Talk:2022 COVID-19 protests in China
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2022 COVID-19 protests in China 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 |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 120 days |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The use of the contentious topics procedure has been authorised by the community for pages related to Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide, including this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned. |
A news item involving 2022 COVID-19 protests in China was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 27 November 2022. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Effects from the 2022 World Cup
[edit]It might be reason enough to believe the protests were influenced by the 2022 FIFA World Cup. Viewers in China saw large crowds of people not in lockdown, and the Chinese public reacted to that. It's the old reaction to: "If they can do that, why couldn't we?" [1]. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 04:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Source does support -- kind of -- a connection by mentioning a WeChat article. Hmm. Artoria2e5 🌉 05:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Hmmm. While I think that could be possible, is there any document or evidence to demonstrate this causal relationship? NeoChrono Ryu (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
RfC on status of the protests
[edit]How should the status of the protests be described?
- Option 1 Status quo- protests are to be described as ongoing.
- Option 2 Protests should be described as having ended on December 5 (the last day protests were recorded in the Timeline section).
- Option 3 Protests should be described as having ended on another date.
Firestar464 (talk) 10:04, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- November-December. December 5 is too specific of a date; we don't need to try and pinpoint the exact date the last (or for that matter the first) protest was on. The government changed course in early December and the protests have fizzled out now, so we can just say they were a series of protests that took place in November and December of 2022. Endwise (talk) 11:49, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- Option 3 — Option 1 is definitely out of the question based on reliable sources, as far as I can tell, which all seem to paint them as a thing that has ended. See e.g. NYT on December 9. A Radio Free Asia piece from December 3 implies they were already "quelled". WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 16:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- None and withdraw RfC. Wikipedia editors are prohibited from performing original research. If a good source says protests ended on date X or ongoing as of date Y, relay that. But don't decide the matter without such sources. (Also, any WP:RFCBEFORE on this, which seems like it's based on some basic policy misunderstandings? Also see WP:RELTIME). Bon courage (talk) 11:02, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
- Option 3 Can we just put "December 2022" as a placeholder. Like most protests, it is probably difficult to determine a clear end date.Dhawk790 (talk) 14:34, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
- Option 3 per Dhawk790. Cessaune (talk) 01:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Option 3 also as per above. Silikonz (alt)💬 22:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Note: I've removed the RfC tag without a formal closure per WP:RFCEND, as the consensus appears obvious and so a formal closing statement not needed. Endwise (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Few Chinese-language sources?
[edit]Most of the sources cited seem to be English-language news organizations. Is there a reason why there are so few Chinese-language sources cited here? Is there a Wikipedia policy I don't know about that preferences English-language sources? NeoChrono Ryu (talk) 03:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
- @NeoChrono Ryu: English source goes first on English Wikipedia. ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 17:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Include supportive protests?
[edit]In late November and early December there were several vigils/protests by Chinese people in various cities around the world. I attended one in New York City near the Chinese consulate on the evening of November 29, 2023. There was also a related protest at Columbia University. Is it worthwhile to include these related/inspired actions, or are these considered not important enough to justify including? NeoChrono Ryu (talk) 03:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
- @NeoChrono Ryu: It had been included in the "Abroad" section. ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 17:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- And if you think there's more can be done, feel free to add them. ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 17:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Merge Hong Kong sections
[edit]Please merge those HK sections 2603:80A0:17F0:250:69CC:AF98:5413:3AA6 (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles under general sanctions
- Wikipedia In the news articles
- B-Class China-related articles
- Mid-importance China-related articles
- B-Class China-related articles of Mid-importance
- B-Class Chinese politics articles
- Mid-importance Chinese politics articles
- WikiProject Chinese politics articles
- WikiProject China articles
- B-Class COVID-19 articles
- Low-importance COVID-19 articles
- WikiProject COVID-19 articles