![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
I noticed particular editor didn’t wait to reach consensus here and started enthusiastically editing and (excessively?) enhancing PRC's sovereignty on the opening paragraph (i.e. 1st paragraph) but avoided to mention HK’s highly autonomous status in the 1st paragraph. Wikipedia is not a democracy, remember? We work through consensus, right?
I agreed with Readin, some area of the newly edited paragraph seems bulky and problematic. First of all, , the paragraph is structured in a way that non-crucial information could take space from this prime paragraph in the expense of mentioning HK highly special autonomous status, it’s ground breaking population density and most importantly, the link to List of special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement (as Alanmak pointed out, this link is important enough to stay) and other infos that define HK. On the other hand, statements such as “one of the most important financial centres in the world” is an unsourced statement, I don’t think it is appropriate to use it to replace solid sourced fact such as the population density in 1st paragraph or other crucial info that regards antonymous status . Thus it should be removed to provide rooms for crucial info. Secondly, I doubt whether it is necessary to repeat the phrase “special administrative region” almost one right after the other.
In other special sub-national entity such as Åland Islands, autonomous status is clearly states in the 1st paragraph. But we don’t even have the words autonomous or self-governing in our 1st paragraph.
At the end of the 1st paragraph, it mentions HK is British overseas territory but the beginning of 2nd paragraph the same piece of history is mention AGAIN. This is a little poorly structured. Beside, HK’s didn’t become British overseas territory until British Nationality Act 1981. HK had been a Crown Colony for some 140 years but only had been a British overseas territory for 16 years. Which name do u think represents HK’s colonial past identity in a wider perspective?
And I can’t believe Colipon added false info into the paragraph, wikipedia is for everyone to edit and I'm going to be polite, but this is what happened to the article when some people edit with a mission to highlight PRC’s sovereignty but have limited knowledge about HK. Political agenda or article quality, u choose it? Thankfully HkCaGu corrected it. Yes, the original Hong Kong (present day Hong Kong Island) didn't leased to Britian at all, it was ceded to. It is a well-known fact in Hong Kong, but a largely downplayed fact in PRC to make PRC's acquistition of HK sounds righteous to PRC citizens.
Also, Colipon's edit "As a result of this special arrangement, Hong Kong is generally considered to be separate from mainland China"" is problematic, because HK IS not part of mainland China, it is a current fact. In English , we use To be, or not to be to describe things that we haven’t done or haven’t decided. E.g. He is going to be 21 years old next month. HK is not part of mainland China. Tibet is going to be separated from PRC. The mess caused by Colipon is going to be fixed by other editors who are familar with the subject. -- Da Vynci ( talk) 06:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
HkCaGu IF the issue is really just about adding the name People's Republic of China ot the 1st sentence, why don't you just add that name in? But instead you did a major surgery to the opening section., I would like to point out the newly re-organised opening section sacrificed an originally well written, concise opening section.
It is ok if you want to accuse me of non-good faith editing just becoz I hold a different opinion from you on this issue, but perhaps you should look at some facts instead of "assuming". I added the THES - QS World University Rankings reference and the Quacquarelli Symonds quote in the Education section. I created the Military section. I also introduced the term meritocracy to replace lengthy description of “base on qualification, experience, ability….” In the Government section. In Etymology section there used to be a sentence says "It is not sure why Hong Kong is called Hong Kong", I fixed that by replacing that sentence with a brief history of the evolution of the definition of Hong Kong with reference to the related Treaty and Convention. -- Da Vynci ( talk) 18:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
With all due respect, Da Vynci, not even an article for a country like Canada has these performance indicators (which are also quite excellent, might I add) written into its opening paragraph. I sense a heightened discomfort from you whenever the PRC and Hong Kong is grouped together, so these supporting sentences seem to be added purely to separate Hong Kong's identity (and perhaps, in the process, assert Hong Kong's perceived superiority) to that of the PRC.
There has been an increasing number of these assertions since the beginning of rewriting work on the opening section, beginning with "not part of mainland China", inserting "Chinese" in front of Guangdong so Hong Kong appears to be "not Chinese", and now with "Hong Kong has all of these performance indicators that are listed separately to the PRC".
Meanwhile, what have I been able to change? I've inserted Hong Kong's official name to its rightful place (as it appears on the Basic Law) after weeks of unnecessary debate, even though this is a recognized legal fact. And, along with help from several other editors, changed the opening paragraph to reflect Hong Kong's location and overview after several users reported a feeling of POV with its existing state (and now that is again basically in ruins). And then I also ensured that Hong Kong's autonomy was specifically defined the third paragraph, even going as far to mention that Hong Kong has a separate currency, legal and political systems, and agreeing to include the "not part of mainland China" clause even though it still seems awkward. But even after all this, you took the liberty of coming onto this page and attacking me personally by labeling me as furthering the PRC agenda. Furthermore, the intro now seems a great deal more POV-laden than it was to begin with. I must say that not only am I greatly offended, but I am also very discouraged as an editor that promoting neutrality can be such a difficult task. It should be very clear now to any third party reading this (as mentioned earlier by HkCaGu), that your edits are not in good faith. Colipon+( T) 05:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Your excellency Mr Colipon Perhaps you should check out the Australia page, there you will see the International Ranking link in the opening section and the word "excellent" to describe their result. Hong Kong has quite a number of No.1s in those ranking, and calling the top 10 positions (out of some 150 countries) "excellent" is a relatively modest term as opposite to the word "top". But I have no problem rephrasing it to other factual phrases such "HK ranks top in in number of international comaparison" etc. -- Da Vynci ( talk) 20:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
This section is weak. It requires, at least, some information on the Cantonese pronunciation and the history of the English romanisation of this (for instance, Hobson-Jobson cite Bishop Moule as transliterating it as "hiangkiang", perhaps the Wade-Giles transcription, though, how does this become simply "Hong Kong"?) The earliest example of the current orthography I can find on Google Books dates to a French text of 1777. The current Cantonese pronunciation/transliteration should be included and the pinyin equivalent for good measure. Sadly, I do not have the skills to move very far forward on this endeavour, though I think it is important as the poor quality of this section jars with the much better of the rest of the article.
Also the section has an unverified claim. WikiLambo ( talk) 20:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
An issue I would like to bring up is the origin of the name for Hong Kong. This article suggests that the reason isn't exactly known, but that the fragrance of "fragrant harbor" is due to fresh water, or incense. I followed the only source for this where is also suggests opium as a source. What I was told in Hong Kong was that the "fragrance" was from the sandalwood trees, which still grow on the island, and have a distinctive smell. In fact Wikipedia's own article on sandalwood states "sandalwood has been valued for thousands of years for its fragrance." I'm just saying the source seems to be guessing at the origin, and sandalwood seems as likely the reason for the name. Does anyone have a better source?
Promontoriumispromontorium (
talk)
01:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
As part of this arrangement, Hong Kong maintains its own currency, separate legal and political systems, and is generally not considered part of mainland China.
It sounds like we're saying that an arrangement was made that Hong Kong would generally not be considered part of mainland China. I suspect that considering HK part of mainland China or not is a matter of common practice rather than a matter of a special arrangement or system. It wasn't "arranged", it just happened. Readin ( talk) 21:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
To be honest I think the only reason we have this clause in this article is so we can say there is a distinction with Hong Kong and mainland China, which is fine. But I am not sure the geographical reasoning applies. If we don't take politics into consideration, Hong Kong island is no different from any other offshore island. In fact, to make this distinction, the more PC term now to use in HK and Macau is to use Neidi instead of Dalu. People from Hainan still call the mainland "Dalu" and do not consider themselves part of it, purely based on geography. Both terms are translated into "Mainland" in English, which leads to some confusion amongst people who have no background on these issues.
My suggestion is simply put that Hong Kong is treated separately from mainland China, much like the way Macau is, but Hainan is not. This includes things like economic agreements, customs and immigration, legal proceedings etc. Indeed, most of the references are not made in a geographical context, but more in a legal context. The current phrasing, and Da Vynci's interpretation of it, seems to paint the issue as a purely geographical one, but that is not the actual issue here. If that were the issue then all offshore islands should have the "not part of mainland China" clause attached to it in their introductions. Colipon+( T) 18:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure it will help but I'm curious, what is the literal translation of "neidi"? Readin ( talk) 14:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I want to question the role of Hong Kong Island (1840s-1850s) as origin of the term "Mainland China". My bet and the most reasonable guess should be that the result of the Chinese civil war of 1945-1949 is the origin of today's term "Mainland China". HkCaGu ( talk) 19:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
When you break it down. You guys are debating really 2 choices.
Maybe if you just say both then it will cover both sides. First choice represents people that want nothing to do with China. Second choice represents people that want to be associated with China. Benjwong ( talk) 04:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ben, "The choice of saying HK is not part of the geographic mainland China." is far from "nothing to do with China". It sounds like a perfect description for Hainan though. Anyway, we are actually arguing a different (more subtle) thing. Correct me if i am wrong:
I suggest we use honest and direct wording. -- Da Vynci ( talk) 05:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I saw one of Readin's questions above asking what Neidi means in English. I believe the better translation is "the interior" in the sense of a country. Using Australia as an example, it would be Melbourne and Sydney as opposed to the interior. I am not sure if this term is a common term in the US.
"Neidi" (the interior) is the common term used to describe mainland China in Hong Kong. "Dalu" (the mainland) is the common term in Taiwan, although recently "Neidi" is also growing in popularity in Taiwan, as well as "China". Hope that helps.-- pyl ( talk) 11:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
The current opening paragraph is:-
I think the opening is repetitive. It first says Hong Kong is largely self-governing, then it says "Hong Kong... enjoys a high degree of autonomy". Aren't the descriptions basically saying the same things?
Also, it says Hong Kong "enjoys a high degree of autonomy from the PRC". The sentence seems to be suggesting that Hong Kong is not part of the PRC. The setence should be "from the central government".
When one country, two systems is mentioned, I think we should also mention that the rest of the PRC is socialist. I don't think it is appropriate to presume that the readers are already aware of that.
Here is my suggestion:-
I don't know how to make the mention of the socialist system into the paragraph. Perhaps someone else can have a try?-- pyl ( talk) 11:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I don't think "enjoys a high degree of autonomy from the PRC" remotely suggesting that Hong Kong is not part of the PRC at all, as the second halve of that sentence explictly say it is a largely self-governing territory of the People's Republic of China. How exactly did you end up thinking the sentence "territory of the People's Republic of China" seems suggesting it is not part of PRC?
BTW, please see the above discussion about why the words "largely self-governing" and the link to List of special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement shouldn't be removed.
But I see your point, the part in italic in the following paragraphc seems a bit repeatitive, we could perhaps replace it with infomation that is about HK's identity such as it's the fact that it is a global city and internation financial centre.
Suggestion A:
Perhaps it would be beneficial to draw on past intros that were more stable. Here's the intro from December 2008 which was stable for quite a while. It should be adapted to allow for the issues brought up recently:
-- Joowwww ( talk) 14:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Please, I'm going to say it again, HK is officially HKSAR, not HKSAR of PRC, which would make "Hong Kong, China" not logical. Leave the full-full name to the infobox. HkCaGu ( talk) 18:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I do agree some parts of the intro is somewhat repetitive... like "high degree of autonomy" and its variations is mentioned three times, two times in the opening paragraph. Unlike Da Vynci's assertion that I sense a "heightened discomfort" in this, I am actually perfectly fine with the way the intro looks now as long as we get rid of the redundant phrasing, and maybe add a thing or two about HK being an international financial centre in the first paragraph. Colipon+( T) 01:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Currently, the second paragraph of the Demographics section opens as follows:
About 95% of Hong Kong's population is Hong Konger, the majority of which is Cantonese or from linguistic groups such as Hakka and Teochew. The remaining 5% of the population is composed of non-ethnic Chinese forming a highly visible group despite their smaller numbers.
If this is talking about ethnicity, I think it might be better to say that 95% of Hong Kong's population is ethnically Chinese/華人. This is the terminology used in the 2006 By-census ( http://www.bycensus2006.gov.hk/FileManager/EN/Content_981/a105e.xls [English] http://www.bycensus2006.gov.hk/FileManager/TC/Content_981/a105c.xls [Chinese]). Besides, I'm not sure that all that 95% would identify as Hong Konger. Also, rather than talking about the "visibility" of "non-ethnic Chinese" as a singular group, it might be more pertinent to list some of the largest minority ethnicity groups, or at least make a reference to there being numerous minority groups. Echalon ( talk) 21:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I would like to replace the table in this page with a climate chart, but I find a more specialized page "Climate of Hong Kong". Where should I put the climate chart? Billyauhk ( talk) 03:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
It is really interesting that Colipon found "high degree of autonomy" mentioned 3 times repetitive, but never mentioned how the People's Republic of China is being more repetitive here. (4 times in just the opening section) The title of the infobox already says People's Republic of China , yet the opening paragraph still says 2 more times.
“ | Hong Kong , officially the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, is a largely self-governing territory of the People's Republic of China (PRC), facing the Guangdong Province in the north and the South China Sea to the east, west and south. | ” |
The second paragraph again
“ | Beginning as a trading port, Hong Kong became a crown colony (later dependent territory) of the United Kingdom in 1842, and remained so until its transfer of sovereignty to the People's Republic of China in 1997... | ” |
Having PRC mentioned in the title infobox (explains the current) and the transfer (explains the past) is quite clear and enough for information purpose, but mentioning it twice in the first sentence is just repetitive.
Taken example from pages like Sydney, its opening sentence is not written like "Sydney Commonwealth of Australia, is the largest city in Commonwealth of Australia...", in fact, it only mention Australia once in the opening sentence, its infobox doesn't even repeat that info. I wish that kind of clarity could be incorporated into HK's article. -- Da Vynci ( talk) 21:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
As for "high degree of autonomy" and mentions of "1C2S", i actually agree with Colipon that it is quite repetitive. So I removed those terms in 1st paragraph. -- Da Vynci ( talk) 21:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I made some changes to the opening paragraph and moved the mention of the former British colony status. I find it repetitive, as the status was in the past (therefore not as relevant for us now) and it is mentioned and explained in reasonably details in the beginning of the 2nd paragraph. The status also does not any relevance with the 2nd part of that sentence (global financial centre, capitalist economy etc). In other words, the fact taht HK was a British colony did not have any relevance to the fact that HK is today a global financial centre.-- pyl ( talk) 09:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I believe the current version of the intro to be relatively stable and agreed upon by consensus from all editors. Anyone up for semi-protecting to avoid extremely repetitive future reverts? Colipon+( T) 00:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Dear editors:
Please, let us avoid any more conflicts on this issue about the intro. In the last week there has been two trends:
Neither approach is NPOV. Firstly, Hong Kong is part of the PRC, albeit a relatively autonomous part of it, but still part of the PRC, whether we like to admit it or not. Therefore, as per the consensus we had earlier, PRC should rightfully be included in the intro, as is the standard with every other non-sovereign territory. Secondly, may I respectfully ask editors who insist on inserting "HK is now held by the PRC" to stop doing so, as this is an unecessary assertion and makes the intro look awkward and POV-ridden. The fact that PRC is part of HK's official name is already self-evident, saying it again would be the same as saying "1+1 equals 2 because when you add 1 and 1 together, you get 2".
Another mechanical issue, there is no "The" before "Guangdong province". Colipon+( T) 19:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
“ | Hong Kong (
Chinese:
香
港), officially the Hong Kong
Special Administrative Region,
[10] is a largely self-governing
[7]
territory of the
People's Republic of China, facing
Guangdong province to the north and the
South China Sea to the east, west and south. Hong Kong is a
global metropolitan and
international financial centre, and has a
highly developed
capitalist economy.
Beginning as a trading port, Hong Kong became a crown colony of the United Kingdom in 1842 and from 1983 onwards a British dependent territories, and remained so until the transfer of its sovereignty to the of the People's Republic of China in 1997. [11] [5] Under the " one country, two systems" policy, [12] Hong Kong enjoys high degree [13] of autonomy in all areas with the exception of foreign affairs and defence (which are the responsibility of the PRC Government). [7] As part of this arrangement, Hong Kong continues to maintain its own currency, separate legal, political systems and other aspects that concern its way of life, [7] many of which are distinct from those of mainland China. [14] [15] [16] [17] |
” |
What about my change of "transfer to Chinese sovereignty"? This reduces the full name of PRC once (and it shouldn't be wikilinked again and again anyway), and it's obvious what Chinese (or China) means by simply looking in the paragraph above (where PRC already appears and is wikilinked) and follow the "transfer" link. HkCaGu ( talk) 08:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The word "territory" or its equivalent in the current back and forth is being linked to "List of special territories by international agreement" (or whatever the current name is) and it needs to wikilink to Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. SchmuckyTheCat ( talk)
I'd rather say 'Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China' is the full official name. 'Hong Kong Special Administrative Region' is used frequently, but that is not the full name. Umofomo ( talk) 23:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
“ | I had occassion to look into some of the thoughts on the official name of HK. From what I could find in the agreement between China and the United Kingdom, and what I could find in the Basic Law, it sure looks to me like the full official name is just "Hong Kong Special Administration Region". The term is used over and over, and in the few places where "of the People's Republic of China" was appended, the context was such that it appeared to be merely adding descriptive detail, not being part of the name. I agree that "Hong Kong Special Administration Region People's Republic of China is a territory in People's Republic of China" is a bad opening. I believe a more accurate opening would be "Hong Kong Special Administration Region is a territory in People's Republic of China". Readin | ” |
This is actually an interesting discussion. By the way, Readin, the full official name of HK is the HKSAR of the PRC. It is relatively awkward, and it may not be there for the best reasons, but it is undisputedly HK's official name in its full form after 1997 - otherwise the HK Basic Law would not be titled the Basic Law of HKSAR of the PRC, and likewise the Hong Kong emblem, the Hong Kong government website, all official documents from the chief executive, and all Hong Kong passports wouldn't have to use this awkwardly long convention. The PRC government's argument for having this long-form name was that it now "clarifies" Hong Kong's status as part of China, rather than its colonial predecessor, Britain. Its always hits a nerve with PRC authorities when flights to HK are listed as "international" even though they are treated as such by customs, ATC, etc. It's a political gesture, obviously, and people may not agree with it, but in the end, its still the long-form name, just like "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" is the long-form name of North Korea, regardless of its "rogue" painfully undemocratic traditions. Colipon+( T) 00:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
How many times do I have to say this again? It's just logical that:
If the long form of Hong Kong is "HKSAR of PRC", then what is "Hong Kong, China"? The "of the People's Republic of China" part is simply to distinguish it from the recent past. It has been proven that "HKSAR" can indeed be used alone. One more is here: Hong Kong Observatory's website HkCaGu ( talk) 12:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
What about these?
[2] In many of these documents there is a phrase like ' The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China ("Hong Kong Special Administrative Region") having been duly authorised by the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China and the Government of the Something Country, blahblahblah'.
Umofomo (
talk)
17:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
A note regarding the "full name" of Hong Kong - I am not trying to challenge China's sovereignty over Hong Kong, but I do think that the "full name" of Hong Kong should be Hong Kong Special Administrative Region rather than Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. This fact is reflected in various things in Hong Kong. For example, when we write a cheque to the Government of Hong Kong, we are required to make the cheque payable to "The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region". Also, at the top of the last page (i.e. the personal information page), of an HKSAR passport, it says Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, People's Republic of China (without using the conjunction "of the"). If you're from Hong Kong, you'll notice this. That's why I suggested several days ago that we should invite more people who are actually from Hong Kong to participate in editing the Hong Kong article, because they should be the ones who are the most familiar with the subject matter. If Hong Kong folks don't make more contributions, it would be too much of a burden for our mainland Chinese friends, who have been diligently editing the Hong Kong article for us. - Alan ( talk) 05:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Hong Kong changed its name to Xianggang during the british periode it was called Hong Kong but the Chinese name is Xianggang. Like Macau is almost an unused name for Aomen and the name (Macau) is practicly never used sindse 1999.-- 82.134.154.25 ( talk) 12:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. We currently have a panoramic photo of Hong Kong Island's skyline from Kowloon and while it is a good photo, it is not very detailed and has some stitching faults (a duplicate boat, seam lines in the panorama etc). I took a similar photo (except at dusk) when I was last in Hong Kong at Christmas time, and thought it might be more useful. It is certainly much more detailed when viewed full size, but I can accept that others may prefer the existing daytime photo.
Here they are next to each other.
I will let the contributors decide whether to use the new one or keep the existing one. I can see some benefits and drawbacks to either, so I am not too bothered either way. I just wanted to bring the image to your attention. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I re-tooled the intro so that the more important things are mentioned first. Facts such as where it is, and how populated it is, should come before that quick timeline of Hong Kong history - which has now been moved to the bottom of the intro. Concerning the "high degree of autonomy", I've edited the sentence to specifically say that it is what the Basic Law says, and I've also included that Hong Kong comes directly under the central government, which is also what the Basic Law says. I believe this is the NPOV way to present the information. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 15:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Let me reiterate first that I don't feel strongly about adding anything in the intro about HK being "directly under" the central government. Leave it out if that's the concensus. But I do think it's bordering on bias that there's such a strong push for having "high autonomy" in there because that's how it's stated in the Basic Law, while leaving out "directly under" the central government, even though that's also explicitly stated in the Basic Law. Look, I personally think HK does have a high degree of autonomy, but my personal opinion on that issue, as well as that of other editors, don't matter here. As I've stated, the degree of HK's autonomy has been a matter of disagreement by the people who are directly involved in HK politics or by people who study it. If we are to add that HK has a "high degree of autonomy" because that's what Basic Law says, we really need to consider also the fact that it comes "directly under" the central government - exactly as it is quoted. In fact, the "high degree of autonomy" and "directly under" statement are both within the same sentence in the Basic Law. Article 12 says:
I really have to question the insistence of quoting "high degree of autonomy" yet leaving out the "directly under" part. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 05:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
If Hong Qi Gong would like to specifically state the autonomous limitations to counter the POV pushing of merely stating "high degree of autonomy" alone, then rather than saying it's a sovereign territory of the PRC through "directly under the central government", we should put in high degree of autonomy in all areas except foreign relations and military defense because it states the autonomous limitations of Hong Kong. "Direct under the central government" does not merit inclusion in the lead statement since it's vague and is a simple reiteration of sovereignty. Autonomous limitations of HK is areas within foreign relations and military defense. That should be stated in the lead paragraph as well. Phead128 ( talk) 19:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
A vague phrase like "directly under" has no place in an encyclopedia. The readers get it: China has sovereignty over Hong Kong. Given that this sovereignty is largely unexercised, stating that China has sovereignty over Hong Kong once is sufficient. We don't need it mentioned three times in the intro, while there's only a half-assed statement about Hong Kong's autonomy at the end. Mentioning sovereignty without autonomy is highly misleading, because sovereignty generally connotes control. I'm sure you can find a few extreme cases of China intervening and delude yourselves into thinking that that's the norm in Hong Kong, but the truth remains that Hong Kong is highly autonomous, a fact verified by the authoritative Basic Law. Taluchen ( talk) 20:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Can't agree with what is said by Hong Qi Gong and quite a number of others. Seems many of you have difficulty distinguishing between sovereignty and direct accountability to the CPG. The NPCSC's interpretation of the Basic Law, stationing of the PLA etc merely reflects on China's sovereighnty over Hong Kong, but does not translate automatically to Hong Kong's direct accountability to CPG. Sovereignty and accountability are two different concepts. For example, China exercises sovereignty over a county, but the county is not directly accountable to CPG. In this article, as long as there is sufficient mention of China's sovereignty over Hong Kong together with Hong Kong's autonomy, that's sufficent NPOV. Inclusion of HK's direct accountability to CPG is actually POV pushing as there is no elaboration on Hong Kong's autonomy but mention of the direct accountability point which tips the balance towards sovereignty. As to the derogations of autonomy said by Hong Qi Gong, I feel unnecessary to go into the matter as it is completely irrelevant to the issue on hand. You guys are proposing to add the entire Art. 12, but what Hong Qi Gong mentioned is actually undermining Art. 12 as a whole. Also, derogation of HK's autonomy is not equivalent to direct accountability to CPG. I wish to clarify I am talking about the Basic Law Framework here. Under the Basic Law framework, the "one country, two system" is the summary of the principles in the Basic Law. And incidental to this concept is China's sovereignty and Hong Kong's autonomy. Who Hong Kong reports to is a subsidiary matter under China's sovereignty. You may wish to note the Articles mentioning autonomy (2,12,13,16,19,22) and sovereignty (1,2,7,10,12,13,14), while direct accountability to the CPG is only mentioned in Article 12 and nowhere else. That speaks volume of the relative low importance of direct accountability. Craddocktm ( talk) 11:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
My problem has never been the inclusion of the fact that HK has autonomous characteristics in the intro. It's the wording - "high degree of autonomy". Right now it is included because that's what the Basic Law says. That wording is as ambiguous as what "directly under" means. I've pointed out time and again that the degree of HK's autonomy is under debate in real life - it has been ever since the handover. I find it a little troubling that some of you just accept this promise of "high degree of autonomy" without question.
Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 17:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Phead128 ( talk) 21:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Glad that it seems settled that direct accountability should not be included in the introduction. However, I acknowledge whether HK has "high" degree of autonomy is under dispute, since everyone has different interpretation of the word "autonomy". The NPOV way to handle this is NOT to leave out the Basic Law framework, BUT to mention Article 1 and 2 of the Basic Law, followed by a sentence that HK's actual degree of autonomy is in dispute.
I propose amending the intro this way:
Hong Kong(Chinese: 香港) is a special administrative region of the People's Republic of China. Situated on China's south coast and enclosed by the Pearl River Delta and South China Sea, it is renowned for its expansive skyline and deep natural harbour. With land mass of 1,104 km2 (426 sq mi) and a population of seven million people, Hong Kong is one of the most densely populated areas in the world. The city's population is 95% Chinese and 5% from other ethnic groups.
Hong Kong is one of the world's leading international financial centres with a major capitalist service economy characterized by low taxation, free trade and minimum government intervention under the ethos of positive non-interventionism. The Hong Kong dollar is the 9th most traded currency in the world.
Hong Kong's political system is governed by the Basic Law of Hong Kong, its constitutional document. The Chief Executive of Hong Kong is the head of government. It has a multi-party system, and its legislature is partly elected through universal suffrage.
Under the principle of "one country, two systems" enshrined in the Basic Law, Hong Kong is an "inalienable part of China", while it exercises a "high degree of autonomy" and enjoys "executive, legislative and independent judicial power" subject to a number of restrictions in the Basic Law. The actual degree of autonomy is disputed.
Hong Kong became a colony of the British Empire after the First Opium War (1839–1842). The colony's boundaries were extended in 1898 to the New Territories. It was occupied by the Japanese after the Battle of Hong Kong during the Pacific War, after which the British resumed control until 1997, when China regained sovereignty. Craddocktm ( talk) 06:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I would just like to say that a city-state like HK has no precedence in history. Never in the history of mankind has a bastion of free-wheeling capitalism been reverted to Red Communist nation. HK is faring well since it's has no peers (compare to Macau lol) .You can say that HK's autonomy has been eroded, but what are you comparing it to? Has there been a state like HK ever before in history? No. HK (freest economy in the world, most capitalistic economy in the world) is doing pretty well given it's under a Communist control. HK is largely untouched by PRC since the 1997 handover. Phead128 ( talk) 20:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Or we can just not make a generalised statement about autonomy in the intro and just go into the details about HK's political situation in the politics section. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 04:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
The geography section contains this:
I know this statement correctly cites the CIA world fact book for this, but none the less I'm very inclined to doubt its veracity. A quick look at the map on the cite shows a significant area of territorial waters, that is surely much more than a twentieth the size of the land area.
I'm inclined to suspect that the CIA water area figures are for 'inland waters' (High Island and Plover Cove reservoirs would surely account for a pretty large proportion of 50 km2). But a cite is a cite; anybody able to help here?. -- Starbois ( talk) 17:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Previously the first sentence of the article read:
with the capitalisation implying that Special Administrative Region is a proper noun.
I think that this is incorrect in this context. The test for a proper noun is uniqueness, and there are at least two special administrative regions (Macau and Hong Kong) with a third being sometimes suggested (Taiwan). I believe that this statement is referring to the concept of a 'special administrative region' rather to one specific such region, and should therefore be lower case. I have amended the wording (twice) in line with this. In the meantime it was changed back, but as no comment was made and other changes made, I'm not sure if this was deliberate or accidental.
If I'm wrong and this is a proper noun, then the article is clearly wrong (the is the article used with proper nouns, not a), and the sentence should read:
but that seems wrong in the context.
Please note that I'm not arguing against the capitalisation in the name Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the Peoples Republic of China, which is clearly unique and a proper name. And sometimes we write the Special Administrative Region as a shorthand for that rather long name, and again in that context it is a proper noun. But I don't think either of those fit here. -- chris_j_wood ( talk) 03:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Hong Kong is a highly autonomous city state. Chinese mainland National laws do not apply in HK. The laws are created by HK legislators because the late Deng Xiaoping said it best: "Hong Kong People can Govern Hong Kong well" and has given HK complete autonomy in almost every possible field EXCEPT military defense (HK does not even pay tax to CCP) and foreign relations). SOVEREIGNTY AND AUTONOMY ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. They can coexist under "One country, Two system".... China owns HK, but HK operates under a completely different set of rules than mainland China. I am shocked at how much ppl are IGNORANT about the reality of HK's autonomy in the international community and in the world stage. HK is completely self governing with respect to the PRC. Sure the PRC may meddle in transborder extradition and secure obedient/loyal political followers. BEIJING DOES NOT play an active role in HK's political arena. That's a fact. I REPEAT, BEIJING does not play an ACTIVE ROLE in HK's day-to-day tasks. Phead128 ( talk) 01:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
The fact that HK is an SAR is a fact spelt out in the Basic Law. Whether or not it is a "largely self-governing territory" or it is "highly autonomous", however, is not. Firstly, the Sino-British Joint Declaration was signed 13 years before the handover, and 25 years ago. Whether or not the terms of the agreement are being realised is a matter of interpretation and opinion. Secondly, the Joint Declaration never stated as a matter of fact that HK is "highly autonomous". It only stated that it is the wish of the UK government that HK be given a "high degree of autonomy" after the handover, and that it believed that the Joint Declaration would accomplish that. In fact, if it was up to me, I would get rid of all occurrence of terms like "highly autonomous" in the article unless it was accompanied by a mention of whose view exactly that is. The degree of autonomy in HK has been an ongoing disagreement (in the real world) ever since the handover. This is why it's not easy for us to represent that in the article here. Taluchen, from your comment about my supposed "Chinese nationalistic views", I take it you are not exactly a fan of the mainland Chinese government. But the funny thing is that the Chinese government's official stance would probably agree with you in saying that HK is "highly autonomous" because they want the international community to believe that they are benevolent. If you ask the pro-Democrat camp in HK, they would most likely say that HK is not so "highly autonomous" at all and that HK's political reality is not living up to what is spelt out in the Basic Law. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 14:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Taluchen seems entirely too willing to quote Wikipedia policy in his first edits, which are only about this page. Taluchen seems willing to edit war no matter the discussion on the talk page. What is the end goal here, Taluchen? SchmuckyTheCat ( talk)
Having spent the last 12-1/2 years living in the Hong Kong SAR, and planning for it for more than a dozen years before that, I can confirm that it is never, ever sar. It is most commonly SAR and occasionally S.A.R.. HKSARG[overnment] is also common. DOR (HK) ( talk) 07:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Hong Kong is not an SAR of the RoC as this article's first sentence now reads. Vandalism?
31 Jan 2010 07:40 GMT
74.115.162.10 ( talk) 07:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
in Pinyin... Böri ( talk) 11:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
This section is apparently biased, and lacks sources to support a number of claims. Firstly, the votes for the pan-democrats in 2004 was 60%, a large percentage but maybe not "landslide support". Quoting the exact figure is the better option. Secondly, the allegations of Beijing's interference are rumours and should be described as allegations rather than facts. Thirdly, some of the causes for democracy demand are not supported by any sources and are factually inaccurate; when comparing 1998 and 2008, the fiscal reserve has actually slightly increased, and I do not recall any cutback in social welfare provision.
Proposed amendment: On 1 July 2003, over half a million Hong Kong citizens staged a mass protest against the proposed bill of Article 23 of the Basic Law and the poor governance of the post-handover SAR government. The grievances of the marchers quickly snowballed into a widely backed movement for democracy, and since then the 1 July march has been held every year as a channel to demand for democracy and a variety of other political concerns. The pro-democratic candidates gathered 60% of the votes during the local elections held on 23 November 2003. It was alleged that the outcome unnerved Beijing over its possible loss of control over Hong Kong and caused it to quickly shift from a soft-line approach that talked about virtual autonomy to a hard-line approach, attempting to dampen the local democracy movement. In the third interpretation of the Basic Law, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress dismissed the possibility of introducing universal suffrage for the elections of the Chief Executive in 2007 and the legislature in 2008. There were a number of fundamental causes of Hong Kong's broad-based demand for full democracy. First economic uncertainly rose sharply after 1999, as the competitiveness of the Hong Kong economy slipped. Secondly, the level of economic inequality increased, along with a sense that cronyism was rampant and getting worse. At a deeper level citizens are anxious about their lack of voice in an authoritarian polity. Another problem was the failure of the new "Principal Officials Accountability System" and the growth of popular distrust towards the non-democratic system.
In September 2008, the pandemocrats retained 57% of the votes during the Legislative Council election. The Liaison Office of the Central People's Government was rumoured to be involved in coordination among the pro-Beijing candidates. A number of independent candidates with a stronger and more independent image emerged, who were said to have received backing from Beijing. The sudden rise and stunning electoral victories of the League of Social Democrats, who are hallmarked by civil disobedience on behalf of democratic and social reforms, reflect a deepening sense of public despair about the futility of the current political system, and a proliferating radicalism. Craddocktm ( talk) 09:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
My main concern is that it is too detailed for this article. This article already has a summarised coverage of politics in Hong Kong, including mention of the Article 23 protest and the issue of universal suffrage. I have no problem having that content in Politics of Hong Kong though. But also, I agree with Craddocktm completely. It's not just that we need an opposing POV to what was written, it was also that the wording was biased and full of WP:Weasel. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 14:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
It belongs in other articles. SchmuckyTheCat ( talk)
If you compare the politics content in this article to featured country articles such as Canada and Australia, you will see that Hong Kong article is short in this area (I'm not saying Hong Kong is a country, but her autonomous elements mean it should be written similarly). We can reach a consensus on this. I think we can briefly include:
I’m highly skeptical about defining the July 1, 2003, demonstrations as “anti-Article 23” or “pro-democracy.” The background to those demonstrations =– which were stunning in their scope and how peaceful they were =– was a 70% decline in real estate values, a 20% drop in the consumer price index (both over several years, but nearly straight-line) and high unemployment (7.8% average in the first half of 2003). That, alone, is enough to call into question any attempt to define the protests in narrow, political terms. DOR (HK) ( talk) 07:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I've fixed the FAC issues raised here relating to image alts and the Cantonese IPA. The only issues left to address are those relating to the content of the first few sections. -- Treganoon ( talk) 21:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
The term "Han" is not very widely understood outside China. In addition, as far as I know, the Hong Kong government does not openly endorse the "56 ethnic groups of China" model of the PRC government, nor does it treat it as official policy. As such, my view is that Han people in Hong Kong should be described as "ethnically Chinese", or "Han Chinese", in the article, and not merely "Han". Colipon+( Talk) 13:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
My first choice would be simply "Chinese", as that is what the source says. If there is ambiguity, that is ambiguity in the source itself. We should just reflect what the source says. If that is simply not agreeable to anybody else, then I would prefer "ethnic Chinese". The "Chinese" from the English version of the census actually comes from "華人" on the Chinese-language form - [4] - which much better translates as ethnic Chinese, especially since it doesn't say 漢人 (Han people). I suspect the reason it specifically uses 華人 instead of 漢人 is because 漢人 in modern usage is mostly used by the mainland Chinese government. On the other hand, 華人 is used by overseas Chinese and even Taiwanese people. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 14:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
174.91.80.32 ( talk) 01:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)How come this article on Hong Kong does not have a subcategory about religion in it? -- 174.91.80.32 ( talk) 01:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
There're some inconsistencies in the rankings. According to the QS world rankings, HKUST is ranked 35th and CUHK 46th. However, the Asian rankings show CUHK to be 2nd and HKUST to be 4th. How do we reconcile the differences? Craddocktm ( talk) 03:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
In other city sections like New York City's Etymology section, they state NYC's nicknames include the "Big Apple" and Shanghai's Etymology section includes "Paris of the Orient". Hong Kong has also had various nicknames in English, such as "Pearl of the Orient", "Asia's World City" (HK Gov't brand name), and most importantly the "Gateway to China". I don't see any reason why we can't include Hong Kong's nicknames when other city sections do too. Paris has "City of Lights" in her Wiki section. Phead128 ( talk) 01:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Full View of Kowloon peninsula and Hong Kong Island. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lichunngai ( talk • contribs) 09:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
The first change I made was to remove the word “wealth” and replace it with income, which is both what the Gini coefficient measures, and a very different concept from one of wealth. I have also added the frequently ignored criticism of the Gini coefficient as a means of measuring Hong Kong’s income gap. I believe I’ve provided sufficient footnotes to lay this particular straw man to rest, but naturally others are welcome to add their citations. DOR (HK) ( talk) 09:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
According to reference no. 108, the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology should be ranked no. 2 in Asia while the Chinese University of Hong Kong is ranked no. 4. The order is reversed at present. I would like to change this information.
Please also look at:
http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/asian-university-rankings/overall —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Yfyuen (
talk •
contribs)
09:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Police75 ( talk) 01:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
I've found a wrong information under the "education" section. I'm not sure how I can amend it as I'm new to Wikipedia. Should I request permission to correct that piece of info here or shall I do any other things instead? Thanks.
Yfyuen ( talk) 08:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC) Michael
Thanks! It looks great now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.79.30.128 ( talk) 17:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
A lot more information was added from since the last FA nomination, but after doing a scan of the problems pointed by the reviewers' comments, I think we may have missed a few items. Potential issue may be related to image alt text, clarity, and awkardness. I don't have access to some of the sources, so it makes hard to fix the problems. Tvtr ( tlk– cntrbtn) 21:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
There's a proposal to move History of colonial Hong Kong to British Hong Kong at Talk:History of colonial Hong Kong#Requested move. There were only two people last time a page move was discussed, so hopefully more people can participate in forming a consensus. Spellcast ( talk) 17:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
"under colonial rule, it espoused positive non-interventionism". right there, we are implying that UK rule was less "authoritarian" and thus better than current SAR administration. HK's economy was and continues to be very free. --- 何献龙4993 ( talk) 22:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Government intervention is very different from authoritarianism. Most European states, and even the United States, can be properly described as welfare states, in which the government frequently intervenes to provide social services. Government intervention is not necessarily bad nor necessarily good. As such there is no POV problem here. If you take time to actually read the entire article, you'll find somewhere (I think it's in the Economy section) it says Hong Kong has been displaying a decreasing measure of non-interventionism since the latter part of the colonial era. Examples given include the Mandatory Provident Fund and the minimum wage. How on earth can you describe these two social policies as "authoritarian"? However, for the sake of clarity, I suggest amending the sentence to "For most part of colonial rule, it espoused minimum government intervention under the ethos of positive non-interventionism. However, government intervention was increased by the latter colonial governments and has continued since 1997." Craddocktm ( talk) 07:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
If Hong Kong were still practicing positive non-interventionism, there might be a point to this discussion, but it isn’t. Then-Financial Secretary Sir Donald Tsang Yam-kuen spelled out very clearly in his March 8, 2000, 2000-01 Budget Speech the limits of positive non-interventionism, including citing predecessor Sir Philip Haddon-Cave, in paragraph 24, in ways intended to suggest that intervention is proper in certain circumstances. DOR (HK) ( talk) 01:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
As requested, I'm providing a list of sourcing-related issues that should be addressed before renominating at FAC. Reference numbers are based on this revision. Cheers, Nikkimaria ( talk) 02:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Is there any reason to include the information in the lead section? See these edits. I reverted it back to the way it was since the new info was unsourced and I could only find little information linking Weihaiwei with Hong Kong. Ta-Va-Tar ( discuss– ?) 03:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Forget about the FA status. Article improvement is much more important, and this article is not owned by the wiki-Hong Kong project. It seems that you both have a very narrow focus as regards the purpose of the article. The idea of an encyclopaedia article is to cater for as wide a perspective as possible, and it's important that readers are made aware early on that there was a lesser known British colony in China as well as Hong Kong, and that Hong Kong was only one of two former British colonies in China. As you can see in the Weihaiwei article, it mentions that Hong Kong was the other British colony in China. Most people would of course know that, but not so many would know about Weiheiwai, so it's even more important that we reciprocate by getting a link to Weihaiwei when people are reading about Hong Kong, because Weihaiwei is the other lesser known part of that same branch of history. Encyclopaediae are for widening peoples' knowledge. Are we trying to promote knowledge or are we trying to hide knowledge?
As regards the other points which you disapproved of, let's go over them one by one.
(1) Did you object to mention of the fact that Hong Kong island was ceded to Britain in perpetuity? You have removed that key piece of information so I want to know why. It is not sufficient to state lack of sources as a grounds for removing material. If you are in doubt, then put in a request for a source. But few people are likely to doubt that specific piece of information.
(2) Did you object to mention of the Treaty of Nanking 1842 and the Opium War?
(3) Did you object to mention of the fact that Kowloon was added in 1860?
(4) Did you object to mention of the the fact that the New Territories were obtained under a 99 year lease in 1898 which was the same year that Weihaiwei was obtained?
You removed all these key pieces of information and I want to know why. I don't want to hear about sources or FA status. We'll get sources when needs be. Meanwhile I just want to hear a good reason as to why you don't want to have these pieces of information in the article. David Tombe ( talk) 18:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
You need to get a better sense of proportion. The 36,000 years prior to 1841 could be summed up in two words. Fishing village. Hong Kong as a concept only began in 1841. David Tombe ( talk) 23:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Craddock, I didn't remove any information from the article. I inserted two pieces of information which have been opposed by editors who seem to think that the colonial history of Hong Kong is not the most important aspect of its history. For whatever reason these two pieces of information are being kept out of the article,
(1) Hong Kong Island was ceded to Britain in perpetuity,
(2) Hong Kong was one of two British colonies in China, the other being Weihaiwei.
David Tombe ( talk) 00:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Schmucky, You say that Weihaiwei is only a minor point which shouldn't be mentioned in the article. However, encyclopaediae are for the purpose of educating people. Most people have never heard of Weihaiwei before and so it is important that we draw it to the attention of the readers in connection with a parallel topic. We have an article on Weihaiwei but it needs to be advertised in a parallel topic such as Hong Kong which is much more famous. The only reason that I can think why anybody would not want to mention Weihaiwei in the Hong Kong article is because they don't want other people to know about it. And why would somebody actively want to hide this obscure piece of knowledge? Certainly not because it's obscure.
On the reasons that you have given, you could go now to the Weihaiwei article and remove the reference in the lead to Hong Kong and rationalize that there is no need to have Hong Kong mentioned in the lead.
The colonial era in Hong Kong lasted from 1841 until 1997. After that, nothing much has changed. Before that it was only a fishing village. Yet somebody has managed to make a huge story out of the pre-colonial era. And when you actually read that story, you can see that it is largely only bits of history from the South China region generally, where Hong Kong later happened to be situated. Very little of that information is directly relevant to Hong Kong as such, and what is relevant is hardly of note. Yet, by contrast, the colonial era is only given a short section. Then we have other sections under other titles which are also part of the colonial era but labelled as if they were different from the colonial era. The colonial era would in fact be the umbrella title for all of those subsequent eras up until 1997. I tried to correct that, but it has been undone again. Why? It is clear to me that somebody is trying to play down the colonial era and trying and make out that the major part of Hong Kong's importance is independent of the colonial era, and that the colonial era was just a small glitch in Hong Kong's long history.
If that is what is going on here, it would explain the reticence to mention that Britain had another colony in China. Thankfully, alot of readers can see right through this kind of strategy. David Tombe ( talk) 11:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Seriously. Weihai is historical trivia at best in the context of Hong Kong history. There is no documented influence on Hong Kong exerted by Weihai and there is no documented direct relations between the two during the colonial era. The two cities didn't even come under British control at the same time or under the same circumstances. These are the reasons why Weihai is never mentioned when one reads Hong Kong history in books and other publications. This is a top-level article about Hong Kong and it should only include the most notable facts. Under David Tombe's logic, this article would become an article about British colonial history and include any and all historical trivia, because that seems to be his definition of "educating people".
That being said, however, I would love to see an article specifically on British colonialism in Asia. Maybe David Tombe can initiate this. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 13:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
The current lead and the education section say that Hong Kong's education system "loosely follows the English system". That used to be a very true statement, but alas, no longer. In 2009 the government implemented the 334 Scheme, otherwise known as the New Senior Secondary curriculum, which provides for 3 years of junior secondary schooling, 3 years of senior secondary education, and 4 years of tertiary education. The HKCEE and HKAL will be abolished and replaced by one public exam, to be taken by students in the sixth year of their secondary education. Here's some official information: [6]. I am wondering how we should amend the article to reflect the change. Since the new scheme has been introduced for only a short time, I reckon there is no need for a drastic rewrite, although the new scheme has to be given due coverage. Craddocktm ( talk) 09:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
The current lead image is subtitled "View during the day from Victoria Peak". That is completely wrong. It is, instead, a view from Kowloon towards the Island.
That said, I too support reverting to the night-time skyline view from the Peak, looking east along the Island. Far more striking image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.200.236.70 ( talk) 07:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
User:NInTeNdO insists on replacing the skyline image with this mediocre collage. I consider it to be way too tall and the whitespaces are out of place. Since NInTeNdO keeps replacing the picture I'd like to hear some other opinions. — Jan Hofmann ( talk) 13:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that a number of images in the collage actually exist as thumbnails in the article. For example, the Avenue of Stars picture, the Government House picture and the Buddha picture appear both in the collage and the Hong Kong article. I do not see why the images have to be repetitive. I'd prefer reverting to the skyline image. And please kindly observe the WP:3RR and stop edit warring. Craddocktm ( talk) 15:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
David Tombe, what are you doing? Your re-sectioning edits got rid of an overall section called "History" for the historical content of the article, and it also got rid of the link to the main History of Hong Kong article. I've reverted. Please discuss before you edit, especially since we are undergoing the FA nomination process. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 18:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok. Mostly I just wanted you to discuss before making these types of changes. At this point it's best to leave edits to the task of addressing FA nomination issues. I do have a suggestion in reorganising those subsections though - how about we get rid of the subsection heading for WW2, and have one subsection for the colonial era? Then the history section would end up with three subsections: Pre-colonial, Colonial, and Post-1997. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 18:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, since you're doing FA, I'll clear off until after the FA is finished. But I want to leave you with one thought. The first line in the main article states that Hong Kong is one of two special administrative regions in China, the other being Macau. You drew attention to Macau because you wanted the readers to know that there is another one that is not so well known. And rightly so. That's how knowledge gets expanded. And the exact same goes for Weihaiwei. It was a lesser known British colony in China and so an opprtunity should be sought to link it within the text. It doesn't have to be in the lead, but I'm sure that if there is a will, there will be a way to weave it in, just as you have woven Macau in. David Tombe ( talk) 19:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
HongQiGong, That's interesting that you would like to drop the mention of Macau in the lead whereas I am all in favour of keeping it. In fact I'd be in favour of getting a mention for Port Arthur, Kwanchowan, and Kiaochow as well. None of these names should of course dominate the article, but it is only fair to inform the reader that there were other European colonies in China as well as Hong Kong. Alot of readers will probably not know this, and so an opportunity should be taken to give them a link to expand their knowledge. David Tombe ( talk) 20:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but only two in China. Two SAR's and two ex-British colonies in China. I think you guys have got to realize that the menu needs to be diversified somewhat. Yes, it's an article about Hong Kong and so most of the information should be about Hong Kong. But it's an encyclopaedia article and we need to provide links to related articles. Somebody who comes to read the Hong Kong article because they are interested in Hong Kong as an SAR should be offered the choice to view an article about the other SAR (Macau). And somebody who comes to read the Hong Kong article because they are interested in Hong Kong as an ex-British colony should be offered the choice to view an article about the other ex-British colony (Weihaiwei). It's like saying "So you're interested in Hong Kong? Maybe then you'd be interested in reading about Weihaiwei or Macau too. Here are the links." The typical reader response may be "That's interesting. I never knew about Macau, I'll take a look", or "I never knew about Weihaiwei, let me take a look and see what that was all about". That's the attitude which I was trying to promote. I was trying to promote a wider awareness around the subject from the particular to the general. David Tombe ( talk) 00:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes Tavatar that's right. No advertising. But I wasn't talking about that kind of advertising. I was talking about advertising other wikipedia articles for the purpose of promoting knowledge. That was a bit of a play on words. David Tombe ( talk) 00:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
David Tombe, I definitely see where you are coming from. But I see this issue in a larger context of what is relevant enough to include in the article. You can basically apply the logic you are demonstrating with every single detail about Hong Kong that is mentioned in the article. Maybe a reader came to this article because he is interested in the Opium Wars. So exactly how much information should be provided on specifically the Opium Wars? Or maybe a reader came because he is interested in Sino-British relations. The amount of information to include and exclude on this article has sort of evolved over the years as editors come and go. As to why Weihai is not mentioned while Macau is, I can only guess this is because Weihai's existence as a colonial territory is nowhere near as notable and documented in literature about Hong Kong history. Having said all this, however, I hope I haven't given you the impression I am completely against including information about Weihai in the article. If there is a good way to insert information about it into the current flow of the content, I would not be against it. But I do think in the overall scheme of things, it's not a big issue and certainly not something that's worthy of a long argument over. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 03:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
HongQiGong, You seem to think that the fact that Weihaiwei's colonial period is not widely known is precisely why it shouldn't be mentioned. That is rather presumptuous. I would accept ignorance as an excuse for lack of inclusion. But once attention has been drawn to the subject and a concerted effort is being made to keep the subject hidden, then we move out of the realms of ignorance and into the realms of censorship. Hong Kong is famous because it was a British colony in China. Weihaiwei is not famous, but it was also a British colony in China. So shouldn't the readers be entitled to know, when reading about Hong Kong, that Hong Kong was one of two British colonies in China? The only reason why anybody would want to hide mention of Weihaiwei is because they are uncomfortable about Hong Kong's colonial connections and the last thing that they want is for it to be known that Britain had another colony in China further up the coast. And the fact that the Hong Kong article contains so much empty details in a long pre-colonial section indicates that I am correct in believing that somebody has been involved in abusing the Hong article as a means of pushing a point of view. I read through the pre-colonial sub-section. Most of it was about general Chinese matters and not specifically about Hong Kong. I must have been nearly half way through the section before I came across a relevant fact, that being that at some point in history a school was opened in what is now part of the New Territories. Hardly a notable fact. That sub-section on the pre-colonial era looks like something that would be handed in for a written assignment in which somebody was tasked to write as much as they could about something that there was nothing to write about. We've all had to do those kinds of assignments at some stage and we all know the art of drawing out long sentences that say nothing. And that's what the pre-colonial era sub-section looks like.
There is a group of you here who are collectively determining the contents of this article, and I notice that the article is semi-protected. This is a classic case of 'consensus' winning through 'collective ownership'. And since wikipedia allows this state of affairs to occur, I will leave you all to it. But don't think that other readers can't see through exactly what is going on here. The second sentence in the introduction reads "it (Hong Kong) is renowned for its expansive skyline and deep natural harbour". This is a classic piece of subtle history revisionism. The truth is that it is renowned because it was a British colony. And Macau is renowned because it was a Portuguese colony and not because it is an SAR. David Tombe ( talk) 14:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
David Tombe, I and others have repeatedly mentioned the irrelevance of Weihai as why it has been excluded. The only common thread they have is that they were both British colonies at one point. That is trivial. But I guess I can't change your mind if you choose to believe there is some kind of conspiracy going on here. You are not the first, and will not be the last, to huff and puff about wanting to include some trivial content. If there is consensus to include it, it will be included. But so far I believe you are the only editor in the article's nine-year history to argue for its inclusion. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 16:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Confucius, I didn't say that Hong Kong had no future post 1997. I did said that it had no past of any note prior to 1841. And you can't make any deductions about who might be a British colonialist on the basis of any of this. I have opposed revisionism on wikipedia across quite a wide range of topics. And clearly this article has been in the hands of a group who have been trying to re-write history. I am only pointing the fact out and I will now leave my comments to this extent on the review page. David Tombe ( talk) 18:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
HongQiGong, What I quoted shows the strong similarity of circumstances as between Hong Kong and Weihaiwei. You can mention the Weihaiwei rendition treaty of 1930 as a precedent in the section about the 1984 Sino-British joint declaration. Nobody here is talking about Kenya or Jamaica. David Tombe ( talk) 19:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Though this header may not be all clear, I reverted this edit by Bporter28, because the image he chose, contrary to his intention, does not show "all of the city", as it doesn't even show parts of Central. The night image, also from Victoria Peak, has a wider angle, though due to the smog Kowloon is a bit obscured, so by even Bporter28's it is better. Another point is, if we are to not use a collage, then the night image it is. -- HXL 's Roundtable, and Record 00:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Hong Kong does not have any anthem of its own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desvoeuxrdwest ( talk • contribs) 09:48, 23 October 2010
“ | Article 10
|
” |
Enough with the name calling. SchmuckyTheCat ( talk)
{{edit semi-protected}}
Remove "March of the Volunteers" as Hong Kong's anthem, which is incorrect.
Sitcomfanhk ( talk) 07:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
There needs to be more to fully illustrate that poverty is increasing as a direct result of libertarian policies. This article is far right propaganda. Wikipedia has a libertarian bias 99.38.230.227 ( talk) 20:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
{{ edit semi-protected}} "the phrase forming a highly visible group despite their smaller numbers" is very subjective and should be omitted given the sensitive topic of ethnicity. In any case it is not relevant to the subject matter. The source cited does not make this claim.
Ncor ( talk) 07:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
The brandline—Asia’s world city—complimented the identity and underscored Hong Kong’s role as an international hub for business, arts, and culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.233.159 ( talk) 06:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
One section says that, according to Emporis, there are around 7000 skyscrapers in Hong Kong. That is wrong. The Emporis reference says that's the number of high-rise buildings, which it defines as structures whose architectural height is between 35 and 100 meters. Emporis defines skyscrapers as 100m or higher. http://standards.emporis.com/?nav=realestate&lng=3&esn=18727 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.87.74 ( talk) 07:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
The territory of Hong Kong should include The Shenzhen Bay Bridge (which opened in July 2007) & a portion of the Shenzhen Bay Checkpoint, where both are under Hong Kong's jurisdiction.
"In accordance with the "Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on Authorizing the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to Exercise Jurisdiction over the Hong Kong Port Area at the Shenzhen Bay Port" adopted at the Twenty Fourth Meeting of the Standing Committee of the Tenth National People's Congress on 31 October 2006 and the relevant laws and regulations, and pursuant to a request for instructions from the People's Government of Guangdong Province and at the request of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, the State Council now gives the following reply concerning the area and the land use period of the "Hong Kong Port Area at the Shenzhen Bay Port" which is established in the area of the Shenzhen Bay Port and over which the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is authorized to exercise jurisdiction:
1. The area of the "Hong Kong Port Area at the Shenzhen Bay Port" comprises the Hong Kong Clearance Area and the section of the bridge surface of the Shenzhen Bay Bridge which connects with the Hong Kong Clearance Area.
The total land use area of the Hong Kong Clearance Area is 41.565 hectares (more particularly set out by the setting out coordinates detailed at Annex 1).
The section of the bridge surface of the Shenzhen Bay Bridge refers to the section beginning at the south-east boundary of the Hong Kong Clearance Area and ending at the boundary line between the Guangdong Province and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (more particularly set out by the setting out coordinates detailed at Annex 2).
2. The land use right of the "Hong Kong Port Area at the Shenzhen Bay Port" is to be acquired by way of a lease under a lease contract for State-owned land signed between the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and the People's Government of the Shenzhen Municipality of Guangdong Province, and the land use period shall commence on the day on which the Shenzhen Bay Port commences operation and shall expire on 30 June 2047.
http://www.hklii.org/hk/legis/en/ord/2210.txt"
Even Hong Kong Observatory's map has such marking. File:Http://www.hko.gov.hk/wxinfo/ts/temp/tempehk.png-- Sitcomfanhk ( talk) 07:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Based on this decision of PRC's national people's congress, the Hong Kong legislative council had passed an ordinance for the purpose of this port of entry. For legal purposes the Shenzhen Bay control point, and the bridge, are deemed to be part of Hong Kong. 203.198.25.166 ( talk) 11:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
In addition to "Hongkonger", "HONG KONGER (with space in between)", "HONGKONGESE", "HONG KONGESE" should also be acceptable.-- Sitcomfanhk ( talk) 07:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Eofreedom, Major changes such as the description of the government are generally conducted after extensive discussion. When changes are made without discussion, particularly when they introduce nonsensical notions such as a presidential system for Hong Kong, they tend to get reverted.
So, rather than just make what changes one person thinks are right, let’s have a discussion.
Come on - Hong Kong does not have a presidential system! I would be surprised if Eofreedom can come up with reliable sources to support his edit. I have heard academics describing Hong Kong's system as "quasi-presidential"..... which tells you it isn't accurate to label the Hong Kong system "presidential". I think I will be bold and revert Eofreedom's edit. Craddocktm ( talk) 15:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
1. Wiki's definition of Semi-presidential system: "The semi-presidential system......is a system of government in which a president and a prime minister are both active participants in the day-to-day administration of the state. It differs from a parliamentary republic in that it has a popularly elected head of state who is more than a purely ceremonial figurehead, and from the presidential system in that the cabinet, although named by the president, is responsible to the legislature, which may force the cabinet to resign through a motion of no confidence."
Which aspect of Hong Kong's political system resembles this? Take the Chief Executive (CE) as the President. The nearest analogous position for the prime minister is probably the Chief Secretary for Administration (CSA). (1) The CE is not a figurehead, obviously. (2) The CSA is obviously not responsible to LegCo as well, and the LegCo could not force the Executive Council, the CSA, or the CE to resign by a motion of no-confidence. Clearly, Hong Kong is not Semi-presidential, or quasi-presidential as you've mentioned.
2. Wiki's definition of parliamentary system: "A parliamentary system is a system of government in which the ministers of the executive branch are drawn from the legislature and are accountable to that body, such that the executive and legislative branches are intertwined. In such a system, the head of government is both de facto chief executive and chief legislator."
Lets look at Hong Kong again. Are the CE and the Executive Council Intertwined" with the legislature? Obviously not. They are not even Members of the Legislative Council, and the LegCo could hardly move any non-confi vote against any individual member of the Exco. It may be questioned that certain LegCo members are actually serving on the Executive Council as well (e.g. Lau Wong Fat). However, none of the policy secretaries, undersecretaries, or political assistants overlap with the LegCo's members; ie, no minister is drawn from LegCo). As such, Hong Kong is hardly parliamentary.
3. Wiki's definition of presidential system: "A presidential system is a system of government where an executive branch exists and presides (hence the name) separately from the legislature, to which it is not responsible and which cannot, in normal circumstances, dismiss it."
Hong Kong sits comfortably with this definition. The CE and his Exco existsand presides separately from LegCo, which it is not responsible and which cannot, in normal circumstances, dismiss it. In Basic Law theory, the CE is "responsible" the LegCo but in practice, it is difficult to see how this operate, given the CE has exclusive power to initiate budget and policy, and powers t dimiss the LegCo, veto LegCo bills, and even dismiss LegCo. Clearly, Hong Kong is a presidential system.
Of course, none of wiki's definitions are definitive. However, they do serve as useful guidelines to gauge the nature of Hong Kong's system.
By the way, words such as unelected executive etc. are hardly about regime type at all. They are more about the precise characteristics of the government's institutional design. An executive can be elected or unelected even within the same regime type (eg presidential system). It is not entirely correct either, because the CE's produced by an Election College, which under certain circumstances, can admit an opposition figure like Alan Leong to stand as a candidate. While the Governor of British Hong Kong was completely unelected (appointed by British cabinet), there is an electoral process in Hong Kong, in spite of its alleged purpose to serve Beijing's interests - the more appropriate way is to say that the elections for the executive is one of limited suffrage, in which only 800 people can exercise their right to vote on who should be the next CE.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eofreedom ( talk • contribs) 14:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree with you and summarize my position as follows: that (1) how the executive is constituted and (2) whether the executive and the legislature are constituted and presiding separately, are two different things, and that the defining element of presidentialism is (2) rather than (1). Before I turn to the core of this submission, I wish to draw your attention to an analogy with unicamerialism in legislatures. Compare the New Zealand parliament and the PRC's National Peoples' Congress. Both are regarded as unicameral (in wikipedia) and this is probably uncontroversially correct. The New Zealand parliament satisfies most definitions of being democratically elected, while the Chinese congress obviously does not. But this does not make the Chinese congress a quasi-unicameral parliament, simply because democratic elections do not define the nature of the NPC as an unicameral parliament. Instead, the existence of merely one chamber does.
The notion of the president being democratically elected as the defining feature of presidentialism is extremely problematic. Consider the world's first and arguably most representative presidential system in the United States. Early US presidents could not be said to be democratically elected by today's standards, as the nation's vast majority of white women, black males and females, if not also poor white men could not cast their votes for the presidency. Further, even today, the US president is formally elected by the electoral college, and the electoral college's vote is not necessarily consistent with the decision of the majority in the popular electorate (although they indisputably coincide for most of the time). The first victory of G.W. Bush is a clear example. Yet, the limited suffrage of the early American republic, and the existence of indirect presidential elections, do not undermine the US's status as a presidential system - simply because the executive and the legislature are separately constituted and presided independently of each other.
Finally, if quasi-presidentialism is possibly different from semi-presidentialism as you've suggested, then it would be highly defensible to say that what Professor Kuan really meant was a Presidential System with Limited Suffrage: it is the Limited Suffrage that makes Hong Kong's presidentialism at best quasi. However, the usage of Presidential System with Limited Suffrage is more advantageous than quasi-presidentialism (despite they are presumably of the same meaning) because it embraces concepts that are immediately understandable to those unfamiliar with Professor Kuan's writings. In short, presidentialism (ie, executive and legislature being separately constituted and presiding independently of each other) with the qualification limited suffrage (ie, at least part of the electorate is excluded from the election of the chief executive and/or at least some of the seats in the legislature) are concepts that are relatively straightforward when compared to the lone-invention quasi-presidentialism, which could easily be mistaken as the radically different semi-presidentialism. It can also neatly (if not elegantly) summarize Hong Kong's regime type without going too deep into the details of institutional design - a job which should be left to the main body of the article itself.
To add, autonomous region is more suitable than non-sovereign for the following reasons: (1) governments in the world are either sovereign or not sovereign, to say that HK is non-sovereign does not help much - it does not give us any hint about the government type as words like republic, monarchy, federation, British overseas territory, or autonomous region do; (2) what makes Hong Kong, a non-sovereign entity special, or indeed a special administrative region, is the relatively high autonomy it possesses - Shanghai and Guangzhou are also non-sovereign entites with unelected executives and unicameral legislatures - Hong Kong is different from them because they do not possess the kind of autonomy the former enjoys - from the power of final adjudication and separate representation in the WTO, APEC, and the Olympic Games, to the ability to issue its own SAR passports, banknotes, ID cards, and to maintain its own separate customs territory and visa policies. It is doubtlessly justifiable to describe Hong Kong in ways different from Shanghai. Furthermore, autonomous region is an already established page in wiki (the SAR is included as one subspecies of autonomous region), and it as a concept implies both non-sovereignty and autonomy. As such, it captures Hong Kong's characteristics, without, again, plunging into details of constitutional design which should be left to the main text.
Therefore, Presidential Autonomous Region with Limited Suffrage is likely to be a strong candidate for Hong Kong's government type classification here in wikipedia. To recap, Presidentialism with Limited Suffrage is visibly something different from Presidentialism (without limited suffrage) - otherwise the qualification is not necessary - and you seemed to have overlooked this very important qualification.
Nonetheless, after this rational discussion - I think our agreement is in fact far larger than our disagreement. Thank you very much for reading. User:Eofreedom ( talk) 20:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. If this is indeed a semantic problem, then a compromise would be the best solution, so long footnote[s] are added to let the reader understand what quasi-presidentialism means. "Quasi-presidential Autonomous Region" plus a citation or two of sources such as Dr. Sing and Professor Kuan's papers would do. Is this agreeable?
Eofreedom ( talk) 11:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks - changed. Added with limited suffrage for the sake of clarity. If its unacceptable, please delete as appropriate.
Eofreedom ( talk) 12:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I haven't visited this page for months, but then the change in the lead has immediately caught my attention. Saying Hong Kong has "numerous" high international rankings smells of POV, and it is certainly problematic to mention all the "good" high international rankings without mentioning the "bad" ones e.g. the Gini coefficient. Craddocktm ( talk) 15:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Look at it this way: The academics are working on a global, one-size-fits-all model. Their entire purpose is to have a cross-boundary measurement, and they pretty much succeed. The Government Economist (that’s the official title, by the way), is simply saying “this model isn’t as useful for Hong Kong as you might think. Be a bit careful about slapping that ‘most inequitable’ label around.” Does that make sense? One’s broad, everything-in-the-world; and the other’s highly specific to this particular case. (Oh, and I'm not going to answer your question because I don't know how to.) DOR (HK) ( talk) 06:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
"Statistically Hong Kong's income gap is the worst in Asia Pacific."
Doesn't this assume that income gaps are a bad thing? Surely it would be better to say the income gap is the widest in Asia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.87.74 ( talk) 13:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand the obsessiveness of income gap. Of course it's going to be huge in Hong Kong since some of the wealthiest people in the world live there. If Bill Gates moves into my building, the income gap of my building is going to be enormous, but i'm not any poorer. A more useful statistic would be how does the 10% poorest compare to 10% poorest of other countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.16.220.211 ( talk) 15:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help)
The Government of the People's Republic of China declares that to recover the Hong Kong area (including Hong Kong Island, Kowloon and the New Territories, hereinafter referred to as Hong Kong) is the common aspiration of the entire Chinese people, and that it has decided to "resume" the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong with effect from 1 July 1997.
{{
cite book}}
: Check |authorlink=
value (
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help); External link in |authorlink=
(
help) In the Chinese language, however, there are two similar yet different terms for the use of "Mainland", i.e., Dalu (大陸) and Neidi (内地), see the
Mainland China article for details.
{{
cite web}}
: Check |authorlink=
value (
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help); External link in |authorlink=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: |first=
missing |last=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help); External link in |authorlink=
(
help); URL–wikilink conflict (
help)
{{
citation}}
: Check |author-link=
value (
help); External link in |author-link=
(
help)CS1 maint: date and year (
link)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
I noticed particular editor didn’t wait to reach consensus here and started enthusiastically editing and (excessively?) enhancing PRC's sovereignty on the opening paragraph (i.e. 1st paragraph) but avoided to mention HK’s highly autonomous status in the 1st paragraph. Wikipedia is not a democracy, remember? We work through consensus, right?
I agreed with Readin, some area of the newly edited paragraph seems bulky and problematic. First of all, , the paragraph is structured in a way that non-crucial information could take space from this prime paragraph in the expense of mentioning HK highly special autonomous status, it’s ground breaking population density and most importantly, the link to List of special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement (as Alanmak pointed out, this link is important enough to stay) and other infos that define HK. On the other hand, statements such as “one of the most important financial centres in the world” is an unsourced statement, I don’t think it is appropriate to use it to replace solid sourced fact such as the population density in 1st paragraph or other crucial info that regards antonymous status . Thus it should be removed to provide rooms for crucial info. Secondly, I doubt whether it is necessary to repeat the phrase “special administrative region” almost one right after the other.
In other special sub-national entity such as Åland Islands, autonomous status is clearly states in the 1st paragraph. But we don’t even have the words autonomous or self-governing in our 1st paragraph.
At the end of the 1st paragraph, it mentions HK is British overseas territory but the beginning of 2nd paragraph the same piece of history is mention AGAIN. This is a little poorly structured. Beside, HK’s didn’t become British overseas territory until British Nationality Act 1981. HK had been a Crown Colony for some 140 years but only had been a British overseas territory for 16 years. Which name do u think represents HK’s colonial past identity in a wider perspective?
And I can’t believe Colipon added false info into the paragraph, wikipedia is for everyone to edit and I'm going to be polite, but this is what happened to the article when some people edit with a mission to highlight PRC’s sovereignty but have limited knowledge about HK. Political agenda or article quality, u choose it? Thankfully HkCaGu corrected it. Yes, the original Hong Kong (present day Hong Kong Island) didn't leased to Britian at all, it was ceded to. It is a well-known fact in Hong Kong, but a largely downplayed fact in PRC to make PRC's acquistition of HK sounds righteous to PRC citizens.
Also, Colipon's edit "As a result of this special arrangement, Hong Kong is generally considered to be separate from mainland China"" is problematic, because HK IS not part of mainland China, it is a current fact. In English , we use To be, or not to be to describe things that we haven’t done or haven’t decided. E.g. He is going to be 21 years old next month. HK is not part of mainland China. Tibet is going to be separated from PRC. The mess caused by Colipon is going to be fixed by other editors who are familar with the subject. -- Da Vynci ( talk) 06:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
HkCaGu IF the issue is really just about adding the name People's Republic of China ot the 1st sentence, why don't you just add that name in? But instead you did a major surgery to the opening section., I would like to point out the newly re-organised opening section sacrificed an originally well written, concise opening section.
It is ok if you want to accuse me of non-good faith editing just becoz I hold a different opinion from you on this issue, but perhaps you should look at some facts instead of "assuming". I added the THES - QS World University Rankings reference and the Quacquarelli Symonds quote in the Education section. I created the Military section. I also introduced the term meritocracy to replace lengthy description of “base on qualification, experience, ability….” In the Government section. In Etymology section there used to be a sentence says "It is not sure why Hong Kong is called Hong Kong", I fixed that by replacing that sentence with a brief history of the evolution of the definition of Hong Kong with reference to the related Treaty and Convention. -- Da Vynci ( talk) 18:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
With all due respect, Da Vynci, not even an article for a country like Canada has these performance indicators (which are also quite excellent, might I add) written into its opening paragraph. I sense a heightened discomfort from you whenever the PRC and Hong Kong is grouped together, so these supporting sentences seem to be added purely to separate Hong Kong's identity (and perhaps, in the process, assert Hong Kong's perceived superiority) to that of the PRC.
There has been an increasing number of these assertions since the beginning of rewriting work on the opening section, beginning with "not part of mainland China", inserting "Chinese" in front of Guangdong so Hong Kong appears to be "not Chinese", and now with "Hong Kong has all of these performance indicators that are listed separately to the PRC".
Meanwhile, what have I been able to change? I've inserted Hong Kong's official name to its rightful place (as it appears on the Basic Law) after weeks of unnecessary debate, even though this is a recognized legal fact. And, along with help from several other editors, changed the opening paragraph to reflect Hong Kong's location and overview after several users reported a feeling of POV with its existing state (and now that is again basically in ruins). And then I also ensured that Hong Kong's autonomy was specifically defined the third paragraph, even going as far to mention that Hong Kong has a separate currency, legal and political systems, and agreeing to include the "not part of mainland China" clause even though it still seems awkward. But even after all this, you took the liberty of coming onto this page and attacking me personally by labeling me as furthering the PRC agenda. Furthermore, the intro now seems a great deal more POV-laden than it was to begin with. I must say that not only am I greatly offended, but I am also very discouraged as an editor that promoting neutrality can be such a difficult task. It should be very clear now to any third party reading this (as mentioned earlier by HkCaGu), that your edits are not in good faith. Colipon+( T) 05:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Your excellency Mr Colipon Perhaps you should check out the Australia page, there you will see the International Ranking link in the opening section and the word "excellent" to describe their result. Hong Kong has quite a number of No.1s in those ranking, and calling the top 10 positions (out of some 150 countries) "excellent" is a relatively modest term as opposite to the word "top". But I have no problem rephrasing it to other factual phrases such "HK ranks top in in number of international comaparison" etc. -- Da Vynci ( talk) 20:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
This section is weak. It requires, at least, some information on the Cantonese pronunciation and the history of the English romanisation of this (for instance, Hobson-Jobson cite Bishop Moule as transliterating it as "hiangkiang", perhaps the Wade-Giles transcription, though, how does this become simply "Hong Kong"?) The earliest example of the current orthography I can find on Google Books dates to a French text of 1777. The current Cantonese pronunciation/transliteration should be included and the pinyin equivalent for good measure. Sadly, I do not have the skills to move very far forward on this endeavour, though I think it is important as the poor quality of this section jars with the much better of the rest of the article.
Also the section has an unverified claim. WikiLambo ( talk) 20:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
An issue I would like to bring up is the origin of the name for Hong Kong. This article suggests that the reason isn't exactly known, but that the fragrance of "fragrant harbor" is due to fresh water, or incense. I followed the only source for this where is also suggests opium as a source. What I was told in Hong Kong was that the "fragrance" was from the sandalwood trees, which still grow on the island, and have a distinctive smell. In fact Wikipedia's own article on sandalwood states "sandalwood has been valued for thousands of years for its fragrance." I'm just saying the source seems to be guessing at the origin, and sandalwood seems as likely the reason for the name. Does anyone have a better source?
Promontoriumispromontorium (
talk)
01:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
As part of this arrangement, Hong Kong maintains its own currency, separate legal and political systems, and is generally not considered part of mainland China.
It sounds like we're saying that an arrangement was made that Hong Kong would generally not be considered part of mainland China. I suspect that considering HK part of mainland China or not is a matter of common practice rather than a matter of a special arrangement or system. It wasn't "arranged", it just happened. Readin ( talk) 21:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
To be honest I think the only reason we have this clause in this article is so we can say there is a distinction with Hong Kong and mainland China, which is fine. But I am not sure the geographical reasoning applies. If we don't take politics into consideration, Hong Kong island is no different from any other offshore island. In fact, to make this distinction, the more PC term now to use in HK and Macau is to use Neidi instead of Dalu. People from Hainan still call the mainland "Dalu" and do not consider themselves part of it, purely based on geography. Both terms are translated into "Mainland" in English, which leads to some confusion amongst people who have no background on these issues.
My suggestion is simply put that Hong Kong is treated separately from mainland China, much like the way Macau is, but Hainan is not. This includes things like economic agreements, customs and immigration, legal proceedings etc. Indeed, most of the references are not made in a geographical context, but more in a legal context. The current phrasing, and Da Vynci's interpretation of it, seems to paint the issue as a purely geographical one, but that is not the actual issue here. If that were the issue then all offshore islands should have the "not part of mainland China" clause attached to it in their introductions. Colipon+( T) 18:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure it will help but I'm curious, what is the literal translation of "neidi"? Readin ( talk) 14:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I want to question the role of Hong Kong Island (1840s-1850s) as origin of the term "Mainland China". My bet and the most reasonable guess should be that the result of the Chinese civil war of 1945-1949 is the origin of today's term "Mainland China". HkCaGu ( talk) 19:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
When you break it down. You guys are debating really 2 choices.
Maybe if you just say both then it will cover both sides. First choice represents people that want nothing to do with China. Second choice represents people that want to be associated with China. Benjwong ( talk) 04:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ben, "The choice of saying HK is not part of the geographic mainland China." is far from "nothing to do with China". It sounds like a perfect description for Hainan though. Anyway, we are actually arguing a different (more subtle) thing. Correct me if i am wrong:
I suggest we use honest and direct wording. -- Da Vynci ( talk) 05:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I saw one of Readin's questions above asking what Neidi means in English. I believe the better translation is "the interior" in the sense of a country. Using Australia as an example, it would be Melbourne and Sydney as opposed to the interior. I am not sure if this term is a common term in the US.
"Neidi" (the interior) is the common term used to describe mainland China in Hong Kong. "Dalu" (the mainland) is the common term in Taiwan, although recently "Neidi" is also growing in popularity in Taiwan, as well as "China". Hope that helps.-- pyl ( talk) 11:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
The current opening paragraph is:-
I think the opening is repetitive. It first says Hong Kong is largely self-governing, then it says "Hong Kong... enjoys a high degree of autonomy". Aren't the descriptions basically saying the same things?
Also, it says Hong Kong "enjoys a high degree of autonomy from the PRC". The sentence seems to be suggesting that Hong Kong is not part of the PRC. The setence should be "from the central government".
When one country, two systems is mentioned, I think we should also mention that the rest of the PRC is socialist. I don't think it is appropriate to presume that the readers are already aware of that.
Here is my suggestion:-
I don't know how to make the mention of the socialist system into the paragraph. Perhaps someone else can have a try?-- pyl ( talk) 11:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I don't think "enjoys a high degree of autonomy from the PRC" remotely suggesting that Hong Kong is not part of the PRC at all, as the second halve of that sentence explictly say it is a largely self-governing territory of the People's Republic of China. How exactly did you end up thinking the sentence "territory of the People's Republic of China" seems suggesting it is not part of PRC?
BTW, please see the above discussion about why the words "largely self-governing" and the link to List of special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement shouldn't be removed.
But I see your point, the part in italic in the following paragraphc seems a bit repeatitive, we could perhaps replace it with infomation that is about HK's identity such as it's the fact that it is a global city and internation financial centre.
Suggestion A:
Perhaps it would be beneficial to draw on past intros that were more stable. Here's the intro from December 2008 which was stable for quite a while. It should be adapted to allow for the issues brought up recently:
-- Joowwww ( talk) 14:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Please, I'm going to say it again, HK is officially HKSAR, not HKSAR of PRC, which would make "Hong Kong, China" not logical. Leave the full-full name to the infobox. HkCaGu ( talk) 18:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I do agree some parts of the intro is somewhat repetitive... like "high degree of autonomy" and its variations is mentioned three times, two times in the opening paragraph. Unlike Da Vynci's assertion that I sense a "heightened discomfort" in this, I am actually perfectly fine with the way the intro looks now as long as we get rid of the redundant phrasing, and maybe add a thing or two about HK being an international financial centre in the first paragraph. Colipon+( T) 01:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Currently, the second paragraph of the Demographics section opens as follows:
About 95% of Hong Kong's population is Hong Konger, the majority of which is Cantonese or from linguistic groups such as Hakka and Teochew. The remaining 5% of the population is composed of non-ethnic Chinese forming a highly visible group despite their smaller numbers.
If this is talking about ethnicity, I think it might be better to say that 95% of Hong Kong's population is ethnically Chinese/華人. This is the terminology used in the 2006 By-census ( http://www.bycensus2006.gov.hk/FileManager/EN/Content_981/a105e.xls [English] http://www.bycensus2006.gov.hk/FileManager/TC/Content_981/a105c.xls [Chinese]). Besides, I'm not sure that all that 95% would identify as Hong Konger. Also, rather than talking about the "visibility" of "non-ethnic Chinese" as a singular group, it might be more pertinent to list some of the largest minority ethnicity groups, or at least make a reference to there being numerous minority groups. Echalon ( talk) 21:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I would like to replace the table in this page with a climate chart, but I find a more specialized page "Climate of Hong Kong". Where should I put the climate chart? Billyauhk ( talk) 03:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
It is really interesting that Colipon found "high degree of autonomy" mentioned 3 times repetitive, but never mentioned how the People's Republic of China is being more repetitive here. (4 times in just the opening section) The title of the infobox already says People's Republic of China , yet the opening paragraph still says 2 more times.
“ | Hong Kong , officially the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, is a largely self-governing territory of the People's Republic of China (PRC), facing the Guangdong Province in the north and the South China Sea to the east, west and south. | ” |
The second paragraph again
“ | Beginning as a trading port, Hong Kong became a crown colony (later dependent territory) of the United Kingdom in 1842, and remained so until its transfer of sovereignty to the People's Republic of China in 1997... | ” |
Having PRC mentioned in the title infobox (explains the current) and the transfer (explains the past) is quite clear and enough for information purpose, but mentioning it twice in the first sentence is just repetitive.
Taken example from pages like Sydney, its opening sentence is not written like "Sydney Commonwealth of Australia, is the largest city in Commonwealth of Australia...", in fact, it only mention Australia once in the opening sentence, its infobox doesn't even repeat that info. I wish that kind of clarity could be incorporated into HK's article. -- Da Vynci ( talk) 21:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
As for "high degree of autonomy" and mentions of "1C2S", i actually agree with Colipon that it is quite repetitive. So I removed those terms in 1st paragraph. -- Da Vynci ( talk) 21:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I made some changes to the opening paragraph and moved the mention of the former British colony status. I find it repetitive, as the status was in the past (therefore not as relevant for us now) and it is mentioned and explained in reasonably details in the beginning of the 2nd paragraph. The status also does not any relevance with the 2nd part of that sentence (global financial centre, capitalist economy etc). In other words, the fact taht HK was a British colony did not have any relevance to the fact that HK is today a global financial centre.-- pyl ( talk) 09:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I believe the current version of the intro to be relatively stable and agreed upon by consensus from all editors. Anyone up for semi-protecting to avoid extremely repetitive future reverts? Colipon+( T) 00:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Dear editors:
Please, let us avoid any more conflicts on this issue about the intro. In the last week there has been two trends:
Neither approach is NPOV. Firstly, Hong Kong is part of the PRC, albeit a relatively autonomous part of it, but still part of the PRC, whether we like to admit it or not. Therefore, as per the consensus we had earlier, PRC should rightfully be included in the intro, as is the standard with every other non-sovereign territory. Secondly, may I respectfully ask editors who insist on inserting "HK is now held by the PRC" to stop doing so, as this is an unecessary assertion and makes the intro look awkward and POV-ridden. The fact that PRC is part of HK's official name is already self-evident, saying it again would be the same as saying "1+1 equals 2 because when you add 1 and 1 together, you get 2".
Another mechanical issue, there is no "The" before "Guangdong province". Colipon+( T) 19:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
“ | Hong Kong (
Chinese:
香
港), officially the Hong Kong
Special Administrative Region,
[10] is a largely self-governing
[7]
territory of the
People's Republic of China, facing
Guangdong province to the north and the
South China Sea to the east, west and south. Hong Kong is a
global metropolitan and
international financial centre, and has a
highly developed
capitalist economy.
Beginning as a trading port, Hong Kong became a crown colony of the United Kingdom in 1842 and from 1983 onwards a British dependent territories, and remained so until the transfer of its sovereignty to the of the People's Republic of China in 1997. [11] [5] Under the " one country, two systems" policy, [12] Hong Kong enjoys high degree [13] of autonomy in all areas with the exception of foreign affairs and defence (which are the responsibility of the PRC Government). [7] As part of this arrangement, Hong Kong continues to maintain its own currency, separate legal, political systems and other aspects that concern its way of life, [7] many of which are distinct from those of mainland China. [14] [15] [16] [17] |
” |
What about my change of "transfer to Chinese sovereignty"? This reduces the full name of PRC once (and it shouldn't be wikilinked again and again anyway), and it's obvious what Chinese (or China) means by simply looking in the paragraph above (where PRC already appears and is wikilinked) and follow the "transfer" link. HkCaGu ( talk) 08:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The word "territory" or its equivalent in the current back and forth is being linked to "List of special territories by international agreement" (or whatever the current name is) and it needs to wikilink to Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. SchmuckyTheCat ( talk)
I'd rather say 'Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China' is the full official name. 'Hong Kong Special Administrative Region' is used frequently, but that is not the full name. Umofomo ( talk) 23:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
“ | I had occassion to look into some of the thoughts on the official name of HK. From what I could find in the agreement between China and the United Kingdom, and what I could find in the Basic Law, it sure looks to me like the full official name is just "Hong Kong Special Administration Region". The term is used over and over, and in the few places where "of the People's Republic of China" was appended, the context was such that it appeared to be merely adding descriptive detail, not being part of the name. I agree that "Hong Kong Special Administration Region People's Republic of China is a territory in People's Republic of China" is a bad opening. I believe a more accurate opening would be "Hong Kong Special Administration Region is a territory in People's Republic of China". Readin | ” |
This is actually an interesting discussion. By the way, Readin, the full official name of HK is the HKSAR of the PRC. It is relatively awkward, and it may not be there for the best reasons, but it is undisputedly HK's official name in its full form after 1997 - otherwise the HK Basic Law would not be titled the Basic Law of HKSAR of the PRC, and likewise the Hong Kong emblem, the Hong Kong government website, all official documents from the chief executive, and all Hong Kong passports wouldn't have to use this awkwardly long convention. The PRC government's argument for having this long-form name was that it now "clarifies" Hong Kong's status as part of China, rather than its colonial predecessor, Britain. Its always hits a nerve with PRC authorities when flights to HK are listed as "international" even though they are treated as such by customs, ATC, etc. It's a political gesture, obviously, and people may not agree with it, but in the end, its still the long-form name, just like "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" is the long-form name of North Korea, regardless of its "rogue" painfully undemocratic traditions. Colipon+( T) 00:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
How many times do I have to say this again? It's just logical that:
If the long form of Hong Kong is "HKSAR of PRC", then what is "Hong Kong, China"? The "of the People's Republic of China" part is simply to distinguish it from the recent past. It has been proven that "HKSAR" can indeed be used alone. One more is here: Hong Kong Observatory's website HkCaGu ( talk) 12:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
What about these?
[2] In many of these documents there is a phrase like ' The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China ("Hong Kong Special Administrative Region") having been duly authorised by the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China and the Government of the Something Country, blahblahblah'.
Umofomo (
talk)
17:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
A note regarding the "full name" of Hong Kong - I am not trying to challenge China's sovereignty over Hong Kong, but I do think that the "full name" of Hong Kong should be Hong Kong Special Administrative Region rather than Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. This fact is reflected in various things in Hong Kong. For example, when we write a cheque to the Government of Hong Kong, we are required to make the cheque payable to "The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region". Also, at the top of the last page (i.e. the personal information page), of an HKSAR passport, it says Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, People's Republic of China (without using the conjunction "of the"). If you're from Hong Kong, you'll notice this. That's why I suggested several days ago that we should invite more people who are actually from Hong Kong to participate in editing the Hong Kong article, because they should be the ones who are the most familiar with the subject matter. If Hong Kong folks don't make more contributions, it would be too much of a burden for our mainland Chinese friends, who have been diligently editing the Hong Kong article for us. - Alan ( talk) 05:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Hong Kong changed its name to Xianggang during the british periode it was called Hong Kong but the Chinese name is Xianggang. Like Macau is almost an unused name for Aomen and the name (Macau) is practicly never used sindse 1999.-- 82.134.154.25 ( talk) 12:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. We currently have a panoramic photo of Hong Kong Island's skyline from Kowloon and while it is a good photo, it is not very detailed and has some stitching faults (a duplicate boat, seam lines in the panorama etc). I took a similar photo (except at dusk) when I was last in Hong Kong at Christmas time, and thought it might be more useful. It is certainly much more detailed when viewed full size, but I can accept that others may prefer the existing daytime photo.
Here they are next to each other.
I will let the contributors decide whether to use the new one or keep the existing one. I can see some benefits and drawbacks to either, so I am not too bothered either way. I just wanted to bring the image to your attention. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I re-tooled the intro so that the more important things are mentioned first. Facts such as where it is, and how populated it is, should come before that quick timeline of Hong Kong history - which has now been moved to the bottom of the intro. Concerning the "high degree of autonomy", I've edited the sentence to specifically say that it is what the Basic Law says, and I've also included that Hong Kong comes directly under the central government, which is also what the Basic Law says. I believe this is the NPOV way to present the information. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 15:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Let me reiterate first that I don't feel strongly about adding anything in the intro about HK being "directly under" the central government. Leave it out if that's the concensus. But I do think it's bordering on bias that there's such a strong push for having "high autonomy" in there because that's how it's stated in the Basic Law, while leaving out "directly under" the central government, even though that's also explicitly stated in the Basic Law. Look, I personally think HK does have a high degree of autonomy, but my personal opinion on that issue, as well as that of other editors, don't matter here. As I've stated, the degree of HK's autonomy has been a matter of disagreement by the people who are directly involved in HK politics or by people who study it. If we are to add that HK has a "high degree of autonomy" because that's what Basic Law says, we really need to consider also the fact that it comes "directly under" the central government - exactly as it is quoted. In fact, the "high degree of autonomy" and "directly under" statement are both within the same sentence in the Basic Law. Article 12 says:
I really have to question the insistence of quoting "high degree of autonomy" yet leaving out the "directly under" part. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 05:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
If Hong Qi Gong would like to specifically state the autonomous limitations to counter the POV pushing of merely stating "high degree of autonomy" alone, then rather than saying it's a sovereign territory of the PRC through "directly under the central government", we should put in high degree of autonomy in all areas except foreign relations and military defense because it states the autonomous limitations of Hong Kong. "Direct under the central government" does not merit inclusion in the lead statement since it's vague and is a simple reiteration of sovereignty. Autonomous limitations of HK is areas within foreign relations and military defense. That should be stated in the lead paragraph as well. Phead128 ( talk) 19:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
A vague phrase like "directly under" has no place in an encyclopedia. The readers get it: China has sovereignty over Hong Kong. Given that this sovereignty is largely unexercised, stating that China has sovereignty over Hong Kong once is sufficient. We don't need it mentioned three times in the intro, while there's only a half-assed statement about Hong Kong's autonomy at the end. Mentioning sovereignty without autonomy is highly misleading, because sovereignty generally connotes control. I'm sure you can find a few extreme cases of China intervening and delude yourselves into thinking that that's the norm in Hong Kong, but the truth remains that Hong Kong is highly autonomous, a fact verified by the authoritative Basic Law. Taluchen ( talk) 20:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Can't agree with what is said by Hong Qi Gong and quite a number of others. Seems many of you have difficulty distinguishing between sovereignty and direct accountability to the CPG. The NPCSC's interpretation of the Basic Law, stationing of the PLA etc merely reflects on China's sovereighnty over Hong Kong, but does not translate automatically to Hong Kong's direct accountability to CPG. Sovereignty and accountability are two different concepts. For example, China exercises sovereignty over a county, but the county is not directly accountable to CPG. In this article, as long as there is sufficient mention of China's sovereignty over Hong Kong together with Hong Kong's autonomy, that's sufficent NPOV. Inclusion of HK's direct accountability to CPG is actually POV pushing as there is no elaboration on Hong Kong's autonomy but mention of the direct accountability point which tips the balance towards sovereignty. As to the derogations of autonomy said by Hong Qi Gong, I feel unnecessary to go into the matter as it is completely irrelevant to the issue on hand. You guys are proposing to add the entire Art. 12, but what Hong Qi Gong mentioned is actually undermining Art. 12 as a whole. Also, derogation of HK's autonomy is not equivalent to direct accountability to CPG. I wish to clarify I am talking about the Basic Law Framework here. Under the Basic Law framework, the "one country, two system" is the summary of the principles in the Basic Law. And incidental to this concept is China's sovereignty and Hong Kong's autonomy. Who Hong Kong reports to is a subsidiary matter under China's sovereignty. You may wish to note the Articles mentioning autonomy (2,12,13,16,19,22) and sovereignty (1,2,7,10,12,13,14), while direct accountability to the CPG is only mentioned in Article 12 and nowhere else. That speaks volume of the relative low importance of direct accountability. Craddocktm ( talk) 11:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
My problem has never been the inclusion of the fact that HK has autonomous characteristics in the intro. It's the wording - "high degree of autonomy". Right now it is included because that's what the Basic Law says. That wording is as ambiguous as what "directly under" means. I've pointed out time and again that the degree of HK's autonomy is under debate in real life - it has been ever since the handover. I find it a little troubling that some of you just accept this promise of "high degree of autonomy" without question.
Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 17:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Phead128 ( talk) 21:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Glad that it seems settled that direct accountability should not be included in the introduction. However, I acknowledge whether HK has "high" degree of autonomy is under dispute, since everyone has different interpretation of the word "autonomy". The NPOV way to handle this is NOT to leave out the Basic Law framework, BUT to mention Article 1 and 2 of the Basic Law, followed by a sentence that HK's actual degree of autonomy is in dispute.
I propose amending the intro this way:
Hong Kong(Chinese: 香港) is a special administrative region of the People's Republic of China. Situated on China's south coast and enclosed by the Pearl River Delta and South China Sea, it is renowned for its expansive skyline and deep natural harbour. With land mass of 1,104 km2 (426 sq mi) and a population of seven million people, Hong Kong is one of the most densely populated areas in the world. The city's population is 95% Chinese and 5% from other ethnic groups.
Hong Kong is one of the world's leading international financial centres with a major capitalist service economy characterized by low taxation, free trade and minimum government intervention under the ethos of positive non-interventionism. The Hong Kong dollar is the 9th most traded currency in the world.
Hong Kong's political system is governed by the Basic Law of Hong Kong, its constitutional document. The Chief Executive of Hong Kong is the head of government. It has a multi-party system, and its legislature is partly elected through universal suffrage.
Under the principle of "one country, two systems" enshrined in the Basic Law, Hong Kong is an "inalienable part of China", while it exercises a "high degree of autonomy" and enjoys "executive, legislative and independent judicial power" subject to a number of restrictions in the Basic Law. The actual degree of autonomy is disputed.
Hong Kong became a colony of the British Empire after the First Opium War (1839–1842). The colony's boundaries were extended in 1898 to the New Territories. It was occupied by the Japanese after the Battle of Hong Kong during the Pacific War, after which the British resumed control until 1997, when China regained sovereignty. Craddocktm ( talk) 06:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I would just like to say that a city-state like HK has no precedence in history. Never in the history of mankind has a bastion of free-wheeling capitalism been reverted to Red Communist nation. HK is faring well since it's has no peers (compare to Macau lol) .You can say that HK's autonomy has been eroded, but what are you comparing it to? Has there been a state like HK ever before in history? No. HK (freest economy in the world, most capitalistic economy in the world) is doing pretty well given it's under a Communist control. HK is largely untouched by PRC since the 1997 handover. Phead128 ( talk) 20:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Or we can just not make a generalised statement about autonomy in the intro and just go into the details about HK's political situation in the politics section. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 04:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
The geography section contains this:
I know this statement correctly cites the CIA world fact book for this, but none the less I'm very inclined to doubt its veracity. A quick look at the map on the cite shows a significant area of territorial waters, that is surely much more than a twentieth the size of the land area.
I'm inclined to suspect that the CIA water area figures are for 'inland waters' (High Island and Plover Cove reservoirs would surely account for a pretty large proportion of 50 km2). But a cite is a cite; anybody able to help here?. -- Starbois ( talk) 17:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Previously the first sentence of the article read:
with the capitalisation implying that Special Administrative Region is a proper noun.
I think that this is incorrect in this context. The test for a proper noun is uniqueness, and there are at least two special administrative regions (Macau and Hong Kong) with a third being sometimes suggested (Taiwan). I believe that this statement is referring to the concept of a 'special administrative region' rather to one specific such region, and should therefore be lower case. I have amended the wording (twice) in line with this. In the meantime it was changed back, but as no comment was made and other changes made, I'm not sure if this was deliberate or accidental.
If I'm wrong and this is a proper noun, then the article is clearly wrong (the is the article used with proper nouns, not a), and the sentence should read:
but that seems wrong in the context.
Please note that I'm not arguing against the capitalisation in the name Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the Peoples Republic of China, which is clearly unique and a proper name. And sometimes we write the Special Administrative Region as a shorthand for that rather long name, and again in that context it is a proper noun. But I don't think either of those fit here. -- chris_j_wood ( talk) 03:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Hong Kong is a highly autonomous city state. Chinese mainland National laws do not apply in HK. The laws are created by HK legislators because the late Deng Xiaoping said it best: "Hong Kong People can Govern Hong Kong well" and has given HK complete autonomy in almost every possible field EXCEPT military defense (HK does not even pay tax to CCP) and foreign relations). SOVEREIGNTY AND AUTONOMY ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. They can coexist under "One country, Two system".... China owns HK, but HK operates under a completely different set of rules than mainland China. I am shocked at how much ppl are IGNORANT about the reality of HK's autonomy in the international community and in the world stage. HK is completely self governing with respect to the PRC. Sure the PRC may meddle in transborder extradition and secure obedient/loyal political followers. BEIJING DOES NOT play an active role in HK's political arena. That's a fact. I REPEAT, BEIJING does not play an ACTIVE ROLE in HK's day-to-day tasks. Phead128 ( talk) 01:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
The fact that HK is an SAR is a fact spelt out in the Basic Law. Whether or not it is a "largely self-governing territory" or it is "highly autonomous", however, is not. Firstly, the Sino-British Joint Declaration was signed 13 years before the handover, and 25 years ago. Whether or not the terms of the agreement are being realised is a matter of interpretation and opinion. Secondly, the Joint Declaration never stated as a matter of fact that HK is "highly autonomous". It only stated that it is the wish of the UK government that HK be given a "high degree of autonomy" after the handover, and that it believed that the Joint Declaration would accomplish that. In fact, if it was up to me, I would get rid of all occurrence of terms like "highly autonomous" in the article unless it was accompanied by a mention of whose view exactly that is. The degree of autonomy in HK has been an ongoing disagreement (in the real world) ever since the handover. This is why it's not easy for us to represent that in the article here. Taluchen, from your comment about my supposed "Chinese nationalistic views", I take it you are not exactly a fan of the mainland Chinese government. But the funny thing is that the Chinese government's official stance would probably agree with you in saying that HK is "highly autonomous" because they want the international community to believe that they are benevolent. If you ask the pro-Democrat camp in HK, they would most likely say that HK is not so "highly autonomous" at all and that HK's political reality is not living up to what is spelt out in the Basic Law. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 14:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Taluchen seems entirely too willing to quote Wikipedia policy in his first edits, which are only about this page. Taluchen seems willing to edit war no matter the discussion on the talk page. What is the end goal here, Taluchen? SchmuckyTheCat ( talk)
Having spent the last 12-1/2 years living in the Hong Kong SAR, and planning for it for more than a dozen years before that, I can confirm that it is never, ever sar. It is most commonly SAR and occasionally S.A.R.. HKSARG[overnment] is also common. DOR (HK) ( talk) 07:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Hong Kong is not an SAR of the RoC as this article's first sentence now reads. Vandalism?
31 Jan 2010 07:40 GMT
74.115.162.10 ( talk) 07:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
in Pinyin... Böri ( talk) 11:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
This section is apparently biased, and lacks sources to support a number of claims. Firstly, the votes for the pan-democrats in 2004 was 60%, a large percentage but maybe not "landslide support". Quoting the exact figure is the better option. Secondly, the allegations of Beijing's interference are rumours and should be described as allegations rather than facts. Thirdly, some of the causes for democracy demand are not supported by any sources and are factually inaccurate; when comparing 1998 and 2008, the fiscal reserve has actually slightly increased, and I do not recall any cutback in social welfare provision.
Proposed amendment: On 1 July 2003, over half a million Hong Kong citizens staged a mass protest against the proposed bill of Article 23 of the Basic Law and the poor governance of the post-handover SAR government. The grievances of the marchers quickly snowballed into a widely backed movement for democracy, and since then the 1 July march has been held every year as a channel to demand for democracy and a variety of other political concerns. The pro-democratic candidates gathered 60% of the votes during the local elections held on 23 November 2003. It was alleged that the outcome unnerved Beijing over its possible loss of control over Hong Kong and caused it to quickly shift from a soft-line approach that talked about virtual autonomy to a hard-line approach, attempting to dampen the local democracy movement. In the third interpretation of the Basic Law, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress dismissed the possibility of introducing universal suffrage for the elections of the Chief Executive in 2007 and the legislature in 2008. There were a number of fundamental causes of Hong Kong's broad-based demand for full democracy. First economic uncertainly rose sharply after 1999, as the competitiveness of the Hong Kong economy slipped. Secondly, the level of economic inequality increased, along with a sense that cronyism was rampant and getting worse. At a deeper level citizens are anxious about their lack of voice in an authoritarian polity. Another problem was the failure of the new "Principal Officials Accountability System" and the growth of popular distrust towards the non-democratic system.
In September 2008, the pandemocrats retained 57% of the votes during the Legislative Council election. The Liaison Office of the Central People's Government was rumoured to be involved in coordination among the pro-Beijing candidates. A number of independent candidates with a stronger and more independent image emerged, who were said to have received backing from Beijing. The sudden rise and stunning electoral victories of the League of Social Democrats, who are hallmarked by civil disobedience on behalf of democratic and social reforms, reflect a deepening sense of public despair about the futility of the current political system, and a proliferating radicalism. Craddocktm ( talk) 09:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
My main concern is that it is too detailed for this article. This article already has a summarised coverage of politics in Hong Kong, including mention of the Article 23 protest and the issue of universal suffrage. I have no problem having that content in Politics of Hong Kong though. But also, I agree with Craddocktm completely. It's not just that we need an opposing POV to what was written, it was also that the wording was biased and full of WP:Weasel. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 14:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
It belongs in other articles. SchmuckyTheCat ( talk)
If you compare the politics content in this article to featured country articles such as Canada and Australia, you will see that Hong Kong article is short in this area (I'm not saying Hong Kong is a country, but her autonomous elements mean it should be written similarly). We can reach a consensus on this. I think we can briefly include:
I’m highly skeptical about defining the July 1, 2003, demonstrations as “anti-Article 23” or “pro-democracy.” The background to those demonstrations =– which were stunning in their scope and how peaceful they were =– was a 70% decline in real estate values, a 20% drop in the consumer price index (both over several years, but nearly straight-line) and high unemployment (7.8% average in the first half of 2003). That, alone, is enough to call into question any attempt to define the protests in narrow, political terms. DOR (HK) ( talk) 07:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I've fixed the FAC issues raised here relating to image alts and the Cantonese IPA. The only issues left to address are those relating to the content of the first few sections. -- Treganoon ( talk) 21:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
The term "Han" is not very widely understood outside China. In addition, as far as I know, the Hong Kong government does not openly endorse the "56 ethnic groups of China" model of the PRC government, nor does it treat it as official policy. As such, my view is that Han people in Hong Kong should be described as "ethnically Chinese", or "Han Chinese", in the article, and not merely "Han". Colipon+( Talk) 13:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
My first choice would be simply "Chinese", as that is what the source says. If there is ambiguity, that is ambiguity in the source itself. We should just reflect what the source says. If that is simply not agreeable to anybody else, then I would prefer "ethnic Chinese". The "Chinese" from the English version of the census actually comes from "華人" on the Chinese-language form - [4] - which much better translates as ethnic Chinese, especially since it doesn't say 漢人 (Han people). I suspect the reason it specifically uses 華人 instead of 漢人 is because 漢人 in modern usage is mostly used by the mainland Chinese government. On the other hand, 華人 is used by overseas Chinese and even Taiwanese people. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 14:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
174.91.80.32 ( talk) 01:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)How come this article on Hong Kong does not have a subcategory about religion in it? -- 174.91.80.32 ( talk) 01:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
There're some inconsistencies in the rankings. According to the QS world rankings, HKUST is ranked 35th and CUHK 46th. However, the Asian rankings show CUHK to be 2nd and HKUST to be 4th. How do we reconcile the differences? Craddocktm ( talk) 03:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
In other city sections like New York City's Etymology section, they state NYC's nicknames include the "Big Apple" and Shanghai's Etymology section includes "Paris of the Orient". Hong Kong has also had various nicknames in English, such as "Pearl of the Orient", "Asia's World City" (HK Gov't brand name), and most importantly the "Gateway to China". I don't see any reason why we can't include Hong Kong's nicknames when other city sections do too. Paris has "City of Lights" in her Wiki section. Phead128 ( talk) 01:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Full View of Kowloon peninsula and Hong Kong Island. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lichunngai ( talk • contribs) 09:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
The first change I made was to remove the word “wealth” and replace it with income, which is both what the Gini coefficient measures, and a very different concept from one of wealth. I have also added the frequently ignored criticism of the Gini coefficient as a means of measuring Hong Kong’s income gap. I believe I’ve provided sufficient footnotes to lay this particular straw man to rest, but naturally others are welcome to add their citations. DOR (HK) ( talk) 09:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
According to reference no. 108, the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology should be ranked no. 2 in Asia while the Chinese University of Hong Kong is ranked no. 4. The order is reversed at present. I would like to change this information.
Please also look at:
http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/asian-university-rankings/overall —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Yfyuen (
talk •
contribs)
09:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Police75 ( talk) 01:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
I've found a wrong information under the "education" section. I'm not sure how I can amend it as I'm new to Wikipedia. Should I request permission to correct that piece of info here or shall I do any other things instead? Thanks.
Yfyuen ( talk) 08:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC) Michael
Thanks! It looks great now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.79.30.128 ( talk) 17:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
A lot more information was added from since the last FA nomination, but after doing a scan of the problems pointed by the reviewers' comments, I think we may have missed a few items. Potential issue may be related to image alt text, clarity, and awkardness. I don't have access to some of the sources, so it makes hard to fix the problems. Tvtr ( tlk– cntrbtn) 21:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
There's a proposal to move History of colonial Hong Kong to British Hong Kong at Talk:History of colonial Hong Kong#Requested move. There were only two people last time a page move was discussed, so hopefully more people can participate in forming a consensus. Spellcast ( talk) 17:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
"under colonial rule, it espoused positive non-interventionism". right there, we are implying that UK rule was less "authoritarian" and thus better than current SAR administration. HK's economy was and continues to be very free. --- 何献龙4993 ( talk) 22:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Government intervention is very different from authoritarianism. Most European states, and even the United States, can be properly described as welfare states, in which the government frequently intervenes to provide social services. Government intervention is not necessarily bad nor necessarily good. As such there is no POV problem here. If you take time to actually read the entire article, you'll find somewhere (I think it's in the Economy section) it says Hong Kong has been displaying a decreasing measure of non-interventionism since the latter part of the colonial era. Examples given include the Mandatory Provident Fund and the minimum wage. How on earth can you describe these two social policies as "authoritarian"? However, for the sake of clarity, I suggest amending the sentence to "For most part of colonial rule, it espoused minimum government intervention under the ethos of positive non-interventionism. However, government intervention was increased by the latter colonial governments and has continued since 1997." Craddocktm ( talk) 07:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
If Hong Kong were still practicing positive non-interventionism, there might be a point to this discussion, but it isn’t. Then-Financial Secretary Sir Donald Tsang Yam-kuen spelled out very clearly in his March 8, 2000, 2000-01 Budget Speech the limits of positive non-interventionism, including citing predecessor Sir Philip Haddon-Cave, in paragraph 24, in ways intended to suggest that intervention is proper in certain circumstances. DOR (HK) ( talk) 01:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
As requested, I'm providing a list of sourcing-related issues that should be addressed before renominating at FAC. Reference numbers are based on this revision. Cheers, Nikkimaria ( talk) 02:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Is there any reason to include the information in the lead section? See these edits. I reverted it back to the way it was since the new info was unsourced and I could only find little information linking Weihaiwei with Hong Kong. Ta-Va-Tar ( discuss– ?) 03:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Forget about the FA status. Article improvement is much more important, and this article is not owned by the wiki-Hong Kong project. It seems that you both have a very narrow focus as regards the purpose of the article. The idea of an encyclopaedia article is to cater for as wide a perspective as possible, and it's important that readers are made aware early on that there was a lesser known British colony in China as well as Hong Kong, and that Hong Kong was only one of two former British colonies in China. As you can see in the Weihaiwei article, it mentions that Hong Kong was the other British colony in China. Most people would of course know that, but not so many would know about Weiheiwai, so it's even more important that we reciprocate by getting a link to Weihaiwei when people are reading about Hong Kong, because Weihaiwei is the other lesser known part of that same branch of history. Encyclopaediae are for widening peoples' knowledge. Are we trying to promote knowledge or are we trying to hide knowledge?
As regards the other points which you disapproved of, let's go over them one by one.
(1) Did you object to mention of the fact that Hong Kong island was ceded to Britain in perpetuity? You have removed that key piece of information so I want to know why. It is not sufficient to state lack of sources as a grounds for removing material. If you are in doubt, then put in a request for a source. But few people are likely to doubt that specific piece of information.
(2) Did you object to mention of the Treaty of Nanking 1842 and the Opium War?
(3) Did you object to mention of the fact that Kowloon was added in 1860?
(4) Did you object to mention of the the fact that the New Territories were obtained under a 99 year lease in 1898 which was the same year that Weihaiwei was obtained?
You removed all these key pieces of information and I want to know why. I don't want to hear about sources or FA status. We'll get sources when needs be. Meanwhile I just want to hear a good reason as to why you don't want to have these pieces of information in the article. David Tombe ( talk) 18:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
You need to get a better sense of proportion. The 36,000 years prior to 1841 could be summed up in two words. Fishing village. Hong Kong as a concept only began in 1841. David Tombe ( talk) 23:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Craddock, I didn't remove any information from the article. I inserted two pieces of information which have been opposed by editors who seem to think that the colonial history of Hong Kong is not the most important aspect of its history. For whatever reason these two pieces of information are being kept out of the article,
(1) Hong Kong Island was ceded to Britain in perpetuity,
(2) Hong Kong was one of two British colonies in China, the other being Weihaiwei.
David Tombe ( talk) 00:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Schmucky, You say that Weihaiwei is only a minor point which shouldn't be mentioned in the article. However, encyclopaediae are for the purpose of educating people. Most people have never heard of Weihaiwei before and so it is important that we draw it to the attention of the readers in connection with a parallel topic. We have an article on Weihaiwei but it needs to be advertised in a parallel topic such as Hong Kong which is much more famous. The only reason that I can think why anybody would not want to mention Weihaiwei in the Hong Kong article is because they don't want other people to know about it. And why would somebody actively want to hide this obscure piece of knowledge? Certainly not because it's obscure.
On the reasons that you have given, you could go now to the Weihaiwei article and remove the reference in the lead to Hong Kong and rationalize that there is no need to have Hong Kong mentioned in the lead.
The colonial era in Hong Kong lasted from 1841 until 1997. After that, nothing much has changed. Before that it was only a fishing village. Yet somebody has managed to make a huge story out of the pre-colonial era. And when you actually read that story, you can see that it is largely only bits of history from the South China region generally, where Hong Kong later happened to be situated. Very little of that information is directly relevant to Hong Kong as such, and what is relevant is hardly of note. Yet, by contrast, the colonial era is only given a short section. Then we have other sections under other titles which are also part of the colonial era but labelled as if they were different from the colonial era. The colonial era would in fact be the umbrella title for all of those subsequent eras up until 1997. I tried to correct that, but it has been undone again. Why? It is clear to me that somebody is trying to play down the colonial era and trying and make out that the major part of Hong Kong's importance is independent of the colonial era, and that the colonial era was just a small glitch in Hong Kong's long history.
If that is what is going on here, it would explain the reticence to mention that Britain had another colony in China. Thankfully, alot of readers can see right through this kind of strategy. David Tombe ( talk) 11:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Seriously. Weihai is historical trivia at best in the context of Hong Kong history. There is no documented influence on Hong Kong exerted by Weihai and there is no documented direct relations between the two during the colonial era. The two cities didn't even come under British control at the same time or under the same circumstances. These are the reasons why Weihai is never mentioned when one reads Hong Kong history in books and other publications. This is a top-level article about Hong Kong and it should only include the most notable facts. Under David Tombe's logic, this article would become an article about British colonial history and include any and all historical trivia, because that seems to be his definition of "educating people".
That being said, however, I would love to see an article specifically on British colonialism in Asia. Maybe David Tombe can initiate this. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 13:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
The current lead and the education section say that Hong Kong's education system "loosely follows the English system". That used to be a very true statement, but alas, no longer. In 2009 the government implemented the 334 Scheme, otherwise known as the New Senior Secondary curriculum, which provides for 3 years of junior secondary schooling, 3 years of senior secondary education, and 4 years of tertiary education. The HKCEE and HKAL will be abolished and replaced by one public exam, to be taken by students in the sixth year of their secondary education. Here's some official information: [6]. I am wondering how we should amend the article to reflect the change. Since the new scheme has been introduced for only a short time, I reckon there is no need for a drastic rewrite, although the new scheme has to be given due coverage. Craddocktm ( talk) 09:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
The current lead image is subtitled "View during the day from Victoria Peak". That is completely wrong. It is, instead, a view from Kowloon towards the Island.
That said, I too support reverting to the night-time skyline view from the Peak, looking east along the Island. Far more striking image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.200.236.70 ( talk) 07:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
User:NInTeNdO insists on replacing the skyline image with this mediocre collage. I consider it to be way too tall and the whitespaces are out of place. Since NInTeNdO keeps replacing the picture I'd like to hear some other opinions. — Jan Hofmann ( talk) 13:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that a number of images in the collage actually exist as thumbnails in the article. For example, the Avenue of Stars picture, the Government House picture and the Buddha picture appear both in the collage and the Hong Kong article. I do not see why the images have to be repetitive. I'd prefer reverting to the skyline image. And please kindly observe the WP:3RR and stop edit warring. Craddocktm ( talk) 15:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
David Tombe, what are you doing? Your re-sectioning edits got rid of an overall section called "History" for the historical content of the article, and it also got rid of the link to the main History of Hong Kong article. I've reverted. Please discuss before you edit, especially since we are undergoing the FA nomination process. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 18:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok. Mostly I just wanted you to discuss before making these types of changes. At this point it's best to leave edits to the task of addressing FA nomination issues. I do have a suggestion in reorganising those subsections though - how about we get rid of the subsection heading for WW2, and have one subsection for the colonial era? Then the history section would end up with three subsections: Pre-colonial, Colonial, and Post-1997. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 18:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, since you're doing FA, I'll clear off until after the FA is finished. But I want to leave you with one thought. The first line in the main article states that Hong Kong is one of two special administrative regions in China, the other being Macau. You drew attention to Macau because you wanted the readers to know that there is another one that is not so well known. And rightly so. That's how knowledge gets expanded. And the exact same goes for Weihaiwei. It was a lesser known British colony in China and so an opprtunity should be sought to link it within the text. It doesn't have to be in the lead, but I'm sure that if there is a will, there will be a way to weave it in, just as you have woven Macau in. David Tombe ( talk) 19:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
HongQiGong, That's interesting that you would like to drop the mention of Macau in the lead whereas I am all in favour of keeping it. In fact I'd be in favour of getting a mention for Port Arthur, Kwanchowan, and Kiaochow as well. None of these names should of course dominate the article, but it is only fair to inform the reader that there were other European colonies in China as well as Hong Kong. Alot of readers will probably not know this, and so an opportunity should be taken to give them a link to expand their knowledge. David Tombe ( talk) 20:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but only two in China. Two SAR's and two ex-British colonies in China. I think you guys have got to realize that the menu needs to be diversified somewhat. Yes, it's an article about Hong Kong and so most of the information should be about Hong Kong. But it's an encyclopaedia article and we need to provide links to related articles. Somebody who comes to read the Hong Kong article because they are interested in Hong Kong as an SAR should be offered the choice to view an article about the other SAR (Macau). And somebody who comes to read the Hong Kong article because they are interested in Hong Kong as an ex-British colony should be offered the choice to view an article about the other ex-British colony (Weihaiwei). It's like saying "So you're interested in Hong Kong? Maybe then you'd be interested in reading about Weihaiwei or Macau too. Here are the links." The typical reader response may be "That's interesting. I never knew about Macau, I'll take a look", or "I never knew about Weihaiwei, let me take a look and see what that was all about". That's the attitude which I was trying to promote. I was trying to promote a wider awareness around the subject from the particular to the general. David Tombe ( talk) 00:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes Tavatar that's right. No advertising. But I wasn't talking about that kind of advertising. I was talking about advertising other wikipedia articles for the purpose of promoting knowledge. That was a bit of a play on words. David Tombe ( talk) 00:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
David Tombe, I definitely see where you are coming from. But I see this issue in a larger context of what is relevant enough to include in the article. You can basically apply the logic you are demonstrating with every single detail about Hong Kong that is mentioned in the article. Maybe a reader came to this article because he is interested in the Opium Wars. So exactly how much information should be provided on specifically the Opium Wars? Or maybe a reader came because he is interested in Sino-British relations. The amount of information to include and exclude on this article has sort of evolved over the years as editors come and go. As to why Weihai is not mentioned while Macau is, I can only guess this is because Weihai's existence as a colonial territory is nowhere near as notable and documented in literature about Hong Kong history. Having said all this, however, I hope I haven't given you the impression I am completely against including information about Weihai in the article. If there is a good way to insert information about it into the current flow of the content, I would not be against it. But I do think in the overall scheme of things, it's not a big issue and certainly not something that's worthy of a long argument over. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 03:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
HongQiGong, You seem to think that the fact that Weihaiwei's colonial period is not widely known is precisely why it shouldn't be mentioned. That is rather presumptuous. I would accept ignorance as an excuse for lack of inclusion. But once attention has been drawn to the subject and a concerted effort is being made to keep the subject hidden, then we move out of the realms of ignorance and into the realms of censorship. Hong Kong is famous because it was a British colony in China. Weihaiwei is not famous, but it was also a British colony in China. So shouldn't the readers be entitled to know, when reading about Hong Kong, that Hong Kong was one of two British colonies in China? The only reason why anybody would want to hide mention of Weihaiwei is because they are uncomfortable about Hong Kong's colonial connections and the last thing that they want is for it to be known that Britain had another colony in China further up the coast. And the fact that the Hong Kong article contains so much empty details in a long pre-colonial section indicates that I am correct in believing that somebody has been involved in abusing the Hong article as a means of pushing a point of view. I read through the pre-colonial sub-section. Most of it was about general Chinese matters and not specifically about Hong Kong. I must have been nearly half way through the section before I came across a relevant fact, that being that at some point in history a school was opened in what is now part of the New Territories. Hardly a notable fact. That sub-section on the pre-colonial era looks like something that would be handed in for a written assignment in which somebody was tasked to write as much as they could about something that there was nothing to write about. We've all had to do those kinds of assignments at some stage and we all know the art of drawing out long sentences that say nothing. And that's what the pre-colonial era sub-section looks like.
There is a group of you here who are collectively determining the contents of this article, and I notice that the article is semi-protected. This is a classic case of 'consensus' winning through 'collective ownership'. And since wikipedia allows this state of affairs to occur, I will leave you all to it. But don't think that other readers can't see through exactly what is going on here. The second sentence in the introduction reads "it (Hong Kong) is renowned for its expansive skyline and deep natural harbour". This is a classic piece of subtle history revisionism. The truth is that it is renowned because it was a British colony. And Macau is renowned because it was a Portuguese colony and not because it is an SAR. David Tombe ( talk) 14:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
David Tombe, I and others have repeatedly mentioned the irrelevance of Weihai as why it has been excluded. The only common thread they have is that they were both British colonies at one point. That is trivial. But I guess I can't change your mind if you choose to believe there is some kind of conspiracy going on here. You are not the first, and will not be the last, to huff and puff about wanting to include some trivial content. If there is consensus to include it, it will be included. But so far I believe you are the only editor in the article's nine-year history to argue for its inclusion. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 16:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Confucius, I didn't say that Hong Kong had no future post 1997. I did said that it had no past of any note prior to 1841. And you can't make any deductions about who might be a British colonialist on the basis of any of this. I have opposed revisionism on wikipedia across quite a wide range of topics. And clearly this article has been in the hands of a group who have been trying to re-write history. I am only pointing the fact out and I will now leave my comments to this extent on the review page. David Tombe ( talk) 18:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
HongQiGong, What I quoted shows the strong similarity of circumstances as between Hong Kong and Weihaiwei. You can mention the Weihaiwei rendition treaty of 1930 as a precedent in the section about the 1984 Sino-British joint declaration. Nobody here is talking about Kenya or Jamaica. David Tombe ( talk) 19:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Though this header may not be all clear, I reverted this edit by Bporter28, because the image he chose, contrary to his intention, does not show "all of the city", as it doesn't even show parts of Central. The night image, also from Victoria Peak, has a wider angle, though due to the smog Kowloon is a bit obscured, so by even Bporter28's it is better. Another point is, if we are to not use a collage, then the night image it is. -- HXL 's Roundtable, and Record 00:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Hong Kong does not have any anthem of its own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desvoeuxrdwest ( talk • contribs) 09:48, 23 October 2010
“ | Article 10
|
” |
Enough with the name calling. SchmuckyTheCat ( talk)
{{edit semi-protected}}
Remove "March of the Volunteers" as Hong Kong's anthem, which is incorrect.
Sitcomfanhk ( talk) 07:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
There needs to be more to fully illustrate that poverty is increasing as a direct result of libertarian policies. This article is far right propaganda. Wikipedia has a libertarian bias 99.38.230.227 ( talk) 20:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
{{ edit semi-protected}} "the phrase forming a highly visible group despite their smaller numbers" is very subjective and should be omitted given the sensitive topic of ethnicity. In any case it is not relevant to the subject matter. The source cited does not make this claim.
Ncor ( talk) 07:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
The brandline—Asia’s world city—complimented the identity and underscored Hong Kong’s role as an international hub for business, arts, and culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.233.159 ( talk) 06:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
One section says that, according to Emporis, there are around 7000 skyscrapers in Hong Kong. That is wrong. The Emporis reference says that's the number of high-rise buildings, which it defines as structures whose architectural height is between 35 and 100 meters. Emporis defines skyscrapers as 100m or higher. http://standards.emporis.com/?nav=realestate&lng=3&esn=18727 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.87.74 ( talk) 07:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
The territory of Hong Kong should include The Shenzhen Bay Bridge (which opened in July 2007) & a portion of the Shenzhen Bay Checkpoint, where both are under Hong Kong's jurisdiction.
"In accordance with the "Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on Authorizing the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to Exercise Jurisdiction over the Hong Kong Port Area at the Shenzhen Bay Port" adopted at the Twenty Fourth Meeting of the Standing Committee of the Tenth National People's Congress on 31 October 2006 and the relevant laws and regulations, and pursuant to a request for instructions from the People's Government of Guangdong Province and at the request of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, the State Council now gives the following reply concerning the area and the land use period of the "Hong Kong Port Area at the Shenzhen Bay Port" which is established in the area of the Shenzhen Bay Port and over which the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is authorized to exercise jurisdiction:
1. The area of the "Hong Kong Port Area at the Shenzhen Bay Port" comprises the Hong Kong Clearance Area and the section of the bridge surface of the Shenzhen Bay Bridge which connects with the Hong Kong Clearance Area.
The total land use area of the Hong Kong Clearance Area is 41.565 hectares (more particularly set out by the setting out coordinates detailed at Annex 1).
The section of the bridge surface of the Shenzhen Bay Bridge refers to the section beginning at the south-east boundary of the Hong Kong Clearance Area and ending at the boundary line between the Guangdong Province and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (more particularly set out by the setting out coordinates detailed at Annex 2).
2. The land use right of the "Hong Kong Port Area at the Shenzhen Bay Port" is to be acquired by way of a lease under a lease contract for State-owned land signed between the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and the People's Government of the Shenzhen Municipality of Guangdong Province, and the land use period shall commence on the day on which the Shenzhen Bay Port commences operation and shall expire on 30 June 2047.
http://www.hklii.org/hk/legis/en/ord/2210.txt"
Even Hong Kong Observatory's map has such marking. File:Http://www.hko.gov.hk/wxinfo/ts/temp/tempehk.png-- Sitcomfanhk ( talk) 07:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Based on this decision of PRC's national people's congress, the Hong Kong legislative council had passed an ordinance for the purpose of this port of entry. For legal purposes the Shenzhen Bay control point, and the bridge, are deemed to be part of Hong Kong. 203.198.25.166 ( talk) 11:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
In addition to "Hongkonger", "HONG KONGER (with space in between)", "HONGKONGESE", "HONG KONGESE" should also be acceptable.-- Sitcomfanhk ( talk) 07:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Eofreedom, Major changes such as the description of the government are generally conducted after extensive discussion. When changes are made without discussion, particularly when they introduce nonsensical notions such as a presidential system for Hong Kong, they tend to get reverted.
So, rather than just make what changes one person thinks are right, let’s have a discussion.
Come on - Hong Kong does not have a presidential system! I would be surprised if Eofreedom can come up with reliable sources to support his edit. I have heard academics describing Hong Kong's system as "quasi-presidential"..... which tells you it isn't accurate to label the Hong Kong system "presidential". I think I will be bold and revert Eofreedom's edit. Craddocktm ( talk) 15:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
1. Wiki's definition of Semi-presidential system: "The semi-presidential system......is a system of government in which a president and a prime minister are both active participants in the day-to-day administration of the state. It differs from a parliamentary republic in that it has a popularly elected head of state who is more than a purely ceremonial figurehead, and from the presidential system in that the cabinet, although named by the president, is responsible to the legislature, which may force the cabinet to resign through a motion of no confidence."
Which aspect of Hong Kong's political system resembles this? Take the Chief Executive (CE) as the President. The nearest analogous position for the prime minister is probably the Chief Secretary for Administration (CSA). (1) The CE is not a figurehead, obviously. (2) The CSA is obviously not responsible to LegCo as well, and the LegCo could not force the Executive Council, the CSA, or the CE to resign by a motion of no-confidence. Clearly, Hong Kong is not Semi-presidential, or quasi-presidential as you've mentioned.
2. Wiki's definition of parliamentary system: "A parliamentary system is a system of government in which the ministers of the executive branch are drawn from the legislature and are accountable to that body, such that the executive and legislative branches are intertwined. In such a system, the head of government is both de facto chief executive and chief legislator."
Lets look at Hong Kong again. Are the CE and the Executive Council Intertwined" with the legislature? Obviously not. They are not even Members of the Legislative Council, and the LegCo could hardly move any non-confi vote against any individual member of the Exco. It may be questioned that certain LegCo members are actually serving on the Executive Council as well (e.g. Lau Wong Fat). However, none of the policy secretaries, undersecretaries, or political assistants overlap with the LegCo's members; ie, no minister is drawn from LegCo). As such, Hong Kong is hardly parliamentary.
3. Wiki's definition of presidential system: "A presidential system is a system of government where an executive branch exists and presides (hence the name) separately from the legislature, to which it is not responsible and which cannot, in normal circumstances, dismiss it."
Hong Kong sits comfortably with this definition. The CE and his Exco existsand presides separately from LegCo, which it is not responsible and which cannot, in normal circumstances, dismiss it. In Basic Law theory, the CE is "responsible" the LegCo but in practice, it is difficult to see how this operate, given the CE has exclusive power to initiate budget and policy, and powers t dimiss the LegCo, veto LegCo bills, and even dismiss LegCo. Clearly, Hong Kong is a presidential system.
Of course, none of wiki's definitions are definitive. However, they do serve as useful guidelines to gauge the nature of Hong Kong's system.
By the way, words such as unelected executive etc. are hardly about regime type at all. They are more about the precise characteristics of the government's institutional design. An executive can be elected or unelected even within the same regime type (eg presidential system). It is not entirely correct either, because the CE's produced by an Election College, which under certain circumstances, can admit an opposition figure like Alan Leong to stand as a candidate. While the Governor of British Hong Kong was completely unelected (appointed by British cabinet), there is an electoral process in Hong Kong, in spite of its alleged purpose to serve Beijing's interests - the more appropriate way is to say that the elections for the executive is one of limited suffrage, in which only 800 people can exercise their right to vote on who should be the next CE.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eofreedom ( talk • contribs) 14:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree with you and summarize my position as follows: that (1) how the executive is constituted and (2) whether the executive and the legislature are constituted and presiding separately, are two different things, and that the defining element of presidentialism is (2) rather than (1). Before I turn to the core of this submission, I wish to draw your attention to an analogy with unicamerialism in legislatures. Compare the New Zealand parliament and the PRC's National Peoples' Congress. Both are regarded as unicameral (in wikipedia) and this is probably uncontroversially correct. The New Zealand parliament satisfies most definitions of being democratically elected, while the Chinese congress obviously does not. But this does not make the Chinese congress a quasi-unicameral parliament, simply because democratic elections do not define the nature of the NPC as an unicameral parliament. Instead, the existence of merely one chamber does.
The notion of the president being democratically elected as the defining feature of presidentialism is extremely problematic. Consider the world's first and arguably most representative presidential system in the United States. Early US presidents could not be said to be democratically elected by today's standards, as the nation's vast majority of white women, black males and females, if not also poor white men could not cast their votes for the presidency. Further, even today, the US president is formally elected by the electoral college, and the electoral college's vote is not necessarily consistent with the decision of the majority in the popular electorate (although they indisputably coincide for most of the time). The first victory of G.W. Bush is a clear example. Yet, the limited suffrage of the early American republic, and the existence of indirect presidential elections, do not undermine the US's status as a presidential system - simply because the executive and the legislature are separately constituted and presided independently of each other.
Finally, if quasi-presidentialism is possibly different from semi-presidentialism as you've suggested, then it would be highly defensible to say that what Professor Kuan really meant was a Presidential System with Limited Suffrage: it is the Limited Suffrage that makes Hong Kong's presidentialism at best quasi. However, the usage of Presidential System with Limited Suffrage is more advantageous than quasi-presidentialism (despite they are presumably of the same meaning) because it embraces concepts that are immediately understandable to those unfamiliar with Professor Kuan's writings. In short, presidentialism (ie, executive and legislature being separately constituted and presiding independently of each other) with the qualification limited suffrage (ie, at least part of the electorate is excluded from the election of the chief executive and/or at least some of the seats in the legislature) are concepts that are relatively straightforward when compared to the lone-invention quasi-presidentialism, which could easily be mistaken as the radically different semi-presidentialism. It can also neatly (if not elegantly) summarize Hong Kong's regime type without going too deep into the details of institutional design - a job which should be left to the main body of the article itself.
To add, autonomous region is more suitable than non-sovereign for the following reasons: (1) governments in the world are either sovereign or not sovereign, to say that HK is non-sovereign does not help much - it does not give us any hint about the government type as words like republic, monarchy, federation, British overseas territory, or autonomous region do; (2) what makes Hong Kong, a non-sovereign entity special, or indeed a special administrative region, is the relatively high autonomy it possesses - Shanghai and Guangzhou are also non-sovereign entites with unelected executives and unicameral legislatures - Hong Kong is different from them because they do not possess the kind of autonomy the former enjoys - from the power of final adjudication and separate representation in the WTO, APEC, and the Olympic Games, to the ability to issue its own SAR passports, banknotes, ID cards, and to maintain its own separate customs territory and visa policies. It is doubtlessly justifiable to describe Hong Kong in ways different from Shanghai. Furthermore, autonomous region is an already established page in wiki (the SAR is included as one subspecies of autonomous region), and it as a concept implies both non-sovereignty and autonomy. As such, it captures Hong Kong's characteristics, without, again, plunging into details of constitutional design which should be left to the main text.
Therefore, Presidential Autonomous Region with Limited Suffrage is likely to be a strong candidate for Hong Kong's government type classification here in wikipedia. To recap, Presidentialism with Limited Suffrage is visibly something different from Presidentialism (without limited suffrage) - otherwise the qualification is not necessary - and you seemed to have overlooked this very important qualification.
Nonetheless, after this rational discussion - I think our agreement is in fact far larger than our disagreement. Thank you very much for reading. User:Eofreedom ( talk) 20:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. If this is indeed a semantic problem, then a compromise would be the best solution, so long footnote[s] are added to let the reader understand what quasi-presidentialism means. "Quasi-presidential Autonomous Region" plus a citation or two of sources such as Dr. Sing and Professor Kuan's papers would do. Is this agreeable?
Eofreedom ( talk) 11:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks - changed. Added with limited suffrage for the sake of clarity. If its unacceptable, please delete as appropriate.
Eofreedom ( talk) 12:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I haven't visited this page for months, but then the change in the lead has immediately caught my attention. Saying Hong Kong has "numerous" high international rankings smells of POV, and it is certainly problematic to mention all the "good" high international rankings without mentioning the "bad" ones e.g. the Gini coefficient. Craddocktm ( talk) 15:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Look at it this way: The academics are working on a global, one-size-fits-all model. Their entire purpose is to have a cross-boundary measurement, and they pretty much succeed. The Government Economist (that’s the official title, by the way), is simply saying “this model isn’t as useful for Hong Kong as you might think. Be a bit careful about slapping that ‘most inequitable’ label around.” Does that make sense? One’s broad, everything-in-the-world; and the other’s highly specific to this particular case. (Oh, and I'm not going to answer your question because I don't know how to.) DOR (HK) ( talk) 06:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
"Statistically Hong Kong's income gap is the worst in Asia Pacific."
Doesn't this assume that income gaps are a bad thing? Surely it would be better to say the income gap is the widest in Asia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.87.74 ( talk) 13:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand the obsessiveness of income gap. Of course it's going to be huge in Hong Kong since some of the wealthiest people in the world live there. If Bill Gates moves into my building, the income gap of my building is going to be enormous, but i'm not any poorer. A more useful statistic would be how does the 10% poorest compare to 10% poorest of other countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.16.220.211 ( talk) 15:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help)
The Government of the People's Republic of China declares that to recover the Hong Kong area (including Hong Kong Island, Kowloon and the New Territories, hereinafter referred to as Hong Kong) is the common aspiration of the entire Chinese people, and that it has decided to "resume" the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong with effect from 1 July 1997.
{{
cite book}}
: Check |authorlink=
value (
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help); External link in |authorlink=
(
help) In the Chinese language, however, there are two similar yet different terms for the use of "Mainland", i.e., Dalu (大陸) and Neidi (内地), see the
Mainland China article for details.
{{
cite web}}
: Check |authorlink=
value (
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help); External link in |authorlink=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: |first=
missing |last=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help); External link in |authorlink=
(
help); URL–wikilink conflict (
help)
{{
citation}}
: Check |author-link=
value (
help); External link in |author-link=
(
help)CS1 maint: date and year (
link)