Talk:2014 Hong Kong protests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ohconfucius (talk | contribs) at 04:55, 18 February 2015 (→Requested move 14 February 2015: opp). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 04:55, 18 February 2015 by Ohconfucius (talk | contribs) (→Requested move 14 February 2015: opp)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Old topics on this talk page are automatically archived by MiszaBot after 9 days of inactivity. To view inactive discussions, please see the archive pages. Once an archive reaches 70K in size, a new one is automatically created.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2014 Hong Kong protests article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in Hong Kong English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, travelled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Hong Kong High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hong Kong, a project to coordinate efforts in improving all Hong Kong-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Hong Kong-related articles, you are invited to join this project.Hong KongWikipedia:WikiProject Hong KongTemplate:WikiProject Hong KongHong Kong

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hong Kong To-do:

Attention needed (60)

...needing expert attention (4) • ...without infoboxes (33)

Collaboration needed

Recommend topic

Improvement needed

GA-Class articles (60) • B-Class articles (298)

Cleanup needed

C-Class articles (1,068)

Image needed (347)

Destub needed

Start-Class articles (5,534) • Stub-Class articles (6,673)

Deorphan needed

...orphans

Page creation needed

Requested articles

Miscellaneous tasks

...maintain popularity • ...assess the un-Class (382) • ...assess the un-Importance (1,345)

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

China Low‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Sociology: Social Movements Mid‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the social movements task force.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Talk:2014 Hong Kong protests\Edit guide

So far, "Revolution" has not yet happened

To constitute Revolution, a government must change. Lately, we'll see a separate article about "Umbrella Revolution" as "Umbrella ~~Revolution~~ Movement" has been since. The protests has nearly ended, even when Mong Kok protesters protest through mobile, so this should be a lesson for those who want to change the title. --George Ho (talk) 06:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

"Revolution" in the modern sense has nothing innately to do with regime change. Regardless, you don't decide whether "revolution" is appropriate, RS do. However, I'm satisfied with the Umbrella Movement article. RGloucester — ☎ 06:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Which source is reliable? The press has used Revolution just to market its articles, not for good causes. --George Ho (talk) 06:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

As for who decides, per one talk page, an original research may be allowed in discussions, not articles. --George Ho (talk) 06:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

You don't get to determine whether the press cares about marketing articles or helping good causes. RGloucester — ☎ 06:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

You know what? Have it your way. I'm waiting for others' comments. Now if you'll excuse me... --George Ho (talk) 06:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't have it any way. I'm not disputing that the title should be left alone. I'm disputing that the reason is because the use of "revolution", in this case, doesn't fit your particular definition of the word. RGloucester — ☎ 06:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the concensus that 'Umbrella Revolution' should not adopted as the title. However, this decision is based on naming conventions. Your understanding and interpretation of the word revolution has no role in it; in other words, if Umbrella Revolution was deemed to be a more appropriate title per naming conventions, it should be used, despite the definition of revolution. By the way, I believe we should retain the title Umbrella Revolution in the lede paragraph. --Jabo-er (talk) 01:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Police department

suggest to include section to discuss the action of Police, both positive and negative. Prodigyhk (talk) 02:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Second phase?

Why were not many readers aware of the second phase of protests this year? Why wasn't I told about this? --George Ho (talk) 06:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The new protests logically cannot be in this article, given that this article is titled "2014". I'd start a new article, if I were you, as this one is too long to be expanded. RGloucester — ☎ 06:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am not a great writer. I can create short biographies and write about fiction, but that's it. Can you create 2015 Hong Kong protests then? --George Ho (talk) 06:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You are asking me to create a lot of articles, these days. RGloucester — ☎ 06:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I've made a stub, for you. RGloucester — ☎ 07:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

This is no "second phase", it's an underwhelming march (by the protestors' own account) that Hong Kong gets every weekend (every month or so if we're talking one of comparable size). I'd argue it's not even notable enough for its own article, let alone being called the "2015 Hong Kong protests". _dk (talk) 09:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Quite possible. I only made it at Mr Ho's demand, as he is my lord and saviour. If there is an issue with the title, which there may well be, please take it to that talk page so it can be dealt with promptly. RGloucester — ☎ 15:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Why is this article written in British English instead of Hong Kong English?

This makes no sense. See {{Hong Kong English}}. British English and Hong Kong English mostly retain the same spellings, so little would be necessary to change in the article apart from replacing {{British English}} with {{Hong Kong English}}. I think there might be some more words in Hong Kong English not present in British English, but as I said, it appears that they mostly use the same spelling. Dustin (talk) 19:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You're right, as far as I know, and in any case per WP:TIES it should be in Hong Kong English to begin with. I've gone ahead and changed it, if anyone has a problem feel free to revert. —Nizolan 17:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

In fact looking at the archives it looks like User:RGloucester already tagged it as Hong Kong English, which was then removed as "unnecessary", and someone then later incorrectly tagged it as British English. I don't have the patience to look up the diff where that happened, but it doesn't seem to have been discussed, so I think this is really just a rectification reflecting the article as it already stands (Commonwealth English). —Nizolan 17:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 14 February 2015

It has been proposed in this section that 2014 Hong Kong protests be renamed and moved to 2014–15 Hong Kong protests.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

2014 Hong Kong protests → 2014–15 Hong Kong protests – I noticed this edit by User:George Ho at Template:Anti-government protests in the 21st century, and was wondering if it really makes sense to treat the 2015 protest as a separate thing. Since they are part of the same overall civil conflict should this article not be moved to 2014–15 Hong Kong protests and extended to cover more recent events? I note that the claim the protests ended on 15 December 2014 is not cited in the infobox. In the body of the article, we find that "On 15 December, police cleared protesters and their camps at Causeway Bay with essentially no resistance, bringing the protests to an end", which offers two citations, but the one I can view (the BBC one) doesn't say that the protests were brought to an end, merely that CY Leung claimed that they had been. —Nizolan 12:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC) — Quick amendment: just noticed the #Second phase? discussion above. Hopefully this can serve as a more thorough discussion. —Nizolan 12:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose – These protests ended in 2014. There was a definitive end point. The new protests are clearly a new round. This article is too long, anyway. RGloucester — ☎ 15:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- If the civil conflict has continued into 2015 then I think it should be included in this article, rather than treating the two things as separate just because they happen to fall on two sides of New Year's Day. Otherwise we have no page describing the civil conflict as such, since Umbrella Movement seems to be about a political configuration rather than a series of events. I'm not too invested either way, though, and I certainly take your point regarding the length of the article. —Nizolan 16:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - There are significant differences between the protests from organization, to reason, and even scale. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 10:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - Not significant to be included as per WP:EVENT. STSC (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - The nature of the protests in 2015 are entirely different. -- Ohc 04:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Categories: