![]() | 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 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
On 2005-09-24, 25 Hong Kong pro-democracy LegCo members, some of whom were previously labelled as traitors by Beijing after the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown and barred from entering the mainland, crossed the border into the southern province of Guangdong, following an unprecedented invitation by the PRC.[26] The invitation was generally regarded as one of the greatest goodwill gestures from the PRC to the Hong Kong democrats since the June-Fourth incident.
There's a footnote to support that they were invited to the mainland by the central leadership. But we need a source to say that the invitation was "generally regarded as one of the greatest goodwill gestures". Who regards it as such? If a source doesn't materialise in a few days to a week, I'll be removing that entire passage. If we can't support that this was a "sign of good will", then that entire paragraph is pretty trivial for this article. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 18:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I personally don't want to take this article to FAR. This article was promoted to FA three years ago. And right now, I found there are many problems that it should be fixed ASAP.
I personally recommend that the section of international rankings be removed. It is much better to create a new article specifically for the International Rankings of Hong Kong in order to reduce the article size in general. Coloane ( talk) 09:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The final paragraph of the religion section currently reads: "Hong Kong is the only place in the PRC where missionaries from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormon Church) can serve. The Church has a temple in Hong Kong which was dedicated by President Gordon B. Hinckley in 1996."
I see 3 problems with this portion:
1) It is factually incorrect, as Mormons missionaries also serve in Macau, which, like Hong Kong, is a special administrative region of the PRC.
2) Referring to Hong Kong as a "place in the PRC" is inconsistent with the style used throughout this article.
3) Given the relatively small presence of Mormons in HK, I don't think it merits such prominent mention in this article. The Mormon community in Hong Kongconsists of 22,556 members, http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/contact-us/china-8212-hong-kong, with between 5,000 and 6,000 adherents estimated to be 'active' in the faith http://www.cumorah.com/cgi-bin/db.cgi?view_records=View%2BRecords&Country=Hong+Kong.
Given the above points, in the interest of brevity, accurancy and relevance, the above portion should be deleted, and Mormonism receive the same treatment as other minor religious groups, with the number of adherents being reported but no special commentary provided. Spinner145 ( talk) 03:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, in that case I think a sensible edit would be just to modify the second sentence of the second paragraph of the Religion section to read (changed portion in italics): "Apart from the major religions, there are also a significant number of followers of other religions, including an estimated 90,000 Muslims; 22,000 Mormons, 4,000 Jews; 4,600 Jehovah's Witnesses and a number of Hindus, Sikhs and Bahá'ís[51]" and to include the link I gave as a reference, and then delete the paragraph I originally noted. Given the treatment accorded other similarly sized religions in HK, this treatment seems appopriate and proportional to me. Spinner145 ( talk) 09:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I took out the last two statements in that paragraph - [1] - firstly because I didn't see in the source provided anybody actually calling the trip "unsuccessful", and secondly because we can probably make a small article about the trip itself, but the trip remains not even one of the most significant political events in Hong Kong history, so it's best to summarise here on the main Hong Kong article. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 14:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Sky Divine, please stop adding simplified character without consensus. Your argument that we should add simplified characters simply because HK is part of PRC is totally illogical. The fact that HK uses only traditional suggests that we should only use traditional in the article. Chris! c t 21:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
It seems pretty obvious to me that User:Sky Divine is adding Simplified characters in this article because of a disagreement he's having at Talk:People's Republic of China [2] (where ironically he argues that Traditional characters should not be added to the PRC article, yet he wants to add Simplified characters in this article). I've already brought this up at the other Talk page, and I'll bring it up again - Sky Divine, if you have a disagreement at the PRC article, then keep it over there and don't drag it over here. And if you want to add Simplified characters in this article, please bring it up in the Talk page first. This article has a long established standard of not using Simplified characters. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 02:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Some pretty dramatic revisions were made in recent days to this article, and many of them seem to bold for a long and stable featured article like this. I therefore decided to restore some things to the way they were before some changes that I feel are not necessary. Since I can't find any note left here about those changes, I've made a new section. — Kelw ( talk) 02:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I've kept your revert of the of the topics template in See Also. However, there are a few problems I found with the infobox change:
Lastly, I do agree with you that some overhaul is needed for this article and it is quite disorganized. But to prevent an FA review we should concentrate on improving the writing of the article and finding citations for claims. Although changing pictures is sometimes good, it's not going to help with an FA review. And yes we need to be bold, but stability is also important in a featured article, so let's try to do this in steps. — Kelw ( talk) 21:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
<<< Good job with the map. The only thing I changed is switching the order of the map and picture, so that the first map parameter is filled by a real map and the extra map parameter is filled by the picture. I also specified the width for the second parameter so the image sizes are uniform. Personally though, I still prefer having no skyline picture for a Country or Territory infobox. — Kelw ( talk) 16:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
That's a great picture Diliff, the previous one was just until we found a better one. You seem to have a knack for great high quality pictures, do you have one of the same view from the Peak but in the daytime? -- Joowwww ( talk) 18:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
During the beginning of your article (whoever you are,) I saw that you just have to mention the first Opium war and it has nothing to do with Hong Kong. You should probably includee the war inside the articles Great Britain or China. You can mention the second Opium war, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevennelly11 ( talk • contribs) 00:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I've just implemented a major change to 3 sections of the article and thought I should share my reasoning. It's condensed the article visually but actually increased its disk size by 2 kb due to the amount of references I added.
Hopefully this change is to everyone's taste and other sections can be moved onto, making the article really deserve its FA status. Cheers,-- Joowwww ( talk) 19:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I feel this is a section that needs to be rewritten to a more summarizing form. The text right now goes back and forth and has a lot of unneeded info that shold be in subarticles. I think the section should summarize the following:
I plan to make a change within the next few days. Any thoughts? — Kelw ( talk) 21:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Kelw, your recommended changes seem overly legal / technical. Where are the politics of "politics and government"? Surely the politcal parties and non-party groups deserve a major subcategory under such a section. And, Joowwww, seeing as Los Angeles, London and La Paz don't need sections on a city's military, perhaps it isn't needed here. DOR (HK) ( talk) 07:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
To try and make it easier for casual readers to find the information they want and keep to WP:Summary I'm proposing a change of the section layout. This will also help to better organise the article both during and after the Featured Article Review. It's based on a compromise between general guides at the Country and Cities WikiProjects and other featured articles. Some of the current sections may seem too big to merge together but a featured article about a major topic like Australia can summarise things well and at only 62kb is far more readable than the HK article.
What do you all think about this. -- Joowwww ( talk) 16:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I've just merged Religion into Demographics. A lot of content in the Religion section focused on what the religion actually does, instead of information specific to Hong Kong. The Demographics section is now organised into four paragraphs: Population statistics, ethnicity/immigration, language, and religion. -- Joowwww ( talk) 20:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I've just merged Military into Politics and condensed. A lot of the politics section was describing what the government does, instead of what it is, which is more suited to the appropriate sub-articles. The military section easily fits into the politics section again by cutting out a lot of what there was and what it does, and just describing what it is. If anyone wants to know more detail about something they can click on the links. -- Joowwww ( talk) 15:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Would anyone object if the Healthcare section was moved to its own page, Healthcare in Hong Kong? This is of course important information but I think it's too specific for a main article summary page, contributing to the page's length, and would be better suited on its own article where it can be expanded and linked. -- Joowwww ( talk) 19:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone remember this nickname for Hong Kong? -- Tesscass ( talk) 17:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Pearl of the Orient is correct, probably from the Pearl River Delta. DOR (HK) ( talk) 03:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Incorrect - the British used to call Pulau Pinang (Penang) in Malaysia the 'Pearl of the Orient'. Jim B 25 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.22.194 ( talk)
was looking for some informations that i need...and found out lots lots of them had been deleted.. 1/3 of pages erased in 2 months? i would be glad if someone can fill in some back..especially the economy of HK..and living.. and the awards..need it for school works..n research.. thank you so much!
First of all I´m really sorry that this question doesn´t help to improve that article but I made everywhere equieries and didn´t get the answer for the following question which could have a strong influence on my future so please don´t delete it and try to help me if you can. Here´s my question: I´ve european citizienship and want to apply for a Hong Kong ID card (NOT the permanent one, just the ordinary without the right of abode) in order to be able to apply for a job in Hong Kong. Are there any possibilities for me to get this card? Many thanks for you help and understanding in advance! Dagadt ( talk) 16:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
my friend is Cathay Pacific pilot and said that they changed some things. I´ll ask him, but anyway, please tell me how to get the ordinary ID card, in case that would be their new requirement. Dagadt ( talk) 07:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Is there anything to be done about the panorama pictured under "Architecture of Hong Kong"? It's a very wide picture, and on some screen resolutions juts out away from the text, disrupting the article's flow. Perhaps the image could be deleted altogether. I find two images of the city skyline to be kind of redundant. JeffDaniels ( talk) 23:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
<< You said "it's where users would expect to find a picture of the city like in every other city article," but this is not a city article and it doesn't use the city infobox. I don't know why you say "it is Wikipedia convention to have a picture of the city in the infobox"; there is no such convention, unless you are trying to bring up template:infobox city. As I said before, look at the infoboxes for Singapore, Monaco, or even Macau and tell me if they violate Wikipedia convention. Your rhetoric that it looks acts and smells like a city is, bluntly put, lazy logic. We might as well label whales and dolphins as fish. What is so important to you about having that picture in the infobox, that justifies misusing an infobox parameter and going against nearly every other article that uses this template? And from this discussion alone, it's quite clear that I am not the only one who finds two skyline pictures redundant. — Kelw ( talk) 22:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
This article should say it was the host of a 2008 venue, and have a sports section in any case. 70.55.85.40 ( talk) 12:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a slow edit war occuring between people who think the leading sentence should be HKSAR and those who think it should be HKSAR of the PRC. After reading the previous discussions on this issue, no consensus seems to have been reached. Shall we try to find one now, and end this edit war?
I'm proposing it stays as HKSAR in the intro, but is changed to HKSAR of the PRC in the infobox. A compromise. This fulfills one side's argument that the full official title is both unnecessary and affects the article's readability, but where readability isn't an issue - in the infobox - the full, official title can be given, achieving some people's request of adhering to convention. -- Joowwww ( talk) 19:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
We seem to be back to the slow edit war, again. DOR (HK) ( talk) 03:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I've made a pronunciation template for a new etymology section in an attempt to solve the messy intro problem. I understand this has been a very contentious issue so feel free to state any objections or changes that need to be made, or if it just doesn't work at all. Regards -- Joowwww ( talk) 14:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
A further thought: Perhaps if there was an image of a written 香港 on a temple wall or somewhere, the template could be made to look like an image thumbnail? -- Joowwww ( talk) 14:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I made the refs take up less space, is it appropriate? Enlil Ninlil ( talk) 21:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
New user box
![]() | This user supports Hong Kong independence. |
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Niikhk ( talk • contribs) on 13:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I've just added "Legislature" to the infobox. Would " Legislative Council President" be an appropriate addition or not? -- Joowwww ( talk) 16:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
We seem to be under pretty constant attack. A temporary editing block might encourage some of these children to go elsewhere. Thoughts? DOR (HK) ( talk) 02:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
OK the article is now condensed, and at 61 KB I think is now a fine size. All that's needed now is for loads of references to be added, and then I think it'll be ready to get back that featured star. -- Joowwww ( talk) 10:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I note the following statement in the article:-
According to Wikipedia's Mainland China article, Hong Kong is *generally* not considered part of Mainland China. However, the above statement asserts that it is the absolute truth. I think there is a conflict of assertions in these two articles and we need to work on a consensus.
For everyone's convenience, the relevant section in the "Mainland China" article is reproduced here, as follows-
Please discuss.-- pyl ( talk) 04:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
To some old ROC politicians, "the mainland" is a quick colloquialism to mean any part of Greater China not currently ruled by the ROC. Even as the political ideal fades, those in the KMT who still hold to "Recover the Mainland!" are certainly not excluding HK SchmuckyTheCat ( talk)
I have just read the document provided as a reference to your quoted paragraph in the -Mainland China- article. The document is a record of the proceedings of an Hong Kong SAR government meeting convened in responds to a judgement made by the central government regarding a bill. The details of the particular bill is not important but if you look at clause 2(1) it deals specifically with the definition of the term "Mainland" and this is a quote from that part of the document.
I think it's pretty clear that the Central government consider the term "Mainland" to exclude Hong Kong and that the Hong Kong SAR government agrees with that definition. I think the inconsistency is with the -Mainland China- article using the term "generally" when their own reference states otherwise. ( Pete168 ( talk) 08:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC))
Done. Btw, spectacular analysis Pete168.-- Da Vynci ( talk) 17:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi all, I've made a suggestion at Portal talk:Hong Kong regarding the HK portal so if you are interested please see the discussion there. Regards -- Joowwww ( talk) 18:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello, there is an image captioned "Areas of urban development and vegetation are visible in this false-colour satellite image." I could not find a legend or indication of which colour corresponds to which sort of geography. Perhaps this caption could be improved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.221.163 ( talk) 20:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
There is a discussion going on here.-- pyl ( talk) 05:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Why is it that there has to be anything at all about "Mainland China" in the intro? Does it really matter if it's not considered part of the "mainland"? It just opens the floodgates to the debate on the political connotations behind that name, and it just looks like it's a bunch of HK wikipedia editors trying to avoid association to the mainland and making a point of it. Besides, people from Hainan don't consider themselves part of mainland China either, but because that is not a political debate people don't care enough to revert the intro for Hainan on Wikipedia. What happened to the simple introduction of "HK is one of two special adminsitrative regions of the PRC, the other being Macau" (follow the Puerto Rico model?). Colipon+( T) 22:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
The Octopus card can indeed be used for small purchases; I do so every day, and since it is so commonplace, it doesn’t need a citation. DOR (HK) ( talk) 02:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Right. We don't need every sentence to be backed by a citation, but everything that the article states need to be verifiable in citations. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 16:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
It would be nice if every sentence was cited or referred. The minimum should be every paragraph should be cited.-- Visik ( talk) 08:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if this has been discussed before, but I think the Basic Law does specify that Hong Kong's national anthem is March of the Volunteers. It is in Annex III [3] of the Basic Law. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 05:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Ridiculous theory Readin (with all due respect)! First of all, even the article California doesn't mention the national anthem of USA. Also, The Star Spangled Banner doesn't explicitly state "The Star Spangled Banner is the national anthem of California" either. Simply because it is not necessary. Look, if your theory don't work even work in the examples u provided, I think it is time to consider withdraw from ur suggestion. I know what u are suggesting, that is to include National anthem to sub-nationl entities. I know we can use some idiosyncratic wording to "carefully" place the nation anthem in, but I think a more important question is whether it is necessary. What is the reason and logic of doing it? If we start to include national anthem to sub-national entities, we have to be consistent. That is, to include national anthem on article such as California (your fine example)? Tsim Sha Tsui? Notting Hill? Kowloon? Kowloon City? Kowloon Bay? Kowloon Station? The answer is, not necessary. -- Da Vynci ( talk) 12:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Hong Kong as a dependent territory does not have a anthem of its own. The March of the Volunteers is an anthem of the People's Republic as a whole.
Montemonte (
talk)
17:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
The history doesn't explicitly mention if Hongkong was part of Guangdong province or it was originally a fishing village in southern China prior to being a British colony. Can anyone found out more information and ascertain it. -- Visik ( talk) 08:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
One thing worth noticing is that before the British established the trading port and decide to call it Hongkong in 1842, in the time of Imperial China the area of now known as "Hong Kong" only included Hong Kong Tsai 香港仔 (the small inlet between the island of Ap Lei Chau and the south side of Hong Kong Island) and did not include Kowloon, Lantau Island or New Territories. Therefore, it may be inappropiate to use the term Hong Kong as if it includes Kolwoon, Lantau, and NT like today for matters before 1843. -- Da Vynci ( talk) 18:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I removed the mention of HK being "developed" because I don't see it as relevant. If you're comparing developed and developing societies, yes, HK will be on one list and China the other. But I don't see the relevance of mentioning it here because cities being developed while the country is developing is all too common--and HK and China are indeed apples and oranges in terms of economy comparison, hence the phrase "HK retains its developed status" is just plain weird and un-notable--comparing political systems has much more relevance. HkCaGu ( talk) 01:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I fail to see how mentioning whether or not HK is "developed" is a statement on its political status. The section "Politics and government" is exactly what tells the readers about the political status of HK. And the intro paragraph already mentions that it is a SAR and that it is governed under the "one country, two systems" policy. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 15:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Having said that, I would not be opposed to adding sentences about how HK belongs to international bodies like the WTO and the WHO. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 16:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't care which paragraph goes where--my opposition is the saying that "HK retains its developed status". Normal logic is that once you're developed, you're developed. You can't go back from developed to developing, especially not because of a peaceful/arranged takeover by the PRC. If you can't go back to developing then why mention it. There might be a way to phrase it right, that Hong Kong is now a developed economy within a developing country, but given that many PRC cities have become "developed", the relevance diminishes. Comparison of economical figures (such as HK is X times/percentile...etc. higher than PRC average) is one way the difference can be mentioned. HkCaGu ( talk) 20:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Now that you have deleted the sentence about Hong Kong's status as a developed country and China's status as a developing country, you have not added the same information in the Economy section of the article as you said you would. Is this PRC-style censorship or something? - 68.6.120.13 ( talk) 23:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
If no conclusion has been reached, then the sentence (about the fact that Hong Kong is a developed country while China is a developing country) should stay, in the way it used to be. If any Chinese feel offended by this factual statement and want to delete that sentence, discuss! - 68.6.120.13 ( talk) 21:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that a while back that the then lead image of mine was replaced by Base64 with a similar one that he took. While I certainly see the merits of both images, I can't help but think that the older one has better colour and composition and slightly more eye-pleasing exposure (I think the current one looks overexposed for a night shot). Now this may be my own bias, so I didn't want to simply be bold and replace it, especially as there may have been some discussion over which one was more appropriate (if so, I missed it when scanning the talk page), so I thought I'd bring it up here. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
If "territory" needs to be pipe linked to an explanatory article, it should be Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China not a list of international treaties. The word "Chinese" should not appear before Guandong, as both Hong Kong and Guandong are Chinese. SchmuckyTheCat ( talk) -
uh, the term China itself may means Republic of China to some people. If China=Mainland+Taiwan+HK+ Macau. PRC is just a part of China.-- Da Vynci ( talk) 03:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
The government is the Hong Kong Government. Is not the Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. SAR is just a title, not an actual government. Benjwong ( talk) 05:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
There is actually no accurate term to describe Hong Kong's type of government. I would suggest "partially democratic dependency". Montemonte ( talk) 18:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
It is interesting that as what seems like a collective effort to airbrush any mention of the PRC or Chinese sovereignty, over the past year or so location indicator images such as these two have been removed from the infobox altogether (notice how they both have some kind of implicit reference to the PRC, probably why they striked a nerve with some HK editors), and replaced by the current locator map, which is not incredibly informative. I myself am not trying to advocate for putting the China location map back into the infobox, as I think it is unnecessary, and doing so would probably fan more attacks on me as trying to propagate the authoritarian policies of the Communist Party, but I do think it may be useful to put the Pearl Delta Map somewhere on the article to offer some context. Or feel free to create another "politically neutral" map which would give an average reader a better idea of where Hong Kong is than the current map. But I think if the sole purpose for removing these maps was to avoid any connection to the PRC, then it is quite obviously unreasonable.
Colipon+( T) 20:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I made both that map showing all of China and the current infobox map. The map of China was made after the current one, and I didn't change it because there was no consensus to do so and the current map was doing its job just fine. -- Joowwww ( talk) 21:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
As per the convention on articles for other self-governing territories, i.e. Puerto Rico, Cook Islands, Aruba etc., there is a "Head of State" under the "government" in the territory's infobox. Hong Kong is unique in that neither the National Anthem of the PRC is written into the infobox as the official anthem (although this can be justified because HK does not have its own "territorial anthem"), nor is Hu Jintao written into the infobox as the legal head of state. In fact, the opening section and infobox almost avoids mention of China entirely (including as part of its official name, although this has been previously discussed). It is interesting that this phenomenon is found so prominently on Wikipedia, and not on such sources like the CIA world factbook (which explicitly mentions "China" throughout), and the Economist country briefings. Both sources also have Hu Jintao as Hong Kong's head of state. In addition, Macau's article states explicitly that it is a SAR of the PRC, whereas Hong Kong's does not. Without amending the article itself, it may be best to have a discussion on this issue. Colipon+( T) 01:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Both SARS have not reached the point where naming a head of state actually matters. About macau being more mainland-ish and happy to be with PRC, that is very normal. If you follow the Sino-Portugal Treaty of Peking 1887 there are tons of controversies (especially in English text) on why macau was so neglected. They never felt fully integrated from the start. Benjwong ( talk) 03:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I too have had this feeling for a while that there has been an effort to airbrush HK's status as part of the PRC out of the picture as much as possible. Let's look at the opening paragraph:-
Questions comes to mind immediately would be: 1. Special Administrative Region of what state? 2. "a territory", territory of what state? The answer to both questions is the People's Republic of China.
A while back I added People's Republic of China to the information as well as the heading of the infobox and the phrase got removed rather quickly. If I could recall correctly, the reason for the removal was it is unnecessary information. I failed to see how that information could be unnecessary to normal readers, but I didn't want to risk the prospect that other editors might hostilely treat me as someone who has a political agenda to serve for the PRC.-- pyl ( talk) 06:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
There have been some really good points presented here. I definitely sense that the intro, and probably the entire article, tries to avoid explicit mention of Chinese sovereignty. Editors even have a problem with placing the official name of the SAR into the infobox, and this issue has been of significant discussion previously. There is no hidden agenda here. Hong Kong is part of the PRC, and by the way the article looks right now it seems that it wants to avoid this connection at all costs. Regardless, the way the article, especially the intro, is worded currently, is unquestionably unfair. Some mention of the PRC should be made so that any junior reader doesn't come to the implicit conclusion that Hong Kong has nothing to do with the PRC.
I also bring your attention to a more lighthearted issue. On the Jackie Chan article, originally it says he was a "Chinese" actor, martial artist... etc (which he undoubtedly is, and he has so proudly declared this fact on many occasions). But that was taken out of the intro without explanation by editors, who apparently believe that anyone from Hong Kong can't be presented as "Chinese". I've refrained from making any edits there, but I wanted to bring the issue to attention. Colipon+( T) 17:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, I propose the following changes to the intro:
This is not aimed at fanning PRC propaganda. This is purely aimed at making the intro and the presentation of facts more balanced. Colipon+( T) 17:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
This dude is definitely pushing his PRC communist propaganda (i.e. POV). The intro paragraph does state that Hong Kong is now an special administrative region of the People's Republic of China. This is perfect, and should be sufficiently informative. The Hong Kong article should be about Hong Kong. If you want to talk about stupid Hu Jintao, why don't you play around with it in the China article? Also, the official name of Hong Kong is "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" for sure, and I don't see why "People's Republic of China" is part of Hong Kong's official name. - 68.6.120.13 ( talk) 23:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I will leave it up to other editors to judge whether or not this is communist propaganda. With all due respect, the official website of the Hong Kong government calls itself the "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China". People here keep missing the point. Some fully sovereign states even have a head of state that doesn't even belong to their state (i.e. Andorra, Canada, New Zealand etc.). It is a legal fact that Hu Jintao is the head of state of the PRC and all of its territories. Colipon+( T) 02:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
If Hong Kong goes by the official short form Hong Kong, China, then Hong Kong = Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and China = People's Republic of China. Then the full name of "Hong Kong" is NOT "HKSAR of PRC". Sometimes we say "Hong Kong" and sometimes "Hong Kong, China". The same contexts should then decide whether to say HKSAR or HKSAR of PRC.
HKSAR can indeed be used alone without PRC, e.g. Hong Kong Observatory. In a one-agency context, who cares what country HK belongs to? But once you go to the HK Government website, they emphasize PRC because HK has not always been PRC. Go to many other provinces' websites, and you're not going to find the "full name"--even Tibet because there is less ambiguity. It's the same reason New Mexico puts "USA" on its license plates and other states don't.
As to the Head of State issue, the PRC president is elected by delegates including those from HK and Macau--and they live there unlike those so-called "Taiwan" delegates. There are functions that Tsang cannot perform and requires the presence of Hu. Hu's duties do include HK. Wen? Maybe some. Many other cabinet officials? No. HkCaGu ( talk) 05:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
It's alright as long as it's dealt with in the same way as any other dependent territory such as Aruba or Puerto Rico as mentioned in the beginning of this thread. As far as Hong Kong is concerned, the head of state is the head of state of the People's Republic of China. The Basic Law stipulates that the Chief Executive of Hong Kong is the head of the special administrative region as well as the head of the region's government.
The full name of Hong Kong is, however, "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China", which is unlike the format of the full names of most dependent territories. It's interesting to see how the "Communist" Party wants to highlight its ownership over the territory. "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" can be regarded as a partial short form. Montemonte ( talk) 16:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
With all due respect, Ben, One Country Two Systems was the formula devised so HK could be subject to PRC sovereignty. A Hong Kong passport may be coveted by mainlanders, but on its cover is still engraved "HKSAR of the People's Republic of China", not simply "Hong Kong". The emblem on it is the Chinese coat of arms, not the Hong Kong regional emblem. The NPC is the body that has the highest constitutional authority to interpret the HK Basic Law. That's why it's called a Basic Law and not a Constitution. While it is understandable that editors like you do not want to make Hong Kong associated with the PRC in any way, it is unfair for an encyclopedia article to reflect this opinion exclusively to override what is legal fact. Colipon+( T) 23:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Let me bring to your attention the following things:
These are facts taken directly from the Basic Law. Colipon+( T) 00:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I oppose to any of the above proposed changes because they are attempts by POV editors to highlight China's ownership of HK.— Chris! c t 20:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
According to article22 again, it saids "No department of the Central People's Government and no province, autonomous region, or municipality directly under the Central Government may interfere in the affairs which the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region administers on its own in ccordance with this Law." Benjwong ( talk) 06:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I just want to comment on the Head of State issue, Head of State should not be confused with the Head of Government or the Representative of the Head of State. Using Australia as an example (because I remember this issue came up during the Sydney Olympics) the Head of State of Australia is the Queen of England while the Representative of the Head of State is the Governor General and the Head of Government is the Prime Minister. While the Prime Minister is for all intense and purposes the Leader of the country, he makes all the decisions, the Head of State is still technically the Queen. So in Hong Kong's case I think the Chief executive is performing a dual role as the Representative of the Head of State and the Head of Government but technically the Head of State is still the President of China because Hong Kong technically is not a "State" and so it can't have a Head of State.
With regards to the name issue that's pretty interesting because the official address for California for example is "California USA", California is the State (or region) and USA is the Country. So if Hong Kong's full name is "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China" does that mean technically the official address for Hong Kong is "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China People's Republic of China"? Or is "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" the region (or State) and "People's Republic of China" the Country? Not sure, I'll try to look into it.
And also the "Mainland China" issue I thought we dealt with this months ago, I remember doing a lot of research on it and typed a whole section explaining why Hong Kong is not considered part of "Mainland", please look in the achieves to find my explanation. I think people have to remember we are talking about encyclopaedic information here, referencing an off the cuff comment by the Chinese President or the sentiment of old GMT generals is not good enough, when it comes to terminology we are looking for official usage and or common usage. On those two points it is clear that the term "Mainland" does not include Hong Kong and Macao. Pete168 ( talk) 04:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I've found numerous sources for the head of state, since earlier the CIA World Factbook was not deemed valid by some editors. Please reference the following sources:
Colipon+( T) 02:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Disagree with Colipon+'s "Proposed Changes" As per
Hong Kong order of precedence, the Chief Executive is the
Head of
Hong Kong Government and in theory subordinates to no one. Even when officials from the PRC visit HK, those officials (including the President) are just listed as Special Guests. This rules was designed to eliminate even slightest symbolic authority of PRC's political figures over HK's internal affiar. Although for formal purposes HK has PRC's name appended at the end, in practice HK opreates as if it is a seperated entity from PRC (e.g the legal system, seperated currency). Rendering HK looks like just a city within PRC has been a continuous PRC propaganda recently, while there r areas they can play with (such as adding the word "China" whenever they see the word "Hong Kong", specially on products such as stamps and emblems), in this case the President of PRC has been purposefully omited from the Order of Precedence, that's why the President is not entitled to be listed here too, until 2047.--
Da Vynci (
talk)
01:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Your analogy is invalid because: Queen Margarethe II is listed as Head of State in Aruba because the monarch is on the top of their Order of Precedence. But, in Hong Kong, CE is the first on the Order of Precedence, and President of PRC is NOT included. -- Da Vynci ( talk) 03:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
So we have reached a consensus on proposal #1. I do believe that "PRC" being part of the official name should be presented, but not stressed. Therefore, I move that this fact be only presented in the infobox, and not the lead sentence itself, to avoid future controversy (or it can be the other way around, what do you people think?). I propose the lead sentence remain the way it is, with the following tweaks:
I believe this presents a balanced view. Not only does it make it clear that Hong Kong is sufficiently autonomous and distinct from the rest of China, but it also presents a more balanced introduction to people who have little knowledge on this subject. Colipon+( T) 01:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I suggest the following:
Because, depends on the situation, foreign affair could be but necessarily the responsibility of Ministry of Foreign Affairs , while defence could be but necessarily the responsibility People's Liberation Army, or the PLA General Staff Department, or Central Military Commission or the Central Government in Beijing (the current red link suggests there possibly is no such organisation with the exact name) , or the Communist Party of China, or President Hu Jintao, or Premier's Wen Jiabao responsiblities. This page is not about government departments of PRC. So the one I suggest (without specifying any departments) would be a more balance and practical one. -- Da Vynci ( talk) 01:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Neither the UK nor the PRC claim that sovereignty was transferred in 1997. The PRC uses the words "recover" and "resume", the UK uses "restore" but neither uses transfer. It is not incorrect to use the word "returned" either, as the PRC obviously claims successory rights from the Qing. The current wording (and title of the main Wikipedia article on the subject) of "transfer of sovereignty" is a MADE UP TERM that did not exist before Wikipedia used it. This is Wikipedia prescribing usage and definitions which is absolutely against policies. Usage of that term prescribes a whole cascade of ideas (that sovereignty was held by the UK was a disputed idea by the PRC, and not disclaimed by the UK, so why is Wikipedia saying it?) that Wikipedia is not in the business of doing. SchmuckyTheCat ( talk)
I have to agree with the wording of "transfer" here, but only because it is the more neutral and general term. The word "transfer" does not preclude that the PRC is actually "resuming" sovereignty. I would also like to warn against adding more text in the article to resolve this issue. It's something which, in my opinion, is really not that big of a deal in the context of everything else that can be improved in the article. If other editors want more clarification on this issue, I suggest they find reliable sources that comment specifically on the wording, and add to article Sino-British Joint Declaration. The words "resume" and "restore" are actually used in the Joint Declaration. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 15:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
If people are having problems with the word "sovereignty" may I suggest using "control" instead, like "Britain transferred effective control of Hong Kong to China" or something like that. Because two countries can claim sovereignty over a territory at the same time but only one can have effective control over it at any one time. But to be honest aren't we nit picking just a bit over this term? Pete168 ( talk) 04:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I am really disgusted by the recent "Chinese nationalism" of some Wikipedians from China. From what I see, some of them have been complaining that the Hong Kong article does not mention enough about China, and recommending that a lot of information about China to be added to the Hong Kong article. This is simply ridiculous. The introductory paragraph already clearly have the following sentence:
This sentence already gives the readers enough information about the relationship between Hong Kong and China. I don't see the need of adding information about China everywhere in the Hong Kong article. If people want to know more about China, they can simply go to the China article or the PRC article.
I don't know the motive behind the recent actions of those nationalistic Wikipedians from China. But the dirty tactics for sticking a lot of information about China here and there in the Hong Kong article is disgusting. Why do the Chinese always love to impose their own things on others? Why are the Chinese always so insecure that they have to always emphasize to the whole world that they possess something? Why didn't the British need to use the term "Hong Kong, UK" every time they referred to Hong Kong before 1997? I hope the Wikipedians from China could be more civilised. Leave Hong Kong alone. - 68.6.120.13 ( talk) 01:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I am sure that the people who are actually from Hong Kong are more familiar with Hong Kong than those people from China. I just find it funny and stupid that some people from China are "teaching" Hongkongers "Hong Kong is like this" and "Hong Kong is like that". - 68.6.120.13 ( talk) 21:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I recently came across the factbook of the CIA and noted the recent head of state debate. I saw the following in the factbook:-
I am not saying that this should be include in the article: it doesn't matter to me either way. As I can feel a large sense of rejection for anything that puts HK and the mainland together, I am not going to upset those people, as long as they don't start making up stories like some people in the Taiwan independence or Chinese reunification movements. I am listing this just shows the common sense. HK is part of a state called the People's Republic of China. The head of state for HK is naturally the President of the PRC.-- pyl ( talk) 04:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Referring to what Colipon said.
“ | I attempted introducing it again, but it caused a great uproar with editors from Hong Kong | ” |
First of all, how do u know everyone who disagree with u is from Hong Kong not anywhere else? As per Hong Kong order of precedence, the Chief Executive is the Head of Hong Kong Government and in theory subordinates to no one. Even when officials from the PRC visit HK, those officials (including the President) are just listed as Special Guests. This rules was designed to eliminate even slightest symbolic authority of PRC's political figures over HK's internal affiar. Although for formal purposes HK has PRC's name appended at the end, in practice HK opreates as if it is a seperated entity from PRC (e.g the legal system, seperated currency). Rendering HK looks like just a city within PRC has been a continuous PRC propaganda recently, while there r areas they can play with (such as adding the word "China" whenever they see the word "Hong Kong", specially on products such as stamps and emblems), in this case the President of PRC has been purposefully omited from the Order of Precedence, that's why the President is not entitled to be listed here too, until 2047.-- Da Vynci ( talk) 21:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Pyl, sorry you I think you have mistaken, quoting your Using Australia as an example, the head of state is the Governor-General representing the Queen in right of Australia, and the head of government is the Prime Minister of Australia. For Hong Kong, the head of state is the president of the PRC and the head of government is the chief executive. The Queen Elisabeth II's title is Queen of Australia, her governor-general's title is Governor-General of Australia, that's why they are both listed on the Australia page, however Hu Jintao's title is not President of Hong Kong that's why he shouldn't be included as Chief of State on this page, instead he should be inclded here. The reference on Government of Hong Kong website should be piroritised here, which indicates no such thing as Head of State of Hong Kong, thus President of PRC shouldn't be listed here. The Order of Precedence of Hong Kong also indicates no one is on the top of the Cheif Executive -- Da Vynci ( talk) 11:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I understand what you are trying to do, you are trying to include the "Head of State" to sub-national entities. As if on the sovereign state's pages has already includd the detail of Head of State is not enough, and you think there is a need inclde details of "Head of States" at all city levels, provance levels, town levels. If we start including Head of State to sub-national entities, we have to be consistent. We will need to indicate HoS in Tsim Sha Tsui, Notting Hill, Kowloon, Kowloon City, Sydney,etc. But I don't think it is necessary. Hong Kong is a dependent territory with its own Order of Precedence which explicitly excludes the position of Head of States. Details of the Head of State goes to the country's page, not here.-- Da Vynci ( talk) 12:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
“ | The truth is, official Hong Kong Government sources should be prioritised here, the official Hong Kong Government website indicates NO such position as Head of State of Hong Kong, so we should present it as such. -- Da Vynci ( talk) 22:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC) | ” |
“ | As per Hong Kong order of precedence, the Chief Executive is the Head of Hong Kong Government and in theory subordinates to no one. Even when officials from the PRC visit HK, those officials (including the President) are just listed as Special Guests. There is no such position as Head of State in the Hong Kong order of precedence, thus the title of HOS should not be included here.-- Da Vynci ( talk) 01:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC) | ” |
What's the point of quoting two statements of yourself when they have already been debated to be invalid. That's quite a curious style of debate, as the arguments are becoming circular.
It is not the truth that HK government sources should be prioritised. It is not in the Wikipedia rules and it has no sound basis. If government sources are prioritised, then North Korea must have a great human rights record, but it may not necessarily be the truth, as the governments also have their political considerations. Speaking of which, will the government be popular in HK if it always acts as a subordinate government to Beijing?
You are aware that when the Queen *visits* Australia, her majesty is also listed as a special guest? So your order of precedence really doesn't mean anything other than WP:OR. See Australian order of precedence and compare it with Canadian order of precedence-- pyl ( talk) 04:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Barack Obama is undisputedly the head of state of Puerto Rico. But as far as Puerto Rico is concerned, the head of the territory as well as the head of government is its governor. In the case of Bermuda, the head of state is the Queen in right of the UK, represented by a governor she theoretically appoints, who acts as the de facto head of the territory, whereas the head of government is the premier. In the case of Hong Kong, the head of state is the president of the PRC, currently Hu Jintao. The Chief Executive serves both as the head of the region (read the Basic Law) and head of government (again explicitly defined by the Basic Law).
Since the current infobox template is applied to all the articles on inhabited dependent territories, and that the word country rarely refers only to sovereign state in conventional usage, I'd say the template is suitable for the Hong Kong article. The only problem is that an extra field is apparently necessary for the head of the territory. This is already done with articles such as Bermuda and the Cayman Islands. Montemonte ( talk) 19:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I hope you guy don't mind but I decided to change the lead image from the HK skyline to a photo collage of HK and its various scenes. I noticed that in other sections you see collage pics of New York, London, etc. HK is a dynamic city and it deserves a collage as well. Anyway, I took all of the photos myself but I don't know how to edit it. Its semi protected unfortunately.
Wanch ( talk) 07:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Seeing SchmuckyTheCat repeatingly reverting the article, pls take a look at this. The Hong Kong Goverment is very clear on that. Arrangement for Entry to Hong Kong from Mainland China HK is not part of mainland China, as described in the article "Arrangement for Entry to Hong Kong from Mainland China", this is two different places, otherwise there wouldn't be a law saying Mainland residents who wish to settle in Hong Kong must apply for One-way Permits (OWPs) from the Public Security Bureau Offices where their household registrations are kept. This is under Article 22 of the Basic Law.
"Postage Guide 2007" published by The HongkongPost [1] also very clear on that, in which Section 1 is Mail to Hong Kong, while Section 2 is dedicated to mail to Mainland China, clearly stating they are two different places and HK is not inside Mainland China. DO NOT remove the sentense "Hong Kong is not part of mainland China" unless you have government source supporting it. -- Da Vynci ( talk) 03:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I have another suggestion for the mainland China line. I am supportive of the idea that Hong Kong is not part of mainland China (and as per my proposed change #3 above, I have never advocated for removal of this line). But I think it can be presented differently. How about:
As a result, Hong Kong is separate from mainland China in that it is largely self-governing, has its own currency, legal and political systems, a high degree of autonomy in all of its affairs, with the exception of foreign affairs and defence.
This makes the sentence look less awkward, less POV-oriented, and does not run into any more contentions about the political POV about mainland China. Colipon+( T) 21:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
See paragraphs 8 to 10 of this document. [13] Montemonte ( talk) 19:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Why do we have to emphasize HK being 'not part of mainland China' while it is clearn part of China? Can I say Hong Kong is considered as part of China? It's just a bit strange. -- Gomeying ( talk) 12:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
“ | No department of the CPG and no province, autonomous region, or municipality directly under the Central Government may interfere in the affairs which the HKSAR administers on its own in accordance with the Basic Law. (cf. BL 22) | ” |
-- Da Vynci ( talk) 09:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Just to point out there is a false information on the footnote #1 (which is a note to the title of the info box), where it reads
“ | This (Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China) is the official convention employed on the Hong Kong Regional emblem... | ” |
The correct English title on the Emblem of Hong Kong ( or Hong Kong Regional emblem) reads "HONG KONG", not "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China" (although HKSARPRC appears in Basic Law and HK Gov's website, but not on the Emblem of Hong Kong).
I tried to correct this, but another editor reverted my edits repeatedly, probably I hit his/her nerve by removing anything about China. But, I think we have to either fix the title or the footnote. Can anyone verify what are the English words on the Emblem of Hong Kong? (showing on the picture on right hand side) -- Da Vynci ( talk) 10:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Let's work something out here instead of reverting each other. I am not sure why you are fighting over what the emblem says - it is just a symbol and not exactly a good reference for what Hong Kong's conventional long name is. The better references are the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Hong Kong Basic Law, both of which would support "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region". Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 14:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
According to the The Official Languages Ordinance, enacted in 1974, both English and Chinese language has equal legal status in Hong Kong. Moreover, WP:Citing sources states:
“ | Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to other language sources of equal caliber. | ” |
Of course, there maybe discrepancy between the Chinese and English versions, just like many other bilingual documents. That's why, in this case, it doesn't really matter what the Chinese words are and how they could be translated differently into English, the English title of the Emblem reads the English words "HONG KONG", with the fact that English is an official language of Hong Kong, this is what we should follow. -- Da Vynci ( talk) 23:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
You said English and Chinese has not been treated equally here? Chinese is 'obviously' primary? Well, they may not be the exact translation of each other, but the 2 versions of the title certainly have equal legal statues. Do you have official source to support your claim that the Chi/Eng Emblem titles are not of equal status? If not, please refrain from speculating. The Emblem (including its choice of words) is the work of an extensive design process and subjected to many authorities' approval, at the end the words HONG KONG is chosen for the English text, and we should respect that. -- Da Vynci ( talk) 23:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. And furthermore, here's the basic law article 9: "In addition to the Chinese language, English may also be used as an official language by the executive authorities, legislature and judiciary of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region." HkCaGu ( talk) 04:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I understand that Hong Kong has no prescribed capital. The government offices are located in Government Hill, which is located in the Central and Western District. I think we could list the capital as "none" and then put in a footnote stating that "Government Hill is located in the Central and Western Government", pointing out the location of the government without calling the district an official capital. Would anyone here object to this listing? Inkan1969 ( talk) 19:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Under the section 'Etymology', it rightly points out the 'correct' or 'more accurate' (transliterized) pronunciation of 香港 in the Cantonese language/dialect, namely - 'Heung Gong'. My suggestion is to put "Hong Kong or Heung Gong" instead of just 'Hong Kong' in the title or in the lead-in to add emphasis to this correct pronunciation. I'm sure many will agree that one purpose of wikipedia is to correct :misconceptions: and also :mispronunciations:. I believe 香港 natives will be more than pleased to hear their city pronounced correctly. I hope wikipedia could play a role in this. Add: this is similiar to the renaming of Bombay to Mumbai to reflect the 'correct' pronunciation. In HK's case, it would seem the government has no intention to change the spelling. This doesn't mean that people shouldn't make the effort to pronounce the city correctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.120.9.84 ( talk) 17:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I think we better adhere with the name Hong Kong. The name Hong Kong is not a exact transliteration and not intended to be used as such. Yes, it may sounds like the Cantonese pronunciation of the place, but it is a English name after all. It is called Exonym and endonym, just like many other countries names, such as China (which doesn't remotely sounds like the exactly transliteration Jhongguó) , Japan (transliteration should be Nihon), Italy (in Italian language it actually should be written Italia).
This is an Englihs wikipeida, we use English name. If the place has an official English name, use it. -- Da Vynci ( talk) 17:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
And no, I haven't seen any official or government spell Hong Kong as Heung Gong. Well, besides, whether the spelling of Heung Gong is accurate is also debatable, as some may also argue that it could also be Houng Gong, Hung Goong, Honng Koong, Heng Gon.....-- Da Vynci ( talk) 17:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
We have to somehow come to a consensus on this "Pearl River Delta" and "East Asia" debate. It seems there's been a lot of reverting, and that some users are trying to highlight HK's status as Chinese territory, while others try to avoid mention of China, whether implicit or explicit, at all costs. Something needs to be done or else this will result in a constant edit war... Colipon+( T) 06:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
“ | Some editors want to highlight the de jure sovereignty of PRC over Hong Kong, while other editors want to highlight the de facto independency and special status of Hong Kong. | ” |
This discussion is not really about whether people avoid the "Mention of "China" as you titled, with your discussion lead paragraph is biased and misleading right from the beginning. China is mentioned 46 times in the article and you described the issue as "somebody try to avoid mention of China"!? You can either rename the talk title or open a new talk section if you want to discuss PRC's largely unexercised sovereignty over Hong Kong vs Hong Kong's practical independency and special status. -- Da Vynci ( talk) 13:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Enlightening...you can't even write a discussion lead paragraph without being misleading, and you think we should re-write the lead paragraph of the article in the way you suggested? -- Da Vynci ( talk) 13:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
If Wikipedia were there before 1997, what would you write in the lead, objectively? Of course, a British colony next to/taken from China! Now why we should stop mentioning that now? Hong Kong (post-1860s) is not an island disconnected from a larger landmass like Singapore. Hong Kong was not isolated from China, and was pretty much dependent on the Mainland (think food and water).
Not including China (PRC or whatever) in the lead (by just saying Asia and Pearl River) is ridiculous and is obvious POV-pushing. Look at how most news articles in the West describes Hong Kong, and you'll find the phrase "former British colony" somewhere in there. Therefore I propose that mentioning "SAR of the PRC" should be in the lead sentence, then immediately followed by its colonial history (a former British colony until 1997). This is how you would make someone understand what Hong Kong is if you're limited to a sentence or two. The population density and detailed geography can follow these. HkCaGu ( talk) 04:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Use the Macau lead. And, just because the PLA is physically in Hong Kong doesn't mean it exercises any influence. DOR (HK) ( talk) 05:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
This title of this discussion is about whether Mention of "China" in lead has been avoided. The title of this discussion is misleading from the beginning coz the what the initiator really want to discuss is China's unexercised sovereignty. This misleading title causes users like HkCaGu thinking highlighting Hong Kong's special status simply equal "avoid mention of China". However, given that fact that the lead mentions China 3 times, the infobox title has People's Republic of China in bold, China has been already mentioned 47 times in the articles, the issue isn't really about Mention of "China" in lead as stated as the title. Open a new section if anybody want to discuss other non-related issue such as Chinese sovereignty.-- Da Vynci ( talk) 12:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The most common phrasing used by government and business leaders, in English is “The Mainland of China,” and not “Mainland China.” DOR (HK) ( talk) 06:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
This section should serve as a discussion for editors to talk about their views on the following issues (marked in italics below):
Awaiting suggestions, Colipon+( T) 13:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Changing discussion title as I told you, is a good start Mr Colipon. Unfortuntely, I don't think we can solve the problem with confined multiple-choice like that. This is not a word game. Not to mention you only given 2 choices: one being a obvious bad choice and another being the answer you want. Besides, you missed the essential question out, how Hong Kong's special status and de facto indenpendency (in areas except defence and foreign affair) should be highlighted if PRC's largely unexercised sovereignty (in areas except defence and foreign affair) is highlighted? -- Da Vynci ( talk) 16:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
For the beginning phrase, Hong Kong should be officially the HKSAR, not the HKSAR of the PRC. The PRC part was added by an IP editor after most every mention of PRC was deleted from the opening paragraph. Hong Kong, China is officially HKSAR of the PRC. That means HK=HKSAR and China=PRC. Simple logic. HkCaGu ( talk) 02:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
DOR (HK) ( talk) 06:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I am going to make a couple of bold edits, judging from the consensus from editors here. Obviously, it won't be perfect because there are still some disputes. So I welcome other editors to please help me out. Colipon+( T) 02:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
[15] Here are my changes to the intro. Among the biggest changes, I made the first paragraph clear, as per suggestions from Schmucky, and clarifies Hong Kong's status concisely to an average reader. I added some more brief descriptions about its past as a British colony, so readers have a bit of background on that unique part of Hong Kong's heritage as well. I then went on to clarify the extent of Hong Kong's autonomy, and which authorities are responsible for which areas. I also moved the "population density" section to the bottom as it does not fit too well with the first paragraph. Finally, I got rid of some of the references for the "not part of Mainland China" phrase. It's general consensus here that Hong Kong is separate from Mainland China for all practical purposes, so that is clarified to the reader, without the need to justify it with 4 separate references. I really hope the grammar is sound and please correct it if it still lacks flow. Colipon+( T) 02:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
The first two sentences that make up the first paragraph are perfect.
I think we need a either a second paragraph or an addendum to the first paragraph to introduces the next three paragraphs. Right now the paragraphs are:
The problem I have is that there is no mention of the economy until the 4th paragraph. There is no mention of a high degree of autonomy until the third paragraph. These are key concepts about Hong Kong and I think we should try to get them mentioned as soon as possible after we take care of the sovereignty and location mention. A sentence to be added to the first paragraph might read, "A British dependent territory until 1997, Hong Kong is an important financial center that enjoys a high degree of autonomy from the PRC under the 1-country-2-systems arrangement." Readin ( talk) 14:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
![]() | 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 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
On 2005-09-24, 25 Hong Kong pro-democracy LegCo members, some of whom were previously labelled as traitors by Beijing after the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown and barred from entering the mainland, crossed the border into the southern province of Guangdong, following an unprecedented invitation by the PRC.[26] The invitation was generally regarded as one of the greatest goodwill gestures from the PRC to the Hong Kong democrats since the June-Fourth incident.
There's a footnote to support that they were invited to the mainland by the central leadership. But we need a source to say that the invitation was "generally regarded as one of the greatest goodwill gestures". Who regards it as such? If a source doesn't materialise in a few days to a week, I'll be removing that entire passage. If we can't support that this was a "sign of good will", then that entire paragraph is pretty trivial for this article. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 18:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I personally don't want to take this article to FAR. This article was promoted to FA three years ago. And right now, I found there are many problems that it should be fixed ASAP.
I personally recommend that the section of international rankings be removed. It is much better to create a new article specifically for the International Rankings of Hong Kong in order to reduce the article size in general. Coloane ( talk) 09:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The final paragraph of the religion section currently reads: "Hong Kong is the only place in the PRC where missionaries from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormon Church) can serve. The Church has a temple in Hong Kong which was dedicated by President Gordon B. Hinckley in 1996."
I see 3 problems with this portion:
1) It is factually incorrect, as Mormons missionaries also serve in Macau, which, like Hong Kong, is a special administrative region of the PRC.
2) Referring to Hong Kong as a "place in the PRC" is inconsistent with the style used throughout this article.
3) Given the relatively small presence of Mormons in HK, I don't think it merits such prominent mention in this article. The Mormon community in Hong Kongconsists of 22,556 members, http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/contact-us/china-8212-hong-kong, with between 5,000 and 6,000 adherents estimated to be 'active' in the faith http://www.cumorah.com/cgi-bin/db.cgi?view_records=View%2BRecords&Country=Hong+Kong.
Given the above points, in the interest of brevity, accurancy and relevance, the above portion should be deleted, and Mormonism receive the same treatment as other minor religious groups, with the number of adherents being reported but no special commentary provided. Spinner145 ( talk) 03:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, in that case I think a sensible edit would be just to modify the second sentence of the second paragraph of the Religion section to read (changed portion in italics): "Apart from the major religions, there are also a significant number of followers of other religions, including an estimated 90,000 Muslims; 22,000 Mormons, 4,000 Jews; 4,600 Jehovah's Witnesses and a number of Hindus, Sikhs and Bahá'ís[51]" and to include the link I gave as a reference, and then delete the paragraph I originally noted. Given the treatment accorded other similarly sized religions in HK, this treatment seems appopriate and proportional to me. Spinner145 ( talk) 09:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I took out the last two statements in that paragraph - [1] - firstly because I didn't see in the source provided anybody actually calling the trip "unsuccessful", and secondly because we can probably make a small article about the trip itself, but the trip remains not even one of the most significant political events in Hong Kong history, so it's best to summarise here on the main Hong Kong article. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 14:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Sky Divine, please stop adding simplified character without consensus. Your argument that we should add simplified characters simply because HK is part of PRC is totally illogical. The fact that HK uses only traditional suggests that we should only use traditional in the article. Chris! c t 21:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
It seems pretty obvious to me that User:Sky Divine is adding Simplified characters in this article because of a disagreement he's having at Talk:People's Republic of China [2] (where ironically he argues that Traditional characters should not be added to the PRC article, yet he wants to add Simplified characters in this article). I've already brought this up at the other Talk page, and I'll bring it up again - Sky Divine, if you have a disagreement at the PRC article, then keep it over there and don't drag it over here. And if you want to add Simplified characters in this article, please bring it up in the Talk page first. This article has a long established standard of not using Simplified characters. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 02:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Some pretty dramatic revisions were made in recent days to this article, and many of them seem to bold for a long and stable featured article like this. I therefore decided to restore some things to the way they were before some changes that I feel are not necessary. Since I can't find any note left here about those changes, I've made a new section. — Kelw ( talk) 02:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I've kept your revert of the of the topics template in See Also. However, there are a few problems I found with the infobox change:
Lastly, I do agree with you that some overhaul is needed for this article and it is quite disorganized. But to prevent an FA review we should concentrate on improving the writing of the article and finding citations for claims. Although changing pictures is sometimes good, it's not going to help with an FA review. And yes we need to be bold, but stability is also important in a featured article, so let's try to do this in steps. — Kelw ( talk) 21:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
<<< Good job with the map. The only thing I changed is switching the order of the map and picture, so that the first map parameter is filled by a real map and the extra map parameter is filled by the picture. I also specified the width for the second parameter so the image sizes are uniform. Personally though, I still prefer having no skyline picture for a Country or Territory infobox. — Kelw ( talk) 16:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
That's a great picture Diliff, the previous one was just until we found a better one. You seem to have a knack for great high quality pictures, do you have one of the same view from the Peak but in the daytime? -- Joowwww ( talk) 18:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
During the beginning of your article (whoever you are,) I saw that you just have to mention the first Opium war and it has nothing to do with Hong Kong. You should probably includee the war inside the articles Great Britain or China. You can mention the second Opium war, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevennelly11 ( talk • contribs) 00:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I've just implemented a major change to 3 sections of the article and thought I should share my reasoning. It's condensed the article visually but actually increased its disk size by 2 kb due to the amount of references I added.
Hopefully this change is to everyone's taste and other sections can be moved onto, making the article really deserve its FA status. Cheers,-- Joowwww ( talk) 19:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I feel this is a section that needs to be rewritten to a more summarizing form. The text right now goes back and forth and has a lot of unneeded info that shold be in subarticles. I think the section should summarize the following:
I plan to make a change within the next few days. Any thoughts? — Kelw ( talk) 21:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Kelw, your recommended changes seem overly legal / technical. Where are the politics of "politics and government"? Surely the politcal parties and non-party groups deserve a major subcategory under such a section. And, Joowwww, seeing as Los Angeles, London and La Paz don't need sections on a city's military, perhaps it isn't needed here. DOR (HK) ( talk) 07:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
To try and make it easier for casual readers to find the information they want and keep to WP:Summary I'm proposing a change of the section layout. This will also help to better organise the article both during and after the Featured Article Review. It's based on a compromise between general guides at the Country and Cities WikiProjects and other featured articles. Some of the current sections may seem too big to merge together but a featured article about a major topic like Australia can summarise things well and at only 62kb is far more readable than the HK article.
What do you all think about this. -- Joowwww ( talk) 16:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I've just merged Religion into Demographics. A lot of content in the Religion section focused on what the religion actually does, instead of information specific to Hong Kong. The Demographics section is now organised into four paragraphs: Population statistics, ethnicity/immigration, language, and religion. -- Joowwww ( talk) 20:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I've just merged Military into Politics and condensed. A lot of the politics section was describing what the government does, instead of what it is, which is more suited to the appropriate sub-articles. The military section easily fits into the politics section again by cutting out a lot of what there was and what it does, and just describing what it is. If anyone wants to know more detail about something they can click on the links. -- Joowwww ( talk) 15:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Would anyone object if the Healthcare section was moved to its own page, Healthcare in Hong Kong? This is of course important information but I think it's too specific for a main article summary page, contributing to the page's length, and would be better suited on its own article where it can be expanded and linked. -- Joowwww ( talk) 19:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone remember this nickname for Hong Kong? -- Tesscass ( talk) 17:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Pearl of the Orient is correct, probably from the Pearl River Delta. DOR (HK) ( talk) 03:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Incorrect - the British used to call Pulau Pinang (Penang) in Malaysia the 'Pearl of the Orient'. Jim B 25 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.22.194 ( talk)
was looking for some informations that i need...and found out lots lots of them had been deleted.. 1/3 of pages erased in 2 months? i would be glad if someone can fill in some back..especially the economy of HK..and living.. and the awards..need it for school works..n research.. thank you so much!
First of all I´m really sorry that this question doesn´t help to improve that article but I made everywhere equieries and didn´t get the answer for the following question which could have a strong influence on my future so please don´t delete it and try to help me if you can. Here´s my question: I´ve european citizienship and want to apply for a Hong Kong ID card (NOT the permanent one, just the ordinary without the right of abode) in order to be able to apply for a job in Hong Kong. Are there any possibilities for me to get this card? Many thanks for you help and understanding in advance! Dagadt ( talk) 16:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
my friend is Cathay Pacific pilot and said that they changed some things. I´ll ask him, but anyway, please tell me how to get the ordinary ID card, in case that would be their new requirement. Dagadt ( talk) 07:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Is there anything to be done about the panorama pictured under "Architecture of Hong Kong"? It's a very wide picture, and on some screen resolutions juts out away from the text, disrupting the article's flow. Perhaps the image could be deleted altogether. I find two images of the city skyline to be kind of redundant. JeffDaniels ( talk) 23:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
<< You said "it's where users would expect to find a picture of the city like in every other city article," but this is not a city article and it doesn't use the city infobox. I don't know why you say "it is Wikipedia convention to have a picture of the city in the infobox"; there is no such convention, unless you are trying to bring up template:infobox city. As I said before, look at the infoboxes for Singapore, Monaco, or even Macau and tell me if they violate Wikipedia convention. Your rhetoric that it looks acts and smells like a city is, bluntly put, lazy logic. We might as well label whales and dolphins as fish. What is so important to you about having that picture in the infobox, that justifies misusing an infobox parameter and going against nearly every other article that uses this template? And from this discussion alone, it's quite clear that I am not the only one who finds two skyline pictures redundant. — Kelw ( talk) 22:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
This article should say it was the host of a 2008 venue, and have a sports section in any case. 70.55.85.40 ( talk) 12:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a slow edit war occuring between people who think the leading sentence should be HKSAR and those who think it should be HKSAR of the PRC. After reading the previous discussions on this issue, no consensus seems to have been reached. Shall we try to find one now, and end this edit war?
I'm proposing it stays as HKSAR in the intro, but is changed to HKSAR of the PRC in the infobox. A compromise. This fulfills one side's argument that the full official title is both unnecessary and affects the article's readability, but where readability isn't an issue - in the infobox - the full, official title can be given, achieving some people's request of adhering to convention. -- Joowwww ( talk) 19:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
We seem to be back to the slow edit war, again. DOR (HK) ( talk) 03:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I've made a pronunciation template for a new etymology section in an attempt to solve the messy intro problem. I understand this has been a very contentious issue so feel free to state any objections or changes that need to be made, or if it just doesn't work at all. Regards -- Joowwww ( talk) 14:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
A further thought: Perhaps if there was an image of a written 香港 on a temple wall or somewhere, the template could be made to look like an image thumbnail? -- Joowwww ( talk) 14:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I made the refs take up less space, is it appropriate? Enlil Ninlil ( talk) 21:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
New user box
![]() | This user supports Hong Kong independence. |
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Niikhk ( talk • contribs) on 13:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I've just added "Legislature" to the infobox. Would " Legislative Council President" be an appropriate addition or not? -- Joowwww ( talk) 16:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
We seem to be under pretty constant attack. A temporary editing block might encourage some of these children to go elsewhere. Thoughts? DOR (HK) ( talk) 02:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
OK the article is now condensed, and at 61 KB I think is now a fine size. All that's needed now is for loads of references to be added, and then I think it'll be ready to get back that featured star. -- Joowwww ( talk) 10:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I note the following statement in the article:-
According to Wikipedia's Mainland China article, Hong Kong is *generally* not considered part of Mainland China. However, the above statement asserts that it is the absolute truth. I think there is a conflict of assertions in these two articles and we need to work on a consensus.
For everyone's convenience, the relevant section in the "Mainland China" article is reproduced here, as follows-
Please discuss.-- pyl ( talk) 04:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
To some old ROC politicians, "the mainland" is a quick colloquialism to mean any part of Greater China not currently ruled by the ROC. Even as the political ideal fades, those in the KMT who still hold to "Recover the Mainland!" are certainly not excluding HK SchmuckyTheCat ( talk)
I have just read the document provided as a reference to your quoted paragraph in the -Mainland China- article. The document is a record of the proceedings of an Hong Kong SAR government meeting convened in responds to a judgement made by the central government regarding a bill. The details of the particular bill is not important but if you look at clause 2(1) it deals specifically with the definition of the term "Mainland" and this is a quote from that part of the document.
I think it's pretty clear that the Central government consider the term "Mainland" to exclude Hong Kong and that the Hong Kong SAR government agrees with that definition. I think the inconsistency is with the -Mainland China- article using the term "generally" when their own reference states otherwise. ( Pete168 ( talk) 08:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC))
Done. Btw, spectacular analysis Pete168.-- Da Vynci ( talk) 17:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi all, I've made a suggestion at Portal talk:Hong Kong regarding the HK portal so if you are interested please see the discussion there. Regards -- Joowwww ( talk) 18:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello, there is an image captioned "Areas of urban development and vegetation are visible in this false-colour satellite image." I could not find a legend or indication of which colour corresponds to which sort of geography. Perhaps this caption could be improved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.221.163 ( talk) 20:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
There is a discussion going on here.-- pyl ( talk) 05:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Why is it that there has to be anything at all about "Mainland China" in the intro? Does it really matter if it's not considered part of the "mainland"? It just opens the floodgates to the debate on the political connotations behind that name, and it just looks like it's a bunch of HK wikipedia editors trying to avoid association to the mainland and making a point of it. Besides, people from Hainan don't consider themselves part of mainland China either, but because that is not a political debate people don't care enough to revert the intro for Hainan on Wikipedia. What happened to the simple introduction of "HK is one of two special adminsitrative regions of the PRC, the other being Macau" (follow the Puerto Rico model?). Colipon+( T) 22:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
The Octopus card can indeed be used for small purchases; I do so every day, and since it is so commonplace, it doesn’t need a citation. DOR (HK) ( talk) 02:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Right. We don't need every sentence to be backed by a citation, but everything that the article states need to be verifiable in citations. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 16:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
It would be nice if every sentence was cited or referred. The minimum should be every paragraph should be cited.-- Visik ( talk) 08:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if this has been discussed before, but I think the Basic Law does specify that Hong Kong's national anthem is March of the Volunteers. It is in Annex III [3] of the Basic Law. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 05:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Ridiculous theory Readin (with all due respect)! First of all, even the article California doesn't mention the national anthem of USA. Also, The Star Spangled Banner doesn't explicitly state "The Star Spangled Banner is the national anthem of California" either. Simply because it is not necessary. Look, if your theory don't work even work in the examples u provided, I think it is time to consider withdraw from ur suggestion. I know what u are suggesting, that is to include National anthem to sub-nationl entities. I know we can use some idiosyncratic wording to "carefully" place the nation anthem in, but I think a more important question is whether it is necessary. What is the reason and logic of doing it? If we start to include national anthem to sub-national entities, we have to be consistent. That is, to include national anthem on article such as California (your fine example)? Tsim Sha Tsui? Notting Hill? Kowloon? Kowloon City? Kowloon Bay? Kowloon Station? The answer is, not necessary. -- Da Vynci ( talk) 12:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Hong Kong as a dependent territory does not have a anthem of its own. The March of the Volunteers is an anthem of the People's Republic as a whole.
Montemonte (
talk)
17:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
The history doesn't explicitly mention if Hongkong was part of Guangdong province or it was originally a fishing village in southern China prior to being a British colony. Can anyone found out more information and ascertain it. -- Visik ( talk) 08:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
One thing worth noticing is that before the British established the trading port and decide to call it Hongkong in 1842, in the time of Imperial China the area of now known as "Hong Kong" only included Hong Kong Tsai 香港仔 (the small inlet between the island of Ap Lei Chau and the south side of Hong Kong Island) and did not include Kowloon, Lantau Island or New Territories. Therefore, it may be inappropiate to use the term Hong Kong as if it includes Kolwoon, Lantau, and NT like today for matters before 1843. -- Da Vynci ( talk) 18:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I removed the mention of HK being "developed" because I don't see it as relevant. If you're comparing developed and developing societies, yes, HK will be on one list and China the other. But I don't see the relevance of mentioning it here because cities being developed while the country is developing is all too common--and HK and China are indeed apples and oranges in terms of economy comparison, hence the phrase "HK retains its developed status" is just plain weird and un-notable--comparing political systems has much more relevance. HkCaGu ( talk) 01:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I fail to see how mentioning whether or not HK is "developed" is a statement on its political status. The section "Politics and government" is exactly what tells the readers about the political status of HK. And the intro paragraph already mentions that it is a SAR and that it is governed under the "one country, two systems" policy. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 15:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Having said that, I would not be opposed to adding sentences about how HK belongs to international bodies like the WTO and the WHO. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 16:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't care which paragraph goes where--my opposition is the saying that "HK retains its developed status". Normal logic is that once you're developed, you're developed. You can't go back from developed to developing, especially not because of a peaceful/arranged takeover by the PRC. If you can't go back to developing then why mention it. There might be a way to phrase it right, that Hong Kong is now a developed economy within a developing country, but given that many PRC cities have become "developed", the relevance diminishes. Comparison of economical figures (such as HK is X times/percentile...etc. higher than PRC average) is one way the difference can be mentioned. HkCaGu ( talk) 20:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Now that you have deleted the sentence about Hong Kong's status as a developed country and China's status as a developing country, you have not added the same information in the Economy section of the article as you said you would. Is this PRC-style censorship or something? - 68.6.120.13 ( talk) 23:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
If no conclusion has been reached, then the sentence (about the fact that Hong Kong is a developed country while China is a developing country) should stay, in the way it used to be. If any Chinese feel offended by this factual statement and want to delete that sentence, discuss! - 68.6.120.13 ( talk) 21:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that a while back that the then lead image of mine was replaced by Base64 with a similar one that he took. While I certainly see the merits of both images, I can't help but think that the older one has better colour and composition and slightly more eye-pleasing exposure (I think the current one looks overexposed for a night shot). Now this may be my own bias, so I didn't want to simply be bold and replace it, especially as there may have been some discussion over which one was more appropriate (if so, I missed it when scanning the talk page), so I thought I'd bring it up here. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
If "territory" needs to be pipe linked to an explanatory article, it should be Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China not a list of international treaties. The word "Chinese" should not appear before Guandong, as both Hong Kong and Guandong are Chinese. SchmuckyTheCat ( talk) -
uh, the term China itself may means Republic of China to some people. If China=Mainland+Taiwan+HK+ Macau. PRC is just a part of China.-- Da Vynci ( talk) 03:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
The government is the Hong Kong Government. Is not the Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. SAR is just a title, not an actual government. Benjwong ( talk) 05:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
There is actually no accurate term to describe Hong Kong's type of government. I would suggest "partially democratic dependency". Montemonte ( talk) 18:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
It is interesting that as what seems like a collective effort to airbrush any mention of the PRC or Chinese sovereignty, over the past year or so location indicator images such as these two have been removed from the infobox altogether (notice how they both have some kind of implicit reference to the PRC, probably why they striked a nerve with some HK editors), and replaced by the current locator map, which is not incredibly informative. I myself am not trying to advocate for putting the China location map back into the infobox, as I think it is unnecessary, and doing so would probably fan more attacks on me as trying to propagate the authoritarian policies of the Communist Party, but I do think it may be useful to put the Pearl Delta Map somewhere on the article to offer some context. Or feel free to create another "politically neutral" map which would give an average reader a better idea of where Hong Kong is than the current map. But I think if the sole purpose for removing these maps was to avoid any connection to the PRC, then it is quite obviously unreasonable.
Colipon+( T) 20:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I made both that map showing all of China and the current infobox map. The map of China was made after the current one, and I didn't change it because there was no consensus to do so and the current map was doing its job just fine. -- Joowwww ( talk) 21:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
As per the convention on articles for other self-governing territories, i.e. Puerto Rico, Cook Islands, Aruba etc., there is a "Head of State" under the "government" in the territory's infobox. Hong Kong is unique in that neither the National Anthem of the PRC is written into the infobox as the official anthem (although this can be justified because HK does not have its own "territorial anthem"), nor is Hu Jintao written into the infobox as the legal head of state. In fact, the opening section and infobox almost avoids mention of China entirely (including as part of its official name, although this has been previously discussed). It is interesting that this phenomenon is found so prominently on Wikipedia, and not on such sources like the CIA world factbook (which explicitly mentions "China" throughout), and the Economist country briefings. Both sources also have Hu Jintao as Hong Kong's head of state. In addition, Macau's article states explicitly that it is a SAR of the PRC, whereas Hong Kong's does not. Without amending the article itself, it may be best to have a discussion on this issue. Colipon+( T) 01:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Both SARS have not reached the point where naming a head of state actually matters. About macau being more mainland-ish and happy to be with PRC, that is very normal. If you follow the Sino-Portugal Treaty of Peking 1887 there are tons of controversies (especially in English text) on why macau was so neglected. They never felt fully integrated from the start. Benjwong ( talk) 03:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I too have had this feeling for a while that there has been an effort to airbrush HK's status as part of the PRC out of the picture as much as possible. Let's look at the opening paragraph:-
Questions comes to mind immediately would be: 1. Special Administrative Region of what state? 2. "a territory", territory of what state? The answer to both questions is the People's Republic of China.
A while back I added People's Republic of China to the information as well as the heading of the infobox and the phrase got removed rather quickly. If I could recall correctly, the reason for the removal was it is unnecessary information. I failed to see how that information could be unnecessary to normal readers, but I didn't want to risk the prospect that other editors might hostilely treat me as someone who has a political agenda to serve for the PRC.-- pyl ( talk) 06:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
There have been some really good points presented here. I definitely sense that the intro, and probably the entire article, tries to avoid explicit mention of Chinese sovereignty. Editors even have a problem with placing the official name of the SAR into the infobox, and this issue has been of significant discussion previously. There is no hidden agenda here. Hong Kong is part of the PRC, and by the way the article looks right now it seems that it wants to avoid this connection at all costs. Regardless, the way the article, especially the intro, is worded currently, is unquestionably unfair. Some mention of the PRC should be made so that any junior reader doesn't come to the implicit conclusion that Hong Kong has nothing to do with the PRC.
I also bring your attention to a more lighthearted issue. On the Jackie Chan article, originally it says he was a "Chinese" actor, martial artist... etc (which he undoubtedly is, and he has so proudly declared this fact on many occasions). But that was taken out of the intro without explanation by editors, who apparently believe that anyone from Hong Kong can't be presented as "Chinese". I've refrained from making any edits there, but I wanted to bring the issue to attention. Colipon+( T) 17:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, I propose the following changes to the intro:
This is not aimed at fanning PRC propaganda. This is purely aimed at making the intro and the presentation of facts more balanced. Colipon+( T) 17:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
This dude is definitely pushing his PRC communist propaganda (i.e. POV). The intro paragraph does state that Hong Kong is now an special administrative region of the People's Republic of China. This is perfect, and should be sufficiently informative. The Hong Kong article should be about Hong Kong. If you want to talk about stupid Hu Jintao, why don't you play around with it in the China article? Also, the official name of Hong Kong is "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" for sure, and I don't see why "People's Republic of China" is part of Hong Kong's official name. - 68.6.120.13 ( talk) 23:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I will leave it up to other editors to judge whether or not this is communist propaganda. With all due respect, the official website of the Hong Kong government calls itself the "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China". People here keep missing the point. Some fully sovereign states even have a head of state that doesn't even belong to their state (i.e. Andorra, Canada, New Zealand etc.). It is a legal fact that Hu Jintao is the head of state of the PRC and all of its territories. Colipon+( T) 02:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
If Hong Kong goes by the official short form Hong Kong, China, then Hong Kong = Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and China = People's Republic of China. Then the full name of "Hong Kong" is NOT "HKSAR of PRC". Sometimes we say "Hong Kong" and sometimes "Hong Kong, China". The same contexts should then decide whether to say HKSAR or HKSAR of PRC.
HKSAR can indeed be used alone without PRC, e.g. Hong Kong Observatory. In a one-agency context, who cares what country HK belongs to? But once you go to the HK Government website, they emphasize PRC because HK has not always been PRC. Go to many other provinces' websites, and you're not going to find the "full name"--even Tibet because there is less ambiguity. It's the same reason New Mexico puts "USA" on its license plates and other states don't.
As to the Head of State issue, the PRC president is elected by delegates including those from HK and Macau--and they live there unlike those so-called "Taiwan" delegates. There are functions that Tsang cannot perform and requires the presence of Hu. Hu's duties do include HK. Wen? Maybe some. Many other cabinet officials? No. HkCaGu ( talk) 05:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
It's alright as long as it's dealt with in the same way as any other dependent territory such as Aruba or Puerto Rico as mentioned in the beginning of this thread. As far as Hong Kong is concerned, the head of state is the head of state of the People's Republic of China. The Basic Law stipulates that the Chief Executive of Hong Kong is the head of the special administrative region as well as the head of the region's government.
The full name of Hong Kong is, however, "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China", which is unlike the format of the full names of most dependent territories. It's interesting to see how the "Communist" Party wants to highlight its ownership over the territory. "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" can be regarded as a partial short form. Montemonte ( talk) 16:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
With all due respect, Ben, One Country Two Systems was the formula devised so HK could be subject to PRC sovereignty. A Hong Kong passport may be coveted by mainlanders, but on its cover is still engraved "HKSAR of the People's Republic of China", not simply "Hong Kong". The emblem on it is the Chinese coat of arms, not the Hong Kong regional emblem. The NPC is the body that has the highest constitutional authority to interpret the HK Basic Law. That's why it's called a Basic Law and not a Constitution. While it is understandable that editors like you do not want to make Hong Kong associated with the PRC in any way, it is unfair for an encyclopedia article to reflect this opinion exclusively to override what is legal fact. Colipon+( T) 23:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Let me bring to your attention the following things:
These are facts taken directly from the Basic Law. Colipon+( T) 00:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I oppose to any of the above proposed changes because they are attempts by POV editors to highlight China's ownership of HK.— Chris! c t 20:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
According to article22 again, it saids "No department of the Central People's Government and no province, autonomous region, or municipality directly under the Central Government may interfere in the affairs which the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region administers on its own in ccordance with this Law." Benjwong ( talk) 06:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I just want to comment on the Head of State issue, Head of State should not be confused with the Head of Government or the Representative of the Head of State. Using Australia as an example (because I remember this issue came up during the Sydney Olympics) the Head of State of Australia is the Queen of England while the Representative of the Head of State is the Governor General and the Head of Government is the Prime Minister. While the Prime Minister is for all intense and purposes the Leader of the country, he makes all the decisions, the Head of State is still technically the Queen. So in Hong Kong's case I think the Chief executive is performing a dual role as the Representative of the Head of State and the Head of Government but technically the Head of State is still the President of China because Hong Kong technically is not a "State" and so it can't have a Head of State.
With regards to the name issue that's pretty interesting because the official address for California for example is "California USA", California is the State (or region) and USA is the Country. So if Hong Kong's full name is "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China" does that mean technically the official address for Hong Kong is "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China People's Republic of China"? Or is "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" the region (or State) and "People's Republic of China" the Country? Not sure, I'll try to look into it.
And also the "Mainland China" issue I thought we dealt with this months ago, I remember doing a lot of research on it and typed a whole section explaining why Hong Kong is not considered part of "Mainland", please look in the achieves to find my explanation. I think people have to remember we are talking about encyclopaedic information here, referencing an off the cuff comment by the Chinese President or the sentiment of old GMT generals is not good enough, when it comes to terminology we are looking for official usage and or common usage. On those two points it is clear that the term "Mainland" does not include Hong Kong and Macao. Pete168 ( talk) 04:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I've found numerous sources for the head of state, since earlier the CIA World Factbook was not deemed valid by some editors. Please reference the following sources:
Colipon+( T) 02:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Disagree with Colipon+'s "Proposed Changes" As per
Hong Kong order of precedence, the Chief Executive is the
Head of
Hong Kong Government and in theory subordinates to no one. Even when officials from the PRC visit HK, those officials (including the President) are just listed as Special Guests. This rules was designed to eliminate even slightest symbolic authority of PRC's political figures over HK's internal affiar. Although for formal purposes HK has PRC's name appended at the end, in practice HK opreates as if it is a seperated entity from PRC (e.g the legal system, seperated currency). Rendering HK looks like just a city within PRC has been a continuous PRC propaganda recently, while there r areas they can play with (such as adding the word "China" whenever they see the word "Hong Kong", specially on products such as stamps and emblems), in this case the President of PRC has been purposefully omited from the Order of Precedence, that's why the President is not entitled to be listed here too, until 2047.--
Da Vynci (
talk)
01:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Your analogy is invalid because: Queen Margarethe II is listed as Head of State in Aruba because the monarch is on the top of their Order of Precedence. But, in Hong Kong, CE is the first on the Order of Precedence, and President of PRC is NOT included. -- Da Vynci ( talk) 03:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
So we have reached a consensus on proposal #1. I do believe that "PRC" being part of the official name should be presented, but not stressed. Therefore, I move that this fact be only presented in the infobox, and not the lead sentence itself, to avoid future controversy (or it can be the other way around, what do you people think?). I propose the lead sentence remain the way it is, with the following tweaks:
I believe this presents a balanced view. Not only does it make it clear that Hong Kong is sufficiently autonomous and distinct from the rest of China, but it also presents a more balanced introduction to people who have little knowledge on this subject. Colipon+( T) 01:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I suggest the following:
Because, depends on the situation, foreign affair could be but necessarily the responsibility of Ministry of Foreign Affairs , while defence could be but necessarily the responsibility People's Liberation Army, or the PLA General Staff Department, or Central Military Commission or the Central Government in Beijing (the current red link suggests there possibly is no such organisation with the exact name) , or the Communist Party of China, or President Hu Jintao, or Premier's Wen Jiabao responsiblities. This page is not about government departments of PRC. So the one I suggest (without specifying any departments) would be a more balance and practical one. -- Da Vynci ( talk) 01:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Neither the UK nor the PRC claim that sovereignty was transferred in 1997. The PRC uses the words "recover" and "resume", the UK uses "restore" but neither uses transfer. It is not incorrect to use the word "returned" either, as the PRC obviously claims successory rights from the Qing. The current wording (and title of the main Wikipedia article on the subject) of "transfer of sovereignty" is a MADE UP TERM that did not exist before Wikipedia used it. This is Wikipedia prescribing usage and definitions which is absolutely against policies. Usage of that term prescribes a whole cascade of ideas (that sovereignty was held by the UK was a disputed idea by the PRC, and not disclaimed by the UK, so why is Wikipedia saying it?) that Wikipedia is not in the business of doing. SchmuckyTheCat ( talk)
I have to agree with the wording of "transfer" here, but only because it is the more neutral and general term. The word "transfer" does not preclude that the PRC is actually "resuming" sovereignty. I would also like to warn against adding more text in the article to resolve this issue. It's something which, in my opinion, is really not that big of a deal in the context of everything else that can be improved in the article. If other editors want more clarification on this issue, I suggest they find reliable sources that comment specifically on the wording, and add to article Sino-British Joint Declaration. The words "resume" and "restore" are actually used in the Joint Declaration. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 15:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
If people are having problems with the word "sovereignty" may I suggest using "control" instead, like "Britain transferred effective control of Hong Kong to China" or something like that. Because two countries can claim sovereignty over a territory at the same time but only one can have effective control over it at any one time. But to be honest aren't we nit picking just a bit over this term? Pete168 ( talk) 04:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I am really disgusted by the recent "Chinese nationalism" of some Wikipedians from China. From what I see, some of them have been complaining that the Hong Kong article does not mention enough about China, and recommending that a lot of information about China to be added to the Hong Kong article. This is simply ridiculous. The introductory paragraph already clearly have the following sentence:
This sentence already gives the readers enough information about the relationship between Hong Kong and China. I don't see the need of adding information about China everywhere in the Hong Kong article. If people want to know more about China, they can simply go to the China article or the PRC article.
I don't know the motive behind the recent actions of those nationalistic Wikipedians from China. But the dirty tactics for sticking a lot of information about China here and there in the Hong Kong article is disgusting. Why do the Chinese always love to impose their own things on others? Why are the Chinese always so insecure that they have to always emphasize to the whole world that they possess something? Why didn't the British need to use the term "Hong Kong, UK" every time they referred to Hong Kong before 1997? I hope the Wikipedians from China could be more civilised. Leave Hong Kong alone. - 68.6.120.13 ( talk) 01:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I am sure that the people who are actually from Hong Kong are more familiar with Hong Kong than those people from China. I just find it funny and stupid that some people from China are "teaching" Hongkongers "Hong Kong is like this" and "Hong Kong is like that". - 68.6.120.13 ( talk) 21:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I recently came across the factbook of the CIA and noted the recent head of state debate. I saw the following in the factbook:-
I am not saying that this should be include in the article: it doesn't matter to me either way. As I can feel a large sense of rejection for anything that puts HK and the mainland together, I am not going to upset those people, as long as they don't start making up stories like some people in the Taiwan independence or Chinese reunification movements. I am listing this just shows the common sense. HK is part of a state called the People's Republic of China. The head of state for HK is naturally the President of the PRC.-- pyl ( talk) 04:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Referring to what Colipon said.
“ | I attempted introducing it again, but it caused a great uproar with editors from Hong Kong | ” |
First of all, how do u know everyone who disagree with u is from Hong Kong not anywhere else? As per Hong Kong order of precedence, the Chief Executive is the Head of Hong Kong Government and in theory subordinates to no one. Even when officials from the PRC visit HK, those officials (including the President) are just listed as Special Guests. This rules was designed to eliminate even slightest symbolic authority of PRC's political figures over HK's internal affiar. Although for formal purposes HK has PRC's name appended at the end, in practice HK opreates as if it is a seperated entity from PRC (e.g the legal system, seperated currency). Rendering HK looks like just a city within PRC has been a continuous PRC propaganda recently, while there r areas they can play with (such as adding the word "China" whenever they see the word "Hong Kong", specially on products such as stamps and emblems), in this case the President of PRC has been purposefully omited from the Order of Precedence, that's why the President is not entitled to be listed here too, until 2047.-- Da Vynci ( talk) 21:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Pyl, sorry you I think you have mistaken, quoting your Using Australia as an example, the head of state is the Governor-General representing the Queen in right of Australia, and the head of government is the Prime Minister of Australia. For Hong Kong, the head of state is the president of the PRC and the head of government is the chief executive. The Queen Elisabeth II's title is Queen of Australia, her governor-general's title is Governor-General of Australia, that's why they are both listed on the Australia page, however Hu Jintao's title is not President of Hong Kong that's why he shouldn't be included as Chief of State on this page, instead he should be inclded here. The reference on Government of Hong Kong website should be piroritised here, which indicates no such thing as Head of State of Hong Kong, thus President of PRC shouldn't be listed here. The Order of Precedence of Hong Kong also indicates no one is on the top of the Cheif Executive -- Da Vynci ( talk) 11:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I understand what you are trying to do, you are trying to include the "Head of State" to sub-national entities. As if on the sovereign state's pages has already includd the detail of Head of State is not enough, and you think there is a need inclde details of "Head of States" at all city levels, provance levels, town levels. If we start including Head of State to sub-national entities, we have to be consistent. We will need to indicate HoS in Tsim Sha Tsui, Notting Hill, Kowloon, Kowloon City, Sydney,etc. But I don't think it is necessary. Hong Kong is a dependent territory with its own Order of Precedence which explicitly excludes the position of Head of States. Details of the Head of State goes to the country's page, not here.-- Da Vynci ( talk) 12:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
“ | The truth is, official Hong Kong Government sources should be prioritised here, the official Hong Kong Government website indicates NO such position as Head of State of Hong Kong, so we should present it as such. -- Da Vynci ( talk) 22:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC) | ” |
“ | As per Hong Kong order of precedence, the Chief Executive is the Head of Hong Kong Government and in theory subordinates to no one. Even when officials from the PRC visit HK, those officials (including the President) are just listed as Special Guests. There is no such position as Head of State in the Hong Kong order of precedence, thus the title of HOS should not be included here.-- Da Vynci ( talk) 01:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC) | ” |
What's the point of quoting two statements of yourself when they have already been debated to be invalid. That's quite a curious style of debate, as the arguments are becoming circular.
It is not the truth that HK government sources should be prioritised. It is not in the Wikipedia rules and it has no sound basis. If government sources are prioritised, then North Korea must have a great human rights record, but it may not necessarily be the truth, as the governments also have their political considerations. Speaking of which, will the government be popular in HK if it always acts as a subordinate government to Beijing?
You are aware that when the Queen *visits* Australia, her majesty is also listed as a special guest? So your order of precedence really doesn't mean anything other than WP:OR. See Australian order of precedence and compare it with Canadian order of precedence-- pyl ( talk) 04:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Barack Obama is undisputedly the head of state of Puerto Rico. But as far as Puerto Rico is concerned, the head of the territory as well as the head of government is its governor. In the case of Bermuda, the head of state is the Queen in right of the UK, represented by a governor she theoretically appoints, who acts as the de facto head of the territory, whereas the head of government is the premier. In the case of Hong Kong, the head of state is the president of the PRC, currently Hu Jintao. The Chief Executive serves both as the head of the region (read the Basic Law) and head of government (again explicitly defined by the Basic Law).
Since the current infobox template is applied to all the articles on inhabited dependent territories, and that the word country rarely refers only to sovereign state in conventional usage, I'd say the template is suitable for the Hong Kong article. The only problem is that an extra field is apparently necessary for the head of the territory. This is already done with articles such as Bermuda and the Cayman Islands. Montemonte ( talk) 19:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I hope you guy don't mind but I decided to change the lead image from the HK skyline to a photo collage of HK and its various scenes. I noticed that in other sections you see collage pics of New York, London, etc. HK is a dynamic city and it deserves a collage as well. Anyway, I took all of the photos myself but I don't know how to edit it. Its semi protected unfortunately.
Wanch ( talk) 07:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Seeing SchmuckyTheCat repeatingly reverting the article, pls take a look at this. The Hong Kong Goverment is very clear on that. Arrangement for Entry to Hong Kong from Mainland China HK is not part of mainland China, as described in the article "Arrangement for Entry to Hong Kong from Mainland China", this is two different places, otherwise there wouldn't be a law saying Mainland residents who wish to settle in Hong Kong must apply for One-way Permits (OWPs) from the Public Security Bureau Offices where their household registrations are kept. This is under Article 22 of the Basic Law.
"Postage Guide 2007" published by The HongkongPost [1] also very clear on that, in which Section 1 is Mail to Hong Kong, while Section 2 is dedicated to mail to Mainland China, clearly stating they are two different places and HK is not inside Mainland China. DO NOT remove the sentense "Hong Kong is not part of mainland China" unless you have government source supporting it. -- Da Vynci ( talk) 03:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I have another suggestion for the mainland China line. I am supportive of the idea that Hong Kong is not part of mainland China (and as per my proposed change #3 above, I have never advocated for removal of this line). But I think it can be presented differently. How about:
As a result, Hong Kong is separate from mainland China in that it is largely self-governing, has its own currency, legal and political systems, a high degree of autonomy in all of its affairs, with the exception of foreign affairs and defence.
This makes the sentence look less awkward, less POV-oriented, and does not run into any more contentions about the political POV about mainland China. Colipon+( T) 21:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
See paragraphs 8 to 10 of this document. [13] Montemonte ( talk) 19:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Why do we have to emphasize HK being 'not part of mainland China' while it is clearn part of China? Can I say Hong Kong is considered as part of China? It's just a bit strange. -- Gomeying ( talk) 12:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
“ | No department of the CPG and no province, autonomous region, or municipality directly under the Central Government may interfere in the affairs which the HKSAR administers on its own in accordance with the Basic Law. (cf. BL 22) | ” |
-- Da Vynci ( talk) 09:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Just to point out there is a false information on the footnote #1 (which is a note to the title of the info box), where it reads
“ | This (Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China) is the official convention employed on the Hong Kong Regional emblem... | ” |
The correct English title on the Emblem of Hong Kong ( or Hong Kong Regional emblem) reads "HONG KONG", not "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China" (although HKSARPRC appears in Basic Law and HK Gov's website, but not on the Emblem of Hong Kong).
I tried to correct this, but another editor reverted my edits repeatedly, probably I hit his/her nerve by removing anything about China. But, I think we have to either fix the title or the footnote. Can anyone verify what are the English words on the Emblem of Hong Kong? (showing on the picture on right hand side) -- Da Vynci ( talk) 10:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Let's work something out here instead of reverting each other. I am not sure why you are fighting over what the emblem says - it is just a symbol and not exactly a good reference for what Hong Kong's conventional long name is. The better references are the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Hong Kong Basic Law, both of which would support "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region". Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 14:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
According to the The Official Languages Ordinance, enacted in 1974, both English and Chinese language has equal legal status in Hong Kong. Moreover, WP:Citing sources states:
“ | Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to other language sources of equal caliber. | ” |
Of course, there maybe discrepancy between the Chinese and English versions, just like many other bilingual documents. That's why, in this case, it doesn't really matter what the Chinese words are and how they could be translated differently into English, the English title of the Emblem reads the English words "HONG KONG", with the fact that English is an official language of Hong Kong, this is what we should follow. -- Da Vynci ( talk) 23:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
You said English and Chinese has not been treated equally here? Chinese is 'obviously' primary? Well, they may not be the exact translation of each other, but the 2 versions of the title certainly have equal legal statues. Do you have official source to support your claim that the Chi/Eng Emblem titles are not of equal status? If not, please refrain from speculating. The Emblem (including its choice of words) is the work of an extensive design process and subjected to many authorities' approval, at the end the words HONG KONG is chosen for the English text, and we should respect that. -- Da Vynci ( talk) 23:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. And furthermore, here's the basic law article 9: "In addition to the Chinese language, English may also be used as an official language by the executive authorities, legislature and judiciary of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region." HkCaGu ( talk) 04:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I understand that Hong Kong has no prescribed capital. The government offices are located in Government Hill, which is located in the Central and Western District. I think we could list the capital as "none" and then put in a footnote stating that "Government Hill is located in the Central and Western Government", pointing out the location of the government without calling the district an official capital. Would anyone here object to this listing? Inkan1969 ( talk) 19:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Under the section 'Etymology', it rightly points out the 'correct' or 'more accurate' (transliterized) pronunciation of 香港 in the Cantonese language/dialect, namely - 'Heung Gong'. My suggestion is to put "Hong Kong or Heung Gong" instead of just 'Hong Kong' in the title or in the lead-in to add emphasis to this correct pronunciation. I'm sure many will agree that one purpose of wikipedia is to correct :misconceptions: and also :mispronunciations:. I believe 香港 natives will be more than pleased to hear their city pronounced correctly. I hope wikipedia could play a role in this. Add: this is similiar to the renaming of Bombay to Mumbai to reflect the 'correct' pronunciation. In HK's case, it would seem the government has no intention to change the spelling. This doesn't mean that people shouldn't make the effort to pronounce the city correctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.120.9.84 ( talk) 17:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I think we better adhere with the name Hong Kong. The name Hong Kong is not a exact transliteration and not intended to be used as such. Yes, it may sounds like the Cantonese pronunciation of the place, but it is a English name after all. It is called Exonym and endonym, just like many other countries names, such as China (which doesn't remotely sounds like the exactly transliteration Jhongguó) , Japan (transliteration should be Nihon), Italy (in Italian language it actually should be written Italia).
This is an Englihs wikipeida, we use English name. If the place has an official English name, use it. -- Da Vynci ( talk) 17:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
And no, I haven't seen any official or government spell Hong Kong as Heung Gong. Well, besides, whether the spelling of Heung Gong is accurate is also debatable, as some may also argue that it could also be Houng Gong, Hung Goong, Honng Koong, Heng Gon.....-- Da Vynci ( talk) 17:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
We have to somehow come to a consensus on this "Pearl River Delta" and "East Asia" debate. It seems there's been a lot of reverting, and that some users are trying to highlight HK's status as Chinese territory, while others try to avoid mention of China, whether implicit or explicit, at all costs. Something needs to be done or else this will result in a constant edit war... Colipon+( T) 06:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
“ | Some editors want to highlight the de jure sovereignty of PRC over Hong Kong, while other editors want to highlight the de facto independency and special status of Hong Kong. | ” |
This discussion is not really about whether people avoid the "Mention of "China" as you titled, with your discussion lead paragraph is biased and misleading right from the beginning. China is mentioned 46 times in the article and you described the issue as "somebody try to avoid mention of China"!? You can either rename the talk title or open a new talk section if you want to discuss PRC's largely unexercised sovereignty over Hong Kong vs Hong Kong's practical independency and special status. -- Da Vynci ( talk) 13:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Enlightening...you can't even write a discussion lead paragraph without being misleading, and you think we should re-write the lead paragraph of the article in the way you suggested? -- Da Vynci ( talk) 13:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
If Wikipedia were there before 1997, what would you write in the lead, objectively? Of course, a British colony next to/taken from China! Now why we should stop mentioning that now? Hong Kong (post-1860s) is not an island disconnected from a larger landmass like Singapore. Hong Kong was not isolated from China, and was pretty much dependent on the Mainland (think food and water).
Not including China (PRC or whatever) in the lead (by just saying Asia and Pearl River) is ridiculous and is obvious POV-pushing. Look at how most news articles in the West describes Hong Kong, and you'll find the phrase "former British colony" somewhere in there. Therefore I propose that mentioning "SAR of the PRC" should be in the lead sentence, then immediately followed by its colonial history (a former British colony until 1997). This is how you would make someone understand what Hong Kong is if you're limited to a sentence or two. The population density and detailed geography can follow these. HkCaGu ( talk) 04:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Use the Macau lead. And, just because the PLA is physically in Hong Kong doesn't mean it exercises any influence. DOR (HK) ( talk) 05:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
This title of this discussion is about whether Mention of "China" in lead has been avoided. The title of this discussion is misleading from the beginning coz the what the initiator really want to discuss is China's unexercised sovereignty. This misleading title causes users like HkCaGu thinking highlighting Hong Kong's special status simply equal "avoid mention of China". However, given that fact that the lead mentions China 3 times, the infobox title has People's Republic of China in bold, China has been already mentioned 47 times in the articles, the issue isn't really about Mention of "China" in lead as stated as the title. Open a new section if anybody want to discuss other non-related issue such as Chinese sovereignty.-- Da Vynci ( talk) 12:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The most common phrasing used by government and business leaders, in English is “The Mainland of China,” and not “Mainland China.” DOR (HK) ( talk) 06:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
This section should serve as a discussion for editors to talk about their views on the following issues (marked in italics below):
Awaiting suggestions, Colipon+( T) 13:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Changing discussion title as I told you, is a good start Mr Colipon. Unfortuntely, I don't think we can solve the problem with confined multiple-choice like that. This is not a word game. Not to mention you only given 2 choices: one being a obvious bad choice and another being the answer you want. Besides, you missed the essential question out, how Hong Kong's special status and de facto indenpendency (in areas except defence and foreign affair) should be highlighted if PRC's largely unexercised sovereignty (in areas except defence and foreign affair) is highlighted? -- Da Vynci ( talk) 16:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
For the beginning phrase, Hong Kong should be officially the HKSAR, not the HKSAR of the PRC. The PRC part was added by an IP editor after most every mention of PRC was deleted from the opening paragraph. Hong Kong, China is officially HKSAR of the PRC. That means HK=HKSAR and China=PRC. Simple logic. HkCaGu ( talk) 02:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
DOR (HK) ( talk) 06:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I am going to make a couple of bold edits, judging from the consensus from editors here. Obviously, it won't be perfect because there are still some disputes. So I welcome other editors to please help me out. Colipon+( T) 02:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
[15] Here are my changes to the intro. Among the biggest changes, I made the first paragraph clear, as per suggestions from Schmucky, and clarifies Hong Kong's status concisely to an average reader. I added some more brief descriptions about its past as a British colony, so readers have a bit of background on that unique part of Hong Kong's heritage as well. I then went on to clarify the extent of Hong Kong's autonomy, and which authorities are responsible for which areas. I also moved the "population density" section to the bottom as it does not fit too well with the first paragraph. Finally, I got rid of some of the references for the "not part of Mainland China" phrase. It's general consensus here that Hong Kong is separate from Mainland China for all practical purposes, so that is clarified to the reader, without the need to justify it with 4 separate references. I really hope the grammar is sound and please correct it if it still lacks flow. Colipon+( T) 02:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
The first two sentences that make up the first paragraph are perfect.
I think we need a either a second paragraph or an addendum to the first paragraph to introduces the next three paragraphs. Right now the paragraphs are:
The problem I have is that there is no mention of the economy until the 4th paragraph. There is no mention of a high degree of autonomy until the third paragraph. These are key concepts about Hong Kong and I think we should try to get them mentioned as soon as possible after we take care of the sovereignty and location mention. A sentence to be added to the first paragraph might read, "A British dependent territory until 1997, Hong Kong is an important financial center that enjoys a high degree of autonomy from the PRC under the 1-country-2-systems arrangement." Readin ( talk) 14:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)