- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Localism camp
- Localism camp ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It is grammatically incorrect and this term does not exist in the media yet. Lmmnhn ( talk) 06:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - For grammatically incorrect, the name can be changed to "Localist groups" ( zh:本土派 (香港)) or something else, but it is NOT the same as " Localism in Hong Kong" ( zh:香港本土化運動), as the "Localist groups" describes a classification of members of Legislative Council and District Councils and related supporters, but "Localism in Hong Kong" describes an "ideology" in Hong Kong (See an edit by Lmmnhn, he said: "Not a political party", and once more, he said: "we have to be fair, list all or none of them (ideologies)"). For the term does not exist in the media yet, this is surely wrong, as we should follow classification by the media (I know the classification existed in Hong Kong legislative election, 2016), whether it is traditional or new, whether it is in English or Chinese~
- Apple Daily HK: 本土派奪6席 摑梁特一巴
- Apple Daily HK: 本土泛民終分庭抗禮 硬打港獨策略有變？
- Ming Pao: 陳景祥 第三勢力 三分天下？
- HK01.com: 立會板塊分析 西環化成趨勢 本土派被誇大
- Divinity School of Chung Chi College, CUHK: 香港本土派與基督信仰
- inmediahk.net: 本土派為何必須面對「建設民主中國」
, and could not feel that because there is no such "camp" exists, we cannot create such articles. The feeling is in violation of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored. UU ( talk) 10:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - I knew that there are the terms "localist groups" and "localists" which stand for 本土派 or the political relation of six people of HK Legislative Council in the media. So, I agree with
UU that we can start a new page of "Localist groups (Hong Kong)" to correct the grammar mistake. By the way, six seats for localists:
SCMP,
Apple Daily and
IPP Review.
Keithchan1 (
talk) 15:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- A "camp" and "groups" are totally different concepts. A camp refers to a political alliance with a same goal and cooperate with each other, like the pro-democracy camp and the pro-Beijing camp. But the six localists have not yet formed any form of political alliance. In fact, they often disagree with each other on many issues and hostile to each other. Not to mention the article only refers the localists as "right-wing" alignment on the header but put the left-wing activists such as Nathan Law, Lau Siu-lai and Eddie Chu into a subordinating position which does not reflect neutrality. There are a caucus within the pro-democrat and pro-Beijing parties but that does not yet exist among the six localists. Therefore the so-called "localism camp" (not to mention some wikipedians always make this grammatical mistake) equal to the pro-democracy camp and pro-Beijing camp does not exist. Additionally, until today the media only refers to the localists as "localist groups" but not "localist camp". There are localist groups but no "localist camp". Such camp may emerge in the future, but to state that there is a "localist camp" today is not factual, which I believe is "misleading" (a term UU likes to accuse me for). Lmmnhn ( talk) 10:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- You cannot make those judgement as this violates Wikipedia:No original research, and the sentence~
until today the media only refers to the localists as "localist groups" but not "localist camp"
is certainly wrong, as there are already~
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- The Standard: Beijing sees `no big deal' in Mong Kok strife
- South China Morning Post: ‘A Hongkonger is someone willing to defend our values’: Baggio Leung on his mission to make nationalism mainstream
, as well as I listed the Chinese media link above. Chinese media links should ALSO be considered as Hong Kong people use Chinese. There are a lot of Chinese terms appeared in English Wikipedia, but do not have factual translation. In addition, Localism in Hong Kong#Localist figures and organisations mixed up the people and groups that are counted for Pan-democracy camp in Hong Kong legislative election, 2016, such as Gary Fan, Claudia Mo, Hong Kong First, Neo Democrats, and etc., which will make confusion to readers. In order to reflect the classification of media, keeping the article "Localism camp", which can be renamed to "Localist groups" ( zh:本土派 (香港)) or something else, and separating from "Localism in Hong Kong" ( zh:香港本土化運動), is necessary. UU ( talk) 11:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- Still need more time to consider whether Localist Groups or Localism Camp is more appropriate to describe a new force that the localist parties had formed since 2016 LegCo Election. At current stage, I think both names are acceptable to describe the localist force in LegCo. -- Momocalbee ( talk) 10:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - maybe the users suggested this deletion do not read news, even search it on google. I think these guys live within the Great Firewall. How important it is! This is the hottest topic and major issue in Hong Kong nowadays. hoising ( talk) 11:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support but not for any of the reasons so far expressed. There is a desperate need in some people's minds to jam disparate groups together under a snappy banner. This is simplistic at best and, at worst, is a disguised attempt to set up an easier target for future demolition, i.e. politically motivated. Before any group should be labelled a "camp", there ought to be solid evidence of bloc activity or co-operation in common outcomes. The various political groups currently espousing localist ideas/policies are by no means cohesive and, furthermore, even mainstream democratic groups frequently make statements with strong localism sentiments at their core, so are they to be excluded or included? My second reason for supporting this deletion is that the page is patent rubbish for (1) labelling the "camp" as "right-wing" (I mean, go figure. What on Earth is that supposed to mean or have to do with the subject? Someone wants to say activist or forthright?) (2) having virtually no worthwhile sourcing and (3) being poorly expressed, unencyclopaedic. My principled objection to this page applies equally to other political pages created for Hong Kong non-existent "camps". sirlanz 13:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- And I wish to add that I find it pathetic the way people run to rags (such as the SCMP) as some sort of authority for anything more than that wonders never cease what utter drivel can pass both for journalism and English in Hong Kong these days.
sirlanz 14:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- Another way of expressing this objection is that the group being lumped together is simply too amorphous and the term "localism" cuts a swathe across most of the political spectrum. What IS viable for clear definition is Independence Camp. A policy espousing independence from the PRC is a well-defined one and no one is going to be unfairly lumped into it. And, let's not be coy about this, that is what we are really talking about when we try to speak of a political group other than the Establishment Camp, the Democracy Camp and the Fence-Sitters' Camp (poor old Ronny). So someone get real and get the Independence Camp page going and trash this silly page. sirlanz 14:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. For what it's worth, "localist" or "localist camp" are clearly a notable concept that is extensively used in English-language media in Hong Kong: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. There is also extensive existing coverage on the Chinese Wikipedia article on this loose political grouping. "Localist camp" is probably a better article title but deletion is not cleanup. On the other hand, equating "localist camp" with "independence camp" is probably original research; the latter is covered by the existing article Hong Kong independence. Deryck C. 16:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. 18:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Issue on naming or translation is not a legitimate reason to delete an article, especially this concept or these groups represent the voice of Hong Kong people and has gained more and more international attention no later than the 2012 legislative election. As a foreigner outside of Hong Kong, I agree with the usages of "Localist groups" ( zh:本土派 (香港)) and "Localism in Hong Kong" ( zh:香港本土化運動).
- Two possible issues here is some see the "Traditional pro-democracy camp" and the "Localist camp" are exclusive while others accept there is overlapping parts (ideology, actions, and members) between them in different periods. And I think emphasize "right-wing" can be misleading in the English context as the source of this sentiment mainly results from the lack of genuine, open, democratic, free, fair, universal election systems for both executive and legislative branches in Hong kong. What the HK "Localist camp" demands can cover neither or both elements of "right and left" in the political spectrum.
- While different media and figures have somewhat different descriptions concerning the scope, I believe this "camp" should include persons with official positions (the six members of HK Legislative Council and other persons of lower level legislative bodies) and the civil society of HK. The idea or approach can include promoting Hong Kong independence, self-rule or self-determination of Hong Kong, and referendum for the future of Hong Kong by people of Hong Kong, etc. So the six persons are only the top representatives of this camp in the HK government (including different branches). It's not a big deal if they support different means or compete with each other as long as they are pro-democracy, pro-freedom, pro-human rights of Hong Kong people, pro-core values of Hong Kong, and pro-"Hong Kong First". -- Wildcursive ( talk) 23:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 23:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- The fact that a term is used by some people or in the media is not sufficient. The real question for an encyclopaedia is whether or not the subject matter can be cogently identified, defined and described. I support deletion of the page because I defy anyone to provide an uncontroversial list of the purported "camp"'s members. Supporters of Hong Kong localism are to be found far beyond the limits of those who support, for example, independence for Hong Kong. Thus, the "camp" simply does not exist; it is an imaginary construct and if the page is left in WP it will simply provide a talk shop on the subject, flowing backwards and forwards between people of different political viewpoints. It cannot be factual. More generally couched pages such as Localism in Hong Kong suffer the same fate but at least they don't misrepresent reality. sirlanz 03:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
@ User:Deryck Chan, please note that localist "groups" and localist "camp" are different concepts. They are not a camp also in the following criteria, firstly it is not a single grouping, there are at least three groups with different agendas in those six localist legislators, 1) ALLinHK, believe in Hong Kong nation's self-determination and implicitly supports Hong Kong independence; 2) Demosisto and Lau & Chu, reject the idea of "Hong Kong nation" and call for "democratic self-determination", do not support Hong Kong independence; 3) Civic Passion, amendment of Basic Law and do not support Hong Kong independence. These are three totally opposite ideas and they always disagree and attack each other. To put them into a same camp is definitely misleading. Secondly, they do not have a common caucus or meeting, unlike pro-Beijing camp and its former caucus leader Ip Kwok-him and pan-democracy camp's weekly meeting and its former convenor Cyd Ho. They are not yet a united parliamentary group. I do not refuse the idea that they may form a political alliance in the future, but at this moment, they are only various (at least three) groups with similar ideologies which can be labelled as "localism" (even localism itself is a broad umbrella term with certain controversies). Additionally in response to some points here, the Chinese word "派" does not necessarily equivalent to a single "camp", it could also mean a "school" of thought or various "factions." That could also explain why in the English media there has not been a term called "localist camp" so far. To create such a word would be "original research" as some users mentioned above. Lmmnhn ( talk) 09:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Detail is Lmmnhn's forte and here you have the meat to my sandwich above. Something less amorphous might develop in future but it simply does not exist today. The page is pure fiction and to preserve the integrity of WP, it must go.
sirlanz 09:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- I respect your attention to detail but Wikipedia seeks to present the current state of human knowledge. The boundaries are fluid but to deny the fact that mainstream media classify these politicians together would be original research.
Deryck
C. 09:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- This issue does not even get to first base on any test of original research. If your test were correct, publication somewhere, sometime, no matter how nonsensical, is enough for a WP page. WP has to be a bit smarter than that or it will continue to get trashier by the minute. And the "original research" cry is a Furphy in the context of this discussion. The objection to original research is to material published in WP pages, it has no place in the consideration of whether or not a page is proper for inclusion per se.
sirlanz 10:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- @
User:Deryck Chan, the mainstream media group them together in the banner of "localist groups" (i.e. the various groups who believes in localist ideologies), but not a single English media source label them as "localist camp" (i.e. a single political alliance/caucus that shares the same goals of localist ideologies). In fact, I do not object the suggestion made by some users above to move the title from "localism camp" to "localist groups" with much looser definitions that equally represent both the left-leaning and right-leaning groups (in contrast to the current state that heavily emphasises the right-wing groups). But in that case I think the article "Localism in Hong Kong" has already done most of the job.
Lmmnhn (
talk) 16:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Btw, it seems the idea of a "localist camp" won't be happening. (see 涂謹申代表非建制派議員出選立會主席) Lmmnhn ( talk) 17:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- @
User:Deryck Chan, the mainstream media group them together in the banner of "localist groups" (i.e. the various groups who believes in localist ideologies), but not a single English media source label them as "localist camp" (i.e. a single political alliance/caucus that shares the same goals of localist ideologies). In fact, I do not object the suggestion made by some users above to move the title from "localism camp" to "localist groups" with much looser definitions that equally represent both the left-leaning and right-leaning groups (in contrast to the current state that heavily emphasises the right-wing groups). But in that case I think the article "Localism in Hong Kong" has already done most of the job.
Lmmnhn (
talk) 16:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- This issue does not even get to first base on any test of original research. If your test were correct, publication somewhere, sometime, no matter how nonsensical, is enough for a WP page. WP has to be a bit smarter than that or it will continue to get trashier by the minute. And the "original research" cry is a Furphy in the context of this discussion. The objection to original research is to material published in WP pages, it has no place in the consideration of whether or not a page is proper for inclusion per se.
sirlanz 10:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- I respect your attention to detail but Wikipedia seeks to present the current state of human knowledge. The boundaries are fluid but to deny the fact that mainstream media classify these politicians together would be original research.
Deryck
C. 09:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- In TAIWAN, we have Pan-Green Coalition and Pan-Blue Coalition. Some of those parties or political groups (eg. A & B) had ever cooperated or coordinated during election campaigns or for certain issues in Congress while some (eg. C & D) are not. But they, as individuals or entities, have worked together (eg. A & B & C & D, or A & B & C, or B & C & D, or B & D) for some political/social movements. However, the key point is there is a clear line between the two camps --- Pan-Green supports "TAIWAN First, Taiwanese People First" and "One Country on Each Side. TAIWAN is a sovereign state different from dictator China or other countries". They may have different approaches or means. However, they typically have recognizable voting patterns even without any direct coordination. That's enough. No one doubt Democratic Progressive Party ( zh:民主進步黨, party flag: green), Taiwan Solidarity Union ( zh:台灣團結聯盟, party flag: brown), and New Power Party ( zh:時代力量, party flag: yellow) are parts of the Pan-Green even they competed with each other during the election and they never form a common platform together in Congress. New Power Party and Taiwan Solidarity Union members often criticize President Tsai Ing-wen and Premier Lin Chuan's Governemt are not tough enough toward dictator China and authoritarian KMT. But we all know they share some important ideas and thus belong to the Pan-Green Coalition.
- Similiarly, these HK groups may have worked together during Umbrella Movement and other short-term or long-term social movements. It's very likely that the six localist members and other localist representatives in lower HK legislative bodies perform and will perform similiar voting behaviors, recognizable enough from others. It's not a requirement to from an formal or semi-formal alliance during the election or in the legislative bodies. Because the foundamental thing is they all challenge the ruling underground-communists and their authoritarian propaganda. They may have some direct communication not in public, who knows?
- The choocing of word (coalition, camp, alliance, groups, etc.) can be discussed. However, the existence of these groups, a group of individuals with a common label or others, and this article can be confirmed. -- Wildcursive ( talk) 19:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- If taking voting behaviours, working together during the Umbrella Movement and semi-formal or informal alliance, these factors into account, the whole "localist camp" can put into the broader pro-democracy camp. Firstly, the pro-democrats and localists are very similar in voting patterns, pro-democracy, pro-human rights and pro-autonomy (despite the localists often criticise the pro-democrats not though enough, exactly the same as the TWSU against the DPP within the pan-Green coalition, in fact it actually gives another point not for the "localist camp", but for a camp which include the softer pro-democrats and harder localists). Secondly, they worked together in the Umbrella Movement, especially Demosisto, Lau and Chu closely worked together with the pro-democrats and the Occupy Central trio, as compared to Civic Passion and Chin Wan who had been attacking the leadership from Day 1. Thirdly, as the news report I posted above, Demosisto, Lau and Chu are going to form a parliamentary caucus with the pro-democrats under a new banner. I think that would be the most recent indication that such a "localist camp" will not be happening. Lmmnhn ( talk) 06:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- WP:AFDFORMAT expressly prohibits decorating Afd discussions with needless templates and accordingly I've removed them all. If you wish, please consult that guideline as well as the information page Wikipedia:Voting templates for more on how to format your participation in Afd discussions. Thank you, Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Localism camp
- Localism camp ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It is grammatically incorrect and this term does not exist in the media yet. Lmmnhn ( talk) 06:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - For grammatically incorrect, the name can be changed to "Localist groups" ( zh:本土派 (香港)) or something else, but it is NOT the same as " Localism in Hong Kong" ( zh:香港本土化運動), as the "Localist groups" describes a classification of members of Legislative Council and District Councils and related supporters, but "Localism in Hong Kong" describes an "ideology" in Hong Kong (See an edit by Lmmnhn, he said: "Not a political party", and once more, he said: "we have to be fair, list all or none of them (ideologies)"). For the term does not exist in the media yet, this is surely wrong, as we should follow classification by the media (I know the classification existed in Hong Kong legislative election, 2016), whether it is traditional or new, whether it is in English or Chinese~
- Apple Daily HK: 本土派奪6席 摑梁特一巴
- Apple Daily HK: 本土泛民終分庭抗禮 硬打港獨策略有變？
- Ming Pao: 陳景祥 第三勢力 三分天下？
- HK01.com: 立會板塊分析 西環化成趨勢 本土派被誇大
- Divinity School of Chung Chi College, CUHK: 香港本土派與基督信仰
- inmediahk.net: 本土派為何必須面對「建設民主中國」
, and could not feel that because there is no such "camp" exists, we cannot create such articles. The feeling is in violation of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored. UU ( talk) 10:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - I knew that there are the terms "localist groups" and "localists" which stand for 本土派 or the political relation of six people of HK Legislative Council in the media. So, I agree with
UU that we can start a new page of "Localist groups (Hong Kong)" to correct the grammar mistake. By the way, six seats for localists:
SCMP,
Apple Daily and
IPP Review.
Keithchan1 (
talk) 15:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- A "camp" and "groups" are totally different concepts. A camp refers to a political alliance with a same goal and cooperate with each other, like the pro-democracy camp and the pro-Beijing camp. But the six localists have not yet formed any form of political alliance. In fact, they often disagree with each other on many issues and hostile to each other. Not to mention the article only refers the localists as "right-wing" alignment on the header but put the left-wing activists such as Nathan Law, Lau Siu-lai and Eddie Chu into a subordinating position which does not reflect neutrality. There are a caucus within the pro-democrat and pro-Beijing parties but that does not yet exist among the six localists. Therefore the so-called "localism camp" (not to mention some wikipedians always make this grammatical mistake) equal to the pro-democracy camp and pro-Beijing camp does not exist. Additionally, until today the media only refers to the localists as "localist groups" but not "localist camp". There are localist groups but no "localist camp". Such camp may emerge in the future, but to state that there is a "localist camp" today is not factual, which I believe is "misleading" (a term UU likes to accuse me for). Lmmnhn ( talk) 10:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- You cannot make those judgement as this violates Wikipedia:No original research, and the sentence~
until today the media only refers to the localists as "localist groups" but not "localist camp"
is certainly wrong, as there are already~
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- The Standard: Beijing sees `no big deal' in Mong Kok strife
- South China Morning Post: ‘A Hongkonger is someone willing to defend our values’: Baggio Leung on his mission to make nationalism mainstream
, as well as I listed the Chinese media link above. Chinese media links should ALSO be considered as Hong Kong people use Chinese. There are a lot of Chinese terms appeared in English Wikipedia, but do not have factual translation. In addition, Localism in Hong Kong#Localist figures and organisations mixed up the people and groups that are counted for Pan-democracy camp in Hong Kong legislative election, 2016, such as Gary Fan, Claudia Mo, Hong Kong First, Neo Democrats, and etc., which will make confusion to readers. In order to reflect the classification of media, keeping the article "Localism camp", which can be renamed to "Localist groups" ( zh:本土派 (香港)) or something else, and separating from "Localism in Hong Kong" ( zh:香港本土化運動), is necessary. UU ( talk) 11:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- Still need more time to consider whether Localist Groups or Localism Camp is more appropriate to describe a new force that the localist parties had formed since 2016 LegCo Election. At current stage, I think both names are acceptable to describe the localist force in LegCo. -- Momocalbee ( talk) 10:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - maybe the users suggested this deletion do not read news, even search it on google. I think these guys live within the Great Firewall. How important it is! This is the hottest topic and major issue in Hong Kong nowadays. hoising ( talk) 11:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support but not for any of the reasons so far expressed. There is a desperate need in some people's minds to jam disparate groups together under a snappy banner. This is simplistic at best and, at worst, is a disguised attempt to set up an easier target for future demolition, i.e. politically motivated. Before any group should be labelled a "camp", there ought to be solid evidence of bloc activity or co-operation in common outcomes. The various political groups currently espousing localist ideas/policies are by no means cohesive and, furthermore, even mainstream democratic groups frequently make statements with strong localism sentiments at their core, so are they to be excluded or included? My second reason for supporting this deletion is that the page is patent rubbish for (1) labelling the "camp" as "right-wing" (I mean, go figure. What on Earth is that supposed to mean or have to do with the subject? Someone wants to say activist or forthright?) (2) having virtually no worthwhile sourcing and (3) being poorly expressed, unencyclopaedic. My principled objection to this page applies equally to other political pages created for Hong Kong non-existent "camps". sirlanz 13:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- And I wish to add that I find it pathetic the way people run to rags (such as the SCMP) as some sort of authority for anything more than that wonders never cease what utter drivel can pass both for journalism and English in Hong Kong these days.
sirlanz 14:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- Another way of expressing this objection is that the group being lumped together is simply too amorphous and the term "localism" cuts a swathe across most of the political spectrum. What IS viable for clear definition is Independence Camp. A policy espousing independence from the PRC is a well-defined one and no one is going to be unfairly lumped into it. And, let's not be coy about this, that is what we are really talking about when we try to speak of a political group other than the Establishment Camp, the Democracy Camp and the Fence-Sitters' Camp (poor old Ronny). So someone get real and get the Independence Camp page going and trash this silly page. sirlanz 14:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. For what it's worth, "localist" or "localist camp" are clearly a notable concept that is extensively used in English-language media in Hong Kong: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. There is also extensive existing coverage on the Chinese Wikipedia article on this loose political grouping. "Localist camp" is probably a better article title but deletion is not cleanup. On the other hand, equating "localist camp" with "independence camp" is probably original research; the latter is covered by the existing article Hong Kong independence. Deryck C. 16:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. 18:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Issue on naming or translation is not a legitimate reason to delete an article, especially this concept or these groups represent the voice of Hong Kong people and has gained more and more international attention no later than the 2012 legislative election. As a foreigner outside of Hong Kong, I agree with the usages of "Localist groups" ( zh:本土派 (香港)) and "Localism in Hong Kong" ( zh:香港本土化運動).
- Two possible issues here is some see the "Traditional pro-democracy camp" and the "Localist camp" are exclusive while others accept there is overlapping parts (ideology, actions, and members) between them in different periods. And I think emphasize "right-wing" can be misleading in the English context as the source of this sentiment mainly results from the lack of genuine, open, democratic, free, fair, universal election systems for both executive and legislative branches in Hong kong. What the HK "Localist camp" demands can cover neither or both elements of "right and left" in the political spectrum.
- While different media and figures have somewhat different descriptions concerning the scope, I believe this "camp" should include persons with official positions (the six members of HK Legislative Council and other persons of lower level legislative bodies) and the civil society of HK. The idea or approach can include promoting Hong Kong independence, self-rule or self-determination of Hong Kong, and referendum for the future of Hong Kong by people of Hong Kong, etc. So the six persons are only the top representatives of this camp in the HK government (including different branches). It's not a big deal if they support different means or compete with each other as long as they are pro-democracy, pro-freedom, pro-human rights of Hong Kong people, pro-core values of Hong Kong, and pro-"Hong Kong First". -- Wildcursive ( talk) 23:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 23:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- The fact that a term is used by some people or in the media is not sufficient. The real question for an encyclopaedia is whether or not the subject matter can be cogently identified, defined and described. I support deletion of the page because I defy anyone to provide an uncontroversial list of the purported "camp"'s members. Supporters of Hong Kong localism are to be found far beyond the limits of those who support, for example, independence for Hong Kong. Thus, the "camp" simply does not exist; it is an imaginary construct and if the page is left in WP it will simply provide a talk shop on the subject, flowing backwards and forwards between people of different political viewpoints. It cannot be factual. More generally couched pages such as Localism in Hong Kong suffer the same fate but at least they don't misrepresent reality. sirlanz 03:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
@ User:Deryck Chan, please note that localist "groups" and localist "camp" are different concepts. They are not a camp also in the following criteria, firstly it is not a single grouping, there are at least three groups with different agendas in those six localist legislators, 1) ALLinHK, believe in Hong Kong nation's self-determination and implicitly supports Hong Kong independence; 2) Demosisto and Lau & Chu, reject the idea of "Hong Kong nation" and call for "democratic self-determination", do not support Hong Kong independence; 3) Civic Passion, amendment of Basic Law and do not support Hong Kong independence. These are three totally opposite ideas and they always disagree and attack each other. To put them into a same camp is definitely misleading. Secondly, they do not have a common caucus or meeting, unlike pro-Beijing camp and its former caucus leader Ip Kwok-him and pan-democracy camp's weekly meeting and its former convenor Cyd Ho. They are not yet a united parliamentary group. I do not refuse the idea that they may form a political alliance in the future, but at this moment, they are only various (at least three) groups with similar ideologies which can be labelled as "localism" (even localism itself is a broad umbrella term with certain controversies). Additionally in response to some points here, the Chinese word "派" does not necessarily equivalent to a single "camp", it could also mean a "school" of thought or various "factions." That could also explain why in the English media there has not been a term called "localist camp" so far. To create such a word would be "original research" as some users mentioned above. Lmmnhn ( talk) 09:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Detail is Lmmnhn's forte and here you have the meat to my sandwich above. Something less amorphous might develop in future but it simply does not exist today. The page is pure fiction and to preserve the integrity of WP, it must go.
sirlanz 09:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- I respect your attention to detail but Wikipedia seeks to present the current state of human knowledge. The boundaries are fluid but to deny the fact that mainstream media classify these politicians together would be original research.
Deryck
C. 09:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- This issue does not even get to first base on any test of original research. If your test were correct, publication somewhere, sometime, no matter how nonsensical, is enough for a WP page. WP has to be a bit smarter than that or it will continue to get trashier by the minute. And the "original research" cry is a Furphy in the context of this discussion. The objection to original research is to material published in WP pages, it has no place in the consideration of whether or not a page is proper for inclusion per se.
sirlanz 10:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- @
User:Deryck Chan, the mainstream media group them together in the banner of "localist groups" (i.e. the various groups who believes in localist ideologies), but not a single English media source label them as "localist camp" (i.e. a single political alliance/caucus that shares the same goals of localist ideologies). In fact, I do not object the suggestion made by some users above to move the title from "localism camp" to "localist groups" with much looser definitions that equally represent both the left-leaning and right-leaning groups (in contrast to the current state that heavily emphasises the right-wing groups). But in that case I think the article "Localism in Hong Kong" has already done most of the job.
Lmmnhn (
talk) 16:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Btw, it seems the idea of a "localist camp" won't be happening. (see 涂謹申代表非建制派議員出選立會主席) Lmmnhn ( talk) 17:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- @
User:Deryck Chan, the mainstream media group them together in the banner of "localist groups" (i.e. the various groups who believes in localist ideologies), but not a single English media source label them as "localist camp" (i.e. a single political alliance/caucus that shares the same goals of localist ideologies). In fact, I do not object the suggestion made by some users above to move the title from "localism camp" to "localist groups" with much looser definitions that equally represent both the left-leaning and right-leaning groups (in contrast to the current state that heavily emphasises the right-wing groups). But in that case I think the article "Localism in Hong Kong" has already done most of the job.
Lmmnhn (
talk) 16:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- This issue does not even get to first base on any test of original research. If your test were correct, publication somewhere, sometime, no matter how nonsensical, is enough for a WP page. WP has to be a bit smarter than that or it will continue to get trashier by the minute. And the "original research" cry is a Furphy in the context of this discussion. The objection to original research is to material published in WP pages, it has no place in the consideration of whether or not a page is proper for inclusion per se.
sirlanz 10:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- I respect your attention to detail but Wikipedia seeks to present the current state of human knowledge. The boundaries are fluid but to deny the fact that mainstream media classify these politicians together would be original research.
Deryck
C. 09:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- In TAIWAN, we have Pan-Green Coalition and Pan-Blue Coalition. Some of those parties or political groups (eg. A & B) had ever cooperated or coordinated during election campaigns or for certain issues in Congress while some (eg. C & D) are not. But they, as individuals or entities, have worked together (eg. A & B & C & D, or A & B & C, or B & C & D, or B & D) for some political/social movements. However, the key point is there is a clear line between the two camps --- Pan-Green supports "TAIWAN First, Taiwanese People First" and "One Country on Each Side. TAIWAN is a sovereign state different from dictator China or other countries". They may have different approaches or means. However, they typically have recognizable voting patterns even without any direct coordination. That's enough. No one doubt Democratic Progressive Party ( zh:民主進步黨, party flag: green), Taiwan Solidarity Union ( zh:台灣團結聯盟, party flag: brown), and New Power Party ( zh:時代力量, party flag: yellow) are parts of the Pan-Green even they competed with each other during the election and they never form a common platform together in Congress. New Power Party and Taiwan Solidarity Union members often criticize President Tsai Ing-wen and Premier Lin Chuan's Governemt are not tough enough toward dictator China and authoritarian KMT. But we all know they share some important ideas and thus belong to the Pan-Green Coalition.
- Similiarly, these HK groups may have worked together during Umbrella Movement and other short-term or long-term social movements. It's very likely that the six localist members and other localist representatives in lower HK legislative bodies perform and will perform similiar voting behaviors, recognizable enough from others. It's not a requirement to from an formal or semi-formal alliance during the election or in the legislative bodies. Because the foundamental thing is they all challenge the ruling underground-communists and their authoritarian propaganda. They may have some direct communication not in public, who knows?
- The choocing of word (coalition, camp, alliance, groups, etc.) can be discussed. However, the existence of these groups, a group of individuals with a common label or others, and this article can be confirmed. -- Wildcursive ( talk) 19:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- If taking voting behaviours, working together during the Umbrella Movement and semi-formal or informal alliance, these factors into account, the whole "localist camp" can put into the broader pro-democracy camp. Firstly, the pro-democrats and localists are very similar in voting patterns, pro-democracy, pro-human rights and pro-autonomy (despite the localists often criticise the pro-democrats not though enough, exactly the same as the TWSU against the DPP within the pan-Green coalition, in fact it actually gives another point not for the "localist camp", but for a camp which include the softer pro-democrats and harder localists). Secondly, they worked together in the Umbrella Movement, especially Demosisto, Lau and Chu closely worked together with the pro-democrats and the Occupy Central trio, as compared to Civic Passion and Chin Wan who had been attacking the leadership from Day 1. Thirdly, as the news report I posted above, Demosisto, Lau and Chu are going to form a parliamentary caucus with the pro-democrats under a new banner. I think that would be the most recent indication that such a "localist camp" will not be happening. Lmmnhn ( talk) 06:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- WP:AFDFORMAT expressly prohibits decorating Afd discussions with needless templates and accordingly I've removed them all. If you wish, please consult that guideline as well as the information page Wikipedia:Voting templates for more on how to format your participation in Afd discussions. Thank you, Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.