This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Occupy Central with Love and Peace article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Occupy Central with Love and Peace and 2014 Hong Kong protests. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Occupy Central with Love and Peace and 2014 Hong Kong protests at the Reference desk. |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on September 28, 2020. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | 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. |
what's NPOV? The NPOV objection attached to the Background section has no explanation posted here for the objection. If the editor who lodged the objection chooses not to defend it, I propose removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.170.205 ( talk) 20:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC) I have reviewed the section and it does not seem unduly weighted at all. In view of this I am removing the objection. If an editor chooses to reinstate it, please explain the reasons for doing so here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.170.205 ( talk) 20:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Most of the content in this article sounds like promoting the so-called "OCLP", and needs to be rewritten. STSC ( talk) 01:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Any promotional content which was copied directly from the primary source(the OCLP website) is not acceptable as NPOV ( WP:SOAPBOX). I have therefore made my edit accordingly. STSC ( talk) 17:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I have redirected this as much of the same info was also included in this article. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 03:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Oppose merge (for now). Let's see how things develop. Occupy Central is more than these protests and these protests are more than Occupy Central.-- Nowa ( talk) 00:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Oppose merge. IMHO, "Occupy Central" is a proposal that spanned 20 months (Jan 13 - Sep 14) led by the "OCLP trio"; much of the time is spent on idealogy, discussion, preparation and rebuttal to voices of opposition. The 2014 protests (aka Umbrella Revolution), on the other hand, were initally led by Scholarism and Hong Kong Federation of Students and later developed into a spontaneous action. I can't say there is any easy clear cut but I recommend different coverages on these articles.-- Jabo-er ( talk) 02:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Óppose merge' There is now a clear distinction between the articles at the top of each page. Content is very different now. Leave them both to develop. Legacypac ( talk) 22:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
It looks like there is a connection to 2014 Ferguson unrest. I think it should be included. Here are several references [1] [2] [3]-- Nowa ( talk) 06:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The international reaction section seems to be pretty Anglo (US, UK, AU, CA). Can anyone broaden it a bit?-- Nowa ( talk) 08:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I need some help with the article Umbrella Man (Occupy Central Movement, Hong Kong). It's about a specific photograph that is related to the OCM and it needs some serious TLC. It was up for a speedy (which I've declined) but I'm thinking that a merge to the main OCM article would be best due to the limited amount of coverage that I could find. However, I did want to ask around to various WikiProjects and pages to see if they could help out some when it comes to finding foreign language sources or sources I may have missed. Anyone interested? (I've cut/pasted this to various pages.) Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
User:STSC removed a sentence stating that the Alliance for Peace and Democracy (ADP) anti-Occupy campaign's credibility had been called into question. In the edit summary, he/she said it constitutes WP:SOAPBOX-ing. However, it is a referenced, NPOV statement backed up by a South China Morning Post article. Citobun ( talk) 02:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
User:STSC has a long history of pushing his political point of view on any and all China-related articles. Undoubtedly he will assert that this is a "personal attack", but it is solely about content and a necessary preface for anyone unfamiliar with his prolific editing history on Hong Kong/China issues, Senkaku Islands, Chinese territories, Falun Gong, and anything else controversial to do with China.
He has repeatedly changed the following item in the timeline section:
* 18 July to 17 August 2014 - APD's "Anti-Occupy Central" petition campaign collects over 1,500,000 signatures, although the credibility of the campaign came into question as there were "no measures in place to prevent repeat signatures".
to instead read:
* 18 July to 17 August 2014 - APD's "Anti-Occupy Central" petition campaign collects over 1,500,000 signatures.
The integrity of the voting system was called into question by numerous media sources and the statement is supported by the South China Morning Post (SCMP), a reliable source. The article in the SCMP is focused solely on this issue and the ability to vote more than once was noted by journalists from other media outlets too. The fact that the credibility of this campaign was questioned is an important part of the story and it doesn't make the timeline item unduly longer nor tangential than anything else in the timeline.
User:STSC also tends to bombard my talk page with warning templates when he comes into disagreement with me. I object to his use of an "edit warring" warning template on my talk page with relation to this issue because I have provided a sound reason why I had reverted his deletion.
His reply that "the claim from SCMP was unproven" is nonsensical. If you read the article, the fact that there is no way to prevent repeat signatures is admitted by the organiser of the campaign: "There is no measure in place to prevent repeat signatures as people who sign will be asked for only the letter and first four digits of their ID cards. "We can only ask people to exercise self-respect [and not sign more than once]," Chow said." Citobun ( talk) 01:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
You can smear me however you like, but our edit histories speak for themselves. You keep adding block warnings to my talk page – if you're really convinced I'm personally attacking you, then I suggest you take it to Wikipedia:Requests for comment, or report me to an admin instead.
I've barely edited Occupy-related subjects (aside from talk page discussion), and I don't recall ever editing the pages of any anti-Occupy groups. On the contrary, you've been constantly boosting these groups for weeks. All I've done is try to balance a small piece of the story on this page, because the fact that some of these anti-Occupy campaigns have been called into question IS part of the story – as evidenced by the ample coverage in numerous reliable sources.
About the "faired-minded editor" – I have no recollection of who you're referring to. You should link to it. Were they blocked?
Anyway, again: instead of constantly plastering my talk page with block warnings, please take it to Wikipedia:Requests for comment or report me to an admin next time. Enough with these false accusations of misconduct – if you really think I've done something wrong, report me. Otherwise you're just being disruptive and distracting from the content-related issue, which is that you're persistently blanking well-cited content, on a variety of flimsy grounds, to further an agenda you've long promoted on Wikipedia. Citobun ( talk) 04:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
I think that there's nothing wrong with the addition "although the credibility of the campaign came into question..." as it seems to be sourced decently with the SCMP article. WP:NOTCRYSTAL doesn't apply here for obvious reasons, here we have something factual about them having no measures to prevent double voting (no prediction etc). If the list details events, and this was one of them—in addition to a source highlighting this fact about it—I don't see what's wrong with including it. I also request both sides to assume good faith and stick to content, not contributor. Hope this helps, Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 10:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC) |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on Occupy Central with Love and Peace. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.hklii.org/hk/legis/en/ord/2211/longtitle.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Pretty sure they got another one not just too long ago White1306 ( talk) 16:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Occupy Central with Love and Peace article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Occupy Central with Love and Peace and 2014 Hong Kong protests. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Occupy Central with Love and Peace and 2014 Hong Kong protests at the Reference desk. |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on September 28, 2020. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | 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. |
what's NPOV? The NPOV objection attached to the Background section has no explanation posted here for the objection. If the editor who lodged the objection chooses not to defend it, I propose removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.170.205 ( talk) 20:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC) I have reviewed the section and it does not seem unduly weighted at all. In view of this I am removing the objection. If an editor chooses to reinstate it, please explain the reasons for doing so here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.170.205 ( talk) 20:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Most of the content in this article sounds like promoting the so-called "OCLP", and needs to be rewritten. STSC ( talk) 01:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Any promotional content which was copied directly from the primary source(the OCLP website) is not acceptable as NPOV ( WP:SOAPBOX). I have therefore made my edit accordingly. STSC ( talk) 17:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I have redirected this as much of the same info was also included in this article. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 03:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Oppose merge (for now). Let's see how things develop. Occupy Central is more than these protests and these protests are more than Occupy Central.-- Nowa ( talk) 00:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Oppose merge. IMHO, "Occupy Central" is a proposal that spanned 20 months (Jan 13 - Sep 14) led by the "OCLP trio"; much of the time is spent on idealogy, discussion, preparation and rebuttal to voices of opposition. The 2014 protests (aka Umbrella Revolution), on the other hand, were initally led by Scholarism and Hong Kong Federation of Students and later developed into a spontaneous action. I can't say there is any easy clear cut but I recommend different coverages on these articles.-- Jabo-er ( talk) 02:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Óppose merge' There is now a clear distinction between the articles at the top of each page. Content is very different now. Leave them both to develop. Legacypac ( talk) 22:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
It looks like there is a connection to 2014 Ferguson unrest. I think it should be included. Here are several references [1] [2] [3]-- Nowa ( talk) 06:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The international reaction section seems to be pretty Anglo (US, UK, AU, CA). Can anyone broaden it a bit?-- Nowa ( talk) 08:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I need some help with the article Umbrella Man (Occupy Central Movement, Hong Kong). It's about a specific photograph that is related to the OCM and it needs some serious TLC. It was up for a speedy (which I've declined) but I'm thinking that a merge to the main OCM article would be best due to the limited amount of coverage that I could find. However, I did want to ask around to various WikiProjects and pages to see if they could help out some when it comes to finding foreign language sources or sources I may have missed. Anyone interested? (I've cut/pasted this to various pages.) Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
User:STSC removed a sentence stating that the Alliance for Peace and Democracy (ADP) anti-Occupy campaign's credibility had been called into question. In the edit summary, he/she said it constitutes WP:SOAPBOX-ing. However, it is a referenced, NPOV statement backed up by a South China Morning Post article. Citobun ( talk) 02:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
User:STSC has a long history of pushing his political point of view on any and all China-related articles. Undoubtedly he will assert that this is a "personal attack", but it is solely about content and a necessary preface for anyone unfamiliar with his prolific editing history on Hong Kong/China issues, Senkaku Islands, Chinese territories, Falun Gong, and anything else controversial to do with China.
He has repeatedly changed the following item in the timeline section:
* 18 July to 17 August 2014 - APD's "Anti-Occupy Central" petition campaign collects over 1,500,000 signatures, although the credibility of the campaign came into question as there were "no measures in place to prevent repeat signatures".
to instead read:
* 18 July to 17 August 2014 - APD's "Anti-Occupy Central" petition campaign collects over 1,500,000 signatures.
The integrity of the voting system was called into question by numerous media sources and the statement is supported by the South China Morning Post (SCMP), a reliable source. The article in the SCMP is focused solely on this issue and the ability to vote more than once was noted by journalists from other media outlets too. The fact that the credibility of this campaign was questioned is an important part of the story and it doesn't make the timeline item unduly longer nor tangential than anything else in the timeline.
User:STSC also tends to bombard my talk page with warning templates when he comes into disagreement with me. I object to his use of an "edit warring" warning template on my talk page with relation to this issue because I have provided a sound reason why I had reverted his deletion.
His reply that "the claim from SCMP was unproven" is nonsensical. If you read the article, the fact that there is no way to prevent repeat signatures is admitted by the organiser of the campaign: "There is no measure in place to prevent repeat signatures as people who sign will be asked for only the letter and first four digits of their ID cards. "We can only ask people to exercise self-respect [and not sign more than once]," Chow said." Citobun ( talk) 01:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
You can smear me however you like, but our edit histories speak for themselves. You keep adding block warnings to my talk page – if you're really convinced I'm personally attacking you, then I suggest you take it to Wikipedia:Requests for comment, or report me to an admin instead.
I've barely edited Occupy-related subjects (aside from talk page discussion), and I don't recall ever editing the pages of any anti-Occupy groups. On the contrary, you've been constantly boosting these groups for weeks. All I've done is try to balance a small piece of the story on this page, because the fact that some of these anti-Occupy campaigns have been called into question IS part of the story – as evidenced by the ample coverage in numerous reliable sources.
About the "faired-minded editor" – I have no recollection of who you're referring to. You should link to it. Were they blocked?
Anyway, again: instead of constantly plastering my talk page with block warnings, please take it to Wikipedia:Requests for comment or report me to an admin next time. Enough with these false accusations of misconduct – if you really think I've done something wrong, report me. Otherwise you're just being disruptive and distracting from the content-related issue, which is that you're persistently blanking well-cited content, on a variety of flimsy grounds, to further an agenda you've long promoted on Wikipedia. Citobun ( talk) 04:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
I think that there's nothing wrong with the addition "although the credibility of the campaign came into question..." as it seems to be sourced decently with the SCMP article. WP:NOTCRYSTAL doesn't apply here for obvious reasons, here we have something factual about them having no measures to prevent double voting (no prediction etc). If the list details events, and this was one of them—in addition to a source highlighting this fact about it—I don't see what's wrong with including it. I also request both sides to assume good faith and stick to content, not contributor. Hope this helps, Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 10:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC) |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on Occupy Central with Love and Peace. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.hklii.org/hk/legis/en/ord/2211/longtitle.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Pretty sure they got another one not just too long ago White1306 ( talk) 16:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)