Jump to content

Talk:2012 Kong Qingdong incident

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Suggest the entry of Early 2012 Hong Kong protests moved to 2012 Hong Kong Anti-mainlander conflicts or Hong Kong anti- China conflicts

[edit]

Obviously that the article mainly about Hong Kong anti- China conflicts or HongKonger anti- Chinese conflicts ,no just general Hong Kong protests , if the title/entry is Hong Kong protests ,it include HongKonger protest the government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ,protest philippine ,protest social problem ,protest employment problemand so on .Jackac (talk) 11:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

[edit]
  1. Are we going to discuss the entire history of the anti-immigrant mother sentiment in this article? Because if so, then the title is obvious not gonna be appropriate. I personally think we should stick to the protest that transpired this year alone, and maybe discuss that chain of events in another page.
  2. I fail to see how the Shanghai protests relate to the Hong Kong protests. That they use the same symbols does not constitute relevance in this article...
  3. How exactly are the internal links, such as animal rights, related to this article?

ZZArch talk to me 06:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On number 1, we should discuss everything relevant up to what caused the 2012 protests. This page is fine. There is no need for a chain page.
On number 2, the shanghai folks reused the same ad, literally the same locust picture. The fact that these people used the HK ad as an opportunity to express their concern makes it relevant.
On number 3, I figured if they used the word dog, there must be something bad about that animal in reference to politics. In fact I was almost going to add a see-also link with some of those locusts infestation like Four Pests Campaign. At the least I am putting the starving campaign back in, because this is something the CPC has done before against its own citizens. Benjwong (talk) 06:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree about the Siege of Changchun, though. To put it as a parallel event insinuates that the mainland immigrant mothers are akin to a wartime act for starving and subjugating the Hong Kong people, and there is most definitely a POV issue there. ZZArch talk to me 07:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Think about this. HK-mainland relations was better in the past than currently in 2012. In 1964-1967 HK needed water. The mainland hesitated to offer it. Only when they were able to make insane profit selling water were they even interested in supplying water to HK. Under the contract even if there is no water shortage in HK, they still have to pay ALOT to the mainland every year. The PRC government never had any desire to feed HK in any way, it was always a business.

So back to the original question. If this is how water is handled when they are "happy" with each other. How will things be handled when they are "unhappy"? Changchun siege is not a wartime tactic, but a reality of what can come. Is a good link. Benjwong (talk) 08:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you back this up with a reliable source that clearly discusses the potential of the CCP cutting off water supply to coerce Hong Kong into submission? If so, cite it in the article; if not, then I don't see how this link fits. ZZArch talk to me 09:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide sources to prove the PRC government have never starved its own citizens? Please do some research. The father has been exploiting the son financially for a big water insurance bill since 1960s. Today in 2012 he is treating North Koreans better than he treat his own son. Then some peking professor makes statements as such, (he is getting his ideas from somewhere).
The next Chinese premier should be smart enough to redo the water contract. This will improve relations and show those starving campaigns are not going to happen anymore. Until then, we shouldn't delete the Changchun link. If anything we should consider putting the Chinese famine link up. If you don't see the parallel, I hope I am helping you see it. Benjwong (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not claiming anything here, but you made what amounts to a claim that the CCP is using wartime tactics to subjugate Hong Kong----again, I don't deny that, but you have to back it up with a credible source; otherwise, it is just original research. (Not to mention that the editor who includes the contents bears the burden of finding source; other editors are not obligated to find sources attesting to the absence.) We are not writing an article to promote any particular worldview. I hold on to my original point; if you have no source, you cannot make an accusation.
And before you say it, no, a comment circulating on Chinese microblogging sites that call for starving Hong Kong does not warrant a comparison to the Siege of Changchun, which was a deliberate and calculated wartime act by the CCP itself. There are plenty of crazy people on U.S. websites calling for genocide of the Middle Eastern people–should we add a link to the Holocaust in the article on War on Terror? No, that would be misleading and soapboxing. If you think there is any parallel between the current situation in Hong Kong and the Siege of Changchun, you insult those who died in Changchun during the war. ZZArch talk to me 21:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please double check Wikipedia:See_also#See_also_section again. The rule said it is up to common sense and editorial judgement to include a particular link. At most it needs a one line annotation, not even a reference. BTW I am repsecting the victims by making a link. It helps remind people these types of 100% man-made starvation campaigns are possible. This is just a historical link (that makes alot of sense to me). Is not like I am adding a whole section of original research here. Benjwong (talk) 06:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Also, back to my first two concerns: On the inclusion of the June protests; don't you think it is absurd to have a section titled June 2011 protests in an article on "Early 2012 Hong Kong protests"? Either we put that piece of information elsewhere, perhaps in Hong Kong immigration controversy, or we should change the title.

I don't know if you notice. The core protest began on January 1, 2012. That means everything that triggered the protest actually happened in 2011. So it is not absurd on my part to include materials from 2011. Just because Kong Qingdong made the biggest noise, doesn't mean he was the main cause of these protests. In fact I originally called the article "HK anti-mainlander conflict" because it was a mix of things. For the time being I will leave the 2011 protest out because it was too small. Benjwong (talk) 06:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the Shanghai advertisement; even though they use the same symbols and imagery to express a similar concern, I fail to see how they qualify in an article on "Hong Kong protests". Perhaps they could be included if we have an article on "Anti-immigration advertisements of China", but I doubt that article would be significant enough. ZZArch talk to me 21:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If shanghai is using this (already highly controversial) opportunity to express itself, it is worth mentioning. Again, remember that this article was not originally called "2012 protest". If you want to rename this article to "2012 blah conflict" just to give room to add more stuff, I am ok with that change. Benjwong (talk) 06:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 June 2015

[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: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 13:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Early 2012 Hong Kong protests → 2012 Hong Kong protests – Unless there are other notable Hong Kong protests in 2012, "Early" is unnecessary. Also, it looks awkward at best. If disambiguation is needed, how about January–February 2012 Hong Kong protests instead? --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 11:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC) George Ho (talk) 07:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Chinese name for this protest seems to be "Kong Qingdong Scolding Hong Kong'ers incident". It's plausible that there could have been many other protests in Hong Kong in 2012. Perhaps a more apt term for it might be "2012 Anti-mainland protests in Hong Kong"? Another possibility might be "Kong Qingdong Hong Kong commentary incident". Colipon+(Talk) 21:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Underbar dk: What about the alternative title that I proposed? --George Ho (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would support Colipon's suggestion for "2012 Anti-mainland protests in Hong Kong". _dk (talk) 23:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know that HK is part of China now; why "Mainland" instead of "China"? George Ho (talk) 00:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For the exact reason that Hong Kong is a part of China? _dk (talk) 01:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How about something more neutral that describes the event, like "Hong Kong protests against Kong Qingdong"? Colipon+(Talk) 01:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kong Qingdong is the catalyst, but since the article also covers the anti-"locust" advertisement I don't think "Kong Qingdong" in the title adequately describe the whole topic. _dk (talk) 02:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.

RfC: Current title

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus for 2012 Kong Qingdong incident. AlbinoFerret 21:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on the current title, especially in regards to related policies (like WP:AT) and guidelines (like WP:NCE). --George Ho (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think something like "Kong Qingdong Hong Kong commentary incident", as proposed in the Requested move section would work. His comments may have just been the catalyst, but it's for the same reason the 1992 Los Angeles riots are also known widely as the Rodney King riots, even if they weren't really all that much about Rodney King - it's just the incident that pushed people to the breaking point for that specific period of civil unrest. I think "2012 Anti-mainland China protests in Hong Kong" is good, but it might also describe the protests against the education reform pushed by China that occurred later that year. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would further simplify that to "Kong Qingdong incident", or "2012 Kong Qingdong incident" if disambiguation between his various inflammatory incidents is necessary. Deryck C. 10:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, that is better. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am still in favour of "Kong Qingdong Hong Kong commentary incident", since this guy has many other "incidents" under his belt, and most relate to his "commentaries." Colipon+(Talk) 02:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with "2012 Kong Qingdong incident" proposition, as I do believe that disambiguation is necessary (as there may be future articles documenting similar events). ExParte talk | contribs 21:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2012 Kong Qingdong incident. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2012 Kong Qingdong incident. 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:

When 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2012 Kong Qingdong incident. 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:

When 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Kong_Qingdong_incident&oldid=1196617449"