This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Handover of Hong Kong 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 |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 30, 2007, July 1, 2008, July 1, 2009, and July 1, 2010. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2018 and 14 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): D Peretin10. Peer reviewers: D Peretin10.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 23:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Many links pointed to handover can be changed to be pointed here. Great job Jerry. :-) — Insta ntnood 16:08, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Improvements to the English have been made by many contributors. I do not see anything wrong with the English now. Ought not the administrators remove this article from the "need copy-editing" category? PM Poon —Preceding undated comment added 08:39, 31 July 2005.
I was able to find alot of the references in a number of books. There was 1 link about canadians moving back to Hong Kong in numbers. I could not find any solid statistics on it. So it was deleted. Benjwong 06:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
This article, along with several others in the Hong Kong/Macau cluster uses 'table' in its British meaning of 'to propose for consideration' instead of its exactly opposite American meaning of 'to remove temporarily from consideration'.
I'm familiar with en.wp's rules about these issues, but this does seem like a special case; what might we do to disambiguate this?
--
Baylink
21:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
"*Chinese American rapper
Jin Auyeung has a song called 1997 in his Cantonese album ABC, which he makes references to the handover, bus uncle, 10 years of Hong Kongs return to China."
"Bus Uncle" is an internet meme, and "Hong Kongs" should be "Hong Kong's"... I checked the rapper's page on Wikipedia and also did a google search, there does not appear to be any other known correlation between "bus uncle" and this singer. The grammar also doesn't make sense. I'm led to believe this paragraph is, in whole or part, vandalism. Can someone with more knowledge take a look?
--
206.248.181.205 (
talk)
04:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the words "the sovereignty" from the title and lead sentence to try and be NPOV about the PRC and UK positions. The Joint Declaration signed by both makes an assumption of Chinese sovereignty. That's as close to a source as we can get, and as a primary source, is unimpeachable. The article discusses the sovereignty issue in the text through the context of a narrative historical review of events.
In any case, since "sovereignty" and who held it has some dispute, it's easiest, best, and most neutral to simply title the article without the term.
--
SchmuckyTheCat
15:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
The title of this article in Chinese Wikipedia was "Transfer of sovereignty of Hong Kong " (
香港主權移交) in the past, but they have changed it to "Hong Kong Return" (
香港回歸) recently. Does Chinese Wikipedia violate
WP:NPOV?
--
203.218.38.115 (
talk)
10:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
In
secn "Oops... ...",
User:Instantnood used the construction "sovereignty over Hong Kong [emphasis added by Jerzy]", and
User:DietEvil attributed a similar construction to the Joint Declaration. (DE is, BTW, wrong in saying we are bound by that document (potentially the worst of PoV, since it surely embodies the explicitly negotiated compromise between the self-interests of the two principals, to the neglect where necessary of all other interests that exist in the world, not least those entailing recognizability of the truth. If that's not clear, then know that a crucial duty of diplomats is to lie.)
What the accompanying article is about is not the sovereignty of
Hong Kong -- you can probably use "Hong Kong" in a sense where the sovereignty of Hong Kong includes
Kowloon and the
New Territories -- but about who has sovereignty over Hong Kong: it was under the sovereignty of the UK, and is now under the sovereignty of the PRC.
A mistranslation from Chinese is possible,
American and British English differences does not hint of a difference, and this talk page clearly shows the correct usage has had zero attention, so i am going forward without waiting for further discussion. There are about a dozen and a half Rdrs, which i will bypass, but reversing them (if my fix is rejected is even easier than my own task.
--
Jerzy•
t
12:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Isn't "Handover" the most common name for this event? As in, "Handover of Hong Kong" or "Hong Kong's Handover"? Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 18:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)j
of course it is, when the drug dealer/robber speaks of having to return his ill gotten treasures to their rightful owner, you bet he's going to play some word game in order to cover up his ugly past and also as a last spite to the victim. He will say it's a "handover", not a "return" or "reunification". He will pretend he's the rightful owner along, he's just being magnanimous giving to someone else, like handing over a 2nd car to a cousin or a charity.
How come the British did not hold a referendum to let the people of Hong Kong choose their own future? They could have provided 2 simple choices: remain a British colony or become part of the People's Republic of China.
Why wasent this done? Was it ever even discussed? Cfagan1987 ( talk) 03:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Because Chinese government at the time of 1984 discussion between Britain and China, refused to discuss about holding a referendum in Hong Kong saying Hong Kong is legally recognized in China as Chinese terrority which was "stolen" by the British and would never change.
More importantly, how come the British did not hold one single referendum in the 150-year colonial history of Hong Kong to let the people choose a governor? Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 15:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Even MORE importantly, why are the people of Hong Kong STILL not allowed full elections, free from external meddling, to choose their own leaders? Seems to me like the people are still 'languishing under boots', its just the wearers that have changed. But then I expect its really MORALLY OK to deny basic human rights to your OWN people as this is not a display imperialism, from whence all the worlds evils seem to spring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.61.60 ( talk) 16:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Though this is obviously old news, currently the article makes no mention of official disclosures of war preparations by the PRC in the case the negotiations failed. How would this be properly integrated into the article? -- 李博杰 | — Talk contribs email 17:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Vienna_Convention_on_Road_Signs_and_Signals
Because all signs in the EU follow the Vienna convention, the EU standard is to implement the Vienna convention. Swissnetizen ( talk) 17:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm no expert on the subject, but is there any source to characterize it as "the watershed of the British Empire" in the lede? I realize that Prince Charles and many other sources regard it as the "end" of the British Empire, but for it to be characterized as "the" watershed ("critical point marking a change in course or development") seems a bit off. When I think of a singular watershed moment for the BE, I tend to think of the Suez Crisis, or the Indian independence movement, or the 50s-60s Decolonization of Africa. I guess my thinking is that "watershed" is usually used to mean "turning point," when really this is more of a terminus. It's not the turning point for the British Empire, it's the end of it (at least according to several sources). So do we call it "a" watershed instead of "the" watershed, or maybe something else? Furthermore, this description at the end of the lede doesn't appear to be described in the rest of the article, which is another issue. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen ( talk) 00:38, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved. There is a consensus to move the title of this article as proposed. The question of what the opening sentence of the article says can be resolved through normal editing, or continued discussion on this talk page in sections below, as appropriate. — Amakuru ( talk) 22:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Transfer of sovereignty over Hong Kong →
Handover of Hong Kong – "Handover of Hong Kong" (or simply "the Handover") is arguably the most
WP:COMMONNAME in English for this event. It's not even close. Not by a long shot. Not even those with a pro-Chinese view would deny that. I was looking at the discussions and was surprised to see little, if any, policy-based justifications (although there was a bunch of nationalist sabre-rattling sprinkled throughout). It seems the current title was chosen (by either a tacit acceptance or simply unchallenged reasoning) to try and sound as neutral as possible. It's a good-faith move but misguided policy-wise. The section on
non-neutral but common names says titles are allowed to have "non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. the
Boston Massacre or the
Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun [for an event] ... generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue." Plus someone said it's titled "Hong Kong Return" in the Chinese wiki. If all interwikis have the same policy on common names in their respective languages, then it would be correct, as the Handover should likewise be in English.
(On a side note, if we really want proper technical legal terminology, the correct title would be "Retrocession of Hong Kong". See for example " Different Roads to Home: the retrocession of Hong Kong and Macau to Chinese sovereignty" by Ming K. Chan (2003) in the Journal of Contemporary China. But that's not the proposal and it still wouldn't supersede the common name policy). Spellcast ( talk) 20:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasu よ! 19:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Anybody else see a little contradiction in there? If "sovereignty" is essentially "independence" then how is "sovereignty "transferred"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.234.100.169 ( talk) 19:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Did Taiwan aka Republic of China want Return to it?-- Kaiyr ( talk) 04:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Handover of Hong Kong's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not.
AnomieBOT
⚡
15:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Was there ever an idea to handover of Hong Kong from the United Kingdom to the Republic of China (ROC)? Eurohunter ( talk) 09:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Handover of Hong Kong 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 |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 30, 2007, July 1, 2008, July 1, 2009, and July 1, 2010. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2018 and 14 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): D Peretin10. Peer reviewers: D Peretin10.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 23:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Many links pointed to handover can be changed to be pointed here. Great job Jerry. :-) — Insta ntnood 16:08, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Improvements to the English have been made by many contributors. I do not see anything wrong with the English now. Ought not the administrators remove this article from the "need copy-editing" category? PM Poon —Preceding undated comment added 08:39, 31 July 2005.
I was able to find alot of the references in a number of books. There was 1 link about canadians moving back to Hong Kong in numbers. I could not find any solid statistics on it. So it was deleted. Benjwong 06:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
This article, along with several others in the Hong Kong/Macau cluster uses 'table' in its British meaning of 'to propose for consideration' instead of its exactly opposite American meaning of 'to remove temporarily from consideration'.
I'm familiar with en.wp's rules about these issues, but this does seem like a special case; what might we do to disambiguate this?
--
Baylink
21:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
"*Chinese American rapper
Jin Auyeung has a song called 1997 in his Cantonese album ABC, which he makes references to the handover, bus uncle, 10 years of Hong Kongs return to China."
"Bus Uncle" is an internet meme, and "Hong Kongs" should be "Hong Kong's"... I checked the rapper's page on Wikipedia and also did a google search, there does not appear to be any other known correlation between "bus uncle" and this singer. The grammar also doesn't make sense. I'm led to believe this paragraph is, in whole or part, vandalism. Can someone with more knowledge take a look?
--
206.248.181.205 (
talk)
04:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the words "the sovereignty" from the title and lead sentence to try and be NPOV about the PRC and UK positions. The Joint Declaration signed by both makes an assumption of Chinese sovereignty. That's as close to a source as we can get, and as a primary source, is unimpeachable. The article discusses the sovereignty issue in the text through the context of a narrative historical review of events.
In any case, since "sovereignty" and who held it has some dispute, it's easiest, best, and most neutral to simply title the article without the term.
--
SchmuckyTheCat
15:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
The title of this article in Chinese Wikipedia was "Transfer of sovereignty of Hong Kong " (
香港主權移交) in the past, but they have changed it to "Hong Kong Return" (
香港回歸) recently. Does Chinese Wikipedia violate
WP:NPOV?
--
203.218.38.115 (
talk)
10:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
In
secn "Oops... ...",
User:Instantnood used the construction "sovereignty over Hong Kong [emphasis added by Jerzy]", and
User:DietEvil attributed a similar construction to the Joint Declaration. (DE is, BTW, wrong in saying we are bound by that document (potentially the worst of PoV, since it surely embodies the explicitly negotiated compromise between the self-interests of the two principals, to the neglect where necessary of all other interests that exist in the world, not least those entailing recognizability of the truth. If that's not clear, then know that a crucial duty of diplomats is to lie.)
What the accompanying article is about is not the sovereignty of
Hong Kong -- you can probably use "Hong Kong" in a sense where the sovereignty of Hong Kong includes
Kowloon and the
New Territories -- but about who has sovereignty over Hong Kong: it was under the sovereignty of the UK, and is now under the sovereignty of the PRC.
A mistranslation from Chinese is possible,
American and British English differences does not hint of a difference, and this talk page clearly shows the correct usage has had zero attention, so i am going forward without waiting for further discussion. There are about a dozen and a half Rdrs, which i will bypass, but reversing them (if my fix is rejected is even easier than my own task.
--
Jerzy•
t
12:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Isn't "Handover" the most common name for this event? As in, "Handover of Hong Kong" or "Hong Kong's Handover"? Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 18:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)j
of course it is, when the drug dealer/robber speaks of having to return his ill gotten treasures to their rightful owner, you bet he's going to play some word game in order to cover up his ugly past and also as a last spite to the victim. He will say it's a "handover", not a "return" or "reunification". He will pretend he's the rightful owner along, he's just being magnanimous giving to someone else, like handing over a 2nd car to a cousin or a charity.
How come the British did not hold a referendum to let the people of Hong Kong choose their own future? They could have provided 2 simple choices: remain a British colony or become part of the People's Republic of China.
Why wasent this done? Was it ever even discussed? Cfagan1987 ( talk) 03:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Because Chinese government at the time of 1984 discussion between Britain and China, refused to discuss about holding a referendum in Hong Kong saying Hong Kong is legally recognized in China as Chinese terrority which was "stolen" by the British and would never change.
More importantly, how come the British did not hold one single referendum in the 150-year colonial history of Hong Kong to let the people choose a governor? Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 15:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Even MORE importantly, why are the people of Hong Kong STILL not allowed full elections, free from external meddling, to choose their own leaders? Seems to me like the people are still 'languishing under boots', its just the wearers that have changed. But then I expect its really MORALLY OK to deny basic human rights to your OWN people as this is not a display imperialism, from whence all the worlds evils seem to spring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.61.60 ( talk) 16:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Though this is obviously old news, currently the article makes no mention of official disclosures of war preparations by the PRC in the case the negotiations failed. How would this be properly integrated into the article? -- 李博杰 | — Talk contribs email 17:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Vienna_Convention_on_Road_Signs_and_Signals
Because all signs in the EU follow the Vienna convention, the EU standard is to implement the Vienna convention. Swissnetizen ( talk) 17:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm no expert on the subject, but is there any source to characterize it as "the watershed of the British Empire" in the lede? I realize that Prince Charles and many other sources regard it as the "end" of the British Empire, but for it to be characterized as "the" watershed ("critical point marking a change in course or development") seems a bit off. When I think of a singular watershed moment for the BE, I tend to think of the Suez Crisis, or the Indian independence movement, or the 50s-60s Decolonization of Africa. I guess my thinking is that "watershed" is usually used to mean "turning point," when really this is more of a terminus. It's not the turning point for the British Empire, it's the end of it (at least according to several sources). So do we call it "a" watershed instead of "the" watershed, or maybe something else? Furthermore, this description at the end of the lede doesn't appear to be described in the rest of the article, which is another issue. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen ( talk) 00:38, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved. There is a consensus to move the title of this article as proposed. The question of what the opening sentence of the article says can be resolved through normal editing, or continued discussion on this talk page in sections below, as appropriate. — Amakuru ( talk) 22:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Transfer of sovereignty over Hong Kong →
Handover of Hong Kong – "Handover of Hong Kong" (or simply "the Handover") is arguably the most
WP:COMMONNAME in English for this event. It's not even close. Not by a long shot. Not even those with a pro-Chinese view would deny that. I was looking at the discussions and was surprised to see little, if any, policy-based justifications (although there was a bunch of nationalist sabre-rattling sprinkled throughout). It seems the current title was chosen (by either a tacit acceptance or simply unchallenged reasoning) to try and sound as neutral as possible. It's a good-faith move but misguided policy-wise. The section on
non-neutral but common names says titles are allowed to have "non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. the
Boston Massacre or the
Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun [for an event] ... generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue." Plus someone said it's titled "Hong Kong Return" in the Chinese wiki. If all interwikis have the same policy on common names in their respective languages, then it would be correct, as the Handover should likewise be in English.
(On a side note, if we really want proper technical legal terminology, the correct title would be "Retrocession of Hong Kong". See for example " Different Roads to Home: the retrocession of Hong Kong and Macau to Chinese sovereignty" by Ming K. Chan (2003) in the Journal of Contemporary China. But that's not the proposal and it still wouldn't supersede the common name policy). Spellcast ( talk) 20:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasu よ! 19:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Anybody else see a little contradiction in there? If "sovereignty" is essentially "independence" then how is "sovereignty "transferred"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.234.100.169 ( talk) 19:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Did Taiwan aka Republic of China want Return to it?-- Kaiyr ( talk) 04:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Handover of Hong Kong's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not.
AnomieBOT
⚡
15:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Was there ever an idea to handover of Hong Kong from the United Kingdom to the Republic of China (ROC)? Eurohunter ( talk) 09:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC)