Talk:1967 Hong Kong riots

Caption

A home-made bomb during the riot. On top of it are words in Chinese characters, meaning "Fry the Yellow Dog", "Roast the White Pig", "Fellow Countrymen stay clear"

At the risk of being too graphic, is it possible that the actual translation of the verb in the former should be "Fry Alive". Likewise, is it preferrable, it seems to omit the word "skinned" (e.g. white-skinned) in the two phrases? --Dpr 17:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Star Ferry Turnmoil

Star Ferry toll increase caused riots in Kowloon in April 1966. That event had not direct relationship with the riots in 67. 24.205.90.226 02:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Poorly written article

This article is very poorly written. Someone should edit this page into readable prose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.189.130.57 (talk • contribs)

Then rewrite it, if I had a dime for everytime someone said to change something. Users ignore these pages. If you would stop vandalizing (see users talk page), and actually contribute, then the problem with this page would be solved.Travb 04:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

What is the opinion of the PRC on them today now that hey control Hong Kong?

Section removed from article

The following section was removed from the article due to vagueness and difficulty of finding sources for.

In response the police fought back and raided leftists strongholds. In one of the raids, helicopters from HMS Hermes a Royal Navy carrier were called in to land police on the roof of a 20-plus-storey building. Upon entering the building the police discovered bombs and weapons as well as a leftist hospital complete with dispensary and an operating theatre.

If someone has better sources for it, please put it back. Benjwong (talk) 07:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Page move

I have reverted the page move executed today. I am aware that there may be a concern as to the title's neutrality, but this is the English name by which the riots are commonly known in Hong Kong. "67 riots" may be an appropriate name in Cantonese, but the name is wholly ambiguous and inappropriate to En:WP. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hong Kong 1967 leftist riots. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050913183732/http://www.tofu-magazine.net/newVersion/pages/riots.html to http://www.tofu-magazine.net/newVersion/pages/riots.html

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) 04:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Mentioned in the Iron Fists and Kung Fu Kicks documentary

There is a mention of the riots in the Iron Fists and Kung Fu Kicks documentary in the section on Shaw Brothers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim Chuma Melbourne (talk • contribs) 06:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Role of the British Army

This page does indeed seem somewhat skewed, but it's difficult if not impossible to produce a 'neutral' view of the period; whatever is written someone is likely to change it. Concurrent news reports at the time were heavily biased, with contradictory versions of the same story, depending on the ownership of the paper. As an example, the page mentions the Portugese Army's involvement in Macau but - very strangely - makes no mention at all of the presence and engagement of the British Army. The Army had some engagement in Kowloon (I wasn't involved) but I was with the Ghurkas when we deployed in strength on the border in response to the incursion of 8 July by 'militia' from China. Whether these were militia, or angry locals, or the PLA, or the PLA disguised as militia was hotly disputed at the time and has been argued since, including in biographies of Chairman Mao. Our concern on the ground was (a) whether the incursion was a deliberate provocation by Peking (as it was called then) or locals out of control (only slightly less worrying) and (b) how the UK Government might respond. Would we be at war? The Ghurkas were supported by my own battery of guns from Britain's 18 Field Regiment, with the remainder of the regiment also deployed. A minuscule force of course, given the scale of the Chinese Army available within a day's march of the border! Quite separately, a platoon of Ghurkas deployed into Kowloon on at least one occasion in support of the Hong Kong Police and the one British Army battalion stationed in Kowloon. There were (possibly apochryphal) reports that the Ghurkas dismounted, formed ranks and drew their Kukris, at which sight the rioters, who had defied both police and regular army, dispersed with some haste. It's well known that HK Police official records were subsequently bowdlerised, with a later correction whose completeness and accuracy is disputed. Not sure whether - and if so, how - to add the Army role into the existing article. Also, although I was there throughout, my own direct knowledge is limited. Pace the Little Red Book (of which everyone acquired copies), I've also failed to track down the date (missing from US Navy reports) of when USS Enterprise appeared, dwarfing everything else in the harbour, greeted by the Peking-facing press with a reference from the Book: "The USS Enterprise is a paper tiger". I wonder whether the cleanest line for Wikipedia might be to have a 'simple summary' page, with links to a page or pages of 'personal perspectives'?Horace100 (talk) 14:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 1 July 2020

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: no consensus (non-admin closure) Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 16:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

---

1967 Hong Kong riots → 1967 Hong Kong protests – For the same reason 2019–20 Hong Kong protests is not called 2019–20 Hong Kong riots, which is that the events were mostly peaceful demonstrations and violence only occurred due to police intervention, and so it is an unfair categorisation. I think 1967 Hong Kong demonstrations, 1967 Hong Kong unrest, or 1967 Hong Kong leftist demonstrations are all appropriate alternative names as well. Hung Jyupei (talk) 06:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. These are universally known as "riots" rather than "protests", in both English and Chinese (六七暴動). See, for example, the sources currently cited, and Google Books results for Hong Kong riots (many relate to 1967) and Hong Kong protests (few relate to 1967). feminist (talk) 04:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

February 2020 edits

@CentreLeftRight: please explain your edits, which are factually incorrect and hoax-like. In reality, as cited here and at Chung Wah Middle School, the government closed Communist schools (this is the terminology that is used in many sources, including SCMP articles from the era) that were being used as bomb-making factories. In your edit, you write that protesters "retaliated" by planting bombs around the city – completely turning the chronology around. Bombings were taking place months before the closure of Communist schools. Secondly, it is definitely an overstatement to write that the government banned "left-wing" schools/publications. Please explain. Citobun (talk) 12:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Citobun:: My edits were a revert to a previous version. I did so because the changes (e.g. left-wing → communist) did not reflect what the sources cited states. A quote from the article "1967: When the Bank of China Building Became a Giant Propaganda Machine" which was cited for the original sentence "The colonial government banned left-wing publications and closed left-wing schools, and demonstrators retaliated by planting decoy and real bombs in the city.": "The colonial government banned leftist publications and closed leftist schools; leftist groups retaliated by planting bombs in the street."

I did not write the original sentence in the article, I saw the changes made and checked the sources given to verify the language used (e.g. "communist", "bomb making factories"). As I already explained, I did not find the use of "communist" in the source given. I have no problem with the major elements of your revert of my revert (e.g. use of bomb making factories, communist, etc.), but then the onus is on whoever made the changes to find sources that use such wording and add the citations to the article.

You mentioned the citations over at Chung Wah Middle School, and although the citations do not have links, I luckily have access to SCMP archives and the PDF of the book Underground Front: The Chinese Communist Party in Hong Kong. So from the article "BLAST IN RED SCHOOL: Raiding Police Find Man Seriously Hurt": "One resident living next door to the school said that he believed the school was being used as a bomb factory." Alright that checks out. What about the communist label as opposed to "leftist" or "left-wing"? Well, honestly the page cited isn't very helpful. The only quote describing the schools, including Chung Wah, are: "As students from leftist schools became involved in the disturbances, the Hong Kong government saw the communist-dominated schools as "centres for storage and disseminations of inflammatory literature and even for the manufacture of bombs, both simulated and real". Seems like the language in the book equated leftist with communist, communist-sympathetic, and pro-CCP/CPC, so then the task is which one should the article use? Well I think its clear that they were CCP/CPC sympathisers, so we should go with that. Pro-communist is a redundant term because if you're pro-communist you're just a communist. But if one means pro-Communist Party of China, then that's different because it implies (nevermind if it is actually true) that it doesn't necessarily mean you're a communist.

In regards to the chronology, the original wording may be dubious, but again it's what the source given says. If you have a source contrary, please add it. Also from Underground Front: The Chinese Communist Party in Hong Kong: "On 20 July, the Hong Kong government brought in sweeping additional emergency powers while continuing to raid leftwing premises ... The totality of the Hong Kong government's action hit the leftists hard but they were not about to give up yet. Under the direction of CCP Hong Kong, they decided to retaliate by planting bombs throughout the city."

I think the other edits are pretty self-explanatory, minor formatting edits. Numbers ten and under should be written as words not numbers (MOS:NUM), dashes should be used instead of hyphens for ranges MOS:DOB, date formats should be harmonized, and Ceylon was not mentioned in the article nor cited (MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE). I only changed Pro-Tawain to Pro-ROC because that article was named as such and given the historical context, it is unlikely that 親臺派 was used at that time since the ROC government was still recognised at the UN as China's representative ("Blue China" ROC vs "Red China' PRC).

If there is anything else I missed let me know. CentreLeftRight ✉ 20:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

"Communist sympathisers" is also used in Underground Front: The Chinese Communist Party in Hong Kong. Communist sympathisers is the less redundant and grammatically correct way of saying pro-communists and their sympathisers. However, I recognise that "communist sympathiser" carries negative connotations. CentreLeftRight ✉ 21:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

This article describes the demonstrators as "left-wing" or "leftist" a dozen times and "pro-communist" six times. I think the article should be consistent and just pick one or the other. From what I have read in the sources given, the demonstrators were pro-CCP/CPC "leftists". CentreLeftRight ✉ 21:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@CentreLeftRight: Thank you for the response and sorry to assume you were the original author. The "original" version was written quite recently (within the past 1-2 years, not sure) and I had edited some months back because it seemed quite inaccurate to me, to the point of perhaps being intentional disruption. To be clear I have no problem with the formatting/date/ROC vs Taiwan changes.

Regarding the sentence that I find problematic, I will try to dig deeper in better sources than the Zolima piece, which is written too carelessly to be accurate. Did the government truly "ban leftist publications"? I somehow doubt that, considering leftist voices/parties have remained active in Hong Kong to the present day. It is a sweeping and misleading statement. Anyway I will read through more academic accounts when I have some time. Citobun (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)