does USA. majority of the Chinese sources would be.... well... owned or influenced by PRC. surely, if you search HK riots in Chinese, you will find a lot of results. So.... I m guessing the Chinese version of this article could legitimately refer to these as riots. 192.0.235.66 (talk) 06:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

The POV of the writer certainly has an influence on which word is used. Victor Hugo, in Les Misérables, waxes long on the differences between riots, uprisings, and revolutions. Search the book. A Kindle version will allow this, and search an unabridged version. It's very interesting. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I think it has clearly got to the stage of a riot now.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

The actions may be the same, but it's the motivations which determine the proper word, and the participants will use one term, and the oppressive authorities will use another. The participants thus reveal their motives to resist oppression and preserve their historic freedoms, and the authorities reveal their motives to remove those freedoms. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

That's a fairly biased view. The Hong Kong merely introduced an extradition bill, which according to independent observers was unremarkable. There was not attempt to remove freedoms. After all, it was the transition to Chinese rule that introduced elected government in the first place.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for politely responding to my comment above; that is a step forward. I am sure that many people would like the article to be neutral. However there are many sinophobes who want bias.

1) To start with "protests" must be changed to 'riots'. A riot is a group of three or more people who commit a breach of the peace. (The exact wording does vary slightly from country to country.) Throwing bricks at people, throwing petrol bombs at people and hitting them with pipes is easily a breach of the peace. Most Western media sources have an anti-Chinese bias; try to rise above it.

2) Deaths not directly related to the riots must be removed. A second article about suicides might be created. The case of Chow Tsz-lok was used by rioters, but that was a fall from height near a riot. You should need some evidence that the police were with him for it to be anything but propaganda.

3) Give equal weighting to violence committed on the police to violence committed by the police. Do mention that the rioters smash traffic lights, slash tyres on buses, vandalize train stations, block roads, pull down bus signs, attack Mainlanders (and their shops) for their ethnicity, violently attack people who dare to argue with them, publish the details of officers' children and so on. Count the number of times rioters throwing petrol-bombs/Molotov-cocktails is mentioned and the number of times tear gas is mentioned as a measure of bias.

4) Do mention that the extradition amendment contains many safe guards and is similar to laws in the west. There are some technical points in the text that I disagree with. (Yes, I have read it.) However that is not a justification to throw bricks at the windows of Mainland children.

5) Move all the non-violent political issues to an article on the extraction debate. I have no issue with the entirely non-violent protests that happened in the first half of 2019.

It is to be hoped for that a neutral approach may serve to limit the justification of violence against people because of their ethnicity. I teach many children who come from the Mainland. How can it be democratic for ten-year-old children to be afraid of violent mobs on the street? These riots are more about internalised sinophobia than anything political. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.3.195.184 (talk) 01:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC: how should the Deaths figure in the infobox be shown?

How should the "Death(s)" figure in this infobox list the number of deaths? feminist (talk) 14:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• At least 9 deaths as per this Guardian news article. The previous version of this article simply stated "Some (suicides)", citing a number of news articles from June and July each reporting on one suicide. That was an egregious violation of WP:SYNTH and inappropriate when a source exists that provides a figure on the number of suicides in connection with the protests. feminist (talk) 14:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
• Not at all or with an indeterminate number None of the sources are of a quality necessary to link any given specific suicide to the protest movement. Suicide is multi-faceted and it's honestly ghoulish to claim that, for instance, a kid who committed suicide after being kicked out of his family home following a fight about the protests with his parents killed himself because of the protests specifically. We don't know the backstory. We don't know if the kid was previously abused or neglected, the state of his mental health. We just have sensationalist tabloid headlines. This is insufficient for WP:BLP. Simonm223 (talk) 15:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Right, because The Guardian, the most trusted British newspaper by several metrics, is totally "tabloid media". I don't see how privacy protections are a factor when no suicide victim is named in the infobox. You've got to explain how this is a BLP violation other that simply asserting such a claim repeatedly. An exact figure would be difficult to source but it's hard to dispute a figure of "at least 9". feminist (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

re-The Guardian - that was sarcasm, I hope? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.19.227 (talk) 00:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• • • You are asserting a specific cause of death about identifiable people. It's a BLP violation, it's ghoulish, it is likely grossly inaccurate and it's inappropriate for Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
      • Furthermore the guardian is being mis-applied here. It doesn't say that nine people committed suicide in protest. It says that the protesters interviewed by the Guardian claim nine people committed suicide in protest. Clearly this should not be construed as sufficient to say nine people committed suicide in protest in Wikipedia's voice and without any context. Simonm223 (talk) 13:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Shouldn't be included or a vague amount (e.g some/several): I am in agreement with Simonm223, I feel that the causes around a suicide are far too vague and personal to be able to give an accurate account. While I see that we could say that "at least 9 have died...", I would argue that because it is not accurate data - which would be impossible to achieve - we should at least wait until the protests are fully concluded if we were to do any form of suicide-based death toll. -Yeetcetera _{@me bro} 15:58, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
• Not at all: It's too vague and misleading.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
• Unknown or Undetermined. While there are reliable sources for the proposition that at least a small number of people have died as a direct result, the current state of reporting makes anything more specific unsupportable. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
• At least 4 deaths - Per [1][2]. At least the first 4 (Mr. Leung, Ms Lo, Ms Wu, and Ms Mak) are recognized clearly by RS that they suicided because of the protests (definitely a death toll) or suicided to protest (e.g. Mr. Leung). I would say The Guardian is a legit source (NOT a tabloid media, which is just an excuse to dismiss an argument) but the source seems to suggest that the figure is suggested by the protesters and that may not be very accurate. It is kind of difficult to really verify the individual death of the remaining five suicides (there are a lot of mysterious suicide cases in Hong Kong, but we don't know which one count and which one don't). OceanHok (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

  For me, this is acceptable as a compromise if we can't gain consensus for "at least 9 deaths". After all, "at least 4" cannot seriously be challenged. feminist (talk) 00:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

This isn't the sort of thing you "compromise" about. Either the figure is correct or it isn't, and as has been stated it has not be proven without doubt that people have committed suicide for no other reason than these protests. See also my comment below - the Guardian hasn't researched these cases itself, it is simply quoting the protesters' claims.86.56.18.205 (talk) 11:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I am not talking about The Guardian here. At least 4 people have died because of the protests and each of their individual suicide can be traced back, explicitly, to the protests. RS are explicit about this, they themselves are explicit about this by leaving the suicide notes. And neglecting these 4 people (and maybe more) in the infobox because we are trying to guess that they committed suicide maybe because of other reasons, is ghoulish as well given that there are a bunch of verifiable sources to support this. I would say that by suggesting that these 4 people died because of some other reasons is WP:OR because this goes directly against what sources are saying. OceanHok (talk) 13:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

What RSes based on what information? Journalists are not psychologists and should not be trusted to posthumously determine causality for suicides IMO. Simonm223 (talk) 13:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Their suicide notes are quite clear about this. In particular, Mr. Leung and Miss Lo were very explicit about this. They hoped that by suiciding, they can persuade the government to withdraw the bill (as a form of protest). We don't need a psychologist to verify these information. OceanHok (talk) 14:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Two things: first, that's two people; not four, not nine, two. Secondly, actually, people who are engaged in suicidal ideation may not be fully rational. Saying, "well their note mentioned the protests and therefore it must be just that and nothing else," is reductivist at best; which is why we should not be depending on journalists to make this call. Simonm223 (talk) 14:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Saying that they are not "rational" is absolutely WP:OR. Maybe you are right about this for Miss Wu and Miss Mak (about suicide being complicated, even though their depression is derived from the protests, a fact which is quite evident in their notes), but it is definitely not true for Mr. Leung and Ms. Lo (as both of them had a very clear intention: they hoped that by suiciding they can sway the government to withdraw the bill). Calling them "not fully rational" is disrespectful. OceanHok (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. To your point about suicidal people: Suicide notes are primary sources and are not exempt from further examination/contextualization by secondary sources. To your point about journalists: There's no agreed or consistent figure to be found, notwithstanding that there's careful wording in sources which is taken as definite here, so this "at least x suicides" is arbitrary at best. --Cold Season (talk) 00:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Not at all. The sources don't seem unified enough to put this in the infobox (where we cannot provide context, in-line attribution, and so forth.) Death tolls in infoboxes are meant for when there's a solid, clearly-accepted number or set of numbers. We can discuss these deaths in the article, but they shouldn't go in the infobox until we have a more clear consensus among sources. The Guardian is absolutely a high-quality source, but it is just one source; and the standard for putting a number in an infobox (where we're presenting it as unequivocal, uncontested truth) is higher than covering it in the article, especially for something as controversial as this. Also, I'm uncomfortable with "at least nine" when there is a reasonable chance that the actual number is vastly higher - even if we're cautious with our wording, it gives the impression that the number is close to 9. Again, this is why such things are better covered in the article body for now, where we can give it proper nuance. The suicides in the Guardian article are presented as one small facet of the subject and not any sort of "official death toll." Listing it in the infobox (even with wording like "at least") inevitably gives the impression of a degree of certainty and knowledge about the death toll that simply does not exist right now. --Aquillion (talk) 07:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
• Death(s): Suicides with link to in-article Suicides section. The fact that this number keeps getting revised up and down means that there's no consensus here as to what it should be (to say anything of the RSs!). It is flatly BLP vio to attribute specific events to suicide, absent an authoritative finding (and news outlets of the interested parties cannot possibly be such). The prose gets around this issue by describe the actual events as reported. Information in the infobox should defer to prose in the case of ambiguity.130.233.2.235 (talk) 08:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment In theory, simple calculation is allowed per WP:CALC. In reality, we can't just simply add up the number of death that loosely related to the protest (e.g. participated the protest weeks before their death, dressed in black, but some media liked to link their death to the protest). And unfortunately , either in RS they did not have their own calculation (own sum), or from one RS to another RS they are reporting different figures. So, we may need to run a table form of List of suicides sublist. Also, i wondered why List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, 2019 is allowed? If that list is allowed, then create a list such as List of suicides in 2019 Hong Kong protests, and then omit a sum in the infobox in this article, and then allow the wiki reader to determine how many suicide and death are very directly related to the protest. Lastly, i still insisted at least 2 demonstrators shown their dying wish that related to the protest/5 demands before they committed suicide and it is not my conclusion but media that their death are directly related to the protest. Matthew hk (talk) 09:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
• Not at all because it is undetermined by any genuinely neutral source. The Guardian is a reputable source, but please read it properly. "protesters have tracked at least nine cases of suicides that appear to be directly linked to the demonstrations." The Guardian has not come up with this figure itself through independent research, it is simply reporting a figure the protesters are claiming, and the protesters are not a neutral source. And even then it is only "appear to be directly linked", no evidence is given as to how the protesters reached this conclusion. Suicide is complicated, there could be all sorts of other factors involved (underlying depression, etc). The only death figure given should be for people proven directly to have been killed as part of the protests, and as there doesn't seem to be such a figure at the moment, no figure should be given. 86.56.18.205 (talk) 11:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• And this supports my assertion that claims of positive identification are not sourced to WP:RS. The Guardian is not making an explicit causal claim; they're reporting that protesters made a causal claim. That should not be translated directly into a statement of fact in wiki voice in an infobox. Simonm223 (talk) 12:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• Only include the case of Marco Leung Ling-kit: I think the case of Marco's suicide is very similar to a self-immolation because he killed himself during the course of protest in public. All other suicide cases were depression related and should not be included. STSC (talk) 14:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
• Not at all: "some, but uncertain" is useless. We're not going to try a crazy attempt to find every death reported, because that's too likely to fall under WP:SYNTHESIS because of the rumor vs truth blurred discussion. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 18:52, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: Coming back to this, would it be against any policies to instead write within the actual text somewhere "Protesters have reported that at least 9 individuals have committed suicide in direct relation to the protests" or something similar? We could then omit the infobox mentioning an actual number and use that instead. Just a thought. -Yeetcetera _{@me bro} 13:07, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
• Not at all. I oppose any "at least x number of suicides", as this implies that there's an arbitrary criteria of association or even direct outcome that was determined (even though there is no agreement to be found). The cases may be associated with the protests in differing degrees, but this should be contextualized in the body of the text, as the cases are complicated and with a whole host of variables besides the protests. --Cold Season (talk) 08:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• Not at all. There's really no coherent argument for any inconsistency between the infobox and the body of the text. The suicide section of the article ought to be reduced to a single line about Leung, because he's the only case worthy of mention by name; the others are corrolary at best. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• At least 4 - I haven't seen many good sources seriously disputing the figure of 9, but is there any source at all to dispute 4? Barring a good source disputing 4, we can safely say at least 4.Worldlywise (talk) 05:53, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• "So-and-so have stated ___ have died ..." per WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Put that in a in-line note next to the number (or multiple numbers depending on the estimates). If that number turns out to be incorrect, then just delete it and write in the article it was later determined to be false by such-and-such. RockingGeo (talk) 07:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Not at all; this is way too subjective and questionable (with too much WP:OR going on in trying to "discover" links between suicides and the protests) for an infobox. This needs a section in the article, with various sourced not OR material on the subject.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Enforcement on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons#Avoid flag icons in infoboxes

Should the infobox use CCP, China, Hong Kong SAR flag, Hong Kong Government round emblem as well as one of the community supported symbol of Black Bauhinia?

Related policy and guideline: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons#Avoid flag icons in infoboxes and another section MOS:LOGO. Matthew hk (talk) 07:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• No: it should use the Union Jack.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

How does this comment relates to the discussion at hand? OceanHok (talk) 13:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I was just flagging the issue.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• Weak yes: With US involvement, it has become more than just a "China" issue so I think it is sufficient to consider the article as an "acceptable exception". The usage here is not as "excessive" as we typically see in other protests articles, though to be honest, flag icons are always decorative in any context and they are just being there to look nice IMO. OceanHok (talk) 13:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• No:There are already plenty of images used in the article to not need further decoration. I've aways been baffled by the use of the flags in the infobox in this article because I don't see any "parties". Sure, there's a people's movement which is by all accounts "leaderless", and although such flags are used on the streets as agit prop, there is no official flag because there is no organisation. Equally problematic is the American flag used under "support". At best, it's false because Trump's position is mercantilist and equivocal although US congress has passed a piece of legislation that is arguably detrimental to the interests to Hong Kong and not just to the top officials. At worst the flag suggests that the US government is somehow funding the protests, yet there is precious little evidence to suggest that's the case. While we're here, one could argue for consistency's sake that the HKPF are, as protagonists in continuing to fuel and prolong the dispute – a deeply involved organisation with considerable operational autonomy – party to the protests and we should therefore show their emblem. but that's clearly the wrong way to go. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 16:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• No All infobox items are there to help quickly provide readers information that is reasonably definite. Flagicons are therefore very good things to provide for, say, Thirty Years' War, where they help quickly lay out the very complex sides of the conflict. In these protests, however, at least one "side" is much more amorphous. The government sides (i.e., Hong Kong SAR and PRC) are easily defined and are represented by well-defined symbols they use but the protest movement is neither. Flagicons in this case can, at best, provide only partial information to the infobox reader. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• No. MOS:FLAGS is clear that they should only be included when helpful, especially pertinent (e.g. in situations in which other publishers use them, like for showing Olympics or FIFA results), and when no reader confusion or editorial conflict is likely to result from it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

What i meant in the Rfc is, remove all icon and flag Or keep the usage of flag and icon. The latter also include which symbols for the protester is more appropriate. Matthew hk (talk) 14:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

And for the latter part. Since the protest is leaderless and people waving the colonial HK flag, US flag, Black Bauhinia flag, anti-Chinazi flag. It seem it is not that appropriate that wiki editors just WP:OR to choose one, out of many symbols . Matthew hk (talk) 14:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with that. The problem is that infoboxes tend to misrepresent reality and manufacture an alternative reality. We should avoid that.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Photomontage

I've reduced the number of images to five as I believe there's too much clutter in the photomontage. I have removed those that are identical or very similar in the montage or in the body. As many people use portable devices, the number of images is likely to be detrimental to their navigation experience of an already very long and complex article. I would welcome other voices in choosing images that may be more representative, but I firmly believe that five images would be sufficient to portray the broad manifestation of the protests. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 10:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I like the photo montage. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

RFC: Add any foreign countries as "support" of the protesters at infobox

Add US or other counties or not as supporting counties and official organizations in the infobox's pro-protester side. Matthew hk (talk) 13:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Relevant policy, WP:OR, WP:V. Matthew hk (talk) 13:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose as symbolic support from the US Congress has changed nothing on the ground. "Support" for these infobox is usually for military or intelligence support, not symbolic gestures that carry no weight. It unfairly portrays these protests as a China-US proxy conflict. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 15:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion based on symbolic or diplomatic support, I think the line for inclusion needs to be drawn at tangible material support in the form of logistics or direct participation in the events. To put things in perspective, we don't list the US as supporting the dissidents of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, a conflict where the CIA attempted (but failed) to provide material support and where Radio Free Europe was actively encouraging armed struggle, nor do we list countries that honored the various weapons embargoes against South Africa as supporters of the anti-Apartheid forces in the South African Border War. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose for similar reasons above. Just put an explanatory note giving the context. RockingGeo (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose the actions of the US government have not reached the proper diplomatic level and are only symbolic. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 20:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose because this misrepresents the situation. An infobox is only useful if it summarises information in the article. This conjures up a conflict between the USA and China, and that is misleading.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Support has to be rather more then "we support you", it has to be practical support.Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose There are quite a few countries that support the Hong Kong protests, should we add all of them to the list too? I think that the Reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong protests article would be better suited at educating the end-user on who supports or condemns the protests. I believe the infobox should be reserved for physical involvement. Lokii192 (talk) 02:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose We don't generally include PR statements or even immaterial aid in such context in infoboxes. If a number of American activists came to HK and were actively participating, it would be another thing, but I don't believe this is happening, is it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:23, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I see no evidence of anything other than the US saying that they support the protestors, which is basically the equivalent of saying “you’re in our prayers”. Sympathy does not count as support. I do think that you could argue for China supporting the the Hong Kong government, however. This is an issue for China, as Hong Kong is a special administrative region of the PRC. The connections between the Hong Kong government and China is sufficient to argue for China’s material involvement. Anasaitis (talk) 22:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support (only PRC flag) - The articles present formulation that shows the PRC flag is accurate, the PRC is actively involved in this conflict and this conflict exists in China after all. I do not support use of other flags, such as USA, EU, etc as I have not seen sources to say any other country supports violent protest. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose stating that you support someone is a different ballgame than actually providing support, whether it be financial or sending over physical assistance, but in this case I don't believe this would be considered support. Cook907 (talk) 20:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support (only PRC flag) There are many sources which could provide evidence that Chinese government has "military or intelligence support" in the HK affairs. Chinese government has helped HK government to mass "propagating" protesters' alleged crime, ordered military force in the border and so on. (But could we put Xi in it since he also expressed support of the counter-protests forces) Mariogoods (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose This is an internal conflict where other countries have made some noise. There have been no concrete actions taken by any other government - even the PRC has been reticent to take any direct action, preferring to leave it to local authorities. Simonm223 (talk) 13:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose symbolic lip service support. symbolic gestures that carry no weight. Lightburst (talk) 23:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support PRC flag - The New York Times says: the Hong Kong government, backed by Beijing. Therefore China is supporting the HK government. This also happened regarding the extradition bill: BBC News [3] Ms Lam's government has backed the bill, which is also supported by China. starship.paint (talk) 02:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support (PRC flag only)—Reasons above. Ifly6 (talk) 00:55, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

It seem OR to me just due to US had United States–Hong Kong Policy Act and then enacting Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, would be a rationale to list US as supporting country. So how about UK? UK not ruling out sanctions on China over Hong Kong: FM Hunt, UK parliamentary report expresses concern over British judges’ continuing presence in Hong Kong’s top court: “We recommend that the government coordinates its response to the Hong Kong crisis with the governments of Australia, Canada and New Zealand as judiciaries represented in the Hong Kong [court].” Matthew hk (talk) 13:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

This RfC is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT by pro-protester users. WP:NOTDEMOCRACY states discussion are not based on votes but by the correct discussion. One major thing I noticed is that China has not provided "non-Symbolic support". None of the users opposing addressed this, Chinese Vice President and Premier said they supported the HK Gov, meanwhile US actually passed a bill in support of protesters. Meaning US has provided more support than China to each respective side. Yet only China is included under support due to users above policy of, WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. KasimMejia (talk) 05:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I think an argument that would justify China's inclusion is that China is also being targeted by the protesters (e.g. 7.21 where protesters defaced the emblem outside Liaison Office, 9.29 march and 10.1 rallies), so not having them listed in "support" is a bit strange and weird. OceanHok (talk) 10:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

You see, something being "Strange and Weird" does not justify Original Research on Wikipedia. The fact that protesters defecated on a Chinese emblem does not mean that China is supporting the HK Gov in the protests. You should read WP:OR in detail. KasimMejia (talk) 11:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment to all users Nice4What, Rosguill, RockingGeo and AnUnnamedUser. China has not provided anything but non symbolic support neither, per sources. Will you oppose its exclusion too? KasimMejia (talk) 05:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

If you can provide reliable sources stating this, then I would not oppose that edit either. RockingGeo (talk) 05:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

So you're telling me I should provide a source to prove that something in fact doesn't exist? How about you prove that something exists rather than telling me to prove it does not exist lol. Read WP:OR. KasimMejia (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Xi called a meeting with Lam and expressed his support. This was publicly reported and widely viewed as both showing support and dispelling ongoing rumor that Beijing is about to fire Lam from her job. Given that Xi is both the president of China and president of the CCP. I think its fair to say both PRC and CCP supports Lam and the HK gov't. I think that is a fair read of the articles that were published on this subject. 192.0.235.66 (talk) 05:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, Hong Kong is part of China, so saying China's support is just symbolic is a bit strange.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Hong Kong is not a part of China like the rest of China, it has special status. And a source needs to say something for it to be published on Wikipedia. Right now only sources present for Chinese support to HK Gov is Premier and Vice Premier saying we support them. That is exactly like how US said we support protesters, but its more US also passed a bill which China didn't. So right now two rules are broken per RfC WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. KasimMejia (talk) 08:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I should rephrase; if you can explain why the current references about China's nonsymbolic support aren't reliable, backed up by reliable sources, then I wouldn't oppose a removal. RockingGeo (talk) 09:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

"the current references about China's nonsymbolic support" There is no such reference in the article. Only references are about symbolic support, just like the US. KasimMejia (talk) 10:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

This conflict is China vs Hong Kong. To say that Hong Kong can't be in conflict with China because it's part of China is to say that insurgent movements and rebellions can't be conflicts. I just did a quick search and found three sources that say that this conflict is Hong Kong versus China: 1, 2, 3. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 18:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with KasimMejia that the currently cited sources (including those provided by AnUnnamedUser immediately above) do not make any direct claims of material involvement from the Chinese government, separate from the Hong Kong government and the HK police force.

I think the pertinent question here is whether the government of Hong Kong and the Hong Kong police force (and any other group in direct conflict with the protesters) is sufficiently connected to China such that China's material involvement is entailed by their involvement. If their involvement is entailed, then they should be listed, possibly without even the qualifier of "supported by". Otherwise, they should not be listed. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

It is obvious this is protest against the rule of PRC in Hong Kong. Hong Kong is part of the PRC. POV pushing to state this has nothing to do with China is ridiculous. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────┘Although this has been a frustration for the Anti-ELAM crowd, China has been incredibly circumspect in this case - sticking to statements of "concern" and deferring any action to local forces. If we are going to treat this as an insurrection, then we could position China as a party since HK is a part of China, however it's hardly POV pushing to suggest that China has not taken any material action in the form of arrests, legislation or military action with regard to the HK situation. Simonm223 (talk) 13:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

"Possible police-related deaths" should be renamed to remove references to police from the title

At this time there is no credible evidence that the police caused the death or fall. It is entirely based on rumors from unnamed and unknown sources. All media reports referring to the police participation is based on "the protesters alleges that...". All individuals interviewed by media (known to this date) did not claim to have personally witness the fall or the incident. These individuals also do not have background in criminal investigation or any credible basis to make the allegation they asserts to be true. They are merely stating that "I heard from someone that...". Therefore the allegation of police involvement should be removed from the heading as misleads the public into believing there is any credible basis for such allegations. 192.0.235.66 (talk) 02:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree. It's too vague. It would be better to say "Accidental deaths" and "Suicides". Of course, the police might be involved in all the deaths in some way, but no one is saying the police actually killed anyone at this point.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

"Accidental death" and "suicide" are both WP:OR. Allegations mostly centered on the police obstructing the paramedics from helping him instead of actually being the one killing him. OceanHok (talk) 10:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Ocean, we follow the sources. We dont need to dilute statements. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

What are you talking about?--Jack Upland (talk) 06:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

"protesters accused the police have intentionally obstructed the paramedics from delivering Chow to a hospital as soon as possible." - not true

the article cited did not accuse police of blocking paramedics from delivering Chow to the hospital. the rumored accusation from the actual article itself include: 1. "that Chow was fleeing from police tear gas" 2. "that Chow was fleeing from officers chasing after him" 3. "pointing guns and batons at people on the scene as Chow was undergoing emergency treatment" 4. "that police had pushed Chow and he fell" and... 5. "blocking ambulance access to Chow" - should not to be confused with blocking the ambulance carrying Chow from going to the hospital - as the current article could mislead someone into believing. I also suggest that we either include all these rumors or include none. It is not our business to conduct OR. "all rumors" refers to ones that the police had responded to - obviously they were widely spread and therefore the police directly answered them during the press. it is also neutral. as we are not picking sides. it is also factual that these are indeed widely spread rumors that had gain public attention. It should also be noted that during the early days, the most widely spread rumors were built on the theory that he had direct contact with police. The ambulance theory was only popularized after Link REIT (owner of the car park) publicly released the video footages. And therefore, by only reporting the rumors about ambulance, we are actively engaging in OR by filtering which rumors is the leading theory on this week's social media. Therefore, either we stick to only the known facts, or we report all leading rumors and let the readers decide for themselves. 192.0.235.66 (talk) 11:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a collection of rumour. Rather, it may worth to wording as media and protesters accused for X, which is the main theme of Y demonstration on day Z. Matthew hk (talk) 11:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

This is why I said the other rumors should be listed as well. On the day of his death announcement, the prevailing outcry was "blood debt must be repaid in blood", "murder" and "revenge for Chow". The reason why they are calling for blood is because, at the time, the prevailing rumor was that the police directly caused him to fall - the tear gas theory was cited in the article itself as well. This is also why the article segment here was originally called "police-related death". Without including the remaining leading rumors, it would be difficult for the readers to understand why the protesters are immediately demanding blood or why the violence erupted at the time that it did. If we decide to report his death and the riots that came from it, then we should not shy away from reporting the fact that protesters are indeed accusing the police of "murder". 192.0.235.66 (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I mean, the rumour need to be extremely brief as wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not newspaper. Matthew hk (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Are there multiple reports (multiple incidents) of police not allowing ambulances to get through? If so, we can create a section on this and provide more indepth coverage. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The problem of this protests, would be everyone have a phone. So there are many "reporting" that summarize online source but may be timestamp not that right. May be there would be some better chronological coverage a few weeks later, but it should be placed in List of November 2019 Hong Kong protests. Matthew hk (talk) 20:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I mean coverage in W:RS. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

It depends WP:RSN to decide "news reporting" that keep on speculate or commentary the released CCTV footage, are really RS or not, even thsoe commentary are published on newspaper. Matthew hk (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Welcome Protesters New Town Plaza.gif

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Serveal suggestions about the article

First, should we add China Daily's presentation of attacking of Junius Ho which is sourced by China Daily itself? (Media in China are mirroring views of Chinese government, so refering China Daily is enough) I have prepared the sentence: Chinese state-run media China Daily has indicated that the attack has connection to the protesters and condemoned the action.;
Second, there is a sentence The protests have been depicted by Chinese government and media as separatist riots. Should we change it to The whole protests have been depicted by Chinese government and media as separatist riots.? There are serveal sources reported protesters’ violence, but Chinese media has hardly report news which would prise the protests. The media are different in weight issues.

References

Mariogoods (talk) 05:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose including it here unless this Chinese rhetoric was widely reported by other secondary, independent sources. OceanHok (talk) 02:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose rhetoric and not an RS on this article. This is official government propaganda. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose while I don't find the China Daily any more egregious to use than the BBC, I am not fond of the latter nor very hasty to add the opinion of the former. Let's cut opinion out of this article rather than adding more in. Simonm223 (talk) 13:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - China Daily is clearly not an RS. Surprised it hasn't been added to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. Probably should be. NickCT (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to say that adding Chinese state-run media to Perennial_sources still needed discussion, such as realiably of citing them as secondary source about Chinese actors, Chinese Internet personalities and so on. Mariogoods (talk) 02:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

There is also a terrible double-standard at play considering how readily people who would blacklist Chinese state-owned sources hasten to add BBC, CBC and AJE+ sources to articles. There's nothing inherently more biased about a news outlet with a bias in favour of a state or a government. All newsmedia has a bias. China Daily just has one that's easy to suss out and one that supports a state that North Americans and Brits have been indoctrinated to fear. Simonm223 (talk) 13:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose sourcing Chinese State-run media. Not even remotely WP:RS. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• I think Reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong protests would a better page for this inclusion. OceanHok (talk) 02:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree, maybe better suited on the reactions article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• I believed that the List of November 2019 Hong Kong protests is a choice too. But is it a suitable place for Chinese media's opinion? Mariogoods (talk) 06:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• To be fair, at the court the perpetrator had admitted he attack Ho due to Ho's speech and alleged action during the protest. Is the perpetrator a protester? no RS to tell, is the attack is related to the protest, according to the RS it is . Matthew hk (talk) 13:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Matthew hk: Thank you for searching for the realiable source of the thing. But Chinese state-run media has become the only sources which mainland Chinese could refer and it is the example of "Chinese propaganda". The uncensored comment in China of the whole protests accepts it as fact. Anyway, I believed WP:RS is more important, but be aware of adding or deleting pro-China view. Mariogoods (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment For propaganda and rhetoric, no. But there is no reason why the state-run China Daily cannot be cited when seeking to include the official position of the Chinese regime, as it's an official mouthpiece. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 00:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Correct, and it would be attributed as you have noted as the official position of the PRC or CCP. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Opinion What exactly is the rationale for excluding China Daily or any PRC owned sources? Western media readily publish protesters' version of the event without questioning or fact checking. And I don't think anyone really disputes that PRC is a party to to this conflict. Isn't reporting their versions fair game? Can't you just say that "China Daily alleges X" the same way "Protesters alleges Y"? After all, the protesters are directly accusing PRC of many things already and have directly attacked Xin Hua, burned PRC flags. Isn't it actually beneficial to report views of the other side? How exactly are we suppose to report the other side without quoting the other side? 192.0.235.66 (talk) 05:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

There is no reason for excluding them, but we would attribute as such. It would not be in WP:WIKIVOICE. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

someone broke something - bad 'cite error' at article's end

Please repair. 104.169.16.115 (talk) 03:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

repaired. do note that this kind of error will reappear as editors update the main body text, removing the named <ref> tags as the content is being updated, while not removing the sources from the {{Reflist}} template. robertsky (talk) 15:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Article urgently needs clearer data on who is responsible for violence

The question of violence is crucial in this affair. People are basing their opinions on random videos of violence. This article badly needs a better answer to the question of *who* is committing the violence. A body count, basically, of the injuries and worse committed by each side. Rollo (talk) 14:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

From what source would you draw these clear numbers? It's an ambiguous situation. This is a case study in why encyclopedias should not be news aggregation platforms. Simonm223 (talk) 14:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I believe encyclopedias should be places to find data quickly. This particularly information is crucial, it is at the heart of the article's subject. I looked for the information. I could not find it, let alone find it quickly. Rollo (talk) 15:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Historical data perhaps. To-the-minute blow-by-blows of everybody's least favourite ultranationalist arsonists vs brutish parody cop clown show the frustrating ongoing situation in Hong Kong? Nah. Simonm223 (talk) 15:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

But the fact that it is frustratingly complicated is exactly why we need to begin cutting through the fog! The infobox is already framing the events as a "civil conflict", with details for each side. That is as it should be: it is indeed a conflict, and every conflict in history has its casualty figures. Same for natural disasters: the figures may move up and down as they are confirmed or discounted, but they exist. What do you respond to someone who breathlessly forwards a gory video on social media, if not with facts? This article is a failure until it clarifies such basic information. Rollo (talk) 16:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS Simonm223 (talk) 16:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. Rollo - in the near future, historians will piece together in a scholarly manner what is happening in HK today. There will be round-table conferences and so on to separate the wheat from the chaff, as it were. It's a very fluctuating situation on the ground now, and even reliable sources in the news may get it wrong, with hindsight. Wikipedia can wait. 104.169.16.115 (talk) 18:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

831/Death of Chan Yin-lam

While I am fully aware that all the "floating corpse" cases and police beating people to death were WP:RUMOR, they do have an impact on the protests. The protests that followed both incidents is mainly driven by protesters' intention to know the truth (thus all the demands to have both MTR/HKDI to release the CCTV footage), instead of merely condemning police brutality or stuff like that. I will say that a whole page dedicated to it is WP:UNDUE but I believed that a very slight mention is justified. OceanHok (talk) 15:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

No, absolutely not. This page is getting ridiculous, allowing literal collections of rumours just because bargain-basement online "newspapers" mentioned them after they became the latest social media barrage from paranoids on the ground. Rumour has no place in an encyclopedia. Take that nonsense to Twitter if you must share it somewhere. Simonm223 (talk) 15:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I don't need you to teach me what to do and I certainly don't find it helpful when you are dismissing a constructive discussion with such an arrogant attitude. The crux of the issue I wanted to raise through the discussion is the spread of "fake news" or "unverified rumors" from both camps and how they ultimately drove the protests forward. That's why I did not put it in the police allegation section and intentionally included a statement from a professional analyst. It is true that rumor has no place in Wikipedia, but the consequences of what a rumor can bring to the protests and its real-life impacts definitely have a place. So this discussion is not about "nonsense" or whatnot. OceanHok (talk) 16:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

This is sounding awfully like you want to include WP:OR at this point. Simonm223 (talk) 16:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

No, I ain't.[4][5][6][7][8]. And the two specific incidents I have mentioned are just examples with the most visible consequences (MK police station being besieged for nearly an entire month and HKDI being smashed.) OceanHok (talk) 16:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Let's look for sources that mention how fake newes is fuelling the war. It's so prevalent that I'm sure some will show up if they haven't already. In the meantime, let's keep cool and hold the insults, please. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 17:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

um, war? ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.16.115 (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────┘ First war in history fought entirely within one city by an incompetent police force who believe themselves to be the stars of an action movie on one hand and a bunch of crazed disorganized arsonists on the other and zero actual armies. Simonm223 (talk) 19:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

where is this war? you can't possibly mean the riots/protests in HK, because that is most certainly NOT a "war" - nor will you find a Reliable Source that states so — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.18.238 (talk) 02:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

i agree that her death should be included in the article, not because i think the rumors are true, but because many protesters asserts it to be true and use it as justification for their violence. its like saying i don't think Saddam Hussein had nukes, but I do believe the USA uses it as justification for the invasion. 192.0.235.66 (talk) 04:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Protection Status should be upgraded

I keep seeing a lot of Pro-China opinion in this page, this is against Wikipedias neutral policies. Perhaps this page's protection status should be higher? YuriGagrin12 (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the protection shouldn't be higher for this reason. "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;" Pro-China opinion is part of the event, and the pro-China view has become mainstream view in China because of Chinese government's effort. Then, even the pro-China view "a viewpoint is held by minority", it is the "significant minority". Also, pro-China view has enough media coverage. Finally, pro-China view is notable enough to be in the topic since it may lead the weird fate to the protesters. Mariogoods (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Mariogoods That is in china however, there isn't any coverage about what people are protesting about. Wikipedia forbids opinions, it is fine to quote opinions however they should not affect the actual writing of a page. Im not saying the Pro-China section shouldn't be there, Im saying this page has been brigaded sometimes to include pro china opinions in the writing of the article. To prevent brigading this should be protected. YuriGagrin12 (talk) 00:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

can you elaborate on what you mean by bias? the main thing i see missing in the article is the rumors that are being spread by the hk protesters. ie. the ones you see on LIKHG and hong kong subreddit. the most notable ones that comes to mind include the the dead naked girl, the gang raped girl and the hundreds of missing ppl. i actually dont mind including those rumors in the article, since the protesters are using it to justify violence. so it is related, even if it can not be verified. 192.0.235.66 (talk) 05:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

So what you mean is that you want to have Wikipedia treating anti-ELAB rumours as if they were fact. That is not more neutral. Simonm223 (talk) 14:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

No. What I mean is the protesters believe their use of violence is justified based on these conspiracy theories. Its not enough that we simply say "protesters accuse police of violence and brutality" we should clarified that the protesters are making accusations of rape and murder. 192.0.235.66 (talk) 22:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Without WP:RS detailing this and contextualizing it, that would not be WP:DUE. I'm sorry but the paranoid conspirisizing of the increasingly unhinged hardline of the protest movement is veering pretty much into WP:FRINGE territory at this point.Simonm223 ([[User

talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 13:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223 Some sections are the article sound biased toward pro china OUTSIDE of the Pro-Beijing section. Also I don't believe you exactly are unbiased in this, I was going to speak to you on your talk page but it appears you are a Marxist who supports China. Im not trying to disrespect you in any way but those statements of police raping people have been corroborated by multiple doctors and hospital staff.You can even see Police arresting protesters from an ambulance(which is a war crime) Obviosuly, I have my opinion and you have yours but let's not let this get in the way of being Nuetral in the article. YuriGagrin12 (talk) 00:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Upgrading protection status wont inhibit China's PR department from editing this page. What is needed is more neutral editors, and the protection upgrade would affect that. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf No it wouldn't inhibit them from anything else but the article should be written in a way that just presents facts. YuriGagrin12 (talk) 00:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

1st murder committed by protesters/anti-ELAB confirmed

70 year old man argued with protesters that then threw bricks at him, hit his head and knocked him out, life threatening injury, it is now confirmed he is dead. 77.216.111.51 (talk) 23:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Partially Confirmed The original incident that caused his injury has been confirmed by HK gov't. Source is HK Gov't: https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201911/14/P2019111400047.htm . HK gov stated at that time his condition was "life in critical danger" (危殆) and the gov't identified suspect(s) as rioter(s) (暴徒) . 192.0.235.66 (talk) 04:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Nope. The 70-yo cleaner was serious injured by pro-government side "team kill" , when pro-government side throwing bricks to the protester. According to RS citing footage of the scene. Matthew hk (talk) 05:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

are you sure that it was "team kill"? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faL-qGfuC5k 192.0.235.66 (talk) 05:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

here is the same video but better quality, identifying the attacker wearing black. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sppzI_BDb-8 . i m not suggesting these videos should be included in the article, as that would be OR. however, i think the HK gov't announcement should be included, as the injured man was working for the gov't at the time and therefore the gov't's official announcement on the event must be given the most weight.192.0.235.66 (talk) 05:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

HKG govt is not a WP:RS in this case as it would be WP:PRIMARY. Same goes for ChinaDaily content above on this talk page. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Additional Source SCMP has reported on the attack. https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-and-crime/article/3037601/elderly-hong-kong-man-clings-life-after-hit-head-brick 192.0.235.66 (talk) 05:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Additional Source Apple Daily (Taiwan) has reported the man is diagnosed "brain stem death (brain dead)" (腦幹死亡（腦死）). https://tw.appledaily.com/new/realtime/20191114/1663289/ 192.0.235.66 (talk) 05:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Those look like RS (at least the SCMP, as I cant read the other one). But it does not confirm any "murder" text. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Read the apple daily source. no murder text as well. reported that the police has classified the case as "傷人案" or literally 'injuring case' or 'wounding case', which is as reported in scmp. robertsky (talk) 11:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Old man was injured and later he died, that is still murder even if unintentional that is manslaughter. Anyone claiming its team kill has to ignore video in source I posted, where you can see brick hurled from direction of protester hitting old man. This is first death that is murder with clear causation documented in Hong Kong related to protests. BTW I didn't notice in wiki article about protesters attacking mainland Chinese students, residents and tourists along some Taiwanese that spoke Mandarin, Japanese was also attacked. 77.216.111.51 (talk) 13:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• As a note, there is WP:BLPCRIME. As i commented on the content for the taxi driver, one side accused he is a perpetrator for making Vehicle-ramming attack, another side (and the taxi driver) himself accused it was just accident. Since there is no court ruling yet (and may be never, also WP:Crystal), and we can't use firm word for accusation, may be stating the 70-yo man was injured and that's all. Matthew hk (talk) 14:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

So 70 year old man is just injured and that's all? So you're denying that he died after being hit by a brick from a protester? 77.216.111.51 (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

BLP crime would apply the second Wikipedia listed any specific living person as a suspect. However "a protester", if allowed by WP:RS (not self-published cell phone footage) would not be a protected person under BLP as it refers to one person out of a large group. Simonm223 (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Frankly the idea that WP:BLPCRIME would prevent us from saying the 70 year old man died after being struck by a brick during an altercation with protesters is bizarre to say the least. WP:V applies. But there's no BLP protection for an annonymous rioter. Simonm223 (talk) 19:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Confirmed The victim has been confirmed dead.

SCMP report: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/society/article/3037622/hong-kong-protests-tear-gas-fired-city-begins-fourth

CNN report: https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/14/asia/hong-kong-protest-elderly-man-dies-intl-hnk/index.html 192.0.235.66 (talk) 20:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Simonm223, you are increasingly bending policy to your side. WP:BLP also applies to recently dead person. For WP:V, multiple RS source indicated that in the incident both protesters and anti-protesters are throwing brick, and conflicted on the "opinion/fact" that which bricks injured the cleaner. Since we are not law enforcement (neither did journalist on interpreting live footage), we should not firmly turn accusation to fact. Matthew hk (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

References

• A brick was thrown at the victim by a black-clad and masked protester according to the sources and video. Please don't keep hiding this. STSC (talk) 03:24, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Merge discussion

There are currently three merge discussions:

• Talk:2019 November CUHK-Hong Kong Police Force conflict
• Talk:Death of Chow Tsz Lok
• Talk:2019 November Shooting Incident in Sai Wai Ho

More input will be needed. Thanks. OceanHok (talk) 12:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion of adding effect of Chinese government "propaganda"

I have found the sentence in Chinese Wikipedia: 在内地民众如何结束运动的讨论中，除在香港实行一国一制的观点外，呼吁中央政府以武力镇压结束并非罕见 The claim is supproted by realiable source (NYT Chinese version) and I believed it shows the effort of propaganda.

References

Mariogoods (talk) 05:13, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

That seems to be veering toward WP:OR as it stands. Simonm223 (talk) 13:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223 No it doesnt, he FOUND that source. YuriGagrin12 (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223: @YuriGagrin12: The English version of the source is here: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/13/world/asia/hong-kong-protests-china.html Mariogoods (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• CUHK.AttackedbyPolice.191112.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

interesting london incident

here is something in london with an RS https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/11/china-condemns-attack-hong-kong-justice-secretary-london-191115025641028.html seems related Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, should be included. Violent protests are spreading beyond Hong Kong.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on reliability of Hong Kong Free Press

There is a noticeboard discussion on the reliability of Hong Kong Free Press, especially with regard to its reporting on the 2019 Hong Kong protests. If you are interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Is the Hong Kong Free Press a reliable source?. — Newslinger talk 11:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Which hospital?

Why's it necessary to identify the hospital where some people have died? It seems to be recentism and violate WP:NOTNEWS. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 13:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Why aren't you applying the same consistency to those that fell to their deaths, but only focus on the person that got hit by a brick? If done so, perhaps, I would be less inclined to revert such changes. --Cold Season (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't male a right, my friend! -- Ohc ^¡digame! 19:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Very well. [9]--Cold Season (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Correct spelling

Under the "Objectives" heading, there are 2 instances of misspelling.

Comparison of changes:

Initially, protesters solely demanded the withdrawal of the extradition bill. Following an escalation in the severity of policing tactics against demonstrators on 12 June and the bill's suspension on 15 June, the objective of the protesters has been to achieve the following five demands:[61]

Complete withdrawal of the extradition bill from the legislative process: Although the Chief Executive announced indefinite suspension of the bill on 15 June, reading on it may be quickly resumed. The bill was "pending resumption of second reading" in the Legislative Council. The bill was formally withdrawn on 23 October.[62] Retraction of the "riot" ̶c̶h̶a̶r̶a̶c̶t̶e̶r̶i̶s̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ characterization: The government originally ̶c̶h̶a̶r̶a̶c̶t̶e̶r̶i̶s̶e̶d̶ characterized the 12 June protest as "riots". Later the description was amended to say there were "some" protesters who rioted. However, protesters...

MBabcock87 (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

No, those aren't misspellings. Those are British English spellings. Simonm223 (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Identifying an opinion

Protip: If a newspaper says, "appears to be," "looks like," "could be," or any other similar conditional construction, it's an opinion and should be excluded. Simonm223 (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

See also, "protesters claim." Simonm223 (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to add that since the statement in Wikipedia may result in something we are not expected, adding content should be with catious. Mariogoods (talk) 02:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Since this discussion was started right after the edits by OceanHok (talk · contribs) involving the man killed by a brick thrown by a protester. OceanHok is continously trying to spin the information... I will analyze the sources (quotes):

• The attack occurred on Wednesday, a day when protesters were attempting to stop non-protesters from clearing streets of bricks and other impediments to traffic. The victim was struck during what, from a video, appears to have been an attack initiated by the dead man’s peers against a group of protesters in Hong Kong.

• Senior Superintendent Chan Tin-chu said the attack happened at around noon as a group of residents tried to clear bricks from the roads. [...] “Those in black first threw metal rods and bricks at the residents while Luo was believed to have used a mobile phone to film the scene. Then someone in black darted forward and threw a brick at his head,” Chan said.

• Police said more than 10 people were clearing bricks on Lung Wan Street when they were attacked by more than 20 masked protesters clad in black, RTHK reported.

Stop trying to frame the Sheung Shui clash as something that the local residents initiated, whereas sources are inconsistent in this and you are trying to present inconsistent claims as fact. Secondly, the only thing that may be concluded from these sources is that local residents were trying to clear bricks from the street and protesters tried to prevent this. --Cold Season (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

"The confrontation between the two groups started when local residents were clearing bricks from the street and protesters were trying to prevent this" already implies that the protesters started the fight (by "responding") and suggested that the counter-protesters played a passive role in the attack, which is wrong as per the sources you have provided. Either you include both sides, or remove both altogether (as both amounts to nothing but opinion). The best way to go is to remove the entire sentence, as hurling bricks is more than sufficient to explain the incident. OceanHok (talk) 16:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

The locals were clearing bricks (this is not in dispute) and the protesters prevented this (this is also not in dispute) as was presented in the prior revision. Your change of the info, that is, claiming that the locals were the ones that initiated the attack is baseless, as sources are not consistent herein. Any implication is your own. --Cold Season (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

That's because the wording you use is overly ambiguous while at the same time, manage to create a cause-and-effect relationship that is disputed. "Any implication is your own" is a irresponsible statement. Linking the two undisputed incidents together is disputed. Besides, it is not really inconsistent. The source suggests that the fight, according to the video, was started by the local residents, while they acknowledged that the fight, according to the police, was started by the protesters. And for something as controversial as this, the sentence you write is over-simplifying the incident, and therefore, is WP:UNDUE. I will have to admit that the version I have written earlier suffered the same problem because the police account was not included. A compromise I can make is that we either include both sides or remove both of them. I personally will remove both of them because they are unneeded details anyway. OceanHok (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

(1) My wording is as basic as can be: The confrontation between the two groups started when local residents were clearing bricks from the street and protesters were trying to prevent this.

Your wording is not and added the element who attacked first: The conflict started when local residents attempting to clear bricks from othe streets attacked the protesters setting up a roadblock.

(2) You mean, according to Asia Times who watch the footage... the police who also watched the footage. The only issue here is the initiation of attack, which is already completely absent in the first wording and therefore not an issue. Your wording presents one perspective of who attacked first as truth. --Cold Season (talk) 17:39, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Alright, I have thought a while about a new wording The confrontation between the two groups started when local residents were trying to clear bricks from the street and protesters were trying to prevent it. Your choice. --Cold Season (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

This would be my counterproposal: On 13 November 2019, a group of protesters who were setting up a roadblock in Sheung Shui clashed with a group of local residents who were attempting to clear the bricks. The clash saw both groups hurling bricks at each other. The second sentence is then deleted. This retains what you have (the two undisputed facts) without making any controversial connection. OceanHok (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

The sources, for as far as I see, do not support that the clash occurred when protesters set up the roadblock but revolves around the clearing of bricks whereupon they clashed. The confrontation between the two groups happened when local residents tried to clear bricks from the street. There, it almost can't be shorter. --Cold Season (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Tsuen Wan Death is Original Research

The article current reported the death of a black-clothed man in Tsuen Wan on November 13th. However, why is this reported in this article? The news source did not report the man was engaging in protest nor was there any police presence. The police classified the death as "not suspicious". Given the relationship to protest is not being alleged by the source reference, the inclusion of his death here would constitute WP:OR. If anyone believe the death is related, please provide WP:RS or WP:PRIMARY, such as a police announcement or witness claims or assertions from his family etc.

Also, Apple Daily (https://hk.news.appledaily.com/local/realtime/article/20191113/60264041) claims that there was indeed a witness who saw the man falling while driving in the area. However, it is not clear if she saw the man jump off the building or she merely saw the body after it had fallen to the ground. But, aside from the article title is called "War against Brutality: Black-clothed youth....", there is no actual mention that the death is in any way related to protest. (I am not sure if Apple Daily is considered RS, as the reporting here really seem like fake news - appears to accuse police brutality in the article caption but not actually saying it in the article?????? The man is later reported to be 30 yr old, so the reporting of "youth" in the title seem somewhat... bad journalism)

Anyways, I think the death should be excluded until an actual RS makes direct assertion that it is related. 192.0.235.66 (talk) 04:14, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Removed, thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:43, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

International reactions

This information has been removed, with the following edit summary: "this is skewing the section. best to just say there has been reactions to the protests to leave it as neutral as possible." I think it is relevant and should be included.

Various U.S. politicians have expressed disapproval of corporate decisions related to the protests, including NBA's apology to China over Daryl Morey's tweet about Hong Kong, Apple's removal of the HKmap.live application from the App Store or video game developer Blizzard's suspension of an esports athlete from competing in events after he expressed support for Hong Kong protests during a streaming event. Supporters of the Hong Kong protests have also called for the boycott of Disney's 2020 live-action remake of Mulan after lead actress Crystal Yifei Liu, a naturalized American born in China, reblogged on 15 August support for the Hong Kong police.

References

-- Tobby72 (talk) 09:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Whatever the person's reasoning is... It is not even reactions to the protests, but reactions to reactions to the protests. It is also a heavy US-centric skew with undue weight as over half of the reactions section comprises things related to American parties. Not here. --Cold Season (talk) 15:35, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

HK police shot by arrow at PolyU

https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/hong-kong-policeman-hit-in-leg-by-arrow-during-operation-to-disperse-protesters

https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3038096/hong-kong-officer-shot-arrow-police-deploy-water-cannons — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.0.235.66 (talk) 09:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)