Talk:Hong Kong/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Image to use somewhere?

I've uploaded a (very) large panoramic image of Hong Kong island at night as seen from Kowloon near the New World centre. It might be useful in the article somewhere? Hesitant to make edits myself and have them crushed by the masses. Nition1 (talk) 10:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Integration with Shenzhen

The Shenzhen main article has two sections on the integration of Shenzhen with Hong Kong. I mean, it's completely neccessary for HK to compete against world cities like Singapore, Tokyo, London, and Chicago (especially the rapidly rising Shanghai) Shenzhen and HK must become cooperative partners...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenzhen#Integration_with_Hong_Kong

This is also a stated goal between the Shenzhen gov't and HK gov't. They signed a memorandum of understanding for creating a single metropolis, Shenzhen has incorporated plans for merger up until 2020.

I have researched and read every single article on the web on HK-Shenzhen merger (even the various studies proposed by the Bauhinia foundation, China Development Institute, and like a 1993 study on this issue. I was wondering if it is okay if you guys would allow me to proceed to make a world class article section for you within the HK main article.

Phead128 (talk) 02:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It's ok if you follow the WP:MOS and WP:Citing sources well. And there's an alternative option, you can write this section in your own sandbox page, for example User:Phead128/sandbox first until you think you've completely refined the passage then you can copy this section into the Hong Kong article. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks dude. I will do it after I finish my all nighter tonight. lol Phead128 (talk) 06:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

"it's completely neccessary for HK to compete against world cities like Singapore, Tokyo, London, and Chicago (especially the rapidly rising Shanghai) Shenzhen and HK must become cooperative partners..." Wikipedia's discussion pages are not forums where you discuss your opinions on future events and plans. --Platinum inc (talk) 21:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I ask you why the HK gov't is listening to Premier Wen Jiao Bao to diversify it's economy to 6 new industries? It's because of HK has to innovate because it's facing stiff competition from mainland cities. Obviously the synergy between a HK-Shenzhen merger will provide ample opportunity for next stage growth (for what reason? Premier Wenjiabao answered that question)This isn't my opinion, this is the generally accepted opinion of the world that HK needs to raise the bar up in order to maintain it's relevance as an international financial centre.Phead128 (talk) 05:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Is more like the opposite. As an adjustment HK (purposely) stalled development from 1998-present for mainland to catchup. Just look at the wages. People in HK 2009 gets paid less than they do in 1999. Mainland needs to raise wages by a factor of 10 to catchup. What HK hasn't seen is a major wage subtraction. Benjwong (talk) 07:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Beijing and London actually injected capital to artificially prop up the HK market in the years following and after 1997 in order to "save face" so that neither is to blame for a faltering dead cash cow that is HK. Example include trade-pacts like CEPA that give HK firms preferential access to mainland markets, elimination of double taxation, tariffs on HK goods, free flow of human capital, etc... Beijing even supported the Hong Kong dollar during the Asian Financial crisis. HK is struggling to maintain it's identity among cheaper Chinese competitors. That's why it lost it's #1 status as the world's busiest port due to cheaper competition across the border in Shenzhen. It's all about costs and the mainland has an inexhaustible supply of cheap labor. Phead128 (talk) 02:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Benjwong: Come on, we are both HK ppl here. Do you mean HK purposefully dropped it's Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) percentage of total investment into Chinese markets from 75% pre-1997 to 33% now? Hong Kong is the largest investor in Shanghai for a reason. HK is China's international financial centre for capital fund raising (a la largest IPO site in the world) and largest trading entity (11th largest trading entity in the world). Not bad for a city of 7 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phead128 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

If Shanghai is such a great place to invest, why are the richest people in China throwing their investment in US properties instead? Politics has more to do with it than revenue returns. The rich people in HK wants the mainland to gain its trust. Just as Chinese investors want US to gain its trust. Benjwong (talk) 05:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you come across any HK-shenzhen doc that talks about the merge of traditional chinese back to shenzhen? You must know more than us if you went through every single article on the web. What's an even hotter topic is the pro-party school system merge with an international school system. Benjwong (talk) 04:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Merger of the "traditional chinese" back to Shenzhen? LOL. Allow Shanghai to have the rule of law, then a synergy between HK and Shenzhen will almost be guaranteed. Especially in light of the Shanghai threat. HK's dominance will continue... It's almost guaranteed. lol Up until 2050 at least...Phead128 (talk) 06:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The merge is alot more than just economic numbers. Benjwong (talk) 07:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

HK's future will depend on how well it sustains it's current legal and political system under CCP influence, diversify it's economy, and integrates with the Pearl River region delta. HK must maintain it's legal system and distinct political effectiveness in it's territorial regional affair. HK must reinvent itself in the face of adversity. Kuala Lumpur, Manila, Shanghai, Seoul, and Taipei are seeking to become new financial hubs in Asia following in the footsteps of Tokyo, Hong Kong, and Singapore, sucking crucial capital away from HK. Diversifying away from tourism, property market, finance and trade is key to future HK GDP growth. Merger wil Shenzhen will reintegrate HK with it's manufacturing hinterland, direct access to larger population, labor pool, market, land, etc...limiting factors that prevents HK from becoming the next London or NYC.Phead128 (talk) 02:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

As complex as it is. I personally do not see economy to be an issue for the merger. I would even say that is the only thing they agree on. Benjwong (talk) 05:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Merging wiht Shenzhen is just a fantasy as the mainland government would never let go of its power and let Hong Kong runs Shenzhen

I don't know where all the "integration" and "merger" talk is based on. Seriously, merging Hong Kong and Shenzhen is contrary to the Basic Law. If you guys want to develope a paragraph on this, "cooperation" is the better choice of word. Craddocktm (talk) 09:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Lead paragraph, again

Recently User:Da Vynci had returned to the lede paragraph and modified "largely self-governing" to "highly autonomous", saying that it was more fitting to the description given on the Sino-British Joint Declaration. In addition, he appended the word "special" to "territory", so now the article reads: "Hong Kong is a highly autonomous [8] special territory of the People's Republic of China". Special territory links to the article List of special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement, not Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. The previous version was "Hong Kong is a largely self-governing territory of the People's Republic of China". This version, which I believe to more accurately and neutrally define Hong Kong's current status, has been stable on the article for over three months (as per discussion above) before said user's changes yesterday. While I do not find these changes to be reflective of WP:NPOV myself, as they again attempt to tip the balance in favour of Hong Kong's 'separateness' from China, I would like to hear some input from other editors here on whether these changes are warranted. I attempted reverting the changes once, but my changes were soon reverted by Da Vynci. In order to avoid an edit war I have refrained from making any more changes until some more opinions have been heard. Thanks. Colipon+(Talk) 13:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It is because the actual article reads "Hong Kong, officially the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, is a highly autonomous special territory of the People's Republic of China". The first mention of Special Administrative Region is already linked to Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, there is no reason why we should write the same link twice next to each other. You should read the article more carefully next time. BTW, I have already removed "special" from "special territory", but retaining the "highly autonomous" because it is a notable fact. Da Vynci (talk) 07:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Several days before the Hong Kong edit, Da Vynci also made this edit over at Jackie Chan, removing mention that he is a "Chinese actor" and instead replaced it with "Hong Kong actor", along with a series of other edits, with the edit summary "He released Mandarin and Japanese albums." While this is not a serious issue I do think it warrants some input from other editors as well. Colipon+(Talk) 13:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks like there was no malicious intent in that. If he had done nothing but the "Chinese -> Hong Kong" bit, then it would be a misleading edit summary... but judging by the massive amount of changes made in that edit (speaking of which, has anyone cleaned up that ridiculous overlinking yet?), it looks like he just typed out the first thing he did (the music stuff) and then was too lazy to wrire "&misc." or anything like that. I wouldn't get too worked up about it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Colipon, I added Mandopop and J-pop to his music genre, because "He released Mandarin and Japanese albums" which I wrote in the edit summery, and Jackie Chan was born in Hong Kong (which was not part of China at the time), majority of his works was made in Hong Kong, that's why he is a Hong Kong actor, much like Danny Lee (Hong Kong actor). Also, I was writing on SchmuckyTheCat's talkpage the other day, and I saw what you wrote about me. I really think it is inappropite of you sneaking behind my back and leave message in other editor's talk page to ask them to "watch me closely". (Wikipedia:Stalking#Wikihounding?) You have already misrepresented me and personally attracked me in more than one occasions. Da Vynci (talk) 03:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Misleading edit summaries are a pattern. Patterns are something to get worked up about. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Don't you dare to smear the reputation of those who edit with respect to reference and reliable sources but disagree with you. Just whenever you see Hong Kong's autonomy being addressed, you accuse people being "misleading", "disruptive", "patten", without resonable explaination. Those are serious accusation and not to be used as a way to get rid of editors who you don't like. I understand the fact that Hong Kong has a high degree of autonomy seems bothering you, but no matter how much u dislike this fact, it is the reality. Da Vynci (talk) 01:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we should just stay away from generalised terminology altogether and try to describe as close as possible what is legally defined in Chinese law, which is that Hong Kong is a provincial-level administrative region within China. We don't have to use those exact words of course, but the article describes in detail exactly how "self-governing" or "autonomous" Hong Kong is, and we shouldn't have to forever battle it out over whether or not to use terms like those in the lede. It's pointless in my opinion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The opening section meant to give a general idea of what is Hong Kong, so I guess we should avoid getting to stuck into the Chinese law things. Besides, Hong Kong's legal system is based on Common Law, not Chinese law. Omitting the very key word "highly antonomy" would give the false impression that Hong Kong has's antonomy is similar to provinces in the PR China. Da Vynci (talk) 02:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a specific suggestion on how to write the lede? Colipon+(Talk) 14:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

"Largely self-governing" seems better than "highly autonomous" to me—really they mean the same thing (as far as I can tell), but the second has a connotation of cultural and other independence, whereas the first is just in a government sense (which will make it less controversial). As for "territory" vs. "special territory" vs. "special administrative region"... well, the latter is the actual word for it, and can be conveniently linked to the article with more information on what SAR means. "Territory" seems a bit vague to me, although it's not terrible; "special territory", though, seems very useless (if you don't pipe the link to SAR, then what does "special" mean?). I think SAR, linked, is the best description for the lede. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Changing the pipe link from the SAR page to the special territories page is an act of specific disruption, this was well discussed before. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Again you try to smear people's reputation by using those "banning policy" terms irreponsibly. Hong Kong IS a special entities recognized by international treaty, moreover the special territories link in the opening sentence did not replace the SAR link, it is right next to the special territory link now. Both links are important, and the last discussion's consensus were to keep both. You didn't even provide any source that states HK is not a special entities recognized by international treaty and jumped to conclude my addition of the "special territory" link is a "specific disruption" ? It is a serious accusation, and demend you to retract it! You are the one who is trying to mislead people here. Da Vynci (talk) 01:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Either "largely" or "highly" sound like loaded words which cannot provide precise information. So I prefer remove these adjective to avoid conflict. This' gone on long enough. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 01:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Just the opposite, in this case they soften the statement (if anything, they're weasel words, not loaded words); just "autonomous" would suggest that Hong Kong is 100% autonomous (and the same for just "self-governing"), whereas "largely" and such trim it down a bit. In this case, I think a word such as that is necessary. Failing to provide precise information is not a problem, as this is only the lede, and the situation can be described more precisely in the main text. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

They are adverbs, not adjectives.

"Largely" or "highly" should be included, becoz it helps to differentiate Hong Kong from other not so autonomous region, namely the Autonomous regions of the People's Republic of China. The Basic Law reads a high degree of autonomy and enjoy executive, legislative and independent judicial power. If a constitutional document can be writen this way, there is no reason why we can't make reference of that.Da Vynci (talk) 02:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a big difference between a SAR and an AR in China. Don't get the identities mixed up. HK, Macau, Inner Mongolia and Xinjiang are like apples and oranges. You can't put apples in a galvanic cell and expect to power a lightbulb, and you can't expect to trick Adam and Eve into eating oranges. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course we know the difference is huge, I were the one saying their difference is hugh. That's why I suggest the word "highly autonomous" should be used here in this article instead of just "autonomous" which is used in [[Autonomous regions of the People's Republic of China, where their de facto "autonomy" is nominal. Da Vynci (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I tend to not suggest "how much" the autonomy HK is possessing. As thing change continuously. It's not entirely autonomous. But the situation is too complex so I prefer the word "partially" due to the conflict we have now. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The Basic Law describes it as "high", it doesn't just say "autonomy". So I would be ok as long as the words "high"/"highly" AND "autonomy"/"antonomous" are included in the opening section. i am also ok to remove "special" from "special territory" (with the link kept). Da Vynci (talk) 02:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Why do you keep linking to List of special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement instead of Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I never say I am going to remove the link to Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, it is already there in the first sentence, and I no intention to remove it. Da Vynci (talk) 02:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Rjanag's comments. Maybe we should begin an informal poll? Colipon+(Talk) 06:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Rjanag's comment too, especially how he so politely dismissed your accusation. As for a poll, absolutely not, Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Da Vynci (talk) 10:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

"Highly autonomous" sounds like the amount of control the Dominion of Australia had from Great Britain during the 1920s, as if it were an independent nation with its own military, federal government and the rest of the works... (perhaps it can be compared with States and regions of Somalia: Somaliland, Puntland and Galmudug all have their own militaries and governments, and so are "autonomous" from the Transitional Federal Government of the Republic of Somalia, however Hong Kong does not meet the same criteria) "SAR" would be a better way to describe the situation in Hong Kong. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any reference from Hong Kong Basic Laws that states "highly autonomous" means "independent military and federal government"? The Hong Kong Basic Law (Article 2) states Hong Kong has "a high degree of autonomy and enjoy executive, legislative and independent judicial power". If a constitutional document can be writen this way, there is no reason why we can't make reference of that. The Basic Law of Hong Kong is the most authoritative reference in the matter of Hong Kong autonomy. Da Vynci (talk) 10:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

btw, the word and link SAR is already included in the opening sentence, so if that's your concern , consider it is solved. Da Vynci (talk) 10:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Highly autonomous seems fine to me and backed up by the "high degree of autonomy" its basically the same thing. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Da Vynci, some of your recent comments border on WP:LAWYER, not to mention you are putting words in my mouth. I did not accuse you. I simply stated what happened and said "While this is not a serious issue I do think it warrants some input from other editors as well." I believe you are misrepresenting my intent.

Secondly, Rjanag actually said "largely self-governing" is better than "highly autonomous". In the same light, Benlisquare also said that "highly autonomous" seems inappropriate. BritishWatcher says he is fine with "highly autonomous". This also does not change the fact that the previous version was agreed upon after weeks of back-and-forth edits on the intro and remained stable for three months before sudden modifications. I do not recall a time when the Hong Kong article intro remained stable for so long. So please do not change it unilaterally and then come back to accuse editors like myself of unethical behavior and the like. I find that very offensive. Colipon+(Talk) 01:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

If u have a reference that say Hong Kong is a largely self-governing territory, I would like to see it. Hong Kong Basic Law (Article 2) says Hong Kong has "a high degree of autonomy and enjoy executive, legislative and independent judicial power". It doesn't say "Large degree of self-governance". Da Vynci (talk) 05:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue has nothing to do with reliable sourcing. It's about how to properly represent Hong Kong's situation given the circumstances. I do not dispute, and never have, that Hong Kong enjoys a "high degree of autonomy". This is already mentioned very clearly in the second paragraph, plus it also describes why in a very succinct and easy-to-understand manner. Having another reference to it in the first paragraph is, in this case, redundant. "Largely self-governing", on the other hand, portrays the situation quite well in summary, and directly implies Hong Kong's political, economic, and legal separation from the PRC (as per Rjanag and Ben's comments above). If you claim to agree with Rjanag, then "largely self-governing" is a better choice than "highly autonomous". Colipon+(Talk) 09:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

In othe words, you have no reference and just tried to present the opening sentence according to your POV. According to your "rationale", I can also say "I do not dispute HK is part of PRC; but it is already mentioned in the later paragraph; plus it also describes why in a very succinct and easy-to-understand manner, is redundant." How about that? If we remove "highly automous" and "special territory" from the opening sentence, the mention of People's Republic of China also should be removed bases on the same rationale proposed by Colipon. Da Vynci (talk) 03:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

That is just circular, argumentative reasoning. Please note that it was not me who removed your last edit of 'highly autonomous', but User:Ohconfucius, who stated in his edit summary that it was redundant; he also sourced the "high degree of autonomy". If you want to continue to accuse me of being "non-neutral", fine. But Rjanag and Benlisquare also said that 'highly autonomous' is not the best NPOV. Therefore it is ill-advised for you to continue reverting these changes. Colipon+(Talk) 09:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Your motive and ethic is seriously questionable. First u invited your friends (here and here) who rarely edit on this page before to give "neutral" and "expert" opinion on this article, then u suddenly suggest to hold a poll? Interestingly, none of them able to provide reference for the term "self-governing", but just happen to agree with you that "self-governing" is a better choice. Da Vynci (talk) 12:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

There's also Ohconfucius, a Hong Kong editor known for his NPOV, that removed your "highly autonomous" line from the first paragraph. Colipon+(Talk) 12:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I am extremely offended by these accusations. Editors should be able to ask third-opinions to other editors, without being levied charges. I respectfully as that you withdraw your statement. Colipon+(Talk) 12:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Yet you still can't provide rationale why "highly autonomous" is redundant to appear in the opening sentence but "People's Republic of China" is not? They both appear in later paragraphs, if "People's Republic of China" is not redundant to appear in the OP sentence, neither do "highly autonomous". Da Vynci (talk) 12:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• I just removed the "highly autonomous" in the first paragraph as redundant (repeated in the second paragraph of the lead). I chose this one to remove because the first one relates to Hong Kong's geographical situation, whereas the third paragraph deals with its political ones. What's more, the one in the second ie referenced to the basic law - we would be reporting something factual, and not trying to conjure up some artificial neutrality by synthesis. In any event, as I said in the edit summary, Hong Kong's autonomy is more imaginary than real, and the Basic Law is just a document which can be interpreted any which way - as Wu Bangguo said "Hong Kong will have as much power as Beijing wants it to and nothing more." - which has so far proven to be true. And also, everyone knows that Sir Donald Tsang is too afraid to even go for a piss without asking Beijing's permission beforehand.  :-) Ohconfucius (talk) 13:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree. First, the opening sentence is supposed to give a general idea of that the subject is (in this case Hong Kong), it should contain essential description of the subjects. The article Hong Kong is not a geographic article, but a comprehensive description about the place (which include its people, politic, economic, etc), thus giving priority to only geography in the opening sentence seems more like a person preference rather than a justified intent. Da Vynci (talk) 06:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The principle of "high degree of autonomy" is a essential part that shaped the present day Hong Kong, without it, the entire content article will be different (the currency, legal system, official lanuage, politic system will be just the same as China). Considering the "high degree of antonomy" is the prime principle behind that CAUSES those distinction in details, including it in the opening section is essential. Da Vynci (talk) 06:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, Colipon described you as "a Hong Kong editor known for his NPOV", so maybe you can read Hong Kong Basic Law (Article 2), which says Hong Kong has "a high degree of autonomy and enjoy executive, legislative and independent judicial power". Yet u chose to say "Hong Kong's autonomy is more imaginary than real", did you or did you not? That made your view POV because of your disrespect to the idea of reference and reliable sources. Da Vynci (talk) 06:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh ,btw , Ohconfucius, do you have reference that states "Hong Kong's autonomy is more imaginary than real" to prove you are not POV editor? Da Vynci (talk) 06:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You are basically lawrering the same argument. I already inserted " 'high degree of autonomy' in all areas with the exception of foreign affairs and defence, and cited it to the Basic Law, and I feel that any further mentioning in the lead is detrimental, as it should be a concise summary. You have singularly failed to demonstrate how your repeated insertion of the words 'highly autonomous' in the first paragraph is necessary to achieve the objectives set out in WP:LEAD. Furthermore, your bolding of the repeated quotation from the Basic Law is beginning to get tiresome. I am not getting into any of your petty arguments and character assassinations, nor will I succumb to your baiting. Reverted again. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the current wording where it just says "is a territory" is a very weak sentence and paragraph, the first paragraph tells us nothing about what sort of territory Hong Kong is, for some reason we have to wait until the 2nd half of the second paragraph??? Highly autonomous was good, largely self governing or something along those lines is needed in the first sentence. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The entire intro paragraph can be condensed. Describing HK simply as 'territory' of the PRC leaves out a lot of description. What does saying "Alaska is a territory of the United States" say about Alaska? That is not very descriptive and effective in my opinion. What type of territory? You can easily condense a bunch of these sentences into one sentence that is more descriptive and makes more sense.Phead128 (talk) 03:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. "Territory" is much too ambiguous a word to be used on it's own to describe Hong Kong in the introductory statement. Especially when referring to Commonwealth or former Commonwealth entities; examples being the "provinces and territories" of Canada, which holds the word "territory" to that of an area that have "no inherent jurisdiction". Australia, on the other hand, defines "territory" quite differently; AFAIK. they hold that word to be equal to that of a state, as a self-governing entity (please correct me if I'm wrong)."British overseas territories" provide yet another definition of the word, and so does the French overseas territories. India also has their "Union territory". The States have their own definition, too, but I'm not bothered to explain—you get the point. The word "territory" in itself is too vague to describe the situation. I edited it so that it says "arguably autonomous", hopefully that term isn't a implicative as "highly autonomous". (With luck we can come up with better term that fits. I didn't mean for that "arguably" to stick there for long)

@Colipon—As long as it's not "territory" in itself, I'm open to suggestions as to how that can be rephrased. --K_H^{Wiknerd(talk)} 04:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with BritishWatcher. I am ok as long as the words "highly autonomous" is kept in the opening sentence. Mainly duo to the fact that The Hong Kong Basic Law (Article 2) states Hong Kong has "a high degree of autonomy and enjoy executive, legislative and independent judicial power". Da Vynci (talk) 05:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• <sigh> The "..according to Basic Law, it has a high degree of autonomy.." was inserted to placate Da Vynci, now xhe insists that it must appearance in the first sentence. Please just be mindful of the avoidance of repetition in good prose. Thank you. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you genuinely care about a phrase being repeated more than once, the name "People's Republic of China" is mentioned more than 10 times in the article, and we can't mention "autonomous" twice? Da Vynci (talk) 06:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The fundamental difference between 'autonomous' and 'People's Republic of China' is that the former is an adjective which is used once already in the same paragraph, and the latter is the parent nation of the subject, the mention in most of those cases is unavoidable. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

So is there any other reason you insisted to avoid the word "autonomous" in the opening sentence, apart from it appears twice in the paragraph? Da Vynci (talk) 06:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

So is there any other reason you insist on having the word "autonomous" twice in the opening paragraph? Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't insist to include the word autonomous twice in the opening paragraph, but the word "autonomous" should be mention at least once in the opening sentence. It is the fundamental constitutional principle that shapes Hong Kong, if that principle does not exist, almost every sentence in the article will be different. It is also backed up by constitutional reference. If a subject that has constitutional importance, it suppresses the "avoidance of repetition" that you concern. What you just said about "People's Repubic of China" is that it's significant enough so it is unavoidable to mention repeatedly (50+ times in the article). Well, the same applies for the mention of principle of autonomy of Hong Kong, and I'm just saying it should be mentioned once in the opening sentence.Da Vynci (talk) 07:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, strictly speaking, to be repetitive, u need to have the exactly phrase appearing repetitively. The 1st mention is "highly autonomous" (giving general concept of the place), the 2nd mention is "high degree of autonomy" (detailing the practice), they are of equal meaning but technically not repetitive. If you are genuinely care about paragraph, we can well adjust the paragraph division. Da Vynci (talk) 07:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Now, the sentence you just added "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, is a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China" is repetitive. Da Vynci (talk) 07:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I asked you a question first, but you returned me w/ a question, I showed good faith so I answered your question first. Now, it is your turn to answer my question u previously ignored. So is there any other reason you insisted to avoid the word "autonomous" in the opening sentence, apart from it appears twice in the paragraph?Da Vynci (talk) 07:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

NEVER! Volvo B9TL 01:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, go ahead, since Donald Tsang is just being Hu Jintao's pet dog. He does whatever Hu wants just to make Hu happy. Volvo B9TL 01:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

@Wikinerd: It's true that "Territory" is vague, but Hong Kong's degree of Autonomy is directly stated below in its stipulations in the Basic Law. If we need to place something in the first sentence, I'm fine with "Largely self-governing". "Highly autonomous", like OhConfucius has pointed out, is more or less synthesis. Colipon+(Talk) 08:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedians who created this silly trouble. It's the paramount leaders in Beijing who did it. The full official name of this territory is "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China". No other dependent territory would have such a silly clumsy name. The name already describes what it is and whose does it belong to. No elaboration is necessary. (I simply can't imagine any other place would have to go around international organisations with designation like "Hong Kong, China". "Gibraltar, UK"? "Aruba, Netherlands"? Huh?) Quarry Bayer (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I prefer "largely self governing" over "highly autonomous" since a more neutral description. If we do state "highly autonomous", then it's paramount to state the limitations (in all areas except foreign relations and defense) or else it may sound like HK is completely independent from mainland China. I agree that it is necessary to state this in the lead paragraph. Either way, I totally agree with Da Vinci. Using "largely self governing or "highly autonomous" in all areas except foreign relations and defense is absolutely neccessary. To not include this in the lead is just simply terrible.Phead128 (talk) 08:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Pipe-linking

I also do not see much sense in insisting to pipe-link the word "territory" to "List of special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement". None of the other territories (Aland, Svalbard, Andorra, Greenland, even Macau) listed on this page pipe-link any content to this page in their lede. No sufficient reason has been given to have this link there, except for an argument to highlight Hong Kong's "special status". I would say we remove this link altogether. Colipon+(Talk) 09:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong to highlight Hong Kong's special status. It is a notable fact and HK is a special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement. Your "rationale" is basically "I want to see this"/"I think don't want to see that", anyone can remove any other useful pipe-links using your way of thinking. Removing important link just becoz other article don't have it is a ridiculous reason. Using your rationale, Aland has the word "autonomous" in the first paragraph so we should include that, but yet you self-contradictictorily objected to that in the above discussion. Da Vynci (talk) 03:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't entirely understand your argument. So you believe that my reason of "other articles don't link it so we shouldn't link to it with HK" is insufficient... but you have yet to give a reason for the link to be there at all, aside from "to highlight Hong Kong's special status", which is inherently reflective of your POV and further reflected in your edits. Let the fact that Hong Kong is "special" speak for itself. A read through the second paragraph of the lede and it is very apparent that Hong Kong is special and distinct - the fact that it is politically, economically, and even culturally separate from mainland China is very clearly presented in the lede. There is no need to insist on making these "special" references in every single paragraph to represent a single POV. Colipon+(Talk) 09:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Because Hong Kong IS one of the special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement, and there are only handful of those special entities on this world. Da Vynci (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)72.81.233.92 (talk) 03:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

@Colipon— is there an argument other than the fact that other articles don't link to it? Because I don't see why not that HK should not be linked to that list; HK is a "special entity recognized by international treaty or agreement". As for the pipe-linking; read my post above in the "autonomy" argument—"territory" in itself is too vague.--K_H^{Wiknerd(talk)} 04:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I am of the view that it is intentionally misleading, and its use has only really ever been pushed by User:Da Vynci. Besides, that article is a list, not a concept. If we are pipe-linking the concept of "territory", we should actually link it to an article about the type of territory Hong Kong is, that being a a "special administrative region". How to phrase it is another question. Colipon+(Talk) 08:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• I've removed the link, and the word altogether. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

We HAVE already linked it to "special administrative region" right at the first sentence. Colipon, don't u see the link? No one is removing the link to SAR! We are just saying after the SAR link, we should keep the "territory" link too, because most English sources commonly call Hong Kong a territory (you can hear this on everyday's TVB English news), specifically it is a special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement. If pipe-linking is really the problem for you, I don't mind just to use "special entity" which is the direct part of the link. Do you want to use "special entity" instead? Da Vynci (talk) 19:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The word 'territory' in the first sentence, and the way it is linked, is pretty misleading, and is tantamount to point-pushing; the constant revert wars being fought on this, as well as the insisted repetition of 'autonomous' makes that point-pushing not so civil. Hong Kong is not the Vatican, Monaco, Andorra or Lichtenstein (to note that none of those articles links to 'territory' – and don't go inserting that link there to prove your point – HK is now, whether you like it or not, an integral part of the territory of the PRC. Only a very small majority of people seem to be in denial of this fact, and there seems to be one who frequently edits this article to the point of exeerting ownership. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to add to this, that "special entity recognized by international treaty or agreement" is a special kind of OR list that got made because the entries in it didn't belong on lists of states, lists of dependent territories, or some other term recognized by the UN or anybody else. It's a placeholder list for international oddballs. Linking to it has no definition for Hong Kong. The list refers to other articles to define how Hong Kong is special. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I like to comment on the above that to use Jackie Chan's not Chinese or Chinese actor identity in this discussion is bad. He has recently been trying to help more mainland pple, but has come off as completely communist-affiliated since the party gets him a lot of benefits. The average mainland citizen will never get the same treatment Jackie Chan gets. So he should not be used as a case of POV pushing. His case is different altogether. Benjwong (talk) 06:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Crown colony

I've restored this edit. While other areas were colonised, only Hong Kong Island was formally ceded to the UK in 1842 through the Treaty of Nanking. The southern Kowloon Peninsula wasn't formally ceded until the Convention of Peking in 1860. Spellcast (talk) 07:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Partial indirect democracy

What does it mean? Partial democracy or partial(ly) indirect? (Is there any country that is a direct democracy in the 21st century? What's so important with indirect?) Quarry Bayer (talk) 20:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hong Kong/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SilkTork *^YES! 18:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'll take a look over the next few days and then give my initial impression. SilkTork *^YES! 18:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Initial comments:
  • Lead needs expanding per WP:Lead. The lead needs to be a mini-article. Many readers do not get further than the lead.
  • Good looking article - nicely presented and laid out.
  • Prose is clear and easy to follow, conveying sometimes quite dense material with clarity.
  • Images tend to be of excellent quality. There are a good range of useful images, both modern and contemporary with past events. One image File:Avenue of Stars2.jpg has a copyright query, the others are fine. I'd like an explanation of the issue regarding File:Avenue of Stars2.jpg, or for that image to be removed or replaced. While the captions are clear and useful, at times they are longer than suggested in Wikipedia:Captions - "Japanese troops enter Hong Kong...", "Situated at the heart of the city, St. John's Cathedral...", "2 International Finance Centre...". On the other hand "The Court of Final Appeal in Central" is perhaps not detailed enough.
    •  Done Shorten and lengthen on recommended captions per suggestion. Replaced File:Avenue of Stars2.jpg with File:Avenue of Stars Statue.jpg. Tavatar (talk) 06:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • There have been some reverts recently, but these are mostly minor incidents to be expected in a major topic. The article is not currently protected, and protection is possibly not needed as the vandalism is being managed. I will, however, consider protecting it on request
  • There is the sort of detail a general reader would expect and want from such an article, and it is nicely balanced, with sub-pages for detail.
  • The information is presented in a neutral and appropriate manner - noting the pollution problem as well as highlighting the financial reputation.
  • This is a helpful and informative article. Quite impressive.
  • I will now look into the sourcing. SilkTork *^YES! 11:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Appears well sourced. All statements I checked went to a reliable source which clearly supported the statement.

• Address the minor image queries, and expand the lead and this will pass as a Good Article. SilkTork *^YES! 17:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Good. When you have finished the lead, let me know. I'll put the review on hold for seven days to allow time for the lead to be expanded. If you manage it before then or have any questions, please ping my talkpage. SilkTork *^YES! 16:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• I've been working on the Lead to bring it up to guidelines in WP:Lead: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." This is taking some time as the topic is quite a large one, and I don't really know it. I think I'm almost there, though as I've been reading through the article carefully to look at what to summarise in the lead, I've been noticing stuff that I missed in my initial sweep....

Sources

There are large chunks of the article which are not cited. The bulk of the first paragraph of History is uncited - I'd like some support for facts in there like "salt production site" and "military port of strategic importance"; the whole of the "As textile and manufacturing industries grew..." paragraph is uncited; in Administrative districts the "The 18 districts can be split into three areas.." paragraph is uncited; in the Economy section the paragraph "The Government of Hong Kong plays a passive role..." is uncited; this "However, the population in Hong Kong continues to grow due to the influx of immigrants from mainland China, approximating 45,000 per year. Life expectancy in Hong Kong is 81.6 years as of 2006, the sixth highest in the world." and this "Signs displaying both Chinese and English are common throughout the territory. Since the 1997 handover, an increase in immigrants from mainland China and greater integration with the mainland economy have brought an increasing number of Mandarin speakers to Hong Kong." and this "Concerns over a lack of religious freedom after the 1997 handover have largely subsided, with Falun Gong adherents free to practice in Hong Kong; the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches each freely appointing its own bishops, unlike in mainland China." and this "Hong Kong's education system roughly follows the system in England, although at the higher education levels, both English and American systems exist. The medium of instruction is mainly spoken Cantonese, written Chinese and English, but Mandarin language education has been increasing." need citing; the bulk of the Culture section needs citing; and this "Hong Kong Island's steep, hilly terrain ..." in Transport. I don't know how I missed all that when I read through - but it certainly needs attention! SilkTork *^YES! 00:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm still concerned that there are statements unsourced that could be challenged. Such as "The Hong Kong Government does not need to pay the costs of the resident military forces"; and "Since the 1997 handover, an increase in immigrants from mainland China and greater integration with the mainland economy have brought an increasing number of Mandarin speakers to Hong Kong"; "The Government of Hong Kong plays a passive role in the financial industry", etc. Such statements should be sourced or removed. I note that someone has helpfully put cite tags in the Culture section. I will go through and do the same to the rest of the article, and then give another seven days to allow the cite tags to be addressed. SilkTork *^YES! 12:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

On hold until 13 November. Ping me if done before then. SilkTork *^YES! 12:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Good work all round. I've finished off the last cites so this has now passed as a Good Article. SilkTork *^YES! 12:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts! Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Quarry Bayer, I dont think you have any common sense —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.213.109 (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sandwiching texts between images

I've removed a couple of images that were causing texts to be sandwiched between two images, per MOS:IMAGES. There are already plenty of images on the article, let's make sure they are not cluttering the text. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 13:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

any songs about Hong Kong?

List of songs about Hong Kong
Thanks.Civic Cat (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistency in article lead.

The first sentence of the first paragraph says (after I reordered it):

Hong Kong (Chinese: 香港) is a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China that was, until 1997, a British Crown colony.

whilst the first sentence of the third paragraph says:

Hong Kong was reclassified as a British dependent territory in 1983 until it was transferred to the People's Republic of China (PRC) in 1997.

Which is contradictary and confusing. Certainly other crown colonies became dependent territories in the early 1980s, and when I lived in HK (in the late 80s) the c-word was hardly ever used. I suspect that it might be more correct to rewrite these two sentences as:

Ć:Hong Kong (Chinese: 香港) is a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China that was, until 1997, a British territory.

and:

Formerly a British crown colony, Hong Kong was reclassified as a dependent territory in 1983, and remained as such until it was transferred to the People's Republic of China (PRC) in 1997.

However given the number of commented exortations not to change various namings in this article, I'm reluctant to make the above change with first exposing it to comment. Thoughts?. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 16:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. Perhaps also: Hong Kong (Chinese: 香港) is a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China that was, until 1997, a British dependent territory. Colipon+(Talk) 18:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I prefer just this:

Hong Kong (Chinese: 香港) is a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China.

Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

On reflection, I agree. The whole crown colony/dependent territory thing is probably too detailed a point to justify inclusion in what is, IMHO, an over-long article lead. Should be dealt with in history instead, perhaps. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 03:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I honestly think given the amount of work some editors have put into this matter and the number of times its been ruined by interventions from POV users, it's time we think about locking the lede section. I wish there was a way we would do that. Colipon+(Talk) 11:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, what do you think of my suggestion? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's already been implemented in the latest revision. It was a good suggestion. But I'm going to bet that someone will come and change it within the week because it "doesn't highlight Hong Kong's autonomy" or some such. Colipon+(Talk) 01:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

What, you mean Hong Kong is not a British territory any more?? ;-) Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Under "One country, Two Systems", Sovereignty does not preclude autonomy. In fact, China is the only state in the world that I know of that allows one area of it's country to practice one system while totally not allowing another part to enjoy the same privileges. HK's separate delegation to Olympics, World Trade Organization, APEC,etc (except ASEAN since HK is not sovereign) is acceptable under "One Country Two Systems" That's another reason how CCP justifies Taiwanese autonomy but it still claims Taiwan under "One country" policy. Does that mean Taiwan isn't autonomous because clearly it is.... but it's absolutely acceptable under "One Country, Two system" doctrine.Phead128 (talk) 18:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Culture section

Bruce Lee's statue in Hong Kong.

Bruce Lee is no doubt one of the most iconic individuals to ever come from Hong Kong. It would suit that specific section much better than the current un-named statue, and its quite picturesque too. Just a suggestion. --78.149.137.28 (talk) 03:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Basic Law Articles 4 and 5

Lycurgus, my copy of the Basic Law says nothing about Beijing expecting that the Hong Kong and Mainland “systems” would have converged by 2047. Rather, it explicitly lays out what Hong Kong SAR cannot do prior to that date. Specifically, (Art. 5) The socialist system and policies shall not be practised in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, and the previous capitalist system and way of life shall remain unchanged for 50 years. Art. 4, on the other hand (which you cite), says nothing at all about 50 years: The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall safeguard the rights and freedoms of the residents of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and of other persons in the Region in accordance with law. Is yours different? DOR (HK) (talk) 05:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I've corrected it. I was going off the Wiki article on the Basic Law. :) Lycurgus (talk) 05:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Commonwealth of Nations membership criteria

On the above Talk Page, I have asked editors with knowledge in the area to supply sources for the notion that Hong Kong would be eligible (if it achieves independence) to become a member of the Commonwealth of Nations. The article lists lots of fairly unlikely candidates (Frankly, I think its silly to speculate on who is or who is not eligible...as even Mozambique is a member now!) as meember and I just see no reason why Hong Kong can't be included yet....Surely some one has a source where it was suggested HK was once considered as a Commonwealth country some day? Any one? Thanks. 84.203.74.92 (talk) 21:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Hong Kong should technically be eligible to apply for official membership, but by doing so will somehow adversely affect the "delicate" relationship with PR of China, which is against the interest of the public.--113.252.226.59 (talk) 07:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I changed the Demographic section

It sounded misleading, while it pointed out the majority were from guangzhou and taishan. It listed all the han ethnic group as if it was equal in proportion or similar in numbers. I'm taishanese, and taishanese make up 30-40% of population, the majority of people are from guangzhou just little under 50%. The old census used to show, from guangzhou 52% and Taishan 19% in 1950's. and based on the 1960s Hong Kong Census, Taishanese is right now about over 30% - 40%. So cantonese make up 80% of population at least, the rest are 7% hakka ,Teochew 7% and migrants from outside of guangdong. Also, as an Taishanese myself, I know we speak different dialect but we are also in same Yue dialect cluster with cantonese. So mentioning Taishanese people is unnecessary, even hakka and teachow have their own dialect groups can vary very differently. But it really doesn't matter, because an hong kong person is an hong kong person. Any ethnic han hong kong born person is an hong konger. WarriorsPride6565 (talk) 11:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Developed/Built-up Area

I see a fact listed in the article that of HK's land area, only about 25% is developed and another 40% is preserves and such. I would like to know exactly how many square kilometers is developed. Is this something that's measured by your country's statistics agency? --Criticalthinker (talk) 10:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to move ROC article to "Taiwan"

A vote on the above proposal is being voted on here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Republic_of_China#Responses Wider involvement by Wikipedia Community would be desirable. 86.42.28.118 (talk) 10:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone locate this fascinating image?

The image in question is: http://www.ibiblio.org/hkpa/Scenic/ftp/nt1960a.jpg from the page http://www.ibiblio.org/hkpa/Scenic/by-year/en/1960.html (which has apparently not been updated since Nov 1998!).

On its source page the image is captioned as being "Near Castle Peak" and "Year 1960".

Now, although I am no expert on Hong Kong I do have a certain, shall we say, 'topographic' sensibility which tells me that it is extremely unlikely that this image was captured anywhere near the place which appears to be currently known as Castle Peak, Hong Kong. In fact the image is so full of topographic reference information that I just cannot get it to fit conclusively ANYWHERE in Hong Kong!

The date too seems suspect. I may be wrong, but the large number of sailing vessels, the sizes, styles, and apparent newness of the foreground houses, the apparently unpaved roads, and the lack of cars seem suggest a date closer to the start of the 20th century.

What is fascinating about the image is that the houses appear to be those of a wealthy European leisured class which has sought out a location with spectacular views (both in the direction of the image, as well as, apparently, by the disposition and orientation of the houses, in the opposite direction, to the photographer's back).

Now ask yourselves: how many locations in the early 20th century Far East could have provided the conditions for this scene to exist? The answer would seem to be very few. The houses in the image could only have been built very close to some major European centre of financial and political power: they needed money, a certain sophisticated European style both in their design and choice of location, and they needed access, roads, transport. Topographically speaking the image is even more constraining: the view is densely filled with hills and islands or peninsulas, both near and far, separated by what appears a long reach of sea closed in the far distance by a line of mountains and hills. There is a low island (or the end of a low peninsula) in the centre of the middle-distance of the long reach of sea. The immediate foreground appears to be a low pass immediately above the sea below (no coast is visible). Hills appear to rise to left and right, as well as under the photographers feet. The landscape appears to be covered in sub-tropical vegetation (scattered palms), though it seems to have a somewhat arid appearance (low, scrubby). The shadow under the central palm suggests an overhead sun - we are somewhere inside the tropics. it's This must continue to be a highly sought out residential location. Views like this do not disappear; they just increase in value! I believe that in spite of probable modern developments in the foreground the distant sea-scape must continue virtually unchanged today.

Can anyone POSITIVELY locate this fascinating image so loaded with socio-cultural content? Is it really somewhere in Hong Kong? Much suggests that that is probable, but the details of the topography just don't seem to fit. But if not Hong Kong, where?!

Cricobr (talk) 02:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I had a look at the source and the image itself and it sure looks nice. I believe it is Hong Kong but i highly doubt it was taken in the 1960s, no way. Please pay attention to the style of the boats houses, still old-fashioned. Anyway it's good to know Hong Kong once had such a place and scenery init? User:Knight of Gloucestershire (talk) 20:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

You could try to ask your question at http://gwulo.com/. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 20:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 July 2012

Hi, I would like to edit one part of Hong Kong. As described in page of "Hong Kong" (Chinese version), it mentions about the Hong Kong Independence Movement. I would like to request for writing one small part for Hong Kong Independence Movement so that people from other countries would be able to see what are the current situations in Hong Kong. Here is the information regarding to the Hong Kong Independence Movement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_independence_movement (English Version) http://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-hk/%E9%A6%99%E6%B8%AF%E7%8D%A8%E7%AB%8B%E9%81%8B%E5%8B%95 (Chinese Verison)

Thank you very much.

Crazboyboyzman (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Declined. That article should actually be renamed to "Hong Konger Front", since that website is the only identifiable group in Hong Kong that advocates for such a thing. You have provided no sources indicating the notability of such a movement, and I remember searching in vain for information about this myself (although I admit only searching English-language material). Advocacy of Hong Kong independence appears to be illegal in that territory, by the way. Shrigley (talk) 17:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Lede, etc

1. The Manual of Style discourages flag icons in infoboxes. I also note that the flags were selectively applied, keeping the British colonial flags while omitting those for the Japanese occupation and the PRC's own flag.
2. The term "city-state" is misleading, as it is normally used in reference to sovereign territories like Singapore. The reference used the term in passing, probably in a layman's sense to evoke its more precise political science definition.
3. Hong Kong's "one country, two systems" status, autonomy in most matters, and "numerous high international rankings" are already mentioned in the lead; they don't need to be mentioned twice in order to continually assert difference and denigrate the rest of China.
4. The lede was made too long with this repetition. Deryck Chan already inserted more of the "we're soooo unique" rhetoric into the body text to make up for what was removed (but still remains in substance in) the lede.
5. The multiple galleries showing eight variations on the British flag and the British passports were garish, too much, not helpful, and better suited for the Flag of Hong Kong article where they are actually relevant to the text.
6. Likewise, the numerous pictures of British landmarks from a specific time period don't help illustrate Hong Kong as a whole, over different time periods, in proportion to the coverage they get in the text.

Shrigley (talk) 17:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The edits I made were only intended to fix grammatical errors (comma splices, awkward wording, etc.) and I didn't change any of the structure or wording. I'd like to go ahead and redo those changes, since as it stands the introduction paragraphs are a bit on the ungrammatical side and a bit disordered, and am not averse to incorporating the wording changes. (I have no opinion about the graphics and dislike messing with them in any case.) I'd also question whether the population density needs to be mentioned more than briefly, though I didn't change it on a first pass However, to avoid repetition I'll wait to see if anyone else weighs in before redoing anything. Kate (talk) 23:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Minor Grammer Fix

" Futhermore, Hong Kong is one of the member of Nylonkong, which refers to the three most important metropolitans in the world, including: New York City, London and Hong Kong.[41]"

Can someone fix that, it's been bugging me for awhile since it's been there.

--71.32.240.37 (talk) 10:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Information Out-of-dated Edit request on 15 October 2012, Hong Kong page-- Education section

At the section named "Education", at the 3rd paragraph, the information about the rankings of the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology is out-of-dated.

Please change "The Hong Kong University of Science & Technology was ranked 35th in the world in 2009 and ranked second in Asia for 2010." to the following text:

"The Hong Kong University of Science & Technology ranked 33rd in the world by QS World University Rankings 2012 and ranked 1st in QS Asian University Rankings 2011 and 2012. The 2012 Times Higher Education top 100 Universities Under 50 ranked No. 3."

[source: http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2012?page=1] [source: http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/asian-university-rankings/2012][source: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2012/one-hundred-under-fifty] Hkust pao (talk) 13:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Missing Info- Edit request on 16 October 2012

At the section named "Education", at the 3rd paragraph, the information about the rankings of the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology is missing updated information based on the edit request made on 15 October 2012.

Please change the current text of “The Hong Kong University of Science & Technology was ranked 33rd in the world by QS World University Rankings in 2012,and 3rd in the Times Higher Education Top 100 Under 50 Rankings in 2012.” to the following text:

"The Hong Kong University of Science & Technology ranked 1st in QS Asian University Rankings 2011 and 2012, and ranked 33rd in the world by QS World University Rankings 2012. The 2012 Times Higher Education Top 100 Universities Under 50 ranked No.3." Hkust pao (talk) 02:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

 On hold, personally I feel like that is a bit too specific/NPOV violation. We shouldn't include the Asian ranking just becuase it is #1. gwickwire | Leave a message 03:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The Asian ranking is already covered in the sentence below that one. That's why I didn't include it when I responded to the request above this one. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Information Misleading – Edit Request on 16 October 2012

Referring to your reason of holding the request, we are concerned that it may be misleading not to state that HKUST has achieved No. 1 in QS Asian University Rankings for two consecutive years (2011 & 2012) while retaining the information the “HKU was ranked 24th on the 2009 THES – QS World University Rankings making it first in Asia”. In fact, HKUST ranked first in Asia and for two consecutive years by the same research agency. This is an objective fact. Pls. see sources from the following links for substantiation: http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/asian-university-rankings/2012 http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/asian-university-rankings/2011

We strongly recommend amending the information as below: "The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology ranked 1st in QS Asian University Rankings 2011 and 2012, and ranked 33rd in the world by QS World University Rankings 2012. In the 2012 Times Higher Education Top 100 Universities Under 50, it ranked No.3.”

Hkust pao (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

HKUST's ranking on the QS Asian University Rankings is mentioned in the very next sentence. No need to mention it twice. As for your concern regarding misleading text on HKU, I have reworded the sentence from "making it first in Asia" to "the highest ranked Asian university on the list that year." I hope that satisfies your concerns. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

More updated information – Edit Request on Oct 17, 2012

Thank you for your follow up. As the data 2012 rankings from QS Asian University Rankings has been released, it would be a better reference if you could post up the most updated one as follows:

"With the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology being ranked 1st, followed by the University of Hong Kong ranked 2nd while the Chinese University of Hong Kong ranked fifth." Appreciate for your prompt follow up again. Hkust pao (talk) 07:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. I have gone ahead and updated that information. I didn't exactly insert the text you wanted, but I inserted information that was backed by a reliable source. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

"Can anyone locate this fascinating image?" reprise

Back in June I posted a message in the Talk:Hong Kong forum requesting help in identifying a fascinating image, supposedly in Hong Kong.

I would just like to report that the image has now been identified. The story of my search can be found at gwulo: "hoping to retribute something". I was originally pointed to gwulo by one of the repliers to my original Talk:Hong Kong post.

The success of my search can be attributed to many people, especially those at the Chinese language forum uwants, which I was pointed to by gwulo, who really did the crucial detective work. Nothing like local knowledge!

The result? The view in the image is (or rather was) not in Hong Kong after all, but in Macau. To all intents and purposes the view in the image no longer exists - read the story, it's more surprising, even shocking, than you might imagine.

Cricobr (talk) 00:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

== 2 ferry routes now == It says that the star ferry has 4 routes, but two of these routes closed in 2011 Maps9000 (talk) 09:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

This sounds funny; can someone clarify?

For instance, its economic freedom, financial and economic competitiveness, quality of life, corruption perception, Human Development Index, etc., are all ranked highly.[34][35][36][37][38][39][40]

This makes it sound like being high on the corruption percetion index is a good thing...but when you look at the map, red is low corruption percetion, and blue is higher number corruption percetion.....and HK is red....so what does that mean? It's weird to lump ranking on good things into the same listing as something negative like corruption index, but then strange that when you look at the map it says that HK is LOW number-wise on that. 192.33.240.95 (talk) 14:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Being high up on the corruption index is a good thing; Hong Kong ranks 15th best in the world in terms of a clean society and government. The map is showing you China's ranking, not Hong Kong's. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

corruption perception

Edition being prohibited, I just want to signal that "quality of life, corruption perception, Human Development Index" should be replaced by "quality of life, low corruption perception, Human Development Index" in the introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.127.167.40 (talk) 13:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Photo of Ice House Street

In the "Economy" section there is a picture that is identified as a "View from Ice House Street in 1930s." One car puzzles me and it is the first car on the left with whitewall tires. I swear it looks like a car from the 50s, possibly a 55 Oldsmobile. Does anyone else see that before I think I'm going nuts?

--Adrien Korhonen (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Insufficient citations

This article is lacking citations in many parts. There should be at least one citation for every paragraph. That is currently not the case. There are citations needed tags that need to be addressed. These issues need to be fixed in order for the article to maintain its GA status.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Spoken Languages

Actually the spoken language in Hong Kong is Cantonese and then English, because only a few Hongkongers speak in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.140.70.103 (talk) 12:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

HK has substantial populations from the subcontinent (Pakistanis, Indians), Indonesians, Africans and half a million Filipinos who all use English as their "Lingua Franca". It's definitely the third most spoken language by far. The basic law is written in Cantonese (which is not identical to Mandarin in written form)and in (British) English with both versions having equal status. 203.90.7.79 (talk) 06:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Too many images on the article

First of all, I would ask that User:Andyso to please WP:Assume good faith. I am not trying to erase any important information about human rights issues in Hong Kong.

Secondly, the image issues that I'm trying to solve is well-documented in WP:MOSIM. In particular, images should show up within the relevant sections, and sandwiching of texts between images should be avoided. Take a look at my screen capture. At my screen resolution, the images are all over the place. And that's not the only section where images are out of place and texts are sandwiched.

Thirdly, if editors here truly care about documenting human rights issues in Hong Kong on this article, the best way to do that is to expand the human rights section from the measly few sentences that are in this article, instead of adding an excessive number of images to it. In other words, do some editing. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Once again, too many images

Regarding User:Knight of Gloucestershire's revert of my edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hong_Kong&oldid=570831145&diff=prev I would like User:Knight of Gloucestershire first to please WP:Assume good faith. And once again I'd like to point out that WP:MOSIM specifies that we should not sandwich text between images. That's exactly what these images are doing. And please note that currently the colonial coat of arms of HK is actually edged into a the "Japanese invasion" section. So no, I definitely disagree that these images were "perfectly fine" being where they are. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Greetings HongQiGong! First of all, I took the advice you gave me last time we talked into consideration and decided that there was really no point in adding all 4 HK colonial flags to the page, at least not until a paragraph explaining the importance of the different coat of arms on the flags and what they represent is written up so I do assume good faith as I listen to ppl, though at times I could lose it. And I'm sorry about sandwiching the text between the 1959-1997 colonial coat of arms image and the 1959 HK Colonial Flag.BTW, the said pic was not on the right side when I said the images were perfectly fine where they were. I did it afterward and I have to admit it was my mistake but nevertheless. I've gone through many recent edits you did to the page and I have to agree that some images are really not needed but those that I have re-added like the cenotaph etc. should stay imo. Many of them have been sized down and I've kept the number of pics to the 'minimum'. Yes, some paragraphs are too short for an image to be added to them like the military one so I suggest we elaborate on them a bit more. The marathon/rugby seven ones should stay though because they are part of our culture and what we like to do as a community in Hong Kong. They also attract international competitors/participants to HK so they are vital to our 'world city' title. Tram is a special thing almost unique to Hong Kong in Asia so the pic of it should also stay. Star Ferry- we all know it's a major tourist attraction. There are many more. I suggest we discuss here before any major adding/deleting of pics are done in the future. Regards. Knight of Gloucestershire (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that some of the pictures that I removed are important in illustrating what HK is like. But we can say that about thousands of pictures of HK. How about a picture of Big Buddha? How about a picture of the pink dolphins? How about a picture of Lion Rock? How about a picture of Wong Tai Sin temple? The list goes on and on! There are so many pictures of Hong Kong that can be argued to be "important". We simply cannot include all of them. And honestly, if you are interested in portraying how HK is a "world city", or how the tram is "special", or how unique Star Ferry is, etc, then the best thing to do really is to expand the texts in those sections. They do a much better job than just a picture of a tram or a picture of three westerners in penguin costumes. And when there is enough room, we can add more pictures. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you on that. I've re-positioned the colonial coat of arms image and expanded the 'British colonial era' section so the said pic doesn't edge into the 'Japanese invasion' section. Knight of Gloucestershire (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 August 2013

The last sentence in the History ->Since 1997 section has grammar errors.

The sentence reads: "Today, Hong Kong continues to serve as an important global financial centre, but faces uncertainty over its future due to the growing mainland China economy, and its relationship with the PRC government in areas such as democratic reform and universal suffrage."

This very long sentence has improper use of commas. It should either be split up into two sentences or fixed as follows: "Today, Hong Kong continues to serve as an important global financial centre but faces uncertainty over its future due to the growing mainland China economy and its relationship with the PRC government in areas such as democratic reform and universal suffrage."

Removing the comma exactly before "but faces" because the comma is not being used to separate two independent clauses. No comma is necessary because the conjunction is merely separating two predicates sharing the same subject. The second comma removed is the one exactly before "and its relationship" is similarly unnecessary because it is not separating independent clauses. Rather, it is separating two phrases acting as objects for the prepositional phrase beginning with "over". Damianesteves (talk) 00:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Done Thanks, Celestra (talk) 23:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

space needed

"itspolitical system." A space is needed between its and political.Vuminhhuy (talk) 03:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. Rincewind42 (talk) 07:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Don== Space needed ==

Governance section

First sentence

"City-statewithin" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brakerjw (talk • contribs) 14:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Done, and a great many other missing spaces found too, particularly preceding wikilinks. Rincewind42 (talk) 02:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Simplified Chinese

Please note that the Simplified Chinese name of Hong Kong listed is actually Traditional Chinese. Two of the characters should be different, but currently they are identical (except for font). The Simplified Chinese name should be changed into Simplified Chinese. 216.206.87.228 (talk) 02:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

There was no census in 2013

This article cannot be edited following the normal procedures and i havn't the time to figure out how to fix it or whether it is possible. However, the current population is shown as the result of a 2013 census. Censuses are taken in HK every 5 years, the last being 2011 and the next being 2016. Whoever in charge of the article should get this fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.128.26 (talk) 13:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. The source clearly states that it the figure is a 2013 mid year estimate of the population, not a census figure. The page has been updated to say such.

For future reference, please add new posts to the bottom of the talk page not the top. Rincewind42 (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Grammatical Error

I've edited a few pages here, but usually without logging in. The point is that I'm not sure how this is done.

I wanted to report an error in the first line of the third paragraph where it says "On 1 July 1997, Hong Kong become the first..." where it should obviously say "On 1 July 1997, Hong Kong BECAME the first..."

Sorry if I've made any mistakes here.

Done -- Rincewind42 (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Demonym for Hong Kong?

Case solved. The word "Hongkonger" and "Hongkongese" are officially added to the Oxford English Dictionary in March 2014 http://public.oed.com/the-oed-today/recent-updates-to-the-oed/march-2014-update/new-words-list-march-2014 14.199.209.140 (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The demonym for Hong Kong sounds wrong, Hong Konger? We always called ourselves Chinese people...but never in the english speaking population of Hong Kong have I ever heard of Hong Konger being said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UltimateBMWfan (talk • contribs) 13:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC) .

I've most often used Hong Kong Belonger, since Chinese doesn't say anything about Hong Kong itself. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm a British expat, was born in HK, did all my schooling there, and lived there for a couple of decades. My family was there for three generations, and remained for another decade or more after I left, until relatively recently. All of our family uses Hong Konger, as did many of our friends and acquaintances there. A public search of the South China Morning Post for "Hong Konger" using Google finds hundreds of articles/comments using the term, and on Google in general it returns well over 100,000 results. It's a well-known and legitimate term. 50.149.252.248 (talk) 06:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've most often used the term Hong Konger to describe people from Hong Kong myself. The term Hong Konger is widely used by both the English-speaking population in Hong Kong and the outside world. Knight of Gloucestershire (talk) 09:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2014

Adeline0709 (talk) 09:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Decline: Botched up and not clear at all what you intend to do. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee ^welcome!" 19:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

HK's Gini

Is over 50. 1/5 of the population are living in poverty. HKers are too proud to accept the fact? http://www.indexmundi.com/hong_kong/distribution_of_family_income_gini_index.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-29/hong-kong-poverty-line-shows-wealth-gap-with-one-in-five-poor.html https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2172.html http://www.smh.com.au/photogallery/world/cramped-living-in-hong-kong-20131015-2vk46.html (with pics) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.142.97.158 (talk) 18:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

"A pedestrian stops to give money to a homeless man in Hong Kong. Hong Kong’s Gini coefficient, a measure of income inequality, rose to 0.537 in 2011 from 0.525 in 2001, the government said last June." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.142.97.158 (talk) 18:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Request to move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Forbidden User (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

---

According to the Basic Law, particularly in Articles 116, 125, 149, 151, 152 and Instrument 8, this region is to be referred to as Hong Kong, China in international contexts. In the British colonial era, Hong Kong was not required to prefix or suffix its name with British. Therefore, this page should be moved to Hong Kong, China and British Hong Kong should be moved to Hong Kong.

Name	Remarks	Recommendations
Hong Kong, China	Required by the Basic Law	To be the new placeholder of the current content of Hong Kong
British Hong Kong	Not canonical, and historically non-existent	Contents to be moved to Hong Kong and page to be deleted
Hong Kong	The name used in the British colonial era without hesitation nor requirements or whatsoever. The Basic Law requires Hong Kong to be suffixed with China.	To be the new placeholder of the current content of British Hong Kong

- Joshua.yathin.yu (talk) 07:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)— Joshua.yathin.yu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Edited minor by Joshua.yathin.yu (talk) 07:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC) for a typo.— Joshua.yathin.yu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Refer to WP:COMMONNAME. United Kingdom is not titled United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Ottawa is not titled Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, etc. Citobun (talk) 08:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep it where it is per WP:COMMONNAME. British Hong Kong is a valid historical topic.  Philg88 ^♦talk 08:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I understand the concept of common names. I would also refer to Precision. Hong Kong alone may be a common reference to both Hong Kong, China and Hong Kong in the colonial era. Also, in Where there is an official name that is not the article title, it is required to use the official name in both the leading paragraph and a redirect. Hong Kong is an official name good enough to refer to Hong Kong in the colonial era, while Hong Kong, China is the one and only allowable short form of the official name.

- Joshua.yathin.yu (talk) 08:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)— Joshua.yathin.yu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Oppose - "Hong Kong" is the common name for Hong Kong SAR of PRC. STSC (talk) 09:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Clearly, this new user hasn't read WP:COMMONNAME. We use the most understood name for page titles. Forbidden User (talk) 16:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Look at WP:COMMONNAME. What official names are used is irrelevant to Wikipeida's naming conventions. With regards to Joshua.yathin.yu comments on precision you clearly didn't read that page. 'Hong Kong' sufficiently precice where as 'Hong Kong, China' would be overly presice just as in the example in the guideline, "Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta is too precise, as Mother Teresa is precise". Read WP:Primary Topic. The article British Hong Kong is not the primary here and in fact, nor would be 'Hong Kong, China' either. The current article is about Hong Kong running from 39,000 years ago to the present. It covers Pre-colonial, colonial (both British and Japanese) and Hong Kong SAR. The article 'Hong Kong, China' could not be the current 'Hong Kong' article. Large parts of the current article would need to be cut such that only post 1997 events are included. Currently there is no article coving post 1997 Hong Kong exclusively. Rincewind42 (talk) 02:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - "Hong Kong" is the common name for Hong Kong SAR of PRC. The term "Hong Kong, China" (and variations) is used only in international organizations such as the ADB, the WTO and Interpol. It is specifically designed to allow Beijing to win acceptance for similar terms applying to Taiwan ("Taiwan, Province of China" is most common). Anyone who doesn't know that Hong Kong means that place in China probably needs to do a lot more reading before editing Wikipedia. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I suppose there's no talking through this if no one is responding to Hong Kong being a common name for British Hong Kong. Rincewind42 claimed that this particular article was meant for the geographic location from the beginning of history up until now. But the disambiguation suggests otherwise: This article is about the special administrative region of China. And the Infobox also begins with the current official name of the government, which doesn't back up the claim very much.

Perhaps, if I am to assume that the matter is to be stalled here, there's still something about the Infobox to work with. If the Infobox tells of the official name, perhaps should there be some mentioning in the beginning paragraph of the official names? That's what I'd probably write:

Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China (Traditional Chinese: 中華人民共和國香港特別行政區, see Name section), alternatively Hong Kong, China or its initials H.K., formerly simply Hong Kong, is a former British Colony and is currently a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. Prescribed by law, it is to be called Hong Kong, China but allowed to be referred to as simply Hong Kong in the past under the British rule.

Perhaps I should state my intention as well: I am hoping to see that the article reflects the fact that Hong Kong is allowed to be called as be while under the British rule as they did not state in laws or whatsoever to prefix or suffix anything British to the name of Hong Kong. After the Chinese occupation, there are laws that require Hong Kong to be suffixed by China in all international contexts. If naming is not a solution, perhaps someone could suggest something else?

- Joshua.yathin.yu (talk) 07:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)— Joshua.yathin.yu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Joshua.yathin.yu look at Wikipedia:Broad concept articles. This article is not solely about a political entity. It discusses history, culture, government, sport, economics and climate along the same ilk as any other country/province/city article you care to look at. Rincewind42 (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Concur with Rincewind42. I'm from Hong Kong as well, and I know what you are talking about. It has been mentioned in the infobox and in context. Besides, it should be in the article about the HKSAR Basic Law. I will close this discussion as not moved for the fact that consensus is clearly against the move.Forbidden User (talk) 16:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Post-decision discussions

I could only accept the fate of the request. But I am sure, there will be alternative ways to achieve this:

I am hoping to see that the article reflects the fact that Hong Kong is allowed to be called as be while under the British rule as they did not state in laws or whatsoever to prefix or suffix anything British to the name of Hong Kong. After the Chinese occupation, there are laws that require Hong Kong to be suffixed by China in all international contexts.

- Joshua.yathin.yu (talk) 12:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The full name of Hong Kong under British rule is "British Crown Colony of Hong Kong". And stop saying "Chinese occupation", and please end your absolutely pointless argument while you still don't understand the concept of "common name" in Wikipedia. STSC (talk) 13:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Allow me to summarise this.

Official name	Common name
What you think
Hong Kong as a geographic location, from the beginning of history	Hong Kong
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China	Hong Kong, China
British Crown Colony of Hong Kong [1]	British Hong Kong
What I think (perhaps my compatriots as well)
British Crown Colony of Hong Kong	Hong Kong
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China	Hong Kong, China

^ I don't seem to be able to find this particular term in the article. It appears that simply Hong Kong was rather official.

- Joshua.yathin.yu (talk) 14:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

You've had your say Joshua, and the Wikipedia community disagrees with you. There is no point in carrying on trying to persuade people. Please find another article to focus your attention on, there are plenty to choose from. Cheers,  Philg88 ^♦talk 14:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The history of Hongkong and the Typhoons

There is an amazingly nice article on Hongkong facing the typhoons across history. It could deserve your (project HK) attention. Cheer 2A01:E34:EE77:8050:A5E9:6A96:8E1F:1044 (talk) 20:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

Please remove the national anthem from the infobox. According to Annex III of Hong Kong Basic, March of the Volunteers is really the anthem of China, not the anthem of Hong Kong. See above discussion for details. 128.189.191.60 (talk) 01:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

 Not done You should establish consensus for the change first, but it's still being discussed in the above section.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2014

Please add the following

"Yellow Ribbon is a symbol of wish for universal suffrage by the people of Hong Kong SAR." 203.85.183.193 (talk) 04:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. STSC (talk) 06:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I've lived here 30 years and that's the first yellow ribbon notion I've heard of in this context. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

(Apologies)

revert self-insulting arguments. apologies for bringing up the topic.128.189.191.60 (talk) 02:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. We don't cite The Star Spangled Banner as the "national anthem" of New York (City or State). DOR (HK) (talk) 05:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I feel the situation is slightly more nuanced than this - Hong Kong is a de jure part of China, but its political and judicial institutions are nominally autonomous. Thus it is not correct to equate HK with a place like New York City; it is more appropriate to compare HK to, say, Bermuda, or Puerto Rico. Hong Kong sends its own team to the Olympics, for example, but New York City certainly does not. In reality Hong Kong's political status is very much ambiguous given the on-going discussions of universal suffrage and the somewhat vague terms that was laid out in the Basic Law on Hong Kong's autonomy, and it is difficult to make analogies to any other political entity in the world except Macau. If Hong Kong wins a gold medal at the Olympics, what anthem is played? Colipon+(Talk) 14:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

revert self-insulting arguments. apologies for bringing up the topic.128.189.191.60 (talk) 02:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

revert self-insulting arguments. apologies for bringing up the topic.128.189.191.60 (talk) 02:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You should have clicked through to the actual resolution: "3. It is unanimously adopted that before the official national anthem of the People's Republic of China is composed, the March of the Volunteers shall be used as the national anthem." And that is being applied locally, to Hong Kong, as the section of the Basic Law states.

Per Colipon, although Hong Kong is not a sovereign state it has some aspects of a state, and from time to time fulfilling that role requires it to have an anthem. Before 1 July 1997 it was the anthem of the UK (you can hear it around 6:00 in this clip on Youtube: eGsJMDuhKhU), after that it is the Chinese anthem. It's not at all automatic that it's the same: Hong Kong has its own flag, as it had pre-handover. And as it's not automatic it's worth mentioning.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The infobox template is of "country" format, therefore it has the field "national_anthem". It's meant for the national anthem, not the regional anthem. Hong Kong doesn't have it's anthem then it would naturally adopt the national anthem as it's anthem, nothing wrong with that. However, I would also suggest another solution that is to use the infobox for "settlement" format which does not have the "national anthem" field. STSC (talk) 01:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

revert self-insulting arguments. apologies for bringing up the topic.128.189.191.60 (talk) 02:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, almost every US state has a state song and several have a state anthem →List of U.S. state songs. See also List of anthems of non-sovereign countries, regions and territories. Green Giant (talk) 04:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

If there's demand for a Hong Kong Anthem I'm sure the people can democratically choose one in Hong Kong, but in the absence of a local anthem then the national anthem should be adopted. Not a big deal. March of the Volunteers is a lovely song, I quite like it personally. STSC (talk) 03:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

revert self-insulting arguments. apologies for bringing up the topic.128.189.191.60 (talk) 02:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Basically from what I can see you just don't accept the national anthem from the communist mainland China. China is the motherland of Hong Kong; and Hong Kong Chinese should think of the source when they drink water. In my opinion, they should proudly sing the Chinese national anthem every day in the city. Furthermore, as someone has mentioned before that Hong Kong has some many characteristics of a country so having an anthem is not out of place at all. STSC (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

revert self-insulting arguments. apologies for bringing up the topic.128.189.191.60 (talk) 02:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Hong Kong has its own language, its own flag, its own currency, its own passport; Hong Kong can have its own anthem, there's nothing illogical or odd about that. Even if and when Hong Kong people elect its own anthem, the official anthem for Hong Kong is always the March of the Volunteers. STSC (talk) 03:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

revert self-insulting arguments. apologies for bringing up the topic.128.189.191.60 (talk) 02:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I will not engage with you in this debate anymore as you're getting very offensive. And I'm asking you to self-revert all those offensive words now. STSC (talk) 16:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

revert self-insulting arguments. apologies for bringing up the topic.128.189.191.60 (talk) 02:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes you insulted STSC by making lurid suggestions like regarding their mother as a wife. Drawing up flowery tables for comparison will not solve your basic dilemma - the PRC "national anthem" applies to all of its territory, so it is the national anthem for Beijing, Shanghai, Chongqing and any other place in the PRC including Hong Kong. Officially the SAR has more autonomy than other PRC subdivision, so there is no reason HK couldn't adopt its own anthem. Green Giant (talk) 04:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

revert self-insulting arguments. apologies for bringing up the topic.128.189.191.60 (talk) 02:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

If you have sources saying that the PRC national anthem is the national anthem of a city, then there is no problem so long as the sources meet our guidelines and policies. However, I've never run into a situation in which a city has been said to have a national anthem. There are regional and state anthems in various countries, but city anthems? Dougweller (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller, Hong Kong isn't just a city, it's a region within China (Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the PRC). STSC (talk) 00:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Lead

I find it funny.

"Hong Kong (Chinese: 香港, see Name section), alternatively known by its initials H.K., is a former British Colony which is currently a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, enclosed by the Pearl River Delta and South China Sea."

Why starting from the British Colony thing?

"Hong Kong (Chinese: 香港, see Name section), alternatively known by its initials H.K., is a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, enclosed by the Pearl River Delta and South China Sea. A former British colony, Hong Kong is known for its expansive skyline and deep natural harbour, and with a land mass of 1,104 km2."

This second one looks much more logic to me. Why starting from the history? It's the first sentence, it should provide the best possible description.

--93.40.141.63 (talk) 13:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you. The introductory text should be rewritten according to the MOS. STSC (talk) 14:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request

Remove the image of the No Stopping sign from the economy section as it does not serve an illustrative purpose or enhance understanding of the topic at hand.

Done Cannolis (talk) 08:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2014

Voyages of discovery

The earliest recorded European visitor was Jorge Álvares, a Portuguese explorer who arrived in 1513.[56][57] After establishing settlements in the region, Portuguese merchants began trading in southern China. At the same time, they invaded Hong Kong and built up military fortifications in Tuen Mun. The subsequent military clashes between China and Portugal, however, led to the expulsion of all Portuguese merchants.

In the mid-16th century, the Haijin order (closed-door, isolation policy) was enforced and it strictly forbade all maritime activities and prevented contact between China and any foreigners by sea. This policy was

2602:306:37AC:67B0:A4C2:4321:5663:4AB8 (talk) 11:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 12:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2014

The word "policy" is misspelled as "poliy" in the second paragraph of the section titled "Voyages of discovery"

Chrisaudley (talk) 14:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• done, thanks.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Hong Kong local anthem

Please add "Beneath the Lion Rock" as the unofficial local anthem of Hong Kong. --109.76.16.248 (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any sources for that? Being "unofficial" is (obviously) not an official designation; it would need evidence that it was widely regarded as such I think, i.e. not just by a few people or a particular group.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Here's a few sources, the bad news is that they are in Chinese so they will have to be translated. http://www.people.com.cn/BIG5/yule/1085/3075590.html http://finance.eastday.com/epublish/big5/paper110/20010521/class011000007/hwz1034887.htm --109.77.146.139 (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The first doesn't seem to say anything about an anthem. The second doesn't even work: it just redirects back to the main page.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Canton

Canton is "another name for Guangzhou", according Oxford. It's does not refer to a Chinese province, as the first paragraph of this article claims. Could somebody correct this? Voice of reason 2 (talk) 07:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. STSC (talk) 10:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

FWIW there was a lot of confusion surrounding the name Canton in the the 19th century. It is actually the transliteration of Guangdong, which was/is the name of the province rather than Guangzhou the city, which it should have been called—it also got mixed up with the definition of the Swiss "Canton" as an administrative division. Blame Google maps for arriving too late on the scene :)  Philg88 ^♦talk 10:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, "Guangdong" is used to be "Kwangtung" and "Canton" in the past. STSC (talk) 11:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

It still is Kwangtung, if one uses the Wade-Giles romanization system: "kwang" is "guang" in pinyin and "tung" is "dong."DOR (HK) (talk) 07:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2015

The world "lassiez-faire" should be "laissez-faire" instead. 118.128.131.130 (talk) 05:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Done, thank you Citobun (talk) 06:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2015

Please add template {{Countries of Asia}}. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.111.35.44 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 6 February 2015‎

14.111.35.44 (talk) 08:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Done -- Sam ^Sing! 09:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Replace {{Infobox country with {{Infobox settlement?

Should we replace the infobox template to match the other 32 provincial-level subdivisions of China? Although it's a Special administrative region, it is nevertheless a second tier administrative unit of China, which should all have the same infobox template. Mattximus (talk) 13:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Countries covers all countries, including both independent states and dependencies. The infobox template is part of that WikiProject. 203.145.92.78 (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2015; help for dead link

Dead link: Hayes, James (1974). "The Hong Kong Region: Its Place in Traditional Chinese Historiography and Principal Events Since the Establishment of Hsin-an County in 1573" (PDF). Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society Hong Kong Branch 14: 108–135. Retrieved 31 August 2010.[dead link] http://sunzi1.lib.hku.hk/hkjo/view/44/4401283.pdf

New link: http://hkjo.lib.hku.hk/archive/files/1456f650fd5455b7f60085907e5fc462.pdf Piero129 (talk) 16:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Done. Thank you! Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 18:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Already done Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 05:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

First paragraph clearly written like an advertisement

Is it really necessary to mention the ranking of Hong Kong in the Index of Economic Freedom according to the Heritage Foundation of the United States of America, and in the first paragraph?! It sounds awfully like an advert jointly from Hongkong Tourism Board and Hongkong Trade Development Council to promote, if not to hard-sell, Hong Kong, to English-speaking foreign tourists and investors, rather the slightly-less-enthusiastic, more-encyclopaedic tone. -- Urquhartnite (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Culture hatnote

Please change the See also hatnote in the Culture section. Currently it points to List of Hong Kong films, which has very little information. Cinema of Hong Kong is a more suitable destination. Thanks. --146.199.67.6 (talk) 22:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 23:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Page Notice

While editing, the page notice says that this article is written in British English. On this talk page, it is stated that it is written in Hong Kong English. The two are similar but different, so what is to be used? The Average Wikipedian (talk) 10:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Human rights issues

To user Signedzzz, many issues in your edit in the Human Rights section are very true but I don't see there are "sex trafficking" and "forced labour" in the Freedom House report (2009), and I don't think these two issues are real problems in Hong Kong. STSC (talk) 03:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I assure you they are in the report. As such I would think they merit a 2-word mention each. zzz (talk) 03:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Antimetaphysicals and Atheists

Antimetaphysicals [read wiktionary] and Atheists not mentioned speparately — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.84.222.127 (talk) 05:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 22 external links on Hong Kong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090303144015/http://www.hkarch.org:80/en_news.html to http://www.hkarch.org/en_news.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090303144015/http://www.hkarch.org:80/en_news.html to http://www.hkarch.org/en_news.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090418213756/http://www.lcsd.gov.hk:80/CE/Museum/History/download/the_hk_story_exhibition_materials_e.pdf to http://www.lcsd.gov.hk/CE/Museum/History/download/the_hk_story_exhibition_materials_e.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131017002146/http://www.info.gov.hk/police/hkp-text/english/history/history_01.htm to http://www.info.gov.hk/police/hkp-text/english/history/history_01.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100723195834/http://www.globaltimes.cn:80/www/english/life/travel/chinamap/2010-07/548745.html to http://www.globaltimes.cn/www/english/life/travel/chinamap/2010-07/548745.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080913063628/http://www.doj.gov.hk:80/eng/legal/index.htm to http://www.doj.gov.hk/eng/legal/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080904122425/http://www.doj.gov.hk:80/eng/about/sjo.htm to http://www.doj.gov.hk/eng/about/sjo.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130724024537/http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Asia/Story/STIStory_478501.html to http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Asia/Story/STIStory_478501.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150405102859/https://hk.news.yahoo.com/article/100225/4/gqsm.html to http://hk.news.yahoo.com/article/100225/4/gqsm.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081205021241/http://www.ceo.gov.hk:80/eng/press/oped.htm to http://www.ceo.gov.hk/eng/press/oped.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080416103736/http://www.mtr.com.hk:80/eng/whatsnew/tourist_intro.html to http://www.mtr.com.hk/eng/whatsnew/tourist_intro.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100826163252/http://www.iht.com:80/articles/2006/11/10/news/ferry.php to http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/10/news/ferry.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150219080240/http://www.hongkongairport.com/eng/pdf/business/about-the-airport/air-cargo/AirCsid=argo_brochure.pdf to http://www.hongkongairport.com/eng/pdf/business/about-the-airport/air-cargo/AirCsid=argo_brochure.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110725200439/http://www.countdown.org/end/apostasy_04.htm to http://www.countdown.org/end/apostasy_04.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111007195631/http://www.slidefinder.net/h/hong_kong_youth_know_practice/7539973 to http://www.slidefinder.net/h/hong_kong_youth_know_practice/7539973
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090209100914/http://www.edb.gov.hk:80/index.aspx?nodeID=1909&langno=2 to http://www.edb.gov.hk/index.aspx?nodeID=1909&langno=2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090111005741/http://www.edb.gov.hk:80/index.aspx?nodeid=1901&langno=1 to http://www.edb.gov.hk/index.aspx?nodeID=1901&langno=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071230194617/http://www.edb.gov.hk:80/index.aspx?nodeID=97&langno=1 to http://www.edb.gov.hk/index.aspx?nodeID=97&langno=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120923160319/http://www.med.cuhk.edu.hk/v7/p5_10_10.htm to http://www.med.cuhk.edu.hk/v7/p5_10_10.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100820034132/http://www.lcsd.gov.hk:80/ce/Museum/Arts/english/aboutus/aboutus.html to http://www.lcsd.gov.hk/ce/Museum/Arts/english/aboutus/aboutus.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131024133633/http://sunzi.lib.hku.hk/hkjo/view/4401608.pdf to http://sunzi.lib.hku.hk/hkjo/view/4401608.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100528160824/http://www.admwing.gov.hk:80/tamar/eng/background.htm to http://www.admwing.gov.hk/tamar/eng/background.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

City of China

There is a fatal mistake in the article, Hong Kong is NOT A CITY and NEVER BEEN TREATED as one. HK is a SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION, in British hong Kng era there was even a capital (Victoria, Central). Now normally under the administrative division, there are districts in HK, and in some districts we have a 'city-centre' or 'downtown'. If HK were a city, how could it even have several 'centre'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.134.74.157 (talk) 06:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Hong Kong is clearly a city, it is contrary to common sense to argue that it isn't:

http://travel.cnn.com/hong-kong/none/worlds-greatest-city-hong-kong-576599Wonglokking (talk) 07:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Only trusting a foreign source without no legal reference? It is getting ridiculous here, if HK was merely a city, why would not its name be 'special administrative city?' That's why people stop trusting Wikipedia.77.134.74.157 (talk) 08:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@Wonglokking: Hong Kong is certainly not a city established according to Article 30 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China or any law on administrative divisions of the People's Republic of China. The only relevant instruments are Article 31 of the Constitution, and the Basic Law, the constitution for the territory itself. Neither defines the territory as a city. The only city statutorily named so in Hong Kong is the City of Victoria. Victoria City and Kowloon on the opposite side of the harbour are customarily considered the twin cities of the colony/territory. 58.153.97.236 17:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

National Anthem

I removed the national anthem of China from the infobox, since it's not the China infobox, so it has no business being there. It's inaccurate to state that it's the "anthem" of HK - it is the national anthem of China. In the same way that "God save the queen" is not the "anthem" of London or Manchester. And the "Star spangled banner" is not the "anthem" of Washington, D.C. User:STSC, please explain why you have added it back. What do you mean by your edit summary "It's the law"? zzz (talk) 02:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The Basic Law states that the anthem March of the Volunteers applies to Hong Kong SAR. STSC (talk) 02:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

User:STSC, regardless what the Basic Law says, in any case no one is claiming that it does not apply to Hong Kong, Beijing, etc. The "Star spangled banner" likewise applies to New York, Washington. And so on. But it would be meaningless to state that it is the anthem of New York. It is the national anthem of the USA. In exactly the same way, "March of the volunteers" is the national anthem of China. National anthems are the anthems of nations (by definition). zzz (talk) 03:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

It's the official anthem of Hong Kong - if Hong Kong wins a gold medal in Olympics the March of the Volunteers will be played as Hong Kong anthem. STSC (talk) 03:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I was not aware that HK competes independently in international sporting events. In the theoretically possible case of China vs. Hong Kong, at the World Cup, the same anthem would be played twice at the start of the match. In that case, I agree with leaving it in. Thanks for exp[laining. zzz (talk) 03:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

User:STSC could you please spell out exactly which article (or chapter) of the Basic Law are you referring to, the Basic Law article or chapter where the word anthem and/or the March of the Volunteers is mentioned? 58.153.97.236 20:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it's important to present the fact appropriately that while there's a flag of Hong Kong and an emblem of Hong Kong, there's no anthem of Hong Kong. IMHO that field should be shown as something like "None - Anthem of the People's Republic of China is used". 58.153.97.236 16:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

What anthem does Scotland and Wales (or perhaps even more interestingly, Northern Ireland) play at the beginning of World Cup matches? Colipon+(Talk) 14:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

"None - Anthem of the People's Republic of China is used", as per the above comment, seems to cover it better than how the infobox stands at the moment. zzz (talk) 01:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Colipon: See the relevant Wikipedia article(s) on the anthems of the UK and for the four home nations. 58.153.97.236 20:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

HK neither province nor provincial level

Please stop claiming SARs as provincial level administrative unit. SARs are neither province nor provincial level. None of the provinces share similarity in the level of autonomy and status as the SARs. For example, can any provincial level administrative unit in any country of the world has their own Olympic team and can participate in numerous International Organization as an individual member? "Provincial Level" is not an official term and could not be found in either the Chinese Constitution or the HK and Macau Basic Laws. Thus, it is more appropriate to treat SARs as special cases, special cases directly responsible to the Central Government, as stated on the Chinese Constitution Article 31, or simply change the term "provincial-level" to "First-level" to avoid further confusion. It is like Guam neither a state nor state-level and Gibraltar neither a kingdom nor kingdom-level.Xxjkingdom (talk) 02:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

While not a province, it is a provincial-level as shown by reliable sources in Talk:Special administrative region. As mentioned there, "provincial-level" does not simply mean provinces, but at the same level as provinces. Actually your logic is very flawed: if SARs like Hong Kong are first-level divisions just like other provinces as shown in Template:Province-level divisions of China, then it means SARs are in the same level as these provinces, so SARs are provincial-level too. This contradicts with your claim that SARs are not provincial-level. Furthermore, Hong Kong is definitely not the first SAR with PRC (Wolong SAR came before it), but the first provincial-level SAR with PRC. Please discuss instead of edit warring, thanks. --Cartakes (talk) 13:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

First of all, keep calm. This is a discussion, not a conflict. You last point may apply to you and me, which forms a good point. You cannot rely solely on the Communist government's word when interpreting affairs that have international background, because they could be bias and Communist-centric. For example, you cannot claim Taiwan is a province as if what the Communist has claimed, because they would ignore the de jure and de facto existence of the Nationalist. Also, you cannot claim Diaoyu Island is a Chinese territory simply based on the Communist advocation, because they would ignore the de jure and de facto existence of Japan. The Chinese Communist government claims Hong Kong Pan-democracy camp are "Anti China Anti Hong Kong's gang" and "traitors to Han Chinese", yet it does not meet a neutral standard to adopt the communist claim, as they receive wide support from Hong Kong citizens, and are patriotic in their ways. For Hong Kong and Macau affairs, they are backed up by international treaties including the Sino-British and Sino-Portuguese Joint Declarations. SARs establishment is based on Joint Declarations, Chinese Constitution, and the Basic Laws together. While none of these documents claims that SARs are provincial level, and no joint agreement was established since then, simply relying on source from the Communist that published after the establishment of the above documents, and ignore the de facto and de jure situation in Hong Kong and Macau, as well as the opinions from the international (for example, the U.S.-Hong Kong Policy Act treated HK with a status higher than ordinary provinces) is unfair and not politically neutral. It is because Communist government is not the sole party to the affair. Therefore, source from the Communist point can only show the view of the communist government towards Hong Kong and Macau, something closer to Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China than an objective point of view, but ignore the de jure international background and the de facto different nature and status of the SARs, when compared with province. Meanwhile, my suggestion of replacing the term "provincial-level" with "first level", does not only politically neutral, it also totally fits the Chinese Communist's claim of "一级地方行政区域" (First level administrative region). Therefore, there is no point to blame the term "First Level" as it is by now a fair and accurate term to all parties. It is suggested that "First Level" is a better term to use. For your first point, as I have mentioned above, your source reflects only the view of the communist government and pro-communist scholars. Because the term "provincial level" is not written on the three legal pillars of the SARs： the international declarations, Chinese constitution, and the SARs' Basic Laws. It is necessary to respect views from different perspectives in this case, because "provincial level" is just the view and judgement of one of the several parties involved in this matter. Second, "first level" is different from "provincial level". "First level" highlights the common ground of the provinces, autonomous regions, municipalities, and SARs. The common ground is that they are the first tier administrative units, directly under the central government, as stated in the Chinese Constitution Article 30 for provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities and Basic Laws Article 12 for the SARs. Meanwhile, "provincial level" does not focus on the common ground, but treat others as if they are "something like a province". For we know, province has particular characteristics, with being the first tier administrative units only one of the characteristics. Other implications including being a region as normal administrative unit, a region without limited independent foreign affairs, without the right to exercise a high degree of autonomy and enjoy executive, legislative and independent judicial power, etc. This is not what the SARs are, de jure and de facto. It is subjective to call all sovereign states "Empire level" simply because there are sovereign states like the British Empire are empire. Wouldn't it be an insult to the republics and other forms of sovereign states? We cannot name China an "Empire-level" unit. I guess we all agree with this. A more fair term should be drawn from the common ground of all the sovereign states to name the level. For your other point that without second level, there could not be a term first level, in my humble opinion, it is unnecessary to have second or third level to have a first level when it comes to this case, because it is a technical term, and a technical term reflects the legal basis, the factual situation, as well as accepted by all parties. Even if you insist, it is still better to change sub-provincial to second level (and etc.) than to change first level to a controversial "provincial level" term, which remains a biased term only reflecting the view of the communist government, and ignores the perspective of the people. The original sentence is about 'The territory became China's first "special administrative region with a high degree of autonomy"', and Wolong is not "special administrative region with a high degree of autonomy" at all. Anyway, as you have insisted and kept on reverting others' edition for a couple of times in the last few months, I have deleted "first" from the sentence thus it is not necessary to add any level as an adjective to "special administrative region" in the first paragraph for any reason, if any, simply just to avoid further conflicts with you. Xxjkingdom (talk) 01:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

HK and Macao differ from Guam and Gibraltar in that those two territories are not part of the administering powers and are recognized as Non-Self-Governing Territories. HK and Macao are parts of China that were leased to European powers. That they have a (limited) international personality is irrelevant. And Taiwan is recognized as a province of China. The dispute was whether the Communist or Nationalist claims should be recognized. Perhaps it would be better to use a term such as sub-national unit to include the administrative divisions, whatever they are called. TFD (talk) 02:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Infrastructure

Someone tried to include Water supply and sanitation in Hong Kong in "See also." It was rm. Should be summarized under "infrastructure" IMO. Student7 (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Naming

While today most people refer to the region as Hong Kong, it is still often referred to by its older name Hongkong (one word) --- as already explained in the article. I have added this into the first sentence since many civilians (rather than just big international banks and the local post) also use this name when writing the English. And Hongkong is also a wikipedia redirect 175.159.97.138 (talk) 04:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Lengthy, puffed-up lede

There are 20 citations in the lede, which is supposed to summarize the article and should therefore not need citations. It states (among other WP:BOOSTER) that it is one of 3 financial centres of the world because one magazine said so during one year. Okay in body of article but seems WP:SPAM for Hong Kong. Editors should declare if they have a WP:COI on the discussion page. Who cares about one opinion in the lede? Boosters? Student7 (talk) 01:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

That Hong Kong is one of the world's top financial centres is a basic fact that belongs in the lede. It is not puffery.

Also, I reinstated the full sentence "Hong Kong is known for its skyline and deep natural harbour" because leaving "There is a deep natural harbour" as a standalone sentence is awkward to read, not an improvement, and because I don't understand the rationale for deleting the skyline bit. Hong Kong's skyline is world-famous, alongside other iconic skylines like that of New York City. When people form an image in their minds of Hong Kong, the skyline and harbour are probably the first things that come to mind for many people.

I am not a booster. I feel these are basic defining elements of the city that belong in the lede. Citobun (talk) 10:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I have done a fair bit of copy-editing on the lead, part of which involved giving due weight to both the "positives" and the "negatives". I consider myself neutral. One suggestion I would make is to append a brief summary of the recent political problems to paragraph 2. zzz (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

What we are trying to demonstrate to the reader is that HK is "wonderful." But simply repeating buzz phrases is not helpful towards that goal. WP:PEACOCK. "Hong Kong is also known for its towering Victoria Peak overlooking the harbour." "HK is 'known for.....' a lot of things." We establish the facts here and let the reader decide for her/himself whether it is all that notable or not. Student7 (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage is an LGBT issue

This section was a summary of one particular source [2]: "The Hong Kong government generally respects the human rights of its citizens, although core issues remain, including the lack of universal suffrage, restrictions on freedom of the press and freedom of assembly, sex trafficking and discrimination against women, and forced labour. 200,000 migrant workers cannot make complaints against their employers since they face deportation if dismissed from their jobs; a 2008 law against racial discrimination does not cover mainlanders, immigrants or migrant workers."

User:Pfftallofthemaretaken, is repeatedly inserting the phrase "and marriage inequality" (ie. same-sex marriage) in the middle of this passage, and reverting my attempts to move this edit to the next paragraph, which is about LGBT issues. The source in the first paragraph, which is a summary of it, does not cover LGBT issues. So it would be better to move it to the second paragraph which does cover LGBT issues.

Their edit summary "Inability of gay people to marry is a bigger issue that has repercussions for society as a whole; anti-discrimination laws are a totally separate issue of a different scale. It doesn't make sense to lump these things together." is WP:OR. zzz (talk) 23:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh no, the summary of the holy source must stay intact, we can't change anything! ... Only, these two sentences were taken from two separate parts of the source, and whoever put the text here already changed 'labor' to 'labour' to preserve the BrE purity of the article.

The way that I see it, if something belongs in the middle of the 'summary', then in the middle it goes, and references should be changed accordingly.

I also object to your phrase 'repeatedly inserting'—I inserted it a while back, and it is you who's been repeatedly moving it, trying to start an edit war.

The reason 'marriage inequality' belongs where I originally put it is the same that I offered in my undo summaries: marriage inequality is a big issue that affects society as a whole, not just LGBT people. Anti-discrimination laws are a totally separate issue of a different scale.

Also, the resulting wording of your proposed edit was awkward. That alone would be reason enough to undo it. Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 00:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

" if something belongs in the middle of the 'summary', then in the middle it goes, " - how can something the summary isn't summarising "belong" in the middle of said summary? Your edit summary, which for some reason you have just repeated, (besides being a logical fallacy) is WP:OR. And if you genuinely thought the wording was "awkward", you would alter the wording, not add extraneous content. zzz (talk) 00:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

(Looks like you might truly believe that sources are holy...) Articles in Wikipedia take their information from different sources, sure, but the resulting text is (or should be) more than a collection of citations of newspapers, books, speeches, and legal documents. The resulting text should read like a text of its own, and if something, logically, belongs in the middle of some text someone took from somewhere—it should be put there, and the old text should be referenced twice, before and after the insertion. Otherwise, articles here will become unreadable (and, admittedly, many of them are).

'Logical fallacy' is a big phrase for something you don't agree with. When same-sex marriage was legalized nationwide in the US earlier this year—do you remember the reaction this decision received? From people gay and straight, and not just in America, but worldwide. Do you think a decision to introduce an anti-discrimination law would be met with the same reaction?

So, could you please stop throwing those rules at me? They don't apply to the discussion at hand. And while you're at it, could you stop accusing me of something I'm not doing? I'm not adding anything, I'm keeping everything as it is, and you're the one trying to move things where they don't belong. Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 11:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• No, you added the phrase to the section. Are you denying that? I could find the diff if you like.
• And no, since you ask, I don't agree marriage is more important than just being criminalised to begin with - since that would be illogical (because obviously you can't marry in jail anyway.) What does America have to do with this article, exactly?zzz (talk) 11:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see your objection. The section in question doesn't specifically attribute the list to the freedomhouse source, so I don't think there's a problem with collecting human rights issues from a variety of sources. Generally it reads a bit awkwardly right now in either version because everything is so split up -- the point of this section should be to concisely summarize the main human rights issues in Hong Kong, since we can go into more detail in the main article for that. So I would suggest collapsing everything into one paragraph, unless someone can come up with a better way to divide it up... I don't think dividing it up by sources makes sense in this case, but if we do, it would probably be best to shift to using in-text attributions so the division makes sense. Without that, it just comes across as strange. --Aquillion (talk) 12:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. The sentence in question did absolutely attribute the list to the ref at the end of it. That's how I understand refs anyway. I'd agree that the section could be re-done completely, by just summarising the main article (which wasn't how I wrote it, I just summarised the sources that were already there, which were previously being ignored). zzz (talk) 12:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Signedzzz: "Are you denying that?"—Am I on trial?

@Aquillion: I'd like to thank you for making a useful edit (a rare guest here) and adding a link to the main article on human rights in Hong Kong. I didn't know that article existed. Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 12:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't, either. It seems like a decent article. But that article is terribly wrong, by your thinking, Pfftallofthemaretaken, as it doesn't mention same-sex marriage in the lead at all, and relegates it to one solitary mention in the entire page. Or perhaps, again, that's because Hong Kong doesn't happen to share the same exact preoccupations as America? zzz (talk) 13:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm disengaging. Let the community decide what to do with all of this. (Note to Signedzzz: you're not the community.) Pfftallofthemaretaken (talk) 13:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Article is what HK does or has; not what they don't have, which would cover millions of words and thousands of issues. Okay to report that they have outlawed SSM or permitted it. But that they have "failed to provide for it" is not reportable. Student7 (talk) 18:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2015

The last sentence in the second paragraph of the introduction reads, "From the start of the colony, Hong Kong remained under British control for about a century until the Second World War, then the colony was occupied by Japan in the legendary three years and eight months (12.1941 – 08.1945). After the Japanese surrender the British resumed control for about 52 years until 30 June 1997."

I believe this should be changed to, "From the start of the colony, Hong Kong remained under British control for about a century until the Second World War, then the colony was occupied by Japan from December 1941 until August 1945. After the Japanese surrender the British resumed control for about 52 years until 30 June 1997," in order to get rid of that confusing parenthetical date formatting, though the accuracy of the different dates and periods also deserves to be evened out. Raywin42 (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@Raywin42: Good catch; I agree that this should be changed, and have made the change. I've made an edit very similar to what you requested here. Cheers, Airplaneman ✈ 03:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Official Language Issue

I would like to remind those who use laws as an argument to state English shall lead Chinese in order : The HK Basic Law, the constitutional document of HK, comes in Chinese — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huangzonghao (talk • contribs) 00:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hong Kong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090818150731/http://www.ocasia.org:80/NOCs/NocCountries.aspx?Nocs=12 to http://www.ocasia.org/NOCS/NocCountries.aspx?Nocs=12

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Hong Kong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.investnanhai.gov.cn/en/hj.asp
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070813100459/http://www.info.gov.hk:80/basic_law/fulltext/ to http://www.info.gov.hk/basic_law/fulltext/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Hong Kong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.investnanhai.gov.cn/en/hj.asp
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110501053140/http://www.legco.gov.hk/lcsearch/showdoc.htm?mylink=/search/marker?s=21&o=2&t=2&a=30&r=2&k=1,&g=0&PROPERTY=2;&MERGEFIELD=-&CODECONVERT=-&SORTFIELDS=-&SIM_START=1&SIM_NUM=10&REL_START=1&REL_NUM=10&LINK=-&REDIRECTTO=-&PATHLINK=-&p=%22gini%20coefficient%22&c=17,1&i=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.legco.gov.hk%2Fyr04-05%2Fenglish%2Fhc%2Fsub_com%2Fhs51%2Fpapers%2Fhs510125cb2-cop1-e.pdf&j=5398&v=&n=&link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.legco.gov.hk%2Fyr04-05%2Fenglish%2Fhc%2Fsub_com%2Fhs51%2Fpapers%2Fhs510125cb2-cop1-e.pdf to http://www.legco.gov.hk/lcsearch/showdoc.htm?mylink=/search/marker?s=21&o=2&t=2&a=30&r=2&k=1,&g=0&PROPERTY=2;&MERGEFIELD=-&CODECONVERT=-&SORTFIELDS=-&SIM_START=1&SIM_NUM=10&REL_START=1&REL_NUM=10&LINK=-&REDIRECTTO=-&PATHLINK=-&p=%22gini%20coefficient%22&c=17,1&i=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.legco.gov.hk%2Fyr04-05%2Fenglish%2Fhc%2Fsub_com%2Fhs51%2Fpapers%2Fhs510125cb2-cop1-e.pdf&j=5398&v=&n=&link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.legco.gov.hk%2Fyr04-05%2Fenglish%2Fhc%2Fsub_com%2Fhs51%2Fpapers%2Fhs510125cb2-cop1-e.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment

The Wiki link to Chris Patten points to the wrong Patten... 94.224.133.131 (talk) 08:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

No it doesn't.  Philg88 ^♦talk 11:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

It did, I have corrected it. STSC (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Which area statistic is correct?

The introductory paragraph indicates the area of Hong Kong is 2,754 square kilometers while the inset to the right says it is 1,104 square kilometers. Can anyone point to an authority that will allow us/me to correct it? RayBirks 15:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The total land and sea area is 2754 sq km; the land area is 1104 sq km. STSC (talk) 14:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Can you indicate which reference you have used? TIA. RayBirks 15:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Geography of Hong Kong. STSC (talk) 16:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2016

Under the paragraph, Human Rights, the following sentence needs to be changed:

'The imbalance of voting power in the LegCo has led to widespread criticism of the its inability to represent Hongkonger's socio-economic needs.'

1. Delete the third instance of 'the' before 'its'. 2. Move apostrophe to change "Hongkonger's" to a possessive plural: "Hongkongers'".

218.188.14.94 (talk) 05:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2016

Under the paragraph, Human Rights, the following sentence needs to be changed:

The imbalance of voting power in the LegCo has led to widespread criticism of its inability to represent Hongkongers socio-economic needs.

1. The word Hongkongers is missing a possessive apostrophe and should read: Hongkongers'.

218.188.14.94 (talk) 05:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Done — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 05:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Lead contents

@Xxjkingdom: Please explain how this version of the text is better. I had made some copyedits to try and tighten the lead and remove redundant and excessively detailed information that could be found in the article body. I removed the note as redundant to what's stated in the second paragraph of the Demographics section; I removed the note because the first paragraph should not be excessively detailed. Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 04:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, in my humble view, for the history part, the perpetual concession of the island and Kowloon was not clearly shown in the previous version, and mixed up the concession with the lease of the New Territories. And as for the note, there is a common misconception that all Hongkongers must have a Chinese identity, which is untrue. The note there is to respect the diversity and identity of the citizens.Xxjkingdom (talk) 07:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@Xxjkingdom:Thanks for the clarification; I now know more clearly your intent. Let me try and explain mine. Let's examine the sentence about concession. As it stands, with the version you favor, it reads Hong Kong became a British colony with the perpetual cession of Hong Kong Island, followed by the Kowloon Peninsula in 1860 and a 99-year lease of the New Territories from 1898. This implies that the lease was a part of the perpetual concession of territory. I'm not a scholar of Hong Kong history, but I had understood the lease to be separate from the previous two concessions of Hong Kong Island and the Kowloon Peninsula. I can understand why my edits made it unclear that the previous two extensions of territory were concessions and not part of the lease, and I will try and address that with another edit.

As for the note about citizens, I can understand that and can see why you may believe that putting such a note at the top of the article is valuable, but I am of the belief that it's too much detail and makes the opening lines of the article more cumbersome than they need to be. I'm really don't think the few sentences of an article serve the purpose of righting misconceptions. Though I unequivocally support the spread of free and accurate information, which includes correcting systemic biases and quashing incorrect assumptions through well-written and easily accessible Wikipedia articles, there must be another way to go about it than how the article currently stands.

Hong Kong is currently listed as a good article, but I really do think that the text could use a good comb-through. Maybe I'll see if anyone else is interested in copyediting or otherwise assessing the article and making recommendations on what to improve. Best, Airplaneman ✈ 20:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your comment. I personally have no problem with your edition on the history part given that the perpetual cession is shown separately from the 99 year lease. It was the version previous to my edition edited by someone else mixed the two up. As for your other edition, I would prefer correcting systemic biases instead of simplicity, and I am more than welcome if any edition could achieve both correcting systemic biases and simplicity. Meanwhile I believe sentences like "Hong Kong's economy is characterised by simple taxation with a competitive level of corporate tax and supported by international confidence in its independent judiciary system where the rule of law, not rule by law, applies to legal, contractual proceedings." could be further simplified as well.Xxjkingdom (talk) 08:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Hong Kong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140630141739/https://www.myhealthportal.hk:80/en/content/articles/18/Health_Effects_of_Air_Pollution_in_Hong_Kong/ to http://www.myhealthportal.hk/en/content/articles/18/Health_Effects_of_Air_Pollution_in_Hong_Kong/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110522031840/https://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=&art_id=4513&sid=&con_type=1&d_str=20050311&sear_year=2005 to http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=&art_id=4513&sid=&con_type=1&d_str=20050311&sear_year=2005
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131016060146/http://www.doj.gov.hk/eng/public/basiclaw/basic13_2.pdf to http://www.doj.gov.hk/eng/public/basiclaw/basic13_2.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131204031554/http://www.doj.gov.hk/eng/public/basiclaw/basic10_3.pdf to http://www.doj.gov.hk/eng/public/basiclaw/basic10_3.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090903021559/https://www.afcd.gov.hk:80/english/country/cou_vis/cou_vis_cou/cou_vis_cou_tms/cou_vis_cou_tms.html to http://www.afcd.gov.hk/english/country/cou_vis/cou_vis_cou/cou_vis_cou_tms/cou_vis_cou_tms.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.world-exchanges.org/statistics/ytd-monthly
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101016060315/https://www.hkeaa.edu.hk:80/en/HkDSE to http://www.hkeaa.edu.hk/en/hkdse/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

The "Chief Secretary for Administration" and "Financial Secretary" in the template Infobox country should be changed as follow:

• original:

|leader_name3 = [[Carrie Lam (politician)|Carrie Lam]]
|leader_name4 = [[K C Chan]] (Acting)

• new:

|leader_name3 = [[Matthew Cheung]]
|leader_name4 = [[Paul Chan Mo-po]]

• And here is the ref.: "國務院：張建宗任政務司司長　陳茂波任財政司司長".

Sorry for my poor English.--和平至上 (talk) 08:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Done, thanks. I used a couple of references from SCMP instead, as easier for me to verify.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 09:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The percentage of the Chinese

The infobox puts it at 93.6%, whereas the sourced claim in the Demographics section at 91%. Should the contradiction be resolved?--Adûnâi (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Hong Kong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121013023413/http://www.lcsd.gov.hk/ce/Museum/Monument/form/Brief_Information_on_proposed_Grade_I_Items.pdf to http://www.lcsd.gov.hk/ce/Museum/Monument/form/Brief_Information_on_proposed_Grade_I_Items.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151015214226/http://www.dutcheastindies.webs.com/december2.html to http://www.dutcheastindies.webs.com/december2.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110513140626/http://www.kmt.org.tw/english/page.aspx?type=article&mnum=112&anum=7341 to http://www.kmt.org.tw/english/page.aspx?type=article&mnum=112&anum=7341
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ait.org.tw/en/pressrelease-pr1224.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://hk.news.yahoo.com/article/100225/4/gqsm.html
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5glwctzKV?url=https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/hk.html to https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/hk.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725215323/http://www.mercer.com/costoflivingpr to http://www.mercer.com/costoflivingpr
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.legco.gov.hk/lcsearch/showdoc.htm?mylink=%2Fsearch%2Fmarker%3Fs%3D21&o=2&t=2&a=30&r=2&k=1%2C&g=0&PROPERTY=2%3B&MERGEFIELD=-&CODECONVERT=-&SORTFIELDS=-&SIM_START=1&SIM_NUM=10&REL_START=1&REL_NUM=10&LINK=-&REDIRECTTO=-&PATHLINK=-&p=%22gini+coefficient%22&c=17%2C1&i=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.legco.gov.hk%2Fyr04-05%2Fenglish%2Fhc%2Fsub_com%2Fhs51%2Fpapers%2Fhs510125cb2-cop1-e.pdf&j=5398&v=&n=&link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.legco.gov.hk%2Fyr04-05%2Fenglish%2Fhc%2Fsub_com%2Fhs51%2Fpapers%2Fhs510125cb2-cop1-e.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080809223815/http://en.beijing2008.cn/venues/equ/index.shtml to http://en.beijing2008.cn/venues/equ/index.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604005151/http://www.forbes.com/feeds/afx/2007/06/12/afx3810988.html to http://www.emporis.com/en/bu/sk/st/sr/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080204231310/http://homepages.ipact.nl/~egram/skylines.html#explain to http://homepages.ipact.nl/~egram/skylines.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Please edit this part

At the part where it says that the name 'Fragrance Harbour' comes from the sweet taste from the seawater is incorrect. The reason why Hong Kong is 'fragrance harbour' in Chinese is because a long time ago Hong Kong used to be a ship port for wood, and that type of wood gives off a nice smell. I'm from Hong Kong and I'm sure this is the reason why Hong Kong is fragrance harbour in Chinese. Thank you. Chickennnnnnnnnnnnn (talk) 12:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

The same sentence you cited mentions the fragrance comes from nearby incense factories, which implies the wood being used. That sentence is also sourced, and your anecdote is not. _dk (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hong Kong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120111042226/http://www.dutcheastindies.webs.com/december5.html to http://www.dutcheastindies.webs.com/december5.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hong Kong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110522042043/http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=&art_id=52189&sid=&con_type=1&d_str=19970724&sear_year=1997 to http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=&art_id=52189&sid=&con_type=1&d_str=19970724&sear_year=1997

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hong Kong official name

The official name Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China should be provided in the introduction per WP:ON, please do not keep removing it for any POV reason. STSC (talk) 18:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Please quote from which sentence in WP:ON that official name should be provided in the first sentence? If the article is about Hong Kong, before and after it becomes a Special Administrative Region of PRC, it is considerable whether or not this should be added on the first sentence.Tart (talk)

"Where an undisputed official name exists, it should always be provided early in an article's introduction, bolded at its first mention".

The article is about Hong Kong at present. STSC (talk) 03:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Here comes the question: what is Hong Kong's official name? Or even, does Hong Kong have any official name?　I have visited Hong Kong government's official website, and I only see "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region". In the Hong Kong Basic Law, I see either "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" or "Hong Kong" is used to represent Hong Kong. In Hong Kong's emblem, only "Hong Kong" is seen on the emblem. From above, both "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" and "Hong Kong" were used as names in official sources, and I can't see a clue that the official name should be the long term you have stated on this page as well as in the infobox. In fact, and forgive my ignorance, I cannot see any official document states that Hong Kong has ever had an official name. Tart (talk)

https://www.gov.hk/en/about/abouthk/facts.htm

"The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region's constitutional document, the Basic Law, ensures..."

https://www.gov.hk/en/about/abouthk/docs/2016HK_in_brief.pdf

(page 46): "The Office of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in Beijing" (emphasis mine)

http://www.basiclaw.gov.hk/en/basiclawtext/index.html

"Chapter II: Relationship between the Central Authorities and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region"

I'd go with "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" as the official name. Rhialto (talk) 15:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

One more: http://www.immd.gov.hk/eng/ "The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative region" Rhialto (talk) 15:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The Basic Law refers Hong Kong as "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China".[3] It's the full official name; of course it's normal that the shorten form "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" can be used. I also noticed that Legislative Council uses the full official name of Hong Kong on their website.[4] - STSC (talk) 18:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Good catch. I've reverted to a version with the longer official name. Rhialto (talk) 06:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Your source does not support your claim. 1) For what you have quoted is the title of the Basic Law, not about the official name of Hong Kong. 2) None of the official sources you quoted states that the official name of Hong Kong is "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China". 3) Indeed, there are occasions where the phrases "Hong Kong", "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" or "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China" found in the official sources, but none of the sources state that "Hong Kong" or "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" are shorten forms of, or less official than, "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China". The assumption that an existence of a longer phrase must be the official term is not well-supported. 4) The existence of the phrase "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China" is extremely rare in official documents when compared to the rate of "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" or "Hong Kong". In contrast to your source which reflects Basic Law or Legco, the Hong Kong emblem which represents Hong Kong only states "Hong Kong" on it, and the HK government website that represents HK government only states "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region". 5) "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China"'s occasional existence is not necessarily a single term, but could linguistically entirely possible to be a form of [Official Name (Hong Kong)]+[Status of the entity (Special Administrative Region]+[modifier (of the People's Republic of China)] or [Official Name(Hong Kong Special Administrative Region]+[modifier (of the People's Republic of China)]. You cannot claim that the following examples as the official names only if you see occasional existences of the phrase: "Chengdu City of Sichuan province" or "Fujian province of the Republic of China," etc. In short, as long as we cannot get to a legal backup stating that Hong Kong's Official name is "whatever", the "official name" of Hong Kong remains a self research. WP:NOR suggests that "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research."Tart (talk)

I think it does. The Hong Kong Basic Law is essentially Hong Kong's equivalent to the US Constitution, defining what the place is. I get your point that the HK BL doesn't specifically refer to an official law with that exact term, but then, neither does the US Constitution. Both documents became absolutely meaningless as not referring to any place on earth if you deny the idea that "United States of America" and "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China" are the official names of their respective lands. Moreso considering that at the time each was written, there wouldn't have been any other official document naming their respective lands. Rhialto (talk) 13:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Regarding your comment about the emblem, the BL states: "The regional emblem of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is a bauhinia in the centre highlighted by five star-tipped stamens and encircled by the words "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China" in Chinese and 'HONG KONG' in English." At the very least, that means you aren't being complete in your statement about what is written on the emblem. Rhialto (talk) 13:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

One more point: The WP template calls the long form the "conventional long name" and not the "official name" for a reason. The conventional long name and at least two versions of the shorter forms see official use. In fact, the BL specifically "permits" the use of "Hong Kong, China" by the HK government. But the fact that one shorter form is officially permitted doesn't in any way mean that the conventional long form is denied (officially or otherwise). Rhialto (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Hong Kong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160201031017/http://somanhing.com/gotowalk/history/lost/name.pdf to http://somanhing.com/gotowalk/history/lost/name.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110501111035/http://comonca.org.cn/LH/Doc/A07.pdf to http://comonca.org.cn/LH/Doc/A07.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060706140941/http://www.info.gov.hk/police/hkp-text/english/history/history_01.htm to http://www.info.gov.hk/police/hkp-text/english/history/history_01.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.hkdf.org/newsarticles.asp?show=newsarticles&newsarticle=126
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130508023440/http://www.med.hku.hk/v1/education/ to http://www.med.hku.hk/v1/education/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131024133816/http://www.med.hku.hk/v1/education/internship/educational-objectives/ to http://www.med.hku.hk/v1/education/internship/educational-objectives/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2017

Please change the subtitle "The Hong Kong question" to "The Hong Kong issue" for the word issue means "Anything in dispute, an area of disagreement whose resolution is being debated or decided" which is arguably more suitable here. 123.161.168.92 (talk) 01:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Section of "Official languages" needs it's own paragraph, bs languages is part of major science about linguistics and not a subgroup of "Demographics".

Entry Official languages needs it's own section on the main page Hong Kong, bs it's not subgroup of Demographics (that is here presented currently strangely enough). Also there is no need to create with interwiki new endless pages-branches to the main page like "Languages of Hong Kong", "Transport of Hong Kong", etc., because it would be better to explain everything in short just on one page Hong Kong in order a reader would easy find all info here without endless traveling from one page to another in searching for needed facts. Best wishes all Wikipedians, faithfully, --PoetVeches (talk) 19:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2017

The words "suffer" and "severe" in the following sentence are unnecessarily used here and show an economic bias of the writer. By including stats of income inequality and per-capita income in the same sentence the writer also implies that one stat has relation to the other without any study/evidence.

Even with one of the highest per capita incomes in the world, it suffers from severe income inequality.

I suggest it be written something like this:

Hong Kong has among the top per capita incomes in the world. Hong Kong also ranks high in terms of income inequality.

The definition of suffer and sever do not fit with the reality of the situations of the people in Hong Kong. Please reconsider after doing more research. Ironsmithfe1 (talk) 19:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: "Suffer" does not imply bias. Additionally, Hong Kong has a high Gini index, indicating severe income inequality. – Nihlus (talk) 21:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Economist here, so OR caveat: the Geni Coefficient (not an index) measures incomes, typically cash-only. That's something that is only very poorly surveyed in Hong Kong. It pays no attention to the housing subsidies available to about 47% of the population, and ignores household wealth. Hong Kong incomes are unequal (unlike North Korea, it's capitalist, and so incomes are unequal), perhaps dangerously so. But, we can't tell that from the available -- poor -- data.DOR (HK) (talk) 13:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2017

all instances of "perpetual" should be changed to "long term" as that is the wrong translation of the treaty. 70.77.211.3 (talk) 04:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

It is not a translation, it is the English text of the original document – which reads "in perpetuity". Citobun (talk) 06:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

5 Big Clans

In this article it states the 4 big clans. This is wrong and it is written in history there are 5 big clans. Which are: Tang, HAU, Liu, Man and Pang. This is mistake needs to be rectified. Poorly written History section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.65.17 (talk • contribs) 2010-06-27T21:56:16

Border

The border had several minor changes bcos of the course of the two rivers. The maritime boundaries had also some changes as a result of negotiations in the 1990s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desvoeuxrdwest (talk • contribs) 09:48, 23 October 2010

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Hong Kong/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This orange-tagged article clearly fails criteria 2b. There are many paragraphs lacking citations. I brought this issue up at the talk page a while ago, but there doesn't seem to be much interest.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep All paragraphs now properly cited, found deadlinks had been replaced or removed. ThisAvatar (discuss–?) 06:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Nice job. The article looks good now, but I'll keep this GAR open for a week in case others want to comment.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep There were many unwanted contents but I can see most of them have been removed and I believe all of the paragraphs are now properly cited. Further work needs to be done but it should now be allowed to retain its status as a good article. Knight of Gloucestershire (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

---

Result: Keep
The issues that led to this GAR have been resolved.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

All information I'm coming across put the official figures for Buddhism, Taoism and Christianity much higher than this page states. They put the Buddhist population at over a million, the Taoist population at over a million, and the Christian population at over a million (around 379,000 Catholic Christians and 480,000 Protestant Christians, along with other groups such as Jehovah Witnesses.) https://www.gov.hk/en/about/abouthk/factsheets/docs/religion.pdf http://www.yearbook.gov.hk/2011/en/pdf/E18.pdf

The pie chart also makes little sense as it puts quiet different beliefs together for an unstated reason (Buddhism, Atheism, Taoism are all put together for some reason).

There seems to be a need to correct the pie chart with proper breakdowns, and to list the demographics as stated by the Hong Kong (and UK) governments as listed above.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Hong Kong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629174926/http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=1&art_id=34998&sid=11525347&con_type=1 to http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=1&art_id=34998&sid=11525347&con_type=1
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hkdf.org/newsarticles.asp?show=newsarticles&newsarticle=126
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070224121453/http://www.octopuscards.com/consumer/products/en/index.jsp to http://www.octopuscards.com/consumer/products/en/index.jsp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090222223542/http://globalnation.inquirer.net/propertyfocus/propertyfocus/view/20090217-189707/Feng-shui-used-in-90-of-RP-businesses to http://globalnation.inquirer.net/propertyfocus/propertyfocus/view/20090217-189707/Feng-shui-used-in-90-of-RP-businesses
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100213090729/http://www.monstersandcritics.com/movies/news/article_1281858.php/Hong_Kong_calls_itself_Asia_s_entertainment_hub to http://www.monstersandcritics.com/movies/news/article_1281858.php/Hong_Kong_calls_itself_Asia_s_entertainment_hub

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2017

Please add " |membership = {{flag|China}} |membership_type = Sovereign state " to the Infobox section as MOS:INFOBOXFLAG states "Human geographic articles – for example settlements and administrative subdivisions – may have flags of the country and first-level administrative subdivision in infoboxes. " HK is definitely included here in this case.--123.161.170.177 (talk) 06:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done. I apologize that it took so long for this to garner a response. CityOfSilver 21:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@CityOfSilver: Sorry for bothering you again, someone has intentionally removed what you previously added without a valid reason. Please restore the content, thanks! 117.159.146.216 (talk) 11:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

There's been a new change to the infobox where it now says "Autonomy within the People's Republic of China". I would argue that that sufficiently shows that China is the sovereign state and it would be redundant to re-add the field you're mentioning. Also, I personally just think having that small flag in the infobox is a bit distracting from the rest of the info in that box. Horserice (talk) 04:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hong Kong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100407024109/http://www.lds.org/temples/main/0,11204,1912-1-84-0,00.html to http://lds.org/temples/main/0,11204,1912-1-84-0,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hong Kong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110429111223/http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aI3U6ahtfIyo to https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aI3U6ahtfIyo
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717183401/http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a7.igvdrfs5g to https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a7.igvdrfs5g
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081121092744/http://ucblibraries.colorado.edu/govpubs/for/hongkong.htm to http://ucblibraries.colorado.edu/govpubs/for/hongkong.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2017

-In the column on the right side at the top of the page there is a section that currently reads "Date Format" and then explains how to format the date. This should either be changed to the date that Hong Kong was formed as a state or it should be deleted. 2605:A601:53B:DC01:4DAD:B58B:AB98:C464 (talk) 02:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done. I removed it but then I looked at China and the box has the same thing. Is this how dates are written in Hong Kong and China? Maybe that's what it's trying to convey, although you're right: it isn't clear. I'm almost certain someone is going to come along and revert me, and hopefully, they can explain what's going on here. CityOfSilver 05:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I reverted your change because your guess was right. It refers to standard date formatting in a given country/territory. See other country pages for examples (United Kingdom, United States, Saudi Arabia). Horserice (talk) 09:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@Horserice and 2605:A601:53B:DC01:4DAD:B58B:AB98:C464: Thank you. This request seems to have been made because that parameter's title, "Date Format," doesn't contain enough information about what it's supposed to be teaching readers. I have no intention of trying to do anything about it because I can't come up with anything that isn't terrible. ("National Date Format?" "Date Writing Order?" "Interior Date Presentation Format?" These are just awful. And even if I were I to steal your way of putting it and change it to "Standard Date Formatting," there's no way it would stick.) CityOfSilver 18:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@CityOfSilver: No problem. There's actually no disambiguating description for date_format in the infobox itself, but this parameter is definitely used for national/territorial date formatting throughout Wikipedia. Since the infobox isn't specific to Hong Kong but is used for every country and dependency page, you should propose a change there or open a wider discussion with the Countries WikiProject. I would think that they also ran into the same problem of coming up with a proper name for the entry when they first created this template, but definitely no harm in bringing it up in discussion. Horserice (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Bad wording?

A legacy of colonial rule, about 3 million residents hold some form of British nationality, including British National (Overseas) status and British citizenship.[235] The vast majority of those who do concurrently hold Chinese nationality, which was automatically granted to all residents of Chinese descent at the transfer of sovereignty.[236]
Shouldn't the bold part even be there? It makes no sense. And those could be changed to them. Is this some Chinese grammar?--Adûnâi (talk) 04:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

You're right. I probably was tired while writing that. Good catch :P Horserice (talk) 10:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

indian diaspora

There are about 190,000 indians in hk . The presence of 7 hindu temple and celebration of durga puja , etc . Holding gathering such as bongo mati , utkal in hk , etc are the examples of indian presence in hk .

During the british rule , many indians came in to the island .

If calculated ,they are about 1.6% of the hk population. Bongodia (talk) 11:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Potential editing ideas and comments on the article of Hong Kong

1. Hong Kong is not stated as an Autonomous Territory, but a Special Administrative Region as mentioned in the Basic law of Hong Kong. 2. Settlements are not scattered in the new territories of Hong Kong. From the maps published by the lands department of Hong Kong, a large amount of residential and industrial buildings are clustered over the straightened Shing Mun river. Other settlements are new towns, developed by the government to cope with the overpopulation of the city. 3. The International Commerce Centre is not the third tallest building in the world as many buildings have overtaken it. It is currently ranked at eleventh on the tallest buildings list. 4. The "occupy central" protests in 2014 is not cited as the "umbrella revolution" but a movement by many sources such as the South China Morning post.

Please also note that a more balanced view will be preferable for the article.

Maxie1919 (talk) 12:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC) Maxie1919 (talk) 12:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

 Partly done: 1. The first sentence states: "...officially the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China..." emphasis added The statement that it is an autonomous territory is a political science classification, not an official designation and linked to the appropriate article which defines it as a territory "...that has a degree of self-governance..." A definition which the Basic Law certainly supports. 2. It's not clear how the statement that the population is located, among other named places, "...in scattered settlements throughout the New Territories." differs from that characterization in any meaningful way. Also, personal interpretations of population locations based on one's reading of maps is likely unsupportable synthesis which would be difficult to reliable source. 3. Partially correct. The International Commerce Centre is seventh tallest by height to main roof and thi shas been updated. 4. It's not clear what this means but you are correct in pointing out that the sourcing is wrong. Citing a 2014 event to a 2008 article retrieved in 2010 is just plain wrong, and the citation has been updated. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2018

Please indicate that one of the official languages in Hong Kong, Chinese, is spoken in Cantonese and written in Written Vernacular Chinese with Traditional Chinese Charaters, since Chinese is by definition rather a family of language than a language per se. Your effort is appreciated. Tublunwfu Caoasie (talk) 13:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: @Tublunwfu Caoasie: Can you please be more specific as to where you would like this edit made? The infobox says that English and Chinese are the official languages, and the English alphabet and Traditional Chinese are official scripts. The footnotes in the infobox state that no variety of Chinese is official, though Cantonese is the de facto (i.e., unofficial) standard, and it does not mention written vernacular Chinese at all. These statements are sourced to the HK government, which I would think determines what is official and unofficial, so you would need to come up with a pretty convincing source to refute what's currently on the article. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Things get a lot complicated with the word 'language', and using Chinese in here is not wrong, only inaccurate(not saying to change the 'official languages, just remarks should be included). As For the majority of the Hong Kong people, in the aspects if daily life, they speak Cantonese, write and learn written vernacular Chinese(白話文）（俗稱書面語）（which is not classical Chinese 文言文）, sometimes even whatsapp with their friends in written Cantonese. Even this page of wikipedia says so, the most frequently used "language" is Cantonese(88.9%). Plus, Cantonese is a language, Mandarin is also a language, while Chinese is a family of languages. I know that it is in the basic law, but since it is inaccurate and can misled some into thinking Chinese is a "language", remark at the infobox is prefered.

Also, in normal cases, languages like English, spoken English = (formal)written English, whereas in Hong Kong, spoken Chinese(Cantonese) =/= (formal)written Chinese(written vernacular Chinese). As they have different grammar ,written vernacular Chinese = mandarin =/= Cantonese =/= Classical Chinese, they are to be considered as separate languages, hence, despite not in the law, remarks should also be made.(where can be yours to choose, but i would prefer it to be in the infobox as well) --Tublunwfu Caoasie (talk) 09:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

If you feel that you have a compelling argument for your points and you have authoritative sourcing that backs up what you're saying, we can have a meaningful discussion on it. Unless you can provide good references, we can't put that in the article. Horserice (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:HKSAR passport cover (biometric).svg

File:HKSAR passport cover (biometric).svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a non-free use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 07:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Image since removed, so issue has been addressed. - Horserice (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

On whether to keep "of China"

@Horserice: I know this article includes the official name of Hong Kong which has already pointed which country HK belongs to. Yet I made this edit to make this article in consistency with other similar articles and technically the official name is not part of the main article but a supplement. P.S.: An alternative to of China could be within China which is also used.--INDICATOR2018 (talk) 12:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@INDICATOR2018: Mentioning that twice in a sentence doesn’t read well. It comes off as cumbersome and unnecessary. Other dependencies might not have the country name in the official title. And as you’ve alluded to, there’s also multiple other places which make it extremely clear what country Hong Kong is in. Horserice (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@Horserice: Alright, your rationale quite makes sense. Thanks for your patient reply. --INDICATOR2018 (talk) 13:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

edit request July 8

Can you put ogg file back, the song of china national anthem like Macau. Bryan (talk) 8 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Looks like it was removed last week due to copyright concerns. Pinging User:Horserice who has been working on this article and removed the file from the page. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that’s correct. There’s no info on the first publication of the melody, so I removed it as part of the FAC review. Horserice (talk) 15:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@Horserice: Of "March of the Volunteers"? It should have been written by Nie Er, who died in 1935, although I'm not sure if that counts as a derivative work since it was based on the lyrics. Jc86035 (talk) 09:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't really know what qualifies as fulfilling that info requirement. User:Nikkimaria flagged it as not having enough info and knows more about it. Horserice (talk) 16:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Per the tags on File:March_of_the_Volunteers_instrumental.ogg, we need to know when and where the work was first published to verify its copyright status. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: The file page on Commons says the recording is from 5 May 2003 (presumably performed in the United States and public domain due to being a government work) and the music was composed in 1935 (composed in China and presumably public domain due to 50 years having passed since the composer's death). Is there anything else? (The local file page should probably be updated with the information on Commons.) Jc86035 (talk) 00:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

We need to consider the copyright of the performance and melody separately. The performance itself is PD as a US Navy work, but it is of course a derivative of the piece performed. For the melody, both of the current tags (for China and US status) rely on knowing date and location of first publication, which is why the first of the two explicitly requires that we identify that. Is that information known? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: According to the relevant Wikipedia articles, the melody was first used in Children of Troubled Times (1935), presumably only released in China. The excerpt from the film, uploaded on Commons, is now in the public domain in China due to having been published more than 50 years ago, and presumably in the United States (the file oddly doesn't have a US copyright tag), as the film studio was closed at the end of 1935 and the film's copyright would probably not have been registered in the US. Jc86035 (talk) 07:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Is this recording the same arrangement as appeared in that film? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I don't think it's the same arrangement. We don't actually know who arranged the US Navy version, since none of the anthems are properly credited. It's probably the same arrangement used officially by the Chinese government. Jc86035 (talk) 05:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The Chinese Wikipedia has an unsourced claim that the commonly used version was arranged by Li Huanzhi, who died in 2000. Jc86035 (talk) 07:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I have nominated both the recording and sheet music on Commons for deletion. I've left the film even though it contains the lyrics, since the lyrics will be out of copyright in Taiwan and China at the end of 2018. Jc86035 (talk) 07:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Anthem

Is the anthem sung in Cantonese and English in HK? If it isn't, I think we might have to reconsider putting the Cantonese romanisation of the title in the infobox, and perhaps substitute it with Mandarin pinyin (perhaps also specifying that it's the PRC's and not only Hong Kong's anthem). Let me know what you think! (note that I posted the same message on talk:Macau. Doanri (talk) 13:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@Doanri: It's in Mandarin. Hong Kong uses the national anthem of China (義勇軍進行曲). I think there's no need to add it. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 13:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments

• You might try Wikipedia:Peer review
• "competitive simple taxation" I do not understand this and the linked article does not explain it.
• "The territory features the most skyscrapers in the world, surrounding Victoria Harbour". This sounds odd. maybe "The territory has the largest number of skyscrapers in the world, most of them (or all of them) in the area surrounding Victoria Harbour."
• "Regardless of origin, the Treaty of Nanking indicates Hong Kong Island using this name, which has referred to the entire territory ever since." indicates does not seem the right word here and the comment is superfluous. I would delete.
• "The region was first occupied by humans during the Neolithic period, around 6,000 years ago." I would say first known. Discoveries of earlier occupation are likely.
• "The region was consolidated under the Nanyue kingdom following Qin collapse,[41] but recaptured by China after the Han conquest." This is confusing. You do not say that Nanyue was non-Chinese.
• "By the end of the Yuan dynasty" When?
• "After the Qing conquest, maritime trade was banned under the Haijin doctrine." I will try to take another look at this article, but this sentence seems to me typical of the problems with this article. You frequently assume too much knowledge in the reader. This should be something like "In 1618, the Qing conquered China, and they banned maritime trade under the Haijin doctrine." I would suggest you go through the article trying to read it as if you had no knowledge of the subject and see what needs clarifying. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• Great points, thanks for going through it. Yeah I had this go through peer review once before taking it through the FAC process, but I can definitely take it through that again. Horserice (talk) 21:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Autonomy

@Sirlanz: Alright, let's talk about this. I'll address your change summary comments here:

"Hong Kong is not autonomous in any sense of the word" - If you're inserting "semi-" qualifiers into the article to describe Hong Kong as semiautonomous, then you don't seem to be following what you stated. Let's look at the definition: the right or condition of self-government. We know Hong Kong has its own legal code and handles administrative affairs including healthcare, taxation, and social services separately. It definitely handles local affairs by itself and we can talk about currency, road system, and so on, but it would seem that the condition of self-government is met.

"the suggestion that there is some definition based on some level of independence of administration lacks support" - The Joint Declaration literally says "a high degree of autonomy." The legal document on which the basis of the HKSAR itself exists contains an authoritative line that places significance on the level of independence of administration of this territory.

"Any suggestion Hong Kong has unqualified autonomy is very distant from the legal position today" - I agree. Hong Kong's autonomy is subject to high levels of oversight/interference/involvement by Beijing. That is why the Government section already pretty concisely lays this out and the formal relationships between the central government and the most significant offices/bodies of the SAR, showing how dependent the territory's governing institutions really are.

"previous source, being from 2016, is of no assistance in describing the state of the region today" - Source in question is a comprehensively cited academic paper on the HKSAR government, while you added an article citing Lu Kang's "no longer relevant" statement (which is later clarified by this statement by the MFA) and two other articles from 2014, which by your logic, are of even less assistance in describing the state of the region today. If you want to replace an academic source, I'd suggest you find another paper of similar quality.

Also some remarks on your added content:

"Notwithstanding its being a signatory to the declaration, the Chinese government renounced its primacy in 2017, stating it was of no binding effect." - This sentence is wordy and pretty hard to understand. It doesn't lend itself to summarizing the state of government in Hong Kong. If the treaty were truly invalid (which the MFA again later said it's not invalid), then it just shouldn't be mentioned in the lead paragraph of the Government section. Same applies to the added 2014 white paper quote. - Horserice (talk) 09:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Horserice has agreed here that Hong Kong's extent of autonomy is not unqualified. So why is Horserice insisting on removing the qualification "semi" and insisting that the term remain, misleadingly, unqualified? sirlanz 09:56, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The so-called "academic" source on which Horserice relies is not the work of an academic at all. Ms Bélanger wrote in the capacity of "independent foreign policy analyst" with no more than a master's degree. The article itself is an extremely lighweight (5 pages) potted constitutional history of Hong Kong spanning 175 years. Most importantly, it never touches upon the question of autonomy. In summary, the source Horserice holds up in resistance to my edits is not authoritative and is plainly irrelevant to the matter in controversy here.

Beijing's repudiation of the Joint Declaration was made in a formal press interview by the Foreign Ministry spokesman. Horserice claims there was a subsequent retraction. The source relied upon is a side comment made informally by a relatively junior minister to a reporter from the Post. If Horserice is to resist my edits, he had better come up with something formal which formally retracts the explicit repudiation by Beijing at the highest level.

We need to apply the meaning of the word "autonomy" to the facts, the reality (and I note Horserice has cherrypicked his definition - how about "Freedom from external control or influence; independence" from the same dictionary?), not just the formal legal declarations; we need to consider whether the term can be properly used to describe Hong Kong today. The sourced PRC pronouncements (not the formal language of the documents) put the question beyond any shadow of a doubt. Horserice cites, formally again, certain provisions of the Basic Law, but we have heard from Beijing loud and clear how it interprets and applies the law. Specifically, how autonomous is a region whose courts' decisions can be pre-empted by state council decisions? How autonomous is a region whose legislature can be neutered by pre-qualification exclusions of prospective candidates? How autonomous is a region whose leadership selection is by means of a small-circle nomination system controlled by the sovereign power? How autonomous is a region having no say as to which of a fixed daily intake of 150 immigrants from the motherland shall be admitted? How autonomous is a region whose choice of who can and cannot visit is determined by the sovereign power? How autonomous is a region whose law-enforcement authorities can do nothing when its citizens are abducted by the sovereign power and imprisoned in the motherland? WP has an obligation to state matters plainly and factually. As Horserice has already agreed, Hong Kong does not have unqualified autonomy. We are obliged to make that clear. sirlanz 10:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

There is no autonomous region in the world that doesn't have conditions on its autonomy. That governing authority has to come from somewhere. Unqualified autonomy, or the condition of self-government without limits, describes a sovereign state. I understand the desire to apply proper labels, so I'd like to ask where the line is between a semiautonomous region and an autonomous one. Our own Wikipedia article on this topic includes a very wide range of territories with varying degrees of self-governing rights. How do you definitively say which ones are "semiautonomous" and which are "autonomous"? The requirements for this qualification are unclear and I'm unable to find place that can be universally described as semiautonomous.

"and I note Horserice has cherrypicked his definition - how about "Freedom from external control or influence; independence" from the same dictionary?" - If we apply your chosen definition without taking into account degrees of autonomy, then there's no existing autonomous region that can accurately be described that way because none of them are independent or free from external control. Autonomous territories are explicitly labeled as such because they are not independent. The example sentences listed for that definition are filled with use cases that utilize the word to describe differing levels of decision-making in particular areas.

Bélanger source comments - Sure, it doesn't touch on autonomy. That's because the source was never actually used to describe the state of autonomy in Hong Kong but instead to describe the Basic Law as the regional constitution. You used its age to discount its accuracy, but the Basic Law is still fundamental to Hong Kong and nothing has changed the fact that its authority was effected by the Joint Declaration terms.

"The sourced PRC pronouncements put the question beyond any shadow of a doubt" - Let me bring up this reading of the press conference transcript. When reading the MFA translation and the original Chinese version, it seems what the MFA spokesman was actually saying was mistranslated and interpreted differently from what was intended. The transitional arrangements in the Joint Declaration alone have expired and are no longer held as binding because Hong Kong is no longer in transition.

"Horserice claims there was a subsequent retraction." - Lu Kang only referred to a specific part of the treaty as having lapsed, so the subsequent statement didn't have to retract anything and was a clarification on the validity of the Joint Declaration. Speaking of high level officials, the UK Foreign Secretary didn't even acknowledge the claim of treaty repudiation in his six-month Hong Kong report to Parliament. I'd also like to add that your edits had mentioned that the Basic Law gives effect to the agreed terms of the Joint Declaration. If the treaty is indeed no longer binding and void, then the Basic Law, which derives its authority from the treaty, is also no longer applicable in Hong Kong.

"Beijing's repudiation of the Joint Declaration was made in a formal press interview", "he had better come up with something formal which formally retracts the explicit repudiation", "We need to apply the meaning of the word "autonomy" to the facts...not just the formal legal declarations" - In one part of your statements, you're placing authoritative value on the formality in which information was conveyed. In the next section, you describe formality as a negative for the position I'm taking. How do you determine which official statements matter more than the other and are more authoritative? - Horserice (talk) 07:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

There are points of substance being made by Horserice but they regrettably arise from considerable confusion. So let's clarify.

1. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) formal pronouncement must be read in context in order to be understood. It was made in response to reminders from the US and Britain that the PRC government was bound by the Joint Declaration (nothing about limiting to "transitional arrangements"). After the formal MFA statement, both Britain and the US responded in terms of the Joint Declaration as a whole, not in relation to transitional arrangements. The PRC made no attempt to "correct" any wrong translation or misunderstanding on that score. All of this can be seen in the article cited by me but which is currently not accessible from the article page having been suppressed by Horserice. The blogger article cited by Horserice which attempts to put forward a restrictive interpretation of what the MFA said has not been relied upon by anyone in authority and includes, in the third last paragraph, by way of conclusion, that his interpretation is tenuous and even he concedes he may be wrong. So this is a total red herring and great to confuse a relatively straight forward issue here.

2. There is little difficulty whatsoever about what is semi-autonomy in this instance. The evidence that Hong Kong is so demonstrably far away from what is commonly understood as having the freedom to act autonomously is more than adequate to take it out of the autonomous basket. We have nothing from Horserice on this aspect other than that it's just too hard. Others (and hopefully someone else will come into this debate) can make up their minds about this without difficulty, I would suggest.

3. If you ask the PRC, they will tell you that the constitutional authority for the Basic Law arises from the PRC Constitution and the sovereign power of the State Council and that the Joint Declaration is of no relevance at all. The Joint Declaration is last century's news and so is our WP article on Hong Kong as it stands today. It must be brought up to date. sirlanz 08:05, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

And while we wait for someone, somewhere to get interested in joining this clearly uninspiring debate, independence v. autonomy. This non-point made by Horserice (interesting pun on "troublemaker", I take it, for those of us who speak Cantonese) could not be more facile. The former is about sovereignty, the latter about erstwhile control. A fully autonomous region is not independent until and unless the mother state cedes sovereignty, as China did in 1842 with reference to Hong Kong. sirlanz 04:44, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Removing the term ‘autonomous’ because there is not unqualified or complete autonomy is nonsensical in the context of this article. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:51, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit summary states the reason is that it is lacks any source. sirlanz 09:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

The source is the Basic Law, where the rights and obligations defining autonomy are pretty well defined.DOR (HK) (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2018 (UTC)