Talk:Pro-democracy camp (Hong Kong)
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Daily page views
|
 | 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. |
Time to change the title?
editThe term "pan-democracy camp" is long out of date, and as the article notes, when it is used, it tends to be used pejoratively. As a Google search will show, the term "pan-democrats" has been the standard description in both media and across party lines for years now, so how about changing the title to reflect actual usage?
fixed Poor English Translation
editI went through and rewrote almost the entire article, removing run-on sentences, adding context to poorly-defined statements, removing local jargon, adding basic definitions for those who are unfamiliar with the subject as a whole, removed unnecessary redundant phrasing, removed multiples of repeated nouns/verbs and replaced them with synonyms. Please let me know what you think. It's my goal that china-related articles like this one (typically written in mandarin or standardized chinese and then translated to english) will be more readable for first-language fluent english speakers like myself, and make the affairs of the chinese people more interesting and accessable to english readers. Cheers! Dragonnas (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Civic party.svg
editThe image Image:Civic party.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
- That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Requested move 4 July 2017
edit- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Moved to Pro-democracy camp (Hong Kong). There was a definite consensus not to move back to the proposed and previous title (with no HK qualifier), and a slight preference for the patenthetical form "(Hong Kong)" rather than the natural "in Hong Kong", so moving to the parenthetical. — Amakuru (talk) 11:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Pro-democracy camp in Hong Kong → Pro-democracy camp – I strongly oppose to the unthoughtful action of someone who just changed it the "pro-democracy camp" to "pro-democracy camp in Hong Kong" which is affecting hundreds of articles. There has not been a problem with the name "pro-democracy camp" until now as it is the most known "pro-democracy camp". Even if it has to add Hong Kong to the title it should have been "pro-democracy camp (Hong Kong)" not the current title. Lmmnhn (talk) 14:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. — Amakuru (talk) 14:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support move back per WP:PRECISION. This is pointless disambiguation. No, democracy isn't a concept specific to Hong Kong, but the term "pro-democracy camp" has been well-established for decades in HK media like SCMP, The Standard, etc. All the "disambiguating links" edits made in response to this move are pointless and disruptive. Citobun (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per Nick Cheesman, Nicholas Farrelly Conflict in Myanmar: War, Politics, Religion 2016 p.101 "Although holding the banner of promoting peace, not everyone in the pro-democracy camp trusts these groups." And so on. The current title is perfectly good WP:NATURAL titling that explains what the article is. Deliberately ambiguating (obfuscating?) the article by removing "Hong Kong" achieves no end. , unless we're deliberately trying to either hide it, or to boost views by sucking in readers looking for other countries. Is that an aim? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- In the Hong Kong context, "pro-democracy camp" functions as a proper noun describing a specific political faction, rather than an incidental generic term such as the example you found above. This is demonstrated by decades of coverage in reputable outlets like the South China Morning Post. Citobun (talk) 16:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, no it doesn't. Proper nouns are capitalized. What you're describing there is a generic common noun which means something to people in Myanmar, and a similar thing to people in Hong Kong. If you're saying that Hong Kong people using a common noun makes it unique to Hong Kong that evidently isn't true: "Poland was not the only state contributing to the pro-democracy camp: Ukraine received democracy support from an array of Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries." or Chile "A moment did arise in 1986 when an opening to transition to democracy seemed possible, but divisions within the pro-democracy camp between the AD and the MDP concerning strategy and willingness to negotiate scuppered the project, ..." If you're claiming that Ukraine, Chile, Myanmar's movements aren't as notable as Hong Kong then that's perhaps true. But please address the question above of how removing "Hong Kong" from the title helps any readers? Who is helped by removing it? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- The pro-democracy camps in Myanmar and Poland don't even have their own articles. The level of notability is totally incomparable to the Hong Kong's pro-democracy camp which has so many articles surrounding it. I have no problem with adding (Hong Kong) if it helps to clarify but the current title "pro-democracy camp in Hong Kong" is not what wikipedia articles are used to be named and it has to be reverted this instant. Lmmnhn (talk) 01:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- Then agreed Pro-democracy camp (Hong Kong) it is. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- The pro-democracy camps in Myanmar and Poland don't even have their own articles. The level of notability is totally incomparable to the Hong Kong's pro-democracy camp which has so many articles surrounding it. I have no problem with adding (Hong Kong) if it helps to clarify but the current title "pro-democracy camp in Hong Kong" is not what wikipedia articles are used to be named and it has to be reverted this instant. Lmmnhn (talk) 01:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, no it doesn't. Proper nouns are capitalized. What you're describing there is a generic common noun which means something to people in Myanmar, and a similar thing to people in Hong Kong. If you're saying that Hong Kong people using a common noun makes it unique to Hong Kong that evidently isn't true: "Poland was not the only state contributing to the pro-democracy camp: Ukraine received democracy support from an array of Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries." or Chile "A moment did arise in 1986 when an opening to transition to democracy seemed possible, but divisions within the pro-democracy camp between the AD and the MDP concerning strategy and willingness to negotiate scuppered the project, ..." If you're claiming that Ukraine, Chile, Myanmar's movements aren't as notable as Hong Kong then that's perhaps true. But please address the question above of how removing "Hong Kong" from the title helps any readers? Who is helped by removing it? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- In the Hong Kong context, "pro-democracy camp" functions as a proper noun describing a specific political faction, rather than an incidental generic term such as the example you found above. This is demonstrated by decades of coverage in reputable outlets like the South China Morning Post. Citobun (talk) 16:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support move with caveat I agree with the original notion that it should not have been moved, and that the current title is weirdly phrased, however, I also accept the counter-argument that the original title (for this, and the Pro-Beijing camp article) is not specific enough considering the very narrow scope of the article, in that it only relates to HK, rather than to some global pro-demoncracy movement, which is what the current title suggests. I would argue that the article be renamed Pro-democracy camp (Hong Kong) to make the local context clear while still keeping open the option for other jurisdictions to add articles about their own pro-democracy political blocks in future, such as Burma or Poland, as a previous respondent mentioned. --Kdm852 (talk) 02:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Pro-democracy camp (Hong Kong) is fine, but the base title should be a disambiguation page or a broad concept article, since Wikipedia is not just about Hong Kong, and pro-democracy camps abound in the world. -- 65.94.42.131 (talk) 03:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- Moderate Party in Sweden is not the only Moderate Party in the world but it is the most notable one and therefore it does not have "(Sweden)" label behind its name. There are pro-democracy camps in the world but none of them are notable and well-organised enough to even have an article on wikipedia. All of the fuss are just so unnecessary and have done so many disruptions of the links of more than 300 hundreds articles related to the pro-democracy camp. Lmmnhn (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Not the same thing: Capital M, capital P, that's a proper noun. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- I think you have a problem of understanding what it is all about. The whole argument is not about whether it is a proper noun or not. It is about if a disambiguation label is needed or not. Lmmnhn (talk) 01:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- Not the same thing: Capital M, capital P, that's a proper noun. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Moderate Party in Sweden is not the only Moderate Party in the world but it is the most notable one and therefore it does not have "(Sweden)" label behind its name. There are pro-democracy camps in the world but none of them are notable and well-organised enough to even have an article on wikipedia. All of the fuss are just so unnecessary and have done so many disruptions of the links of more than 300 hundreds articles related to the pro-democracy camp. Lmmnhn (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - Nothing wrong whatsoever with the current title that includes the location "Hong Kong". Just leave it as it is. STSC (talk) 09:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support for procedural reasons (to undo an undiscussed controversial move) and on the merits. This article is not about the generic term "pro-democracy camp" as applied in Hong Kong as "in Hong Kong" implies. This is a specific term with a specific meaning in Hong Kong. "Pro-democracy camp (Hong Kong)" is fine but as there is nothing else to disambiguate this article from, the parenthetical is superfluous ("Moderate Party" is a good analogy). — AjaxSmack 01:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- @AjaxSmack: there is Pro-democracy camp (Macau), although it's far less active than the Hong Kong one. -Zanhe (talk) 03:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - need to distinguish from Pro-democracy camp (Macau) and pro-democracy groups all over the world. The proposed title is too generic and fails WP:Precise. -Zanhe (talk) 03:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
O.R.
editI found plenty of original research materials without references in this article. Too bad. STSC (talk) 10:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
To Lmmnhn, you'd better learn what OR is...
"The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material for which no reliable, published sources exist."
"The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source."
Yellow ribbon colour
editAs the Yellow ribbon colour represents the Pro-democracy camp, can use the yellow colour?Marxistfounder (talk) 08:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- Support your point of view, as yellow color is majority now. UU (talk) 07:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- Can you link examples? (For instance from news on the elections.) Nemo 07:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- Even Chinese state media CGTN recognize it. Blue vs. Yellow: Divide is ripping families in Hong Kong Marxistfounder (talk) 05:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- Done The colours for the pro-democracy camp were changed as of right now, just as you requested. Cheers! Symes2017 (talk) 03:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- Even Chinese state media CGTN recognize it. Blue vs. Yellow: Divide is ripping families in Hong Kong Marxistfounder (talk) 05:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
(no title)
edit- From Chinese Wikipedia discussion zh:Talk:民主派 (香港), Yan Kai-wing (甄啟榮) defines himself as an independent democrat facebook profile of 甄啟榮, and judging from his recent announcements 香港獨立媒體網——深水埗「關鍵一席」 甄啟榮：曾加入建制派是遺憾一生, he can be regarded as a member of Pro-democracy camp (Hong Kong). Should we count him in 2019 Hong Kong local elections, and say that Pro-democracy camp won 389 seats? UU (talk) 05:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
- Use secondary source, summarized what RS say. If RS did not have the same conclusion, may be marked as a footnote . There are way many people at their primary source claimed as independent / democrat but secondary RS interpreted their actions as Pro=Beijing. Matthew hk (talk) 07:56, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Add Pro-Dem election committee seats?
editThe Chinese version of this article has it, should we also put it here? --Hkfreedomfighter (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Do we keep CPPCC and ExCo?
editA couple of editors recently have added it to the infobox without any prior discussion and have repeatedly re-added it when I've removed it, should it be kept in the infobox or should it be removed? Lmmnhn you seem like an expert at this, could u mind giving ur opinion? Thx. Hkfreedomfighter (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Missing word
editIn the "2020 resignation en masse" section, "as they deemed as unlawful" is missing what it was, they deemed unlawful. --Damunik (talk) 10:04, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Socialism, not Social democracy
editIn infobox's 'factions', it should be written as Socialism rather than Social democracy. The influence of Trotskyism among Hong Kong's anti-CCP left-wing socialist parties is significant. Some sources refer to the April Fifth Action itself as Trotsky, and the League of Social Democrats also has moderate Trotskyists like Leung Kwok-hung. ProKMT (talk) 08:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- The vast majority of socialist parties in Hong Kong are social democrats. No communist parties were represented in the legco before the mass resignation in the pro-democracy camp. The league of social democrats weren't in the legco. Guotaian (talk) 09:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- But pro-Beijing socialists, including the FTU, are moderate enough to be described as "pro-business". At the very least, pro-democrat socialism is more economically progressive than the FTU. So it should be written absolutely Socialism rather than Social democracy. ProKMT (talk) 09:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- That is not true. The FTU is not pro-buisness, they work with pro-buisness parties like the BPA and Liberal. Even Leung Kwok-hung called for an uprising against the capitalist-colonial regime in Hong Kong and the bureaucratic regime in mainland China under the banner of social democracy despite claiming to be a Trotskyist.Source: https://www.thinkinghk.org/#!about/c20ll Guotaian (talk) 10:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- That is not true. At the very least, the FTU is a much more economically conservative absolutly 'pro-business'[1] than the social democratic parties affiliated with the pro-democracy camp. Social democracy is also Socialism. Above all, there is no Social democracy in Hong Kong article at all, bit only the Socialism in Hong Kong article. ProKMT (talk) 01:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- That is not true. The FTU is not pro-buisness, they work with pro-buisness parties like the BPA and Liberal. Even Leung Kwok-hung called for an uprising against the capitalist-colonial regime in Hong Kong and the bureaucratic regime in mainland China under the banner of social democracy despite claiming to be a Trotskyist.Source: https://www.thinkinghk.org/#!about/c20ll Guotaian (talk) 10:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- But pro-Beijing socialists, including the FTU, are moderate enough to be described as "pro-business". At the very least, pro-democrat socialism is more economically progressive than the FTU. So it should be written absolutely Socialism rather than Social democracy. ProKMT (talk) 09:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ Sprague, Jeb (2015). Globalization and transnational capitalism in Asia and Oceania. London: Routledge. p. 102. ISBN 9781317482864.
However, while trade unions in Hong Kong are autonomous, the main union federation, the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (HKFTU), is considered pro-business and politically conservative and has ties to China's official All-China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU).