Talk:Pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong)

Please respect the naming by Chinese people

In Hong Kong and Macau media, the pro-Beijing camp is just called "建制派", and it is NOT an abbreviation of "親建制派". The Chinese name need NOT be a direct translation of English name. It is offending to include "親建制派" but not "建制派" in this article. 182.239.77.40 (talk) 08:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

It seems this anonymous contributor may have inadvertently transposed part of his/her comment because 建制派 was in and 親建制派 was not. Secondly, one is not to be misled by the opening statement "pro-Beijing camp is just called '建制派'" which is just sloppy translation in the comment: Beijing does not arise in either, for a start, and, if the commenter is correct that this is not a case of abbreviation, then the only way to preserve a distinction is to translate them "pro-Beijing camp" and "Beijing camp". sirlanz 16:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Establishment camp

User:Sirlanz insists to put the name "establishment camp" in the header, but the fact is there is hardly a thing called "establishment camp" in the English media. What most of them use is "pro-establishment camp", which means "親建制派" in Chinese, and "建制派" is merely an abbreviation of the term. Lmmnhn (talk) 15:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Noted Lmmnhn's view has changed. Lmmnhn rejected my edit on the basis that "'Establishment camp' does not exist in the English media" but now concedes that it does. But that leading, highly-respected international purveyors of news about Hong Kong (AFP, FT, etc.) use the term "establishment camp" in respect of Hong Kong is not the point with which we are to be primarily concerned. The question is what is meant by the two Chinese terms. I am frankly astonished at what lmmnhn has suggested about 建制派 and 親建制派. Those editors who read Chinese will instantly see that this is not a case of abbreviation at all. It is plain and simple qualification by 親. You have the camp itself and then you have its sympathisers, affiliates, or even "running dogs" as the PRC used to be fond of calling them. There is a fundamental problem with the rote-blabbing of "camp" all the time, as if one could put one's hands around such a thing in any political system, but leaving that to one side for the moment, there is no problem at all seeing what is staring us in the face in the Chinese terms here. If some members of the Chinese press use the terms with reckless disregard that is no basis for replicating that lack of care in WP. In any event, we have seen the climb-down from Lmmnhn. What we are left with is either to leave the English as a faithful translation of the Chinese (i.e. establishment and pro-establishment) or take out establishment/建制派 entirely. sirlanz 15:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

It is interesting that how you can make such a rant between I saying "does not exist" and "hardly exist", as the meaning will be the same: that "establishment camp" is hardly in use and therefore should not be put in the header. I googled it and there are only 10 results with "establishment camp"[1] in the media, which 3 of them are not addressing the Hong Kong's pro-Beijing camp. If you can provide evidences for your claims that would be very helpful. Lmmnhn (talk) 16:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Carrie Lam

It appears someone is very much confused with "pro-Beijing faction" and "Pro-Beijing camp". Carrie Lam as Chief Executive is non-partisan, even she's pro-Beijing but she doesn't represent Pro-Beijing camp in the government. Her name should be removed from infobox. STSC (talk) 13:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed with above; inclusion on the infobox gives the impression that her position is 'Chief Executive of the Pro-Beijing camp' rather than the CE who happens to be from the Pro-Beijing camp. It should be removed from the infobox but mention given in the body text that her, Tsang Yok-sing, and other such Pro-Beijing figures were aligned with this camp while also holding non-partisan positions.--Kdm852 (talk) 07:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

See Republican Party (United States) and Democratic Party of Korea which shows Donald Trump and Moon Jae-in in the infobox. Lmmnhn (talk) 06:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Except they are literally still members of those parties, Carrie Lam is not (by law) a member of any political party. This also doesn't address my previous point about giving a misleading impression in the article that she is the 'CE of the Pro-BJ camp', which she is not.--Kdm852 (talk) 09:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Chief Executive Election Ordinance specifies CE cannot be a member of political party. Hong Kong CE election is not a presidential election, Carrie Lam wasn't a candidate for any political party in Pro-Beijing camp when she ran for CE election. STSC (talk) 11:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Pro-Beijing camp is not a party. It is a political alliance, the "united front" of the "patriotic forces" by the People's Republic of China who have repeatedly said that the SAR government shall be ruled by the patriotic forces. To claim that one person is not affiliated with any political party therefore is not affiliated with any political camp is totally untrue. Lmmnhn (talk) 12:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Pro-Beijing camp basically is an alliance of pro-Beijing political parties that would field politicians as candidates in elections. It's not an ideology alliance for anyone. Carrie Lam is "aligned" (sharing the ideology) with Pro-Beijing camp, but she isn't part of the Pro-Beijing camp because she isn't a member of any party within the Pro-Beijing camp. STSC (talk) 13:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Please review WP:BLPCRIME

Lmmnhn WP:BLPCRIME is a very serious policy, and the para as written was not compliant with it. I'd strongly suggest you review that policy. Simonm223 (talk) 13:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• I've just read the policy and it seems to say, fairly explicitly, that it is meant to apply to people who are not public figures, which does not include anybody named in this section. Also, having links to triads is not in itself a crime, so this policy should probably not apply to this section at all. Kdm852 (talk) 04:11, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• I'd hesitate to call a municipal politician a public figure as described by that definition. And furthermore review WP:RUMOUR. Simonm223 (talk) 12:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• I would not call the CE a "municipal politician", they are the head of the government for a political entity and more than notable in HK, which I think would be sufficient. I don't see that this section violates the WP:RUMOUR either since it appeared in the public press, and was not phrased as fact in the article, but was merely a comment on a legitimate public discussion. I would also argue that there are plenty of American, British, Australian, etc political figures whose articles mention suspected links to organised crime, or to crimes committed themselves, so this seems acceptable in this instance to me. Kdm852 (talk) 00:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 29 September 2019

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. The oppose !votes invoke the existence of the Macau camp; the nomination doesn't provide a rationale for it being the primary topic for the term. No prejudice against speedy renomination if the nominator wants to make the case for that (pinging Feminist). (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

---

Pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong) → Pro-Beijing camp – Per WP:PTOPIC and WP:TWODABS. feminist (talk) 08:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Not sure "Pro-Beijing camp" or "pro-establishment camp" is the common name of the coalition. But i would say there is no primary topic if Pro-Beijing camp (Macau) also existed. Lastly, i would like to see Google Ngram or other evidence from external source to prove it is common name/primary topic or else. Matthew hk (talk) 09:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

  Hong Kong is much larger than Macau, so usage and significance for the pro-Beijing camp in Hong Kong far exceeds that in Macau. feminist (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Generic title, especially considering the existence of the Macau one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose no benefit to readers in ambiguating this In ictu oculi (talk) 12:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Just keep it simple, no need for the "Hong Kong" bit. "Pro-Beijing camp" is really the common name for the Pro-Beijing camp of Hong Kong, rarely you would think of Pro-Beijing camp of Macao. STSC (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. The disambiguation in the title is helpful to contextualise the subject. Kdm852 (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose there should more topics out there than just these two RECENTISM topics of Macau and HK. What about Beijing vs Taipei? The Pro-Beijing camp favours PRC having the UN seat over the ROC; etc -- 67.70.33.184 (talk) 08:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Off-topic. STSC (talk) 09:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Clearly it is not since we are discussing the "Pro-Beijing camp". Which is what it is, in the UN, and the IOC. It is lacking historical perspective, hence RECENTISM. -- 67.70.33.184 (talk) 06:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Weak oppose since the Macau article also exists and lookups in JSTOR, Google Scholar and so on gives results for both (and even for Japan, but these seems pretty obscure). Adding weak anyway since Hong Kong is more common. --MarioGom (talk) 10:52, 4 October 2019 (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.

Pro-Beijing camp should not redirect here

I feel like I should point out that if the argument is that this is not the primary topic for Pro-Beijing camp, then Pro-Beijing camp should not be a redirect here but should be a disambiguation page for this and the Macau article, and any other relevant articles. If we are going to keep the redirect, then there is no point keeping this in parenthetical disambiguated form. The outcome of the above RM seems to suggest Pro-Beijing camp should be a disambiguation page, and I considered changing it myself but frankly there are way way way too many direct links to Pro-Beijing camp (see Special:WhatLinksHere/Pro-Beijing camp) most of which look like they are indeed targeting this article and I don't have a script nor know of any bot I can invoke to fix that. Frankly I'm not sure if the above RM properly considered the primary topic issue, and the large number of links compared to Pro-Beijing camp (Macau) (Special:WhatLinksHere/Pro-Beijing camp (Macau)) makes me think that it may very well be. (Although it's only weak evidence.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

AWB is the solution. I just don't have time to fix it myself BTW. Matthew hk (talk) 06:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Blue ribbon camp

Should the page use blue as political colour? Most of the Hong Kong media and even Chinese state media CGTN recognize it. Blue vs. Yellow: Divide is ripping families in Hong Kong Marxistfounder (talk) 05:58, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• Also, should Professional Power be categorized as pro-Beijing camp? Because User:Lmmnhn said pro-Beijing camp won 89 district councillor seats in Template:Hong Kong political parties, which is quite different from most media (86). UU (talk) 14:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Christine Fong and Co. are endorsed by HKFTU, which makes them no longer non-aligned. I believe I've seen media sources referring pro-Beijing camp's seats as 89, but I cannot find it at the moment. --Lmmnhn (talk) 15:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• • I oppose the color changing for the Pro-Beijing camp, as the whole camp is still controlled by the red (CCP), rather than the blue (zh:商界 (香港政治派別), literally "Conservatism in Hong Kong") (media often say "赤化", literally "spreading of CCP ideology"). UU (talk) 09:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Add election committee and NPC/SC seats?

The Chinese version of this article and the Pro-Dem Camp article includes the EC, while the English article of the Pro-BJ camp of Macau also includes NPC delegates, thoughts on adding it here?

--Hkfreedomfighter (talk) 16:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Radical pro-Beijing camp

I want to add it to the Pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong) article, but why do I keep removing it? 激進建制派 is a political term that is strictly used. If the title Radical pro-Beijing camp is a problem, you just have to move the title.ProKMT (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

You really need to include citations for this stuff. And, as for the page you are wikilinking to, I have yet to review the sources there. Please avoid WP:OR. Simonm223 (talk) 12:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

How about adding it to 'See also'? The English-speaking world does not distinguish between "radical pro-Beijing" and moderate "pro-Beijing," as they are both authoritarians after all. However, "激進建制派" is even used in media in Hong Kong. ProKMT (talk) 12:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

No. Add WP:RS. Simonm223 (talk) 12:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Radical pro-Beijing camp for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Radical pro-Beijing camp is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radical pro-Beijing camp until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Simonm223 (talk) 13:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

A more managed merge please

I've reverted the significant new additions made by @ProKMT because I am concerned that much of that content is material I previously reviewed and found failed verification at the previous Radical pro-Beijing camp page. Please see this history for specifics. I would ask that, before this merge of material be completed, there be a review of the material in order to ensure that the sources being used actually support the claims being made and are WP:DUE inclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I will only recover the part that you didn't add in the Radical pro-Beijing camp article before in the Pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong) article. ProKMT (talk) 07:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

That is still not reviewing before inclusion.Simonm223 (talk) 11:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

ProKMT can you please be more careful about unsourced WP:OR and WP:SYNTH - furthermore I would really appreciate it if you would pay more attention to basic grammar in your edits before posting them to article space. Simonm223 (talk) 20:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)