Talk:Hong Kong/Archive 10

I noticed particular editor didn’t wait to reach consensus here and started enthusiastically editing and (excessively?) enhancing PRC's sovereignty on the opening paragraph (i.e. 1st paragraph) but avoided to mention HK’s highly autonomous status in the 1st paragraph. Wikipedia is not a democracy, remember? We work through consensus, right?

I agreed with Readin, some area of the newly edited paragraph seems bulky and problematic. First of all, , the paragraph is structured in a way that non-crucial information could take space from this prime paragraph in the expense of mentioning HK highly special autonomous status, it’s ground breaking population density and most importantly, the link to List of special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement (as Alanmak pointed out, this link is important enough to stay) and other infos that define HK. On the other hand, statements such as “one of the most important financial centres in the world” is an unsourced statement, I don’t think it is appropriate to use it to replace solid sourced fact such as the population density in 1st paragraph or other crucial info that regards antonymous status . Thus it should be removed to provide rooms for crucial info. Secondly, I doubt whether it is necessary to repeat the phrase “special administrative region” almost one right after the other.

In other special sub-national entity such as Åland Islands, autonomous status is clearly states in the 1st paragraph. But we don’t even have the words autonomous or self-governing in our 1st paragraph.

At the end of the 1st paragraph, it mentions HK is British overseas territory but the beginning of 2nd paragraph the same piece of history is mention AGAIN. This is a little poorly structured. Beside, HK’s didn’t become British overseas territory until British Nationality Act 1981. HK had been a Crown Colony for some 140 years but only had been a British overseas territory for 16 years. Which name do u think represents HK’s colonial past identity in a wider perspective?

And I can’t believe Colipon added false info into the paragraph, wikipedia is for everyone to edit and I'm going to be polite, but this is what happened to the article when some people edit with a mission to highlight PRC’s sovereignty but have limited knowledge about HK. Political agenda or article quality, u choose it? Thankfully HkCaGu corrected it. Yes, the original Hong Kong (present day Hong Kong Island) didn't leased to Britian at all, it was ceded to. It is a well-known fact in Hong Kong, but a largely downplayed fact in PRC to make PRC's acquistition of HK sounds righteous to PRC citizens.

Also, Colipon's edit "As a result of this special arrangement, Hong Kong is generally considered to be separate from mainland China"" is problematic, because HK IS not part of mainland China, it is a current fact. In English , we use To be, or not to be to describe things that we haven’t done or haven’t decided. E.g. He is going to be 21 years old next month. HK is not part of mainland China. Tibet is going to be separated from PRC. The mess caused by Colipon is going to be fixed by other editors who are familar with the subject. --Da Vynci (talk) 06:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but from your past behavior I cannot assume good faith on you and today shows it. You see the consensus here, and it's that your POV-pushing is not accepted. We finished pure-talking and started actually editing, and you seem to just wait until it became unacceptable to you and then went on to destroy all our work, reverting it back to "Hong Kong is a territory of I-can't-tell-you-what (wait until the next paragraph before I'll tell you) on the edge of (but maybe not necessarily in) a region (but not the name of a country)." Look at every other sub-national entity and you'll find the nation's name in the first paragraph. Everyone agrees except you. HkCaGu (talk) 08:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Da Vynci, I will not bother to argue the minutiae of Hong Kong's history with you because I freely admit I don't know much about it. But it is clear that based on what we see in other articles, the name of the highest government must be mentioned. Even the Åland Islands article you favorably mention says in the very first sentence (and a bit confusingly) that it is "a historical province of Finland" and in the second sentence it says simply, "It is the smallest province of Finland." As it currently stands, our first paragraph also mentions the high degree of autonomy Hong Kong has.

Stating that Hong Kong belongs to the PRC is not "highlighting", nor is it POV pushing. Attempting to suppress this information by moving it out of the first couple sentences does taste of POV.

Regarding the sentence structure, it is a simple intruduction followed by details structure. We have sentence to quickly introduce the topics of history, government, and economy. Then we have a paragraph on each of those topics. The structure is good. We should stick with it.

If you believe the introduction can be better, we can certainly work on the wording. We can even decide that the three topics aren't the most important things to talk about - it sounds like you believe population density is more important than economy. That sounds like something we should discuss here.

The term "financial centre" is admittedly not the best. Hong Kong's economy is more than that. We need to work on a better way to work an economic summary into a sentence clause.

I'm wondering into more details than I wanted to. But to put it succinctly:

• The first two sentences are good. We should keep them just the way they are unless we discuss here first.
• The structure is good - intro sentence at end of first paragraph, with three paragraphs providing details on the topics introduced in that sentence. We should keep this structure, but changes to improve wording or to correct details are welcome and don't necessarily need discussion here first.
• Changing the topics of the sentences should get approval here. The suggestion that population density should be given more visibility is valid, but we should discuss here first to make sure we can do it without messing up the structure.

Readin (talk) 14:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

HkCaGu IF the issue is really just about adding the name People's Republic of China ot the 1st sentence, why don't you just add that name in? But instead you did a major surgery to the opening section., I would like to point out the newly re-organised opening section sacrificed an originally well written, concise opening section.

• If you want to push adding the PRC name on the 1st sentence, then the phrase “highly autonomous” or “largely self-governing” must be also include in the same 1st sentence to give equal presentation of both facts. (See Åland Islands for example)

• Mentioning special administrative region twice in the 1st sentence is a little redundant, and the link to List of special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement is an import link to include.

• In 1st P, “important financial centre” is stiil a unsourced statement. ( I've open opinion to include any other ground breaking facts as long as it is sourced.)

• In 1st P mentioned One country, two systems, but in 3rd Pagain…, can’t we just be concise and mention them in the same paragraph?

• Central authorities in Beijing is an Euphemism (like Authorities in Taipei, to avoid saying the Government of the Republic of China) , we don't have this issue here, we can use the real name: PRC Government

• Hong Kong is not considered TO BE separate from mainland China. It is a current fact since 1844, not future intention. (See To be or not to be)

• Some reference was removed regarding how HK is not part of mainland China. ( there was a furious discussion abt that issue just not long ago, people who are not familiar w/ HK could be questioning that fact again in the future, so the reference is better stay)

• Apart from the aforemention issues, I am quite open to other changes.

• I think it is good to include the link to International rankings of Hong Kong (I added , but removed by HkCaGu), and to point out Hong Kong is typically listed independently from PRC.

It is ok if you want to accuse me of non-good faith editing just becoz I hold a different opinion from you on this issue, but perhaps you should look at some facts instead of "assuming". I added the THES - QS World University Rankings reference and the Quacquarelli Symonds quote in the Education section. I created the Military section. I also introduced the term meritocracy to replace lengthy description of “base on qualification, experience, ability….” In the Government section. In Etymology section there used to be a sentence says "It is not sure why Hong Kong is called Hong Kong", I fixed that by replacing that sentence with a brief history of the evolution of the definition of Hong Kong with reference to the related Treaty and Convention. --Da Vynci (talk) 18:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I modified the first sentence per your suggestion that we remove the dup and include some information about HK's highly autonomous status. I didn't make any of the other changes because, as I admitted earlier, I don't know that much about the other details, but I doubt they are as contentious. Readin (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Please make the needed technical changes. They shouldn't be a problem for anyone. And if you can find a better way to mention HK's financial importance or economic success within a clause of a sentence, and do so in a sourced way, that would be great. Readin (talk) 18:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I made further modification, hopfully it will be ok. I added the international comparisons of national performance link, that page has a lot of sources and reference to support HK's financial success ,government transparency, economic freedom etc. --Da Vynci (talk) 19:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Although I completely disagree with the way the intro has been modified by Da Vynci, and I believe such changes to be against the spirits of this discussion and ridden with POV, I will refrain from editing the intro for now to see what opinions are from other editors. For now all I can say is, I have only seen this type of POV being pushed so vigorously through an article's introduction twice before on Wikipedia: on the article Falun Gong, and the article on Mumbai (where editors attempt to whitewash effects of poverty in the region by decorating the page seamlessly). In my opinion it is all a matter of public perception - some editors want the public see one thing, others want the public to see another. Colipon+(T) 22:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, Da Vynci, not even an article for a country like Canada has these performance indicators (which are also quite excellent, might I add) written into its opening paragraph. I sense a heightened discomfort from you whenever the PRC and Hong Kong is grouped together, so these supporting sentences seem to be added purely to separate Hong Kong's identity (and perhaps, in the process, assert Hong Kong's perceived superiority) to that of the PRC.

There has been an increasing number of these assertions since the beginning of rewriting work on the opening section, beginning with "not part of mainland China", inserting "Chinese" in front of Guangdong so Hong Kong appears to be "not Chinese", and now with "Hong Kong has all of these performance indicators that are listed separately to the PRC".

Meanwhile, what have I been able to change? I've inserted Hong Kong's official name to its rightful place (as it appears on the Basic Law) after weeks of unnecessary debate, even though this is a recognized legal fact. And, along with help from several other editors, changed the opening paragraph to reflect Hong Kong's location and overview after several users reported a feeling of POV with its existing state (and now that is again basically in ruins). And then I also ensured that Hong Kong's autonomy was specifically defined the third paragraph, even going as far to mention that Hong Kong has a separate currency, legal and political systems, and agreeing to include the "not part of mainland China" clause even though it still seems awkward. But even after all this, you took the liberty of coming onto this page and attacking me personally by labeling me as furthering the PRC agenda. Furthermore, the intro now seems a great deal more POV-laden than it was to begin with. I must say that not only am I greatly offended, but I am also very discouraged as an editor that promoting neutrality can be such a difficult task. It should be very clear now to any third party reading this (as mentioned earlier by HkCaGu), that your edits are not in good faith. Colipon+(T) 05:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should check out the Australia page, there you will see the International Ranking link in the opening section and the word "excellent" to describe their result.

Just when you accuse others of having POV, perhaps you should also re-think whether you also have (very strong) POV too? Didn't you also expressed heightened discomfort whenever someone tried clarify Hong Kong's autonomous status? It is ture that u added the "offfical name", but at the same time you conveniently left out others facts that u are uncomfortable with, thus resulted a imbalanced tone? Remember HK is not just a city in China. Using the example from Finland's autonomous territory Åland Islands, will its opening paragraph still look the smae if you only state "it is a special region of Finland" but omit it is also autonomous and Swedish-speaking? What I am trying to do is to present a balance opening paragraph.

I attacked your insufficient knowledge about Hong Kong (the subject of the article), but not you personally. I disagree how u emphasized on PRC souvereigty but carefully neglect other crucial info that clarify HK's autonomy and special status. Your unfamiliarity to the subject sometime shows in your edits, for example in ur recent edit u mistaken the HK Island & Kowloon was leased to UK. Not long ago you also unaware of the fact that "Hong Kong is not part of mainland China." and started a furious arguement with me and other editors. It is a fact becoz Hong Kong's modern history began as an island, not until the Convention of Peking HK started to expanded its territory to include other lands and islands. Due to this historical fact and other difference b/w HK & China, HK has not been considered as mainland China until now. When I provided documents to prove that you attempted to remove those reference. When u exhausted all arguement, you now resort to pure emotional comment such as "this sentence is just awkward"?

Sometimes your edits was removed because they are simply grammatically problematic, you keep rephrasing the sentence from "Hong Kong is considered not as part of mainland" to "Hong Kong is considered to be seperate from mainland". To be or not to be sounds like asking a question rather than stating a fact.

You said "even going as far to mention that Hong Kong has a separate currency, legal and political systems"? It sounds like in your opinion those facts originally shouldn't be mentioned, but now as a compromise you agree to mention them? Honestly, those are crucial factual information about HK, and should be mentioned in any case. I am amazed how you suggested that "I made compromise too, becoz I allowed factual info to be added into the article."

I am sorry to hear you are greatly offended because others hold different opinion from you, it is very easy to think of yourself is the one who has neutrality and think of others who disagree with you don't. I won't use the same tactic to accuse you, it is ok for everyone to have their POVs. I hope you will imporve. --Da Vynci (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're aware of some of the avenues for dealing with difficult editors. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Dr#Turn_to_others_for_help and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests. You can get administrator intervention at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard if it becomes necessary, although they definitely expect you to demonstrate you to have attempted some of the other mechanisms first. Readin (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Readin for your info. --Da Vynci (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to restore the structure of having an intro paragraph followed by paragraphs providing details on various topics. It's not perfect yet because the economy is mentioned in the intro paragraph, but there is no detail paragraph for it later.

I removed the following:

It is one of the world's leading financial capitals, a global city, and maintains a highly developed capitalist economy. Hong Kong is typically listed independently from People's Republic of China (PRC) in many international comparisons of national performance and has excellent results, such as government transparency ^[1], economic freedom, E-readiness, life expectancy, human development and protection of freedom of speech.

• "Excellent" is a bit too much of a POV word. See Wikipedia:NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves.
• The intro paragraph is not placed there for bragging purposes. I agree that Hong Kong's economy is excellent, but there is a lot of other important things to know about HK, both good and bad. There is no reason to seize on the economy as something to absorb 2/3 of opening paragraph.

The information is sourced, and I generally hate to delete sourced info, which is why I put it here for now. But we need to find a better way to write it and a better place to present it. It would make a good supporting paragraph once the POV is cleaned up. Readin (talk) 14:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Made a few more changes to mostly semantics and grammar. I was also wondering if it would be relevant to highlight that the independent legal and political systems are legally only ensured until 2047? It's in the Macau article. Furthermore, I removed the link "separation of powers" to "independent legal and political systems". Separation of powers is about the separation between judiciary, executive, and legislative, NOT about how power in Hong Kong is separate from the PRC government. If this is supposed to be highlighted it can be done in the politics and government section. Colipon+(T) 17:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The 2047 date needs to be somewhere in the article. I don't have a strong opinion as to whether it should be in the introduction section. Either way, it needs to be (re)stated in the Hong_Kong#Government_and_politics section. Readin (talk) 21:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Your excellency Mr Colipon Perhaps you should check out the Australia page, there you will see the International Ranking link in the opening section and the word "excellent" to describe their result. Hong Kong has quite a number of No.1s in those ranking, and calling the top 10 positions (out of some 150 countries) "excellent" is a relatively modest term as opposite to the word "top". But I have no problem rephrasing it to other factual phrases such "HK ranks top in in number of international comaparison" etc. --Da Vynci (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

If it does rank #1, then saying so is perfectly fine and it also provides more information than saying "excellent". But again, we don't have a bragging section of the article. Put it in the right place. Readin (talk) 21:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW, Readin, good work for putting back the reference for HK is not part of mChina. Without enough reference that sentence might spark argument from time to time. --Da Vynci (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

This section is weak. It requires, at least, some information on the Cantonese pronunciation and the history of the English romanisation of this (for instance, Hobson-Jobson cite Bishop Moule as transliterating it as "hiangkiang", perhaps the Wade-Giles transcription, though, how does this become simply "Hong Kong"?) The earliest example of the current orthography I can find on Google Books dates to a French text of 1777. The current Cantonese pronunciation/transliteration should be included and the pinyin equivalent for good measure. Sadly, I do not have the skills to move very far forward on this endeavour, though I think it is important as the poor quality of this section jars with the much better of the rest of the article.

Also the section has an unverified claim.WikiLambo (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

An issue I would like to bring up is the origin of the name for Hong Kong. This article suggests that the reason isn't exactly known, but that the fragrance of "fragrant harbor" is due to fresh water, or incense. I followed the only source for this where is also suggests opium as a source. What I was told in Hong Kong was that the "fragrance" was from the sandalwood trees, which still grow on the island, and have a distinctive smell. In fact Wikipedia's own article on sandalwood states "sandalwood has been valued for thousands of years for its fragrance." I'm just saying the source seems to be guessing at the origin, and sandalwood seems as likely the reason for the name. Does anyone have a better source? Promontoriumispromontorium (talk) 01:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

As part of this arrangement, Hong Kong maintains its own currency, separate legal and political systems, and is generally not considered part of mainland China.

It sounds like we're saying that an arrangement was made that Hong Kong would generally not be considered part of mainland China. I suspect that considering HK part of mainland China or not is a matter of common practice rather than a matter of a special arrangement or system. It wasn't "arranged", it just happened. Readin (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. All those difference happened long before the 1997 transfer, it didn't happen because of those special arrangement. Hence, the word "arrangement" is inapproprate and illogical. --Da Vynci (talk) 23:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the word "arrangement" is ok (though perhaps not necessary) for the other stuff because they (I assume) are written in to the basic law. Even if they aren't in the basic law, their continuation was "arranged" by someone. Readin (talk) 23:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree as well, which is why I proposed numerous times that instead of saying "not part of", we say "separate from" instead... this would imply that the two are treated separately for all practical purposes without getting into a debate about semantics. Colipon+(T) 03:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

That would be different, because it involves geographical issue that can't be simply changed by "special arrangement". Let's say HK has never been ceded to UK, and has remained as part of China all the time, Hong Kong still wouldn't be part of mainland China, geographically speaking. In Imperial China, Hong Kong included only the fishing inlet (now Little Hong Kong) on the island later became known as Hong Kong. The original Colony of Hong Kong comprised the entirety of the island, but still didn't include any mainland. Although Convention of Peking added Kowloon to Hong Kong's territory, from Hong Kong's point of view, Kowloon is an attachment to Hong Kong. That's why, dispite Kowloon is bigger, the colony didn't rename to Colony of Kolwoon or even Colony of HongKong-Kowloon. Due to the fact that Hong Kong is the main settlement and centre of the territory (and not Kowlonon/NT, dispite their larger size) and HK is an island, that's why Hong Kong is not part of mainland. This alone (apart from other reasons) is different from your wording which suggests HK was originally part of mainland but now treated as "seperate" from it. --Da Vynci (talk) 07:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Do we have a reference saying HK is not considered part of mainland China because of some agreement or arrangement? Or do we have a reference that just says HK is not usually considered to be part of mainland China? (sorry, I'm on slow computer today and don't have time to look at the references.) If the latter, then we can't say it is by arrangement; all we can say is that it is what it is. If the former, then the sentence can remain unchanged. Readin (talk) 14:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a tricky one, because the answer is a mix of both. It is ture that it is becoz 1 country 2 system arrangement HK get to continue to maintain their independent currency/ legal / political system, which indirectly reinforced the necessity to use the term Mainland China in many government/ business regulation to describe anything that is not in HongKong but in China. At the same time, reference also shows that it has been a long custommary common practice to use the term, due to, geographically, the original Colony of Hong Kong (as per Treaty of Nanking) is an island, which also contribute and explain the origin of the customary use of the term. It is also true that the term mainland China exist and exclude HK long before the "1C2S" arrangement. --Da Vynci (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The current sentence is not too bad, but rephrase it to "continue to maintain" could make it even closer to the fact. --Da Vynci (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

To be honest I think the only reason we have this clause in this article is so we can say there is a distinction with Hong Kong and mainland China, which is fine. But I am not sure the geographical reasoning applies. If we don't take politics into consideration, Hong Kong island is no different from any other offshore island. In fact, to make this distinction, the more PC term now to use in HK and Macau is to use Neidi instead of Dalu. People from Hainan still call the mainland "Dalu" and do not consider themselves part of it, purely based on geography. Both terms are translated into "Mainland" in English, which leads to some confusion amongst people who have no background on these issues.

My suggestion is simply put that Hong Kong is treated separately from mainland China, much like the way Macau is, but Hainan is not. This includes things like economic agreements, customs and immigration, legal proceedings etc. Indeed, most of the references are not made in a geographical context, but more in a legal context. The current phrasing, and Da Vynci's interpretation of it, seems to paint the issue as a purely geographical one, but that is not the actual issue here. If that were the issue then all offshore islands should have the "not part of mainland China" clause attached to it in their introductions. Colipon+(T) 18:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You really have probelm reading, and your knowledge toward the english term mainland China is questionable. Mainland China is a geopolitical term. Besides, you misrepresnted the things i said. I said geography is a reason which "apart from other reasons" (i.e. existing legal, political system that existed long before the 1997) resulted in the use of the term. But somehow u read it as "purely geographical". You pushed so hard to add PRC's name into the 1st sentence, the only reason u did this is so u can make it sounds like Hong Kong is the same as China, and ignore HK's facts on autonomy. What is the different between Neidi and Dalu in English anyway? Show me a reference in Oxford Dictionary, could u? Those words don't even exist in English Oxford dictionary. --Da Vynci (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me remind you once more Da Vynci that these comments should be directed at the merit of our postings' content, and not the place to lash out on people with personal attacks and value judgments. This is clearly a violation of Wikipedia policies. You should read some of the discussion above and see what some editors have already said about this type of behaviour. Colipon+(T) 22:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I crossed out the sentence that may cause your heighten discomfort, but the rest of my arguement still stands. It is also true that you misrepresented my arguement to faciliate your own. There is no way I suggested that geography is the only reason why "HK is not part of mainland China", instead, I pointed the historical background which began with the fact that original Colony of Hong Kong (1882) was an Island, thus the custom that considering "HK is not part of mainland China" began in 19th century (if not before), other important factors came into play later in time such as different in currency, legal, and politic system further affirm this practice. But all those happened long before the 1997 "special arrangement". --Da Vynci (talk) 20:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it will help but I'm curious, what is the literal translation of "neidi"? Readin (talk) 14:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It means something along the lines of "inland". Colipon+(T) 18:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it, considering examples from Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (an island), The New Zealand Inland Revenue (another island). Even the Chinese-language official website of Inland Revenue Ordinance & Inland Revenue Department (Hong Kong) don't translate/transliterate Inland to neidi.--Da Vynci (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I want to question the role of Hong Kong Island (1840s-1850s) as origin of the term "Mainland China". My bet and the most reasonable guess should be that the result of the Chinese civil war of 1945-1949 is the origin of today's term "Mainland China". HkCaGu (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

So according to your "most reasonable guess", terms like Mainland Finland, Mainland France, Mainland United States, Mainland Portugal could not exist before those countries' civil wars? --Da Vynci (talk) 20:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes but in those cases they are geographical designations. But here mainland China is a geopolitical designation, and you said that yourself before. Colipon+(T) 23:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope, not all of them are geographical, please read those articles fully before arguing further. Most importantly, (1) geographically Hong Kong has not been part of Mainland China since beginning of time, because prior Treaty of Nanking (1842) Hong Kong's area include only the inlet in the island. In 1842, Treaty of Nanking defined the original colony of Hong Kong as the entirety of the island. Dispite with the later addition of KLN & NT and their larger size, Hong Kong is still considered as the main settlement (that's why the colony didn't renamed to Colony of Kowloon or Colony of NT), which caused the long establised customary distinction from mainland China from HK. (2) On the other hand, the use of English Common Law system, different currency, political system, the prevalence of English usage in business, courts and universities, driving direction, and many other long estiblsihed practices and custom caused the distinction b/w HK & mChina. All of them have existed long before either the Chinese civil war or 1997 special arrangement. --Da Vynci (talk) 04:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

When you break it down. You guys are debating really 2 choices.

1.) The choice of saying HK is not part of the geographic mainland China.

2.) The choice of saying HK is part of the PRC.

Maybe if you just say both then it will cover both sides. First choice represents people that want nothing to do with China. Second choice represents people that want to be associated with China. Benjwong (talk) 04:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Another suggestion: "As part of this arrangement, Hong Kong maintains its own currency, separate legal and political systems, all of which continue to be distinct from those on mainland China." Colipon+(T) 04:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the most massively complex intro in any article. Would it be easier to just say HK remains separate until 2047 and mention as little as possible about the details. Benjwong (talk) 04:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I honestly think the Macau intro for Hong Kong would've been more or less fine. But please remember this debate only began because of the "Hong Kong is a territory in East Asia... next to the Chinese province of Guangdong... etc. etc." intro that was obviously POV. So if anyone is willing to revert back to the Macau intro (which was how the article was in 2007, I believe), I am all for that. Colipon+(T) 04:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ben, "The choice of saying HK is not part of the geographic mainland China." is far from "nothing to do with China". It sounds like a perfect description for Hainan though. Anyway, we are actually arguing a different (more subtle) thing. Correct me if i am wrong:

1) "As part of this arrangement, Hong Kong maintains its own currency, separate legal and political systems, and is generally not considered part as of mainland China." (relatively direct tone)

2) "As part of this arrangement, Hong Kong maintains its own currency, separate legal and political systems, and is treated seperately from mainland China." (imply Hong Kong originally should be mainland China but "treated" otherwise, which ignore geographic facts)

3)"As part of this arrangement, Hong Kong maintains its own currency, separate legal and political systems, all of which continue to be distinct from those on mainland China." (imply Hong Kong is part of mainland China but just "distinct" from it)

I suggest we use honest and direct wording. --Da Vynci (talk) 05:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok I see your point in Hainan. I really am undecided on this one. Benjwong (talk) 05:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to be careful not to overdefine "mainland China". The term is used different ways in different contexts. If we try to insist on one meaning all the time then we'll be prescribing rather than describing, and Wikipedia is supposed to describe. Some people surely use "mainland China" in a political sense that includes places like Hainan. Others will use it in a geographic sense to include Kowloon but not Hainan - such usages are surely less common but they still occur. As for the origin of the term, we're not going to solve it by discussion. It likely came about through a combination of many independent usages and repetitions. It is doubtful anyone said on the very first usage of the term, "We're going to call that specif place 'mainland China' for these specific reasons and because I invented the term I have a copyright on it and all other uses are invalid and incorrect". The term probably grew organically and like organic terms it may be imprecise at times. We just need to be sure that when we use it the context clearly implies the meaning, and in the context of Hong Kong the meaning is almost always clearly implied as being all of China except for HK and Macau. Readin (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Of the three sentences Da Vynci mentioned, I believe ""As part of this arrangement, Hong Kong maintains its own currency, separate legal and political systems, all of which continue to be distinct from those on mainland China." is most accurate and NPOV. Readin (talk) 15:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

After some thought,I think both 1) & 3) is acceptable. 3) isn't as bad as I originally think, mainly because the chose of word "continue to be" is actually an accurate description. --Da Vynci (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I updated the page to something like #3. Readin (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I am glad we were able to reach consensus on this issue. I also believe now that because the new line really just presents a fact which is not really disputed by anyone in mainland China or Hong Kong, it may be best now to remove all of these redundant references, but perhaps have a note on the definition of 'mainland'. What do other editors think? Colipon+(T) 00:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with multiple references? It's good to have multiple references so that if one becomes unavailable and has to be deleted, the others are still there to support the information. Readin (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Move Copy those reference to the mainland China page, that page's opening section has zero reference. I agree with Readin, removing reference sounds like a backward move, much like the suggestion of revert the entire opening section back to 2007 that his excellency Colipon made few days ago. Just few months ago, Colipon himself didn't believe the fact that "HK is not part of mChina" and asked for those reference. Now Colipon is convinced, but the references will also help readers who are not familar with the subject and those who question about this controversial fact. They should really stay. --Da Vynci (talk) 10:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Da Vynci, I respectfully ask you to refrain from making more judgments on me as somehow "advancing the PRC agenda" and frame all of your posts in an implicitly hostile manner based on that assumption. I actually had never disagreed that HK is "not part of mChina", I was merely disagreeing with the way it was inserted into the intro in a way that revealed POV. In fact, I am of the view that the only reason for it to warrant four references, (being such a painfully simple sentence) is not because it is "controversial" and needs a bunch of references to back it up to avoid further conflict, but rather because it is presented in a POV sort of way. And I have since put forth my best efforts to eliminate this POV, first suggesting the "separate from" method (#2), and then the "distinct from " method (#3), which is the version currently in use and is agreed upon as the most NPOV. Because the current revision is an NPOV sentence that is factual and there is less potential for dispute, I am prosposing for the unnecessary references to now be removed (maybe keep one, but remove the rest). Colipon+(T) 04:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to clam down and stop abusing the term POV. "Hong Kong is not part of mainland China" is an recognised fact. You, on one hand, saying u "never disagree" with this fact, but when that exact sentence is included in the article u complained about that sentence is POV. The current version could stay because it fit well with the preceding sentences, but I certainly don't think it is POV to include "HK is not part of mainland China" directly in the article. Few month ago u complained the sentence is POV, so references had been added to solve the issue. Now u r saying the way how the exact sentnece is written is POV and want to remove those references? --Da Vynci (talk) 14:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, just because u have heighten discomfort to see HK's autonomy being addressed in the article, it doesn't means HK's antonomy is POV. HK's antonomy is stated in the Constitution, so it must be addressed in this article. It is something u need to get used to if you want to continue editing this article. So, please relax. --Da Vynci (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW, "being such a painfully simple sentence" doesn't mean it won't cause controversy. Simple sentence such as "Taiwan is part of China" could spark extraordinary controversy. Sooner or later, someone will question about the "HK's not part of mainland China" / "HK's distinct from mChina" sentences, those reference could offer support. I don't see the point of removing them. --Da Vynci (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Explaining that HK isnt considered part of mainland china seems like an important fact that belongs in the introduction and plenty of sources can be found to back up this statement, although i dont have a problem with how its worded but it should remain there. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw one of Readin's questions above asking what Neidi means in English. I believe the better translation is "the interior" in the sense of a country. Using Australia as an example, it would be Melbourne and Sydney as opposed to the interior. I am not sure if this term is a common term in the US.

"Neidi" (the interior) is the common term used to describe mainland China in Hong Kong. "Dalu" (the mainland) is the common term in Taiwan, although recently "Neidi" is also growing in popularity in Taiwan, as well as "China". Hope that helps.--pyl (talk) 11:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The current opening paragraph is:-

Hong Kong (Chinese: 香港), officially the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region,[6] is a largely self-governing [7] territory of the People's Republic of China (PRC), located south of Guangdong province and facing the South China Sea to the east, west and south. A British dependent territory until 1997, Hong Kong has a highly developed capitalist economy and enjoys a high degree of autonomy from the PRC under the "one country, two systems" policy.

I think the opening is repetitive. It first says Hong Kong is largely self-governing, then it says "Hong Kong... enjoys a high degree of autonomy". Aren't the descriptions basically saying the same things?

Also, it says Hong Kong "enjoys a high degree of autonomy from the PRC". The sentence seems to be suggesting that Hong Kong is not part of the PRC. The setence should be "from the central government".

When one country, two systems is mentioned, I think we should also mention that the rest of the PRC is socialist. I don't think it is appropriate to presume that the readers are already aware of that.

Here is my suggestion:-

Hong Kong (Chinese: 香港), officially the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, is located south of Guangdong province and facing the South China Sea to the east, west and south. A British dependent territory until 1997, Hong Kong has a highly developed capitalist economy and enjoys a high degree of autonomy from the central government under the "one country, two systems" policy.

I don't know how to make the mention of the socialist system into the paragraph. Perhaps someone else can have a try?--pyl (talk) 11:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I don't think "enjoys a high degree of autonomy from the PRC" remotely suggesting that Hong Kong is not part of the PRC at all, as the second halve of that sentence explictly say it is a largely self-governing territory of the People's Republic of China. How exactly did you end up thinking the sentence "territory of the People's Republic of China" seems suggesting it is not part of PRC?

BTW, please see the above discussion about why the words "largely self-governing" and the link to List of special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement shouldn't be removed.

But I see your point, the part in italic in the following paragraphc seems a bit repeatitive, we could perhaps replace it with infomation that is about HK's identity such as it's the fact that it is a global city and internation financial centre.

Hong Kong (Chinese: 香港), officially the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, is located south of Guangdong province and facing the South China Sea to the east, west and south. A British dependent territory until 1997, Hong Kong has a highly developed capitalist economy and enjoys a high degree of autonomy from the central government under the "one country, two systems" policy. --Da Vynci (talk) 13:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion A:

Hong Kong (Chinese: 香港), officially the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, is a largely self-governing territory of the People's Republic of China (PRC), located south of Guangdong and facing the South China Sea to the east, west and south. It is a international financial centre, a global city, and maintains a highly developed capitalist economy. Hong Kong is typically listed independently from People's Republic of China (PRC) in many international comparisons of national performance and achieved top-end results in aeras such as government transparency ^[2], economic freedom, E-readiness, life expectancy, human development and protection of freedom of speech. --Da Vynci (talk) 13:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Both Pyl and DaVynci's first sentences are fine with me. But Pyl's second sentence is much better as it introduces three key concepts (British history, successful economy, and 1-country-2-systems (1C2S)) while DaVynci's second sentence only introduces two concepts (economy and 1C2S) while being repetitive about the economy and 1C2S. Readin (talk) 14:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, one of the main points of 1C2S is expressed in HK's antonomy, and the words "largely self-governing" or "highly autonomous" expresses the essence of that idea. For a new reader, the phrase 1C2S's meaning may not be clear until it is clairified what system (Biological system? Computer system? Solar system?) does it refer to. We offer 1C2S in 2nd paragraph along with proper explaination, mentioning it at 1st paragraph without proper explaination wouldn't be as informative as it should be. That's why in the 1st paragraph words like "largely self-governing" or "highly autonomous" could be more efficient to let the reader knows what is going on, then we expalin the concept of 1C2S in 2nd paragraph. --Da Vynci (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be beneficial to draw on past intros that were more stable. Here's the intro from December 2008 which was stable for quite a while. It should be adapted to allow for the issues brought up recently:

Hong Kong (Chinese: 香港), officially the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region,^[3] is a territory located on China's south coast on the Pearl River Delta, bordering Guangdong province to the north and facing the South China Sea to the east, west and south. It has a population of 6.9 million people, and is one of the most densely populated areas in the world.^[4]

Beginning as a trading port, Hong Kong became a dependent territory of the United Kingdom in 1842, and remained so until the transfer of its sovereignty to the People's Republic of China in 1997.^[5] Along with Macau, Hong Kong is one of two special administrative regions and is not considered part of mainland China.^[6] Under the "one country, two systems" policy, Hong Kong has a high degree of autonomy, is largely self-governing,^[7] and maintains a highly capitalist economy.^[7]

Renowned for its expansive skyline and natural setting, Hong Kong is one of the world's leading financial capitals and a major business and cultural hub. Its identity as a cosmopolitan centre where east meets west is reflected in its cuisine, cinema, music and traditions,^[8] and although the population is predominantly Chinese, residents and expatriates of other ethnicities form a small but significant segment of society.^[9]

--Joowwww (talk) 14:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Please, I'm going to say it again, HK is officially HKSAR, not HKSAR of PRC, which would make "Hong Kong, China" not logical. Leave the full-full name to the infobox. HkCaGu (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I do agree some parts of the intro is somewhat repetitive... like "high degree of autonomy" and its variations is mentioned three times, two times in the opening paragraph. Unlike Da Vynci's assertion that I sense a "heightened discomfort" in this, I am actually perfectly fine with the way the intro looks now as long as we get rid of the redundant phrasing, and maybe add a thing or two about HK being an international financial centre in the first paragraph. Colipon+(T) 01:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and another thing... the 50 years of guaranteed autonomy should be mentioned at some point too. How about:

As part of this arrangement, Hong Kong maintains its own currency and unique way of life; its pre-1997 legal and political systems remain unchanged for at least 50 years, and continue to be distinct from those of mainland China.

Also, this is a very good brief of Hong Kong prepared by the HK government. I think it can be referenced as a more or less neutral source. Food for thought. [1] Colipon+(T) 01:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Currently, the second paragraph of the Demographics section opens as follows:

About 95% of Hong Kong's population is Hong Konger, the majority of which is Cantonese or from linguistic groups such as Hakka and Teochew. The remaining 5% of the population is composed of non-ethnic Chinese forming a highly visible group despite their smaller numbers.

If this is talking about ethnicity, I think it might be better to say that 95% of Hong Kong's population is ethnically Chinese/華人. This is the terminology used in the 2006 By-census (http://www.bycensus2006.gov.hk/FileManager/EN/Content_981/a105e.xls [English] http://www.bycensus2006.gov.hk/FileManager/TC/Content_981/a105c.xls [Chinese]). Besides, I'm not sure that all that 95% would identify as Hong Konger. Also, rather than talking about the "visibility" of "non-ethnic Chinese" as a singular group, it might be more pertinent to list some of the largest minority ethnicity groups, or at least make a reference to there being numerous minority groups. Echalon (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to replace the table in this page with a climate chart, but I find a more specialized page "Climate of Hong Kong". Where should I put the climate chart? Billyauhk (talk) 03:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest Climate of Hong Kong. Putting a climate chart where the table is now in this article would mean there would either be empty space on one side of it, or the section's formatting would be messed up. The full-width table solves that problem. --Joowwww (talk) 10:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It is really interesting that Colipon found "high degree of autonomy" mentioned 3 times repetitive, but never mentioned how the People's Republic of China is being more repetitive here. (4 times in just the opening section)The title of the infobox already says People's Republic of China , yet the opening paragraph still says 2 more times.

The second paragraph again

Having PRC mentioned in the title infobox (explains the current) and the transfer (explains the past) is quite clear and enough for information purpose, but mentioning it twice in the first sentence is just repetitive.

Taken example from pages like Sydney, its opening sentence is not written like "Sydney Commonwealth of Australia, is the largest city in Commonwealth of Australia...", in fact, it only mention Australia once in the opening sentence, its infobox doesn't even repeat that info. I wish that kind of clarity could be incorporated into HK's article. --Da Vynci (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

As for "high degree of autonomy" and mentions of "1C2S", i actually agree with Colipon that it is quite repetitive. So I removed those terms in 1st paragraph. --Da Vynci (talk) 21:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the PRC as part of HK's long conventional name should be taken out of the first sentence. But several other editors keep on insisting a revert. I will make another edit on this here and hopefully this will not be reverted. Colipon+(T) 03:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I made some changes to the opening paragraph and moved the mention of the former British colony status. I find it repetitive, as the status was in the past (therefore not as relevant for us now) and it is mentioned and explained in reasonably details in the beginning of the 2nd paragraph. The status also does not any relevance with the 2nd part of that sentence (global financial centre, capitalist economy etc). In other words, the fact taht HK was a British colony did not have any relevance to the fact that HK is today a global financial centre.--pyl (talk) 09:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe the current version of the intro to be relatively stable and agreed upon by consensus from all editors. Anyone up for semi-protecting to avoid extremely repetitive future reverts? Colipon+(T) 00:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

While we're at it, we may as well also discuss the issue surrounding expatriates being a "small but significant part of Hong Kong's population", which someone appended a "citation needed" to recently. Who was that? Mind making a case? Colipon+(T) 00:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear editors:

Please, let us avoid any more conflicts on this issue about the intro. In the last week there has been two trends:

1. Editors who wish to highlight China's "ownership" of Hong Kong by adding that the "official name" now suggests that HK is now "held" by the PRC.
2. Editors who wish to remove mentions of PRC from the first paragraph.

Neither approach is NPOV. Firstly, Hong Kong is part of the PRC, albeit a relatively autonomous part of it, but still part of the PRC, whether we like to admit it or not. Therefore, as per the consensus we had earlier, PRC should rightfully be included in the intro, as is the standard with every other non-sovereign territory. Secondly, may I respectfully ask editors who insist on inserting "HK is now held by the PRC" to stop doing so, as this is an unecessary assertion and makes the intro look awkward and POV-ridden. The fact that PRC is part of HK's official name is already self-evident, saying it again would be the same as saying "1+1 equals 2 because when you add 1 and 1 together, you get 2".

Another mechanical issue, there is no "The" before "Guangdong province". Colipon+(T) 19:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Just for the record, I am OK with the name People's Republic of China being mention ONCE in the first sentence. But definitely not something like "Hong Kong Special Administration Region People's Republic of China is a territory in People's Republic of China", this is just like putting 7 spoons of sugar in a coffee. I'm indeed OK with the current version, which is:

--Da Vynci (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I had occassion to look into some of the thoughts on the official name of HK. From what I could find in the agreement between China and the United Kingdom, and what I could find in the Basic Law, it sure looks to me like the full official name is just "Hong Kong Special Administration Region". The term is used over and over, and in the few places where "of the People's Republic of China" was appended, the context was such that it appeared to be merely adding descriptive detail, not being part of the name. I agree that "Hong Kong Special Administration Region People's Republic of China is a territory in People's Republic of China" is a bad opening. I believe a more accurate opening would be "Hong Kong Special Administration Region is a territory in People's Republic of China". Readin (talk) 19:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The opening suggested by Da Vynci above is pretty good. I really like the style of an introductory paragraph that introduces basic concepts with the following paragraphs providing detail. Unfortunately some editors considered id "redundant" and destroyed the style. Readin (talk) 19:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I am very glad we were able to come to a consensus on this issue. Can we make it an implicit rule for all the new editors on this article (and perhaps some sockpuppets) to refrain from editing the intro before discussing it?? Colipon+(T) 23:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph cited by talk, as I believe, is indeed the current consensus.--pyl (talk) 07:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

What about my change of "transfer to Chinese sovereignty"? This reduces the full name of PRC once (and it shouldn't be wikilinked again and again anyway), and it's obvious what Chinese (or China) means by simply looking in the paragraph above (where PRC already appears and is wikilinked) and follow the "transfer" link. HkCaGu (talk) 08:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Very tempting, but I would rather say no to that. It is because not everything Chinese is PRC. The word Chinese has very vague definition, it may refer to ethnical background, culture, language, custom, etc. Furthermore, PRC is just one of the countries with Chinese identity. If HK was handed over to Republic of China, we can also say "transfer to Chinese sovereignty". The same phrase could be used even HK become independent (just like many many ex-British colonies) as Hongkongers are (almost always) ethnically Chinese. Only the word PRC could exlude all those possible confusion. --Da Vynci (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Whatever currently is going on, please fix this part.

The word "territory" or its equivalent in the current back and forth is being linked to "List of special territories by international agreement" (or whatever the current name is) and it needs to wikilink to Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Nope, there is already a link to Special Administrative Region in the same sentence, so there is no such need to repeat that. On the other hand, the link to List of special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement is valuable for informative purpose. --Da Vynci (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather say 'Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China' is the full official name. 'Hong Kong Special Administrative Region' is used frequently, but that is not the full name. Umofomo (talk) 23:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I quote Readin to explain your enquiry:

Also, taking example from other article such as London and Sydney, full official names of the countries (e.g. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Commonwealth of Australia) don't even appear in opening sentence of the city's article. Even Helsinki (captial of Finland) doesn't mention the name Republic of Finland, and the page Paris also doesn't mention France's full name French Republic. Moreover, the name HKSARPRC is already appear in the title of info box, it think it is more sufficiant then common wikipedia practice. --Da Vynci (talk) 19:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hong Kong is perhaps an anomaly. I don't understand why the Communist Party have to affirm its sovereignty by making the full official name of Hong Kong that long and weird. No other sovereign power on Earth would have required its dependent or overseas territories to have such a name. But then if we want to follow the convention on Wikipedia for country articles, we have to include the long-winding full official name in the first line of the article. Umofomo (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Your points isn't relevant, this is not a country article. We can discuss your request when Hong Kong become a country. --Da Vynci (talk) 23:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not too sure if you're a native speaker of English. By saying 'country' I didn't mean to refer merely to sovereign states. Most if not all inhabited dependent territories can be considered countries. The country infobox template, instead of the city or province template, is used for Hong Kong, Bermuda, Greenland, Aruba and Puerto Rico. Umofomo (talk) 00:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Umofomo, a daft claim there, that "no other sovereign power on Earth" would append their names on their territories? Ever thought of "Netherlands Antilles", "French Polynesia", "French Guiana", "French West Africa"?? How about "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", purely based on a foreign (Greek) claim? If the Macedonia article can live with that then surely the HK article can live with a long-form name in its infobox. Colipon+(T) 00:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. And British Virgin Islands and American Samoa too. But I can't think of any as clumsy as 'Hong Kong (or Macau) Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China'. All those we have mentioned, from French to British, from American to Dutch, the names of the sovereign powers serve chiefly for disambiguation purposes. There were Portuguese Guinea, French Congo, German New Guinea too. Macedonia is a compromise of territorial or perhaps cultural and heritage disputes. That's beyond the matter of sovereignty and colonialism. Umofomo (talk) 00:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This is actually an interesting discussion. By the way, Readin, the full official name of HK is the HKSAR of the PRC. It is relatively awkward, and it may not be there for the best reasons, but it is undisputedly HK's official name in its full form after 1997 - otherwise the HK Basic Law would not be titled the Basic Law of HKSAR of the PRC, and likewise the Hong Kong emblem, the Hong Kong government website, all official documents from the chief executive, and all Hong Kong passports wouldn't have to use this awkwardly long convention. The PRC government's argument for having this long-form name was that it now "clarifies" Hong Kong's status as part of China, rather than its colonial predecessor, Britain. Its always hits a nerve with PRC authorities when flights to HK are listed as "international" even though they are treated as such by customs, ATC, etc. It's a political gesture, obviously, and people may not agree with it, but in the end, its still the long-form name, just like "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" is the long-form name of North Korea, regardless of its "rogue" painfully undemocratic traditions. Colipon+(T) 00:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

As you mention the Hong Kong Emblem, let's talk about the Emblem. You were saying the HK's official name in its full form is on the Emblem? For those who read only English (an long established official language of HK), it is undisputedly clear that the full name appears on the Hong Kong Emblem does not mention "People's Republic of China" in English. Everything happens for a reason, no? --Da Vynci (talk) 03:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

As for what should be the full name, yes in many HK government webpages/document PRC's name is mentioned behind Hong Kong's name, however, this alone is not a proof of the full name is HKSAR of PRC. Appending a place name behind another name has been a long established way of adding descriptive detail about the subject, but no way it automatically means the appended place name is part of the subject's full name. For example, u may see phrases such as "Pondicherry the Union Territory of India" in their official website, but the official name of the territory is actually just Union Territory of Puducherry.

Citing how the name "HKSAR" of "PRC" appear together is the title of such documents as Basic Laws, Websites, etc. proves only "Basic Laws of HKSAR of PRC" is the titile of those documents, not the territory. Mentioning the name of PRC could be just a description about where HKSAR is. To cite what the official name is you need reference that actually say "Hong Kong's official is", like this reference from the Department of State. --Da Vynci (talk) 04:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I can see where you are coming from, Da Vynci. This is a very interesting issue. I still stand by the belief that the full name is indeed HKSAR of the PRC, because there is more evidence to support that - whether this evidence is conclusive is, like you presented, debatable (but it's the same with the "Head of State" issue, really). I think our current compromise is good - long-long form in infobox, short-long form in intro. Like you I am against putting HKSAR of the PRC in the first sentence of the intro, and I think the page should be semi-protected for that reason (and other possible points of reversion... see below). Colipon+(T) 04:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent... --Da Vynci (talk) 05:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

How many times do I have to say this again? It's just logical that:

• "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" = "Hong Kong"
• "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China" = "Hong Kong, China"

If the long form of Hong Kong is "HKSAR of PRC", then what is "Hong Kong, China"? The "of the People's Republic of China" part is simply to distinguish it from the recent past. It has been proven that "HKSAR" can indeed be used alone. One more is here: Hong Kong Observatory's website HkCaGu (talk) 12:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

What about these? [2] In many of these documents there is a phrase like ' The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China ("Hong Kong Special Administrative Region") having been duly authorised by the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China and the Government of the Something Country, blahblahblah'. Umofomo (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Citing how the name "HKSAR" of "PRC" appear together is the title/body of such documents as Basic Laws, Websites, laws, agreement etc. proves only "Basic Laws of HKSAR of PRC" is the titile of those documents, not the territory. Mentioning the name of PRC could be just a description about where HKSAR is. Similarly, if a paragraph reads "King Henry VIII of England (King Henry VIII) declared war with France." Does that mean "Henry VIII of England" is the person's full name and "Henry VIII" is the short name? No. The country name is appended to added descriptive indication, not as part of the full name. King Henry VIII's full name is just King Henry VIII. To cite what the official name is you need reference that actually say "Hong Kong's FULL official name is", like this reference from the Department of State. --Da Vynci (talk) 04:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

First, full names of the parties to these treaties or agreements are mentioned in the first paragraph of the body of these documents. Second, they include something like ' ("Hong Kong Special Administrative Region") ' after the full name of the territory. This is a style suggesting the name in brackets and quotation marks is the short form. Third, the US State Department website that you cited did not tell whether this is the *full* official name or not. Umofomo (talk) 22:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

None of the documents u cited actually say what the full official name is. They could be just stating the name of the territory (HKSAR) plus the full name of the country (PRC). It is similar to assuming King Henry VIII of England is the person's full name because it is longer, but the full of the person actually is just King Henry VIII. All you did was assumed and suggested, without decisive evidence. Well, if there is no reference indicate what is the Full official name, i guess we will need to use the reliable reference that indicate the Official Name instead. --Da Vynci (talk) 02:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

A note regarding the "full name" of Hong Kong － I am not trying to challenge China's sovereignty over Hong Kong, but I do think that the "full name" of Hong Kong should be Hong Kong Special Administrative Region rather than Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. This fact is reflected in various things in Hong Kong. For example, when we write a cheque to the Government of Hong Kong, we are required to make the cheque payable to "The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region". Also, at the top of the last page (i.e. the personal information page), of an HKSAR passport, it says Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, People's Republic of China (without using the conjunction "of the"). If you're from Hong Kong, you'll notice this. That's why I suggested several days ago that we should invite more people who are actually from Hong Kong to participate in editing the Hong Kong article, because they should be the ones who are the most familiar with the subject matter. If Hong Kong folks don't make more contributions, it would be too much of a burden for our mainland Chinese friends, who have been diligently editing the Hong Kong article for us. - Alan (talk) 05:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

CIA world fact book: Government ^[18]

conventional long form: Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

conventional short form: Hong Kong

local long form: Xianggang Tebie Xingzhengqu

local short form: Xianggang

abbreviation: HK

Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, or Hong Kong, China. What is this "Hong Kong of the PRC" crap. That is not the conventional long form of the Government of Hong Kong.

Phead128 (talk • ::contribs) 04:45, 22 October 2009

Hong Kong changed its name to Xianggang during the british periode it was called Hong Kong but the Chinese name is Xianggang. Like Macau is almost an unused name for Aomen and the name (Macau) is practicly never used sindse 1999.--82.134.154.25 (talk) 12:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The Chinese name is not Xianggang. It is 香港. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it troll feeding time already?DOR (HK) (talk) 05:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with 7Gong, when a word is written using 9 latin alphabets, it is definitely not Chinese. We use Chinese characters when we write Chinese language. We, fortunately, don't need to resort to use foreign characters when writing our own language. Thank you. Da Vynci (talk) 09:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. We currently have a panoramic photo of Hong Kong Island's skyline from Kowloon and while it is a good photo, it is not very detailed and has some stitching faults (a duplicate boat, seam lines in the panorama etc). I took a similar photo (except at dusk) when I was last in Hong Kong at Christmas time, and thought it might be more useful. It is certainly much more detailed when viewed full size, but I can accept that others may prefer the existing daytime photo.

Here they are next to each other.

I will let the contributors decide whether to use the new one or keep the existing one. I can see some benefits and drawbacks to either, so I am not too bothered either way. I just wanted to bring the image to your attention. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi~ Thanks for ur input diliff, maybe it is just me but I somehow still find the Daytime one more appealing, the lighting seems play a critical role in picture like this, dispite it maybe not perfect when u check on each windows on the buildings. The daytime one has some inherented advantage in showing the general landscape of the island efficiently. Just my opinion, anyway, I do appreciate u taking the time to upload the pic and everything. Da Vynci (talk) 09:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I re-tooled the intro so that the more important things are mentioned first. Facts such as where it is, and how populated it is, should come before that quick timeline of Hong Kong history - which has now been moved to the bottom of the intro. Concerning the "high degree of autonomy", I've edited the sentence to specifically say that it is what the Basic Law says, and I've also included that Hong Kong comes directly under the central government, which is also what the Basic Law says. I believe this is the NPOV way to present the information. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Do we need to add an additional statement that the "the Basic Law stipulates that Hong Kong should be a Special Administrative Region" and explicitly mention the source of every single statement in this article, or only the ones that disagree with your POV? Taluchen (talk) 15:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The former. Thanks. And the fact that China resumed sovereignty is stated in both the Joint Declaration as well as the Basic Law. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

That comment was a serious accusation of lack of good faith against HongQiGong by Taluchen, whose non-NPOV editing I've had quite enough of. He reminds me of another user, but only seems to edit this one article. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I retract that "accusation" since you took it the wrong way. I don't believe that he was acting in bad faith, but that his faith is subconsciously influenced by his desire for China reunification (taken from his page).

And if you think that Hong Kong's autonomy is less worthy of a mention than the fact that it is the "179th largest habited territory in the world", then I don't know what to say. Taluchen (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Great. Then don't say anything at all. Thanks. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You'd benefit perhaps from a little common sense. Taluchen (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Kindly note that this sort of comment would be considered uncivil, and is frowned upon in WP. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The way "directly under the central government" is written is a simple reiteration of the transfer of sovereignty and to be honest is kinda confusing as to what it actually means. It could mean a number of different things such as HK directly reports to CCP, HK is under CCP sovereignty, HK has SAR status equal to Guangdong and Shanghai/Tianjin/Chonqing municipality etc... It honestly doesn't make sense without a proper context. 72.81.233.92 (talk) 05:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The way that "Hong Kong comes directly under the central government" seems to me that CCP is in control of HK's daily affairs. Beijing assumes sovereignty role over HK via defense and foreign relations but Hong Kong people and locally elect officials govern HK's domestic, economic, legal affairs. That statement has absolutely no meaning. It conflicts between sovereignty and autonomy which I believe is confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phead128 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel too strongly about the inclusion of the particular statement, but however, it is specifically stated in the Basic Law that Hong Kong "comes directly under" the central government. I do disagree with your assessment that it has "absolutely no meaning" - the point is that HK is a provincial-level administration, thus directly under the central government. It does not report to Guangdong's provincial government. The Basic Law needed to state where the HK government stands in the hierarchy of the Chinese government. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you Hong Qi Gong. I didn't know (judging from that particularly statement directly under the central government mean exactly equal to provincial/municipal status without any other SAR/Municipal/Provincial government interference. I personally believe it should explicitly say that maybe?72.81.233.92 (talk) 01:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the objection is down to the statement "HK comes directly under the central government" which gives an impression that the central people's government is in direct control of HK's affairs. I must say it also looks that way to me. I suggest rewriting the sentence as, "Hong Kong is directly accountable to the Central People's Government." That is consistent with the meaning of the Basic Law and avoids giving the false impression said above. However, being required to report directly to the central people's government is not equivalent to provincial/municipal status. Therefore, I suggest that we add "Hong Kong is directly accountable to the Central People's Government", but personal opinion like the provincial/municipal status should not be included. Craddocktm (talk) 08:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Another point to note. I oppose adding Hong Kong's accountability to the Central People's Government in the intro. It's not so important that warrants a line there. Donald Tsang goes to Beijing and reports on Hong Kong only once a year. I suggest that it should be added in the Governance section. Craddocktm (talk) 08:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree. It's either you add SAR has provincial level status or you don't. Accountability means direct and active role in HK affairs which could be further from truth. I think it is noteworthy to add SAR provincial level status (non-interference from Guangdong) in the governance section since it's more detailed information. It's probably more important to state "High degree of autonomy in in all areas except foreign relations and military defense" because HK autonomy has no bounds unless you specifically state it's limitations (sovereignty wise to autonomy).Phead128 (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree about adding the provincial level statuts, as the term appears nowhere in the Basic Law or in other texts. If you wish to emphasis on non-interference from Guangdong, quoting Article 22 is the better option. It expressly states no province or municipal etc may interfere with HK affairs. Also, I don't see what's wrong about accountability towards the Central People's government. Accountability means being held responsible for what one has done; if CPG has direct and active role in HK affairs, it is nonsense to say HK will nevertheless be accountable. At any rate, if you don't like "accountability", saying HK report directly to the CPG would be a better choice of word than "come directly under". Craddocktm (talk) 05:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me reiterate first that I don't feel strongly about adding anything in the intro about HK being "directly under" the central government. Leave it out if that's the concensus. But I do think it's bordering on bias that there's such a strong push for having "high autonomy" in there because that's how it's stated in the Basic Law, while leaving out "directly under" the central government, even though that's also explicitly stated in the Basic Law. Look, I personally think HK does have a high degree of autonomy, but my personal opinion on that issue, as well as that of other editors, don't matter here. As I've stated, the degree of HK's autonomy has been a matter of disagreement by the people who are directly involved in HK politics or by people who study it. If we are to add that HK has a "high degree of autonomy" because that's what Basic Law says, we really need to consider also the fact that it comes "directly under" the central government - exactly as it is quoted. In fact, the "high degree of autonomy" and "directly under" statement are both within the same sentence in the Basic Law. Article 12 says:

• "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be a local administrative region of the People's Republic of China, which shall enjoy a high degree of autonomy and come directly under the Central People's Government."

I really have to question the insistence of quoting "high degree of autonomy" yet leaving out the "directly under" part. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see the point of putting it in the intro. Of course I know "directly under" is in the Basic Law, but is it really such a distinguishing and important feature of Hong Kong that warrants mention in the intro? Nobody would dispute Hong Kong's autonomy guaranteed under the Basic Law is a highly distinguishing and important feature. Her autonomy is exercised day and night by the SAR government, and is fundamental to the concept of "one country, two systems". On the other hand, reporting to the CPG is something the CE does only once a year. When you compare the two this way, it's easy to see why "high autonomy" warrants mention in the intro, but "directly under" does not. It is certainly not "bordering on bias" to leave out "directly under" merely because it is explicitly stated in the Basic Law. Otherwise, we will have to cite every single article of the Basic Law in the intro. I'll emphasize again that I support placing "directly under" in the governance section. Craddocktm (talk) 09:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

No offence, but I really have to wonder if you've understood what I've said - about the fact that whether or not HK has a "high degree of autonomy" is not universally agreed upon, and about the fact that our own opinions (such as your analysis of how autonomous HK is and that you seem to think the only string the central government pulls on HK is that the Chief Executive visits Beijing once a year) do not matter.

• The Legal Foundations of Hong Kong's Autonomy: Building on Sand
• Torch Nears, Posing Test of Autonomy in Hong Kong
• HKHRM review
• Subverting Hong Kong's Autonomy

Probably one of the worst trespasses against the promised "high autonomy" of HK is the fact that HK courts are bound by the central government's interpretation of Basic Law. In other words, HK courts cannot overrule the central government. But I digress. The point I'm trying to make here is if we're going to use the words "high degree of autonomy" for the reason that it was stated in the Basic Law, then the NPOV thing to do is to also state that it is "directly under" the central government, as the Basic Law states also. The words "high degree of autonomy" is as ambiguous as "directly under". Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 09:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I want to clarify this issue of "directly under". It's not necessarily to highlight that Hong Kong is under central government control. I believe it simply means that between the central government and the Hong Kong government, there is no intermediary. Hong Kong is directly accountable to the central government, not any provinces or any other authorities. It nominally places Hong Kong as a "provincial-level subdivision" of China with a substantial amount of self-governing powers.

Just to reflect on this whole discussion, Hong Kong, in many ways, operates like an independent state. Just how it operates like a state - its separate laws, immigration system, political system etc., is clarified in the lede very well. It also operates as a subordinate unit of China - PLA is stationed there, Hong Kong residents are Chinese nationals - if they run into trouble abroad, it is the Chinese embassy that is responsible for them, its basic law is subject to interpretation by the NPCSC. There is a need to balance the two when describing Hong Kong's situation. By highlighting its autonomous elements but also deliberately minimizing its subordinate status is a form of POV-pushing that attempts to create some sort of misleading impression on the reader. Colipon+(Talk) 10:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

And in case you haven't heard, Hong Kong has been promised 'universal suffrage' in 2017 Legco elections. But it's more than likely that the NPC will be defining that term. It may do so in the way Deng redefined "socialism". Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 10:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The reason why I think the "directly under" statement should also be in the lead is precisely because I think having the "high degree of autonomy" statement but not the "directly under" statement would be highlighting its autonomous elements but also deliberately minimising its subordinate status, and a form of POV-pushing. I think it's better if the intro either leaves out both statement and have the politics section go into details instead, or have both statement present in the intro to preserve NPOV. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

If it takes a discussion this long to clarify what "directly under" statement means, then really it should not be in the lead statement at all. Since clarification of the statement within a specific context is necessary, I vote to include this in the governance section since it could be further expanded upon then. Hong Kong basically is a independent state however it's been stated that it is a part of the People's Republic of China and there is no reason to restate the sovereignty issue again and again and again. It's driving me insane.Phead128 (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

If Hong Qi Gong would like to specifically state the autonomous limitations to counter the POV pushing of merely stating "high degree of autonomy" alone, then rather than saying it's a sovereign territory of the PRC through "directly under the central government", we should put in high degree of autonomy in all areas except foreign relations and military defense because it states the autonomous limitations of Hong Kong. "Direct under the central government" does not merit inclusion in the lead statement since it's vague and is a simple reiteration of sovereignty. Autonomous limitations of HK is areas within foreign relations and military defense. That should be stated in the lead paragraph as well.Phead128 (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

A vague phrase like "directly under" has no place in an encyclopedia. The readers get it: China has sovereignty over Hong Kong. Given that this sovereignty is largely unexercised, stating that China has sovereignty over Hong Kong once is sufficient. We don't need it mentioned three times in the intro, while there's only a half-assed statement about Hong Kong's autonomy at the end. Mentioning sovereignty without autonomy is highly misleading, because sovereignty generally connotes control. I'm sure you can find a few extreme cases of China intervening and delude yourselves into thinking that that's the norm in Hong Kong, but the truth remains that Hong Kong is highly autonomous, a fact verified by the authoritative Basic Law. Taluchen (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Then, the blame lies with the Basic Law drafters, or, indirectly, Beijing. The vague language used is an open invitation for "reinterpretation" of the Basic Law by the NPC. You belief that it has no place here is of no great relevance, because it's part of official language, gobbledegook though it may be. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 10:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Then you agree that it is vague?72.81.233.92 (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Can't agree with what is said by Hong Qi Gong and quite a number of others. Seems many of you have difficulty distinguishing between sovereignty and direct accountability to the CPG. The NPCSC's interpretation of the Basic Law, stationing of the PLA etc merely reflects on China's sovereighnty over Hong Kong, but does not translate automatically to Hong Kong's direct accountability to CPG. Sovereignty and accountability are two different concepts. For example, China exercises sovereignty over a county, but the county is not directly accountable to CPG. In this article, as long as there is sufficient mention of China's sovereignty over Hong Kong together with Hong Kong's autonomy, that's sufficent NPOV. Inclusion of HK's direct accountability to CPG is actually POV pushing as there is no elaboration on Hong Kong's autonomy but mention of the direct accountability point which tips the balance towards sovereignty. As to the derogations of autonomy said by Hong Qi Gong, I feel unnecessary to go into the matter as it is completely irrelevant to the issue on hand. You guys are proposing to add the entire Art. 12, but what Hong Qi Gong mentioned is actually undermining Art. 12 as a whole. Also, derogation of HK's autonomy is not equivalent to direct accountability to CPG. I wish to clarify I am talking about the Basic Law Framework here. Under the Basic Law framework, the "one country, two system" is the summary of the principles in the Basic Law. And incidental to this concept is China's sovereignty and Hong Kong's autonomy. Who Hong Kong reports to is a subsidiary matter under China's sovereignty. You may wish to note the Articles mentioning autonomy (2,12,13,16,19,22) and sovereignty (1,2,7,10,12,13,14), while direct accountability to the CPG is only mentioned in Article 12 and nowhere else. That speaks volume of the relative low importance of direct accountability. Craddocktm (talk) 11:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I have no clue why this "accountability issue" mentioned in Article 12 is worth mentioning if ever. Honestly, it's confusing to veteran HK enthuiasts and has no right to be in the lead paragraph of the Hong Kong wikipedia article. It simply doesn't make sense without further elaboration. I also think that this is getting to be ridiculous. 72.81.233.92 (talk) 21:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

My problem has never been the inclusion of the fact that HK has autonomous characteristics in the intro. It's the wording - "high degree of autonomy". Right now it is included because that's what the Basic Law says. That wording is as ambiguous as what "directly under" means. I've pointed out time and again that the degree of HK's autonomy is under debate in real life - it has been ever since the handover. I find it a little troubling that some of you just accept this promise of "high degree of autonomy" without question.

• There is no universal suffrage to elect the Chief Executive - the election committee is picked by the central government.
• Only half of LegCo is directly elected.
• HK's court system is bounded by the central government's interpretation of the Basic Law.

Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

What if we included how Hong Kong has separate delegate representation in world organizations such as Olympic, WTO, APEC, etc... as a means of elaborating what "high degree of autonomy" means in all areas except foreign relations and military defense. ( I am surprised at why this autonomous limitation is not expounded upon in the lead paragraph) ALSO, High degree of autonomy can be directly expounded upon by listing examples of HK as a separate customs territory, British legal systems, Independent police forces, capitalist economic system, separate monetary systems, separate currency, immigration policy that are independent from mainland China. Given these evidence, it's hard to dispute that HK doesn't have any real autonomy.

Phead128 (talk) 21:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

That kind of detailed info is what the politics section is for. Anyway, this discussion is going nowhere. I keep saying that HK's autonomy is, in fact, a matter of disagreement - and I've provided sources to back that up. But you and others simply give your own personal analysis and assert that HK does have a "high" degree of autonomy. There doesn't seem to be much support to add the "directly under" statement in the intro, so we can just let this discussion die. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

HK's soft autonomy is a matter of disagreement. Socialism is not practice in HK, Hong Kong has it's own Hong Kong Dollar, People are free to protest again the Communist government, Hong Kong is permitted to participate in international organisations (Olympics, WTO, APEC), Mainland China's National Laws do not apply in HK, Hong Kong even has it's own flag. Why isn't HK autonomous? HK is basically an independent nation really.Phead128 (talk) 06:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

"Socialism is not practice in HK" so says the Basic Law, but we know it ain't true. Legco recently adopted the minimum wage legislation. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, this does not merit inclusion in the lead paragraph because it confuses the heck out of ppl.Phead128 (talk) 07:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Glad that it seems settled that direct accountability should not be included in the introduction. However, I acknowledge whether HK has "high" degree of autonomy is under dispute, since everyone has different interpretation of the word "autonomy". The NPOV way to handle this is NOT to leave out the Basic Law framework, BUT to mention Article 1 and 2 of the Basic Law, followed by a sentence that HK's actual degree of autonomy is in dispute.

I propose amending the intro this way:

Hong Kong(Chinese: 香港) is a special administrative region of the People's Republic of China. Situated on China's south coast and enclosed by the Pearl River Delta and South China Sea, it is renowned for its expansive skyline and deep natural harbour. With land mass of 1,104 km2 (426 sq mi) and a population of seven million people, Hong Kong is one of the most densely populated areas in the world. The city's population is 95% Chinese and 5% from other ethnic groups.

Hong Kong is one of the world's leading international financial centres with a major capitalist service economy characterized by low taxation, free trade and minimum government intervention under the ethos of positive non-interventionism. The Hong Kong dollar is the 9th most traded currency in the world.

Hong Kong's political system is governed by the Basic Law of Hong Kong, its constitutional document. The Chief Executive of Hong Kong is the head of government. It has a multi-party system, and its legislature is partly elected through universal suffrage.

Under the principle of "one country, two systems" enshrined in the Basic Law, Hong Kong is an "inalienable part of China", while it exercises a "high degree of autonomy" and enjoys "executive, legislative and independent judicial power" subject to a number of restrictions in the Basic Law. The actual degree of autonomy is disputed.

Hong Kong became a colony of the British Empire after the First Opium War (1839–1842). The colony's boundaries were extended in 1898 to the New Territories. It was occupied by the Japanese after the Battle of Hong Kong during the Pacific War, after which the British resumed control until 1997, when China regained sovereignty. Craddocktm (talk) 06:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Instead of saying that it exercises a high degree of autonomy, I would prefer that it says "it is promised" a high degree of autonomy. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with "it is promised with high degree of autonomy" but I disagree with adding "subject to a number of restrictions" followed by "The actual degree of autonomy is disputed" because clearly that is very one sided and does not reflect the truth or reality of the situation, which is HK is largely untouched by CCP after the 1997 handover. I feel like in the lead paragraph, it is important to state the main points of the Basic law and further expound on the "erosion of autonomy" deeper in the governance section. The actual erosion of HK's autonomy is so minuscule and unquantifiable that it does not merit discussion in the lead paragraph. Phead128 (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If you think HK is virtually independent and Beijing's influence is minuscule you need to get out more. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I agree, Beijing has loyal and obedient legislators electing the CEO. Beijing leaves the actual governance of Hong Kong up to the Hong Kong people. Beijing does not actively interfere with HK daily activities. HK is as close to an independent state as you can get. I'm not sure how you can dispute this. HK can make it's own immigration border policies, it's own defacto central monetary system with a fully convertible currency (RMB isn't even fully convertible), separate customs territory, it can make free trade agreements with other foreign nations, it has separate delegate representation to the Olympics, WTO, APEC separate from PRC, and it has rights and freedom of speech that is unknown to Chinese cousins in the mainland...HK even has the highest concentration of foreign consulates in the world and it's not even a sovereign state.Phead128 (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

What I observe is that the editors here seem divided over the degree of autonomy of Hong Kong. I think it is justifiable to mention that the degree of autonomy is disputed by some, as long as we do not go into the details. To preserve NPOV, there is a necessity to produce both sides of the issue. Craddocktm (talk) 07:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The lead is only meant to summarise the article and the statement of Basic Law allowing a "high degree of autonomy" except in foreign and defence affairs is a perfectly good summary of the situation. Further details on any apparent controversies over its autonomy should go later in the article. Please don't change the long-standing lead. Your changes went against the WP:MOS because the paragraphs are too short and fragmented, and one paragraph was dedicated to autonomy info that isn't mentioned later in the article. Spellcast (talk) 09:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the lead should be a short & sweet summary and "high degree of autonomy" except in foreign and defence affairs is a perfectly good summary of the situation. I vote to expand "erosion of autonomy" in the governance/political section.Phead128 (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why being "long standing" means the lead should not be altered: the mention of "one country, two systems" and its summary were fragmented into 2 paragraphs which were highly unsatisfactory. At any rate, the statement of allowing a "high degree of autonomy" except in foreign and defence affairs is in truth not a summary of the Basic Law at all. If you bother to read further, you will realise there are other restrictions to autonomy: Article 17, 158, 159 and Annex 1 and 2. I propose "in all matters except foreign relations and military defence" should be replaced with "subject to a number of restrictions in the Basic Law". Craddocktm (talk) 08:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not disagree that there needs to be more refinement. But to complete do rid of "in all areas except foreign relations and military defense" seems kinda extreme. Maybe we can reach a compromise. How about something to the effect: "subject to a number of restrictions in the Basic law, including, but not limited to foreign relations and military defense." I disagree about doing away "foreign relations/miltary defence" because it a cornerstone of the Sino-British joint declaration. It is very important key information. You can't honestly expect to list every autonomous limitations but you have to list the most crucial relevant ones.Phead128 (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to say that a city-state like HK has no precedence in history. Never in the history of mankind has a bastion of free-wheeling capitalism been reverted to Red Communist nation. HK is faring well since it's has no peers (compare to Macau lol) .You can say that HK's autonomy has been eroded, but what are you comparing it to? Has there been a state like HK ever before in history? No. HK (freest economy in the world, most capitalistic economy in the world) is doing pretty well given it's under a Communist control. HK is largely untouched by PRC since the 1997 handover.Phead128 (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Or we can just not make a generalised statement about autonomy in the intro and just go into the details about HK's political situation in the politics section. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The geography section contains this:

Of the total area, 1,054 km2 (407 sq mi) is land and 50 km2 (19 sq mi) is water.

I know this statement correctly cites the CIA world fact book for this, but none the less I'm very inclined to doubt its veracity. A quick look at the map on the cite shows a significant area of territorial waters, that is surely much more than a twentieth the size of the land area.

I'm inclined to suspect that the CIA water area figures are for 'inland waters' (High Island and Plover Cove reservoirs would surely account for a pretty large proportion of 50 km2). But a cite is a cite; anybody able to help here?. -- Starbois (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• What you say is likely to be the case. I don't see why we would want to count the area of territorial waters, being a peninsula and a large bunch of islands - I believe such a figure would be highly misleading. I'm not aware of what the convention here on WP is, but I assume that if we are all using the CIA factbook, all cites will be on a consistent basis, which is fine. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Previously the first sentence of the article read:

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

with the capitalisation implying that Special Administrative Region is a proper noun.

I think that this is incorrect in this context. The test for a proper noun is uniqueness, and there are at least two special administrative regions (Macau and Hong Kong) with a third being sometimes suggested (Taiwan). I believe that this statement is referring to the concept of a 'special administrative region' rather to one specific such region, and should therefore be lower case. I have amended the wording (twice) in line with this. In the meantime it was changed back, but as no comment was made and other changes made, I'm not sure if this was deliberate or accidental.

If I'm wrong and this is a proper noun, then the article is clearly wrong (the is the article used with proper nouns, not a), and the sentence should read:

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

but that seems wrong in the context.

Please note that I'm not arguing against the capitalisation in the name Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the Peoples Republic of China, which is clearly unique and a proper name. And sometimes we write the Special Administrative Region as a shorthand for that rather long name, and again in that context it is a proper noun. But I don't think either of those fit here. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 03:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This is correct. It is capitalized in the long form title but should not be as a concept. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

The key thing to ask yourself here is: Would you call Hong Kong a "special administrative region" (without capitalization) if the PRC had not come up with that term? Sure the sentence would make some sense if Special Administrative Region was converted to its improper form, although most readers would have little to no idea of what a "special administrative region" actually is. By making the noun proper, you take away most of the burden of conveying the noun's meaning to the reader. I'm in favor of describing Hong Kong as a "largely self-governing territory", which essentially is a good definition of Special Administrative Region, which really is little more than a somewhat biased title made up by the PRC. Taluchen (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization doesn't indicate meaning. The usage in the first sentence is not a proper noun, therefore it is not capitalized. That is the way English grammar works. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

You've missed the point completely. The proper noun "Special Administrative Region" (a title created by China) is deceiving in that does make sense when uncapitalized into a common noun. By calling Hong Kong a "Special Administrative Region", we're essentially referring to the title created by the China, and nothing more. To repeat, SAR can either be a proper or common noun, but unless you'd agree that calling Hong Kong a "special administrative region" is the best way of describing it if China never came up with that name, stick to the proper noun. And if you take a look at the SAR article, you'll see that SAR is always capitalized. Taluchen (talk) 00:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

When used as a descriptive term as opposed to an official title, it should be lower case. Britannica also uses lower case. Spellcast (talk) 02:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Well done on repeating what I've said and not comprehending anything else. According to the US government, "Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China." Not satisfied enough? Try the Hong Kong government themselves. Taluchen (talk) 03:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

And to comment about uniqueness: converting the proper noun to a common noun and determining its uniqueness will tell you about the noun's viability as a common noun. This, however, does not equate to the common form being a better alternative than the proper form. Taluchen (talk) 16:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm absolutely against describing Hong Kong as a "largely self-governing territory" in the lead. The word "largely" is, firstly, WP:Weasel. And secondly, that is only a matter of opinion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

"Largely self-governing" is synonymous with "highly autonomous", quoted from none other than the Sino-Biritsh Joint Declaration. To the average reader clueless about Hong Kong's relationship with China, either one of these descriptions is a LOT more informative than what we have now. I'm sorry that the facts conflict with your Chinese nationalistic views. Taluchen (talk) 19:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Taluchen, your jumping in here and reverting me several times with "largely self governing" gave me a strong sense of déjà vu. I urge you to revisit the discussions we have been having here earlier on, where we dusted the issue. Essentially, User:HongQiGong is right. There is no point in using a weasely phrase when it "synonym" (your words) is official language citable to the city's constitution. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Not mentioning Hong Kong's "high autonomy" until the middle of the third paragraph (a crucial piece of information that should be in the first paragraph, if not the first sentence) for the sake of "repetition" is unsatisfactory for an encyclopedia. Frankly, I'm shocked by how much the people on this page want to play down the reality of Hong Kong's autonomy from China. Taluchen (talk) 03:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hong Kong is a highly autonomous city state. Chinese mainland National laws do not apply in HK. The laws are created by HK legislators because the late Deng Xiaoping said it best: "Hong Kong People can Govern Hong Kong well" and has given HK complete autonomy in almost every possible field EXCEPT military defense (HK does not even pay tax to CCP) and foreign relations). SOVEREIGNTY AND AUTONOMY ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. They can coexist under "One country, Two system".... China owns HK, but HK operates under a completely different set of rules than mainland China. I am shocked at how much ppl are IGNORANT about the reality of HK's autonomy in the international community and in the world stage. HK is completely self governing with respect to the PRC. Sure the PRC may meddle in transborder extradition and secure obedient/loyal political followers. BEIJING DOES NOT play an active role in HK's political arena. That's a fact. I REPEAT, BEIJING does not play an ACTIVE ROLE in HK's day-to-day tasks.Phead128 (talk) 01:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Well put. Taluchen (talk) 03:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, we know how Beijing never interferes. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Here's another one: Zhou Yongjun incident Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that HK is an SAR is a fact spelt out in the Basic Law. Whether or not it is a "largely self-governing territory" or it is "highly autonomous", however, is not. Firstly, the Sino-British Joint Declaration was signed 13 years before the handover, and 25 years ago. Whether or not the terms of the agreement are being realised is a matter of interpretation and opinion. Secondly, the Joint Declaration never stated as a matter of fact that HK is "highly autonomous". It only stated that it is the wish of the UK government that HK be given a "high degree of autonomy" after the handover, and that it believed that the Joint Declaration would accomplish that. In fact, if it was up to me, I would get rid of all occurrence of terms like "highly autonomous" in the article unless it was accompanied by a mention of whose view exactly that is. The degree of autonomy in HK has been an ongoing disagreement (in the real world) ever since the handover. This is why it's not easy for us to represent that in the article here. Taluchen, from your comment about my supposed "Chinese nationalistic views", I take it you are not exactly a fan of the mainland Chinese government. But the funny thing is that the Chinese government's official stance would probably agree with you in saying that HK is "highly autonomous" because they want the international community to believe that they are benevolent. If you ask the pro-Democrat camp in HK, they would most likely say that HK is not so "highly autonomous" at all and that HK's political reality is not living up to what is spelt out in the Basic Law. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Article 12 of the Basic Law explicitly states that Hong Kong has a "high degree of autonomy" from the PRC. Taluchen (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You go by what is OFFICIALLY stipulated by the National People's Congress. NOT alleged factual discrepancies between official policy and real world policy (because it overcomplicates things). "High degree of autonomy" and "highly autonomous" is virtually the same. It's not subject to personal interpretation because it's going by the OFFICIAL NPC PROTOCOL stipulated both the UK, HK, and CCP govt.Phead128 (talk) 01:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Where is this going?

Taluchen seems entirely too willing to quote Wikipedia policy in his first edits, which are only about this page. Taluchen seems willing to edit war no matter the discussion on the talk page. What is the end goal here, Taluchen? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Hong Kong's autonomy needs to be acknowledged in the first paragraph, not muddled up in the third.

And regarding the capitalization issue, both forms are grammatically correct. Consider Donald Tsang. You could describe him as the "Chief Executive and Head of the Government of Hong Kong" (as the article has done) or the "chief executive and head of the government of Hong Kong". If you want SAR uncapitalized, I want you to realize that this is because you prefer this version (for whatever reasons), not because you believe the proper noun form to be grammatically incorrect (or do you?). Taluchen (talk) 02:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the capitalization issue, I looked at the article on Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, and when spelled out in generic form, it uses a capitalized format. Accordingly, I say stay consistent with other articles on the subject and capitalize it. —C.Fred (talk) 02:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Funny, because I was going to correct that. Our dab page article, the Korean SAR, and the ROC SAR articles don't capitalize it. Used in this way, it is a thing, not a title. Things aren't capitalized. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

It's a thing if you think of it as a thing. I prefer to think of it as a title, as do the US government and the Hong Kong government. Taluchen (talk) 02:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm disappointed and personally insulted at how HK's autonomy is the last sentence of the third paragraph. How is it important to state in the first paragraph that HK is the 179th largest geographic region in the world? HK's status rest in it's entrepot state that is separate (domestic/economic/legal affairs wise) from mainland China although sovereignty and ultimate power rests upon the CCP. Autonomy does not exclude sovereignty. They are ENSHRINED in "One Country (sovereignty), Two system (HK, Macao, TAIWAN govern themselves and local legislators play an 'active role' in their own domestic affairs).Phead128 (talk) 18:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Having spent the last 12-1/2 years living in the Hong Kong SAR, and planning for it for more than a dozen years before that, I can confirm that it is never, ever sar. It is most commonly SAR and occasionally S.A.R.. HKSARG[overnment] is also common. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

That is because SAR (or S.A.R.) is an acronym; acronyms are usually capitalised in this way. The capitalisation of SAR says nothing about the capitalisation of special administrative region, which is what is being discussed here. -- Starbois (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hong Kong is not an SAR of the RoC as this article's first sentence now reads. Vandalism?

31 Jan 2010 07:40 GMT

74.115.162.10 (talk) 07:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

in Pinyin...Böri (talk) 11:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

This section is apparently biased, and lacks sources to support a number of claims. Firstly, the votes for the pan-democrats in 2004 was 60%, a large percentage but maybe not "landslide support". Quoting the exact figure is the better option. Secondly, the allegations of Beijing's interference are rumours and should be described as allegations rather than facts. Thirdly, some of the causes for democracy demand are not supported by any sources and are factually inaccurate; when comparing 1998 and 2008, the fiscal reserve has actually slightly increased, and I do not recall any cutback in social welfare provision.

Proposed amendment:On 1 July 2003, over half a million Hong Kong citizens staged a mass protest against the proposed bill of Article 23 of the Basic Law and the poor governance of the post-handover SAR government. The grievances of the marchers quickly snowballed into a widely backed movement for democracy, and since then the 1 July march has been held every year as a channel to demand for democracy and a variety of other political concerns. The pro-democratic candidates gathered 60% of the votes during the local elections held on 23 November 2003. It was alleged that the outcome unnerved Beijing over its possible loss of control over Hong Kong and caused it to quickly shift from a soft-line approach that talked about virtual autonomy to a hard-line approach, attempting to dampen the local democracy movement. In the third interpretation of the Basic Law, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress dismissed the possibility of introducing universal suffrage for the elections of the Chief Executive in 2007 and the legislature in 2008. There were a number of fundamental causes of Hong Kong's broad-based demand for full democracy. First economic uncertainly rose sharply after 1999, as the competitiveness of the Hong Kong economy slipped. Secondly, the level of economic inequality increased, along with a sense that cronyism was rampant and getting worse. At a deeper level citizens are anxious about their lack of voice in an authoritarian polity. Another problem was the failure of the new "Principal Officials Accountability System" and the growth of popular distrust towards the non-democratic system.

In September 2008, the pandemocrats retained 57% of the votes during the Legislative Council election. The Liaison Office of the Central People's Government was rumoured to be involved in coordination among the pro-Beijing candidates. A number of independent candidates with a stronger and more independent image emerged, who were said to have received backing from Beijing. The sudden rise and stunning electoral victories of the League of Social Democrats, who are hallmarked by civil disobedience on behalf of democratic and social reforms, reflect a deepening sense of public despair about the futility of the current political system, and a proliferating radicalism. Craddocktm (talk) 09:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. This kind of poorly written content continues to plague this article and prevent it from maintaining a well-written status. Aside from the fact that it was poorly written, the sources it uses are obviously bias and that is a controversial topic that needs a balanced POV. But regardless, that level of detail is just too much for this article. With so much that can be written about Hong Kong, everything in this article should be a summary. The information in that paragraph belongs in Politics of Hong Kong. And not that I want to hold the article forever in a static state, but that paragraph was also added after the article was promoted to Good Article status. Here's the GA promotion version of the article - [3]. I'm just going to remove the subsection entirely. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I guest it can be kept, as the existing article lacks coverage on politics. I suggest moving it to Governance and briefly include some information on the LegCo elections, the biggest parties in Hong Kong, the 1st July rallies etc. But I agree that some details, such as the "fundamental causes of Hong Kong's broad-based demand for full democracy", can be omitted. Craddocktm (talk) 14:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The complaints about "bias" violate Wikipedia policy. The material is based closely on published articles in scholarly journals that count as reliable sources. If critics know of OTHER interpretations, then the critics should ADD the other interpretations (from equally reliable source) and not SUBTRACT information, according to WP rules. Rjensen (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, a lot of the claims in the subsection are not verified by any sources e.g. Beijing Interference, cutback in government services, stagnant rates of university attendance etc. The subsection is also littered with Words to avoid e.g. ban, blatant, landslide support. Let's face it. Anyone having a look at the subsection can see it is not written in NPOV. The other problem is its incompatibility with the history section: that's why I suggest moving it to governance with a bit of fine-tuning. Craddocktm (talk) 04:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

My main concern is that it is too detailed for this article. This article already has a summarised coverage of politics in Hong Kong, including mention of the Article 23 protest and the issue of universal suffrage. I have no problem having that content in Politics of Hong Kong though. But also, I agree with Craddocktm completely. It's not just that we need an opposing POV to what was written, it was also that the wording was biased and full of WP:Weasel. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It belongs in other articles. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

If you compare the politics content in this article to featured country articles such as Canada and Australia, you will see that Hong Kong article is short in this area (I'm not saying Hong Kong is a country, but her autonomous elements mean it should be written similarly). We can reach a consensus on this. I think we can briefly include:

• the functional constituencies of the LegCo: it is not satisfactory to provide the election method of only one half of the lawmakers.
• the 1st July rallies: just a line after the sentence on Article 23 will do
• the major political parties of Hong Kong: this is essential political information, but somehow it's not in the article Craddocktm (talk) 10:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Definitely agree that functional constituencies of the LegCo need to be mentioned. The July 1 rallies can also be mentioned, and actually I'd like to see if we can find any opposing POV sources (government response, or notable opposition to the protests - which there may not be any). Major political parties can also be mentioned. To be clear - it's not that I think the current politics section is too big. It's that I think that text that is now deleted was too detailed. There're a lot more that can be added, like for example, how does LegCo and ExCo work with each other? What exactly is the Chief Executive's responsibility? What about the state of HK's judicial independence? Things of that nature, as long as it does not get too detailed so as to unbalance the section where some specific topic is given a lot more attention. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I’m highly skeptical about defining the July 1, 2003, demonstrations as “anti-Article 23” or “pro-democracy.” The background to those demonstrations =– which were stunning in their scope and how peaceful they were =– was a 70% decline in real estate values, a 20% drop in the consumer price index (both over several years, but nearly straight-line) and high unemployment (7.8% average in the first half of 2003). That, alone, is enough to call into question any attempt to define the protests in narrow, political terms.DOR (HK) (talk) 07:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I’m also highly skeptical that the local political parties are “essential political information.” This isn’t a Western parliamentary democracy, folks! These parties are personality-based, and / or single-issue. That means they change, or go away very easily. It is far more important for the purposes of this article to direct readers to Politics of Hong Kong, where the reason that local political parties are so pathetic can be more fully explained. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is saying the 1 July 2003 demonstration was merely anti-Article 23 or pro-democracy, I am afraid. The original edit suggested by me reads, "over half a million Hong Kong citizens staged a mass protest against the proposed bill of Article 23 of the Basic Law and the poor governance of the post-handover SAR government", which correspond to what you actually mentioned. Next, I see no reason for not including at least the names of political parties. The LegCo is actually elected and is controlled by a number of political parties: this mere fact means they deserve a mention. Even though Hong Kong is not a parliamentary democracy, it does not mean political parties should not appear in a Wikipedia article on Hong Kong: you can browse through the articles on various presidential democracies and you will see some basic information on political parties. I'm not suggesting Hong Kong is a presidential democracy though - Hong Kong is clearly neither - but the strong element of democracy in LegCo means political parties should be mentioned. Whether HK political parties are personality based or single-issue is your own personal opinion which ought not affect the content of this article. On a side note, I certainly do not agree with your opinion: while LSD and the Civic Party have short history, the DAB and the Democratic Party certainly have been around for quite a long time and have developed to the point that they are not personality based or single issue any more.Craddocktm (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

There are 60 seats in LegCo, and the last time I checked, the largest party held just nine. I'm sure you'll understand, based on that detail, why I do not accept "LegCo is actually elected and is controlled by a number of political parties" as mere fact. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

At least the line that LegCo is elected is accepted. As to whether LegCo is controlled by a number of political parties, the lead paragraph should answer you well enough: that Hong Kong has a multi-party system. I certainly expect the content of an article to correspond to something mentioned in the lead paragraph. Also, a majority presence at the legislature is certainly not a necessary criteria to be deemed notable: many democracies have multi-party systems that rely on coalition among parties. Also, to get the facts right, DAB is the largest party in LegCo with a total of 13 seats: 9 from the Geographical Constituencies and 4 from the Functional Constituencies. So, if you take out the controversial and non-democratic functional constituencies, it's 9 out of 30, which isn't bad at all.Craddocktm (talk) 12:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed the FAC issues raised here relating to image alts and the Cantonese IPA. The only issues left to address are those relating to the content of the first few sections. --Treganoon (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The term "Han" is not very widely understood outside China. In addition, as far as I know, the Hong Kong government does not openly endorse the "56 ethnic groups of China" model of the PRC government, nor does it treat it as official policy. As such, my view is that Han people in Hong Kong should be described as "ethnically Chinese", or "Han Chinese", in the article, and not merely "Han". Colipon+(Talk) 13:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually the source says "Chinese", not "Han", so "Chinese" is what we should have in the article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 13:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The source article talks about Chinese ethnicity, which equals Han. It's quite simply ridiculous to use any other term, because it's almost certain the HK Government means that too. Ethnic Chinese points to a dab page where you will find overseas Chinese and Han Chinese, so I think this distinction is splitting hairs. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I see it we then have two options. We can link "ethnic Chinese" to Han Chinese, or we can use "Han Chinese". I simply believe using "Han", especially in the context of Hong Kong, is a bit unconventional. Colipon+(Talk) 14:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

My reticence to use 'Han+Chinese' is just a spillover from my experience with the Urumqi riots article. I would have no objection to using it here. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

My first choice would be simply "Chinese", as that is what the source says. If there is ambiguity, that is ambiguity in the source itself. We should just reflect what the source says. If that is simply not agreeable to anybody else, then I would prefer "ethnic Chinese". The "Chinese" from the English version of the census actually comes from "華人" on the Chinese-language form - [4] - which much better translates as ethnic Chinese, especially since it doesn't say 漢人 (Han people). I suspect the reason it specifically uses 華人 instead of 漢人 is because 漢人 in modern usage is mostly used by the mainland Chinese government. On the other hand, 華人 is used by overseas Chinese and even Taiwanese people. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Dang that source. While I would generally agree we should stick with the source, the problem with Chinese is that it doubles as a nationality and ethnicity. When it's used as ethnicity by a subordinate government without a frigging clue, it makes me despair. I think most people would want clarity, and 'Chinese' ain't. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm pretty certain HK's Census department is aware of the distinction between ethnicity and nationality, and does make the distinction. Take a look at page 3 and 4 of the 2006 thematic report on ethnic minorities, for example - [5]. The words "nationality" is specifically used to denote country of origin. And if Census_in_Hong_Kong#The_Long_Form is to be trusted, you can see that the long form version of the census form lists nationality and ethnicity separately. Yes, I agree most people would want clarity, but we are bound to stick to the source. However like I said, I am fine with "ethnic Chinese" also. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, the law on racial discrimination specifically states that while it applies to Chinese ethnic minorities, it cannot be applied to Han Chinese from the Mainland, on the assumption that one can't racially discriminate against the majority race. Curiously, there is no mention of what happens if a Hong Kong non-Chinese discriminates against a Hong Kong Chinese person. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

174.91.80.32 (talk) 01:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)How come this article on Hong Kong does not have a subcategory about religion in it? --174.91.80.32 (talk) 01:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

There're some inconsistencies in the rankings. According to the QS world rankings, HKUST is ranked 35th and CUHK 46th. However, the Asian rankings show CUHK to be 2nd and HKUST to be 4th. How do we reconcile the differences? Craddocktm (talk) 03:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Without knowing the details, I assume that the first two are global rankings, and the latter all Asia-only. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

But certainly it makes no sense that HKUST is better than CUHK in terms of world ranking, but worse in terms of Asian ranking? Such a conflict not only confuses me but is bound to confuse any reader. Should we delete either the world ranking or the asian ranking?Craddocktm (talk) 08:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggest representing both. The reader should decide which one is relevant to them. I personally do not see any inconsistency, Asian ranking must be wrong. lol. That is up to the reader to decide, not us. We just present the information and let them figure it out themselves.Phead128 (talk) 05:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

In other city sections like New York City's Etymology section, they state NYC's nicknames include the "Big Apple" and Shanghai's Etymology section includes "Paris of the Orient". Hong Kong has also had various nicknames in English, such as "Pearl of the Orient", "Asia's World City" (HK Gov't brand name), and most importantly the "Gateway to China". I don't see any reason why we can't include Hong Kong's nicknames when other city sections do too. Paris has "City of Lights" in her Wiki section. Phead128 (talk) 01:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Full View of Kowloon peninsula and Hong Kong Island. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lichunngai (talk • contribs) 09:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The first change I made was to remove the word “wealth” and replace it with income, which is both what the Gini coefficient measures, and a very different concept from one of wealth. I have also added the frequently ignored criticism of the Gini coefficient as a means of measuring Hong Kong’s income gap. I believe I’ve provided sufficient footnotes to lay this particular straw man to rest, but naturally others are welcome to add their citations. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Superscript</sumafrgap> 180.195.227.39 (talk) 05:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

margan_52 180.195.227.39 (talk) 05:12, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

?/?? 180.195.227.39 (talk) 05:12, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}According to reference no. 108, the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology should be ranked no. 2 in Asia while the Chinese University of Hong Kong is ranked no. 4. The order is reversed at present. I would like to change this information.Please also look at: http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/asian-university-rankings/overall —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yfyuen (talk • contribs) 09:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Police75 (talk) 01:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 01:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}I've found a wrong information under the "education" section. I'm not sure how I can amend it as I'm new to Wikipedia. Should I request permission to correct that piece of info here or shall I do any other things instead? Thanks.

Yfyuen (talk) 08:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)Michael

 Done updated thanks, it does not look like the 2010 world rankings have been updated yet, so its 2009s world rankings and 2010 Asia rankings now in the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! It looks great now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.79.30.128 (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

A lot more information was added from since the last FA nomination, but after doing a scan of the problems pointed by the reviewers' comments, I think we may have missed a few items. Potential issue may be related to image alt text, clarity, and awkardness. I don't have access to some of the sources, so it makes hard to fix the problems. Tvtr (tlk–cntrbtn) 21:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a proposal to move History of colonial Hong Kong to British Hong Kong at Talk:History of colonial Hong Kong#Requested move. There were only two people last time a page move was discussed, so hopefully more people can participate in forming a consensus. Spellcast (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

"under colonial rule, it espoused positive non-interventionism". right there, we are implying that UK rule was less "authoritarian" and thus better than current SAR administration. HK's economy was and continues to be very free. ---何献龙4993 (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Well provided there is a source the sentence could be added to saying "which has continued..." etc or we could change it to say "Since colonial rule, Hong Kong has espoused positive non interventionism". What ever the sources say. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I am also perfectly fine with that. However, shouldn't the "freest [on capitalist sense] city" ratings make it clear? ---何献龙4993 (talk) 01:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Government intervention is very different from authoritarianism. Most European states, and even the United States, can be properly described as welfare states, in which the government frequently intervenes to provide social services. Government intervention is not necessarily bad nor necessarily good. As such there is no POV problem here.If you take time to actually read the entire article, you'll find somewhere (I think it's in the Economy section) it says Hong Kong has been displaying a decreasing measure of non-interventionism since the latter part of the colonial era. Examples given include the Mandatory Provident Fund and the minimum wage. How on earth can you describe these two social policies as "authoritarian"?However, for the sake of clarity, I suggest amending the sentence to "For most part of colonial rule, it espoused minimum government intervention under the ethos of positive non-interventionism. However, government intervention was increased by the latter colonial governments and has continued since 1997."Craddocktm (talk) 07:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I was not being wholly serious about "authoritarian", and regret this usage. ---何献龙4993 (talk) 10:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

If Hong Kong were still practicing positive non-interventionism, there might be a point to this discussion, but it isn’t. Then-Financial Secretary Sir Donald Tsang Yam-kuen spelled out very clearly in his March 8, 2000, 2000-01 Budget Speech the limits of positive non-interventionism, including citing predecessor Sir Philip Haddon-Cave, in paragraph 24, in ways intended to suggest that intervention is proper in certain circumstances. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

As requested, I'm providing a list of sourcing-related issues that should be addressed before renominating at FAC. Reference numbers are based on this revision. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 02:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• SAR should be spelled out on first occurrence, as should C.I.C.R.E.D. (and why does this use periods when SAR doesn't?)
• Use a consistent format for citations and entries in Further reading. For example, a book entry should appear nearly identical in both sections except for the page numbers
• Hong Kong Government or Government of Hong Kong or The Government of Hong Kong?
• Book titles should be italicized
• Ref 9: why "[2001] (2001)" (applies also to some other refs)? Was there a reprint in the year of publication? Also, don't include "Contributor Professor"
• Ref 10: publisher is CNBC
• Ref 11: retrieval date?
• Ref 15: publisher and retrieval date?
• Comparing refs 11 and 16 - why are the dating formats different for date of publication?
• Be consistent in including or not including publisher locations
• Ref 19: page(s)?
• Ref 21: publisher?
• Be consistent in providing or not providing a translation of Chinese titles, and italicizing or not italicizing such titles. Also be consistent in where (in Chinese) is placed in the ref
• Ref 25: publisher?
• Be consistent in providing or not providing retrieval dates for web links to print-based sources
• Be consistent in how you list author names - including commas or not, last name or first name first
• Ref 30: publisher?
• Ref 32, 33, 34, 35, 39, 41: page(s)?
• Ref 42: spell out "July"
• Ref 49: "BBC Chinese" should not be italicized
• Ref 50: retrieval date?
• Ref 53: is "June 2009" the retrieval date or the creation date? Format it like the others if the former, add a retrieval date if the latter
• Ref 58, 59: page(s)?
• Provide page numbers for multi-page PDF documents
• Be consistent in abbreviating or not abbreviating months in creation dates
• Ref 60, 61: retrieval date?
• "Department of Justice" or "Department of Justice, Government of Hong Kong"?
• "Census and Statistics Department, The Government of Hong Kong SAR" or "Government of Hong Kong, Census and Statistics Department" or "HKGov Census and Statistics Department" or just "Census and Statistics Department"?
• Ref 65, 66: date formatting
• Ref 73: publisher is Olympic Council of Asia
• Ref 74: retrieval date?
• Ref 79: date formatting
• Ref 80: formatting
• Ref 84, 85: page(s)?
• Ref 87, 88, 89, 90: retrieval dates?
• Spell out HKTDC and HKDF
• Ref 92: publisher is Hong Kong Democratic Foundation
• Ref 95: what kind of source is this? Missing information
• Ref 103: why does this start with a period?
• Ref 104: author? Creation date? Spell out publisher
• Ref 106: theses are generally discouraged as sources at FAC
• Ref 107: retrieval date?
• What makes marimari.com a reliable source?
• Spell out publishers instead of using website names
• Ref 113, 119: publisher?
• Ref 120: publisher is Hong Kong University Press
• Ref 131: cite the publisher of the book, not the web host. Also, page(s)?
• Ref 132: retrieval date?
• Ref 137, 138: publisher?
• Ref 141: "Tong, C. O.; C. O. Tong"?
• Ref 144: title is "The Skyscraper Museum"
• Ref 156: page(s)?
• Ref 160: publisher is Hong Kong Tramways Limited
• What makes thehongkongtravelguide.com a reliable source?
• Ref 162: author?
• Ref 166: publisher and retrieval date?
• Ref 167: retrieval date?
• Ref 168: about.com is not a reliable source
• Further reading: alphabetical order? consistent formatting?

• Fu: why are authors listed twice?
• Ngo: why two periods before publisher?
• Shuyong: date? Also, self-published sources are generally discouraged
• Tsang 2007: date? publisher? isbn?
• Welsh: "3rfd ed"? publisher?
• Lam: author before title? isbn?
• Forts and Pirate: number of pages?
• Endacott: publisher?
• Tsang 1995: publisher?

• • I've swept the above list and have addressed the concerns accordingly; I think locations and publisher names are only necessary to DAB, so I will refrain from being exhaustive. I have not put in retrieval dates, but I suppose we could out today's date for the retrieval so long as they are accessible today? Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, that's fine, and it's also a good way to check for any dead links that Checklinks doesn't pick up on. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

For the HKSARG, there is no universally accepted version of The Government of Hong Kong, the Hong Kong Government or other ways of saying it. We don't have to be 100% consistent at the expense of being accurate, do we? DOR (HK) (talk) 07:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand: if there's no universally accepted version, you could pick one - any variation - use it consistently, and be completely accurate. Is there a variation that the government itself uses? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I opted for 'Hong Kong Government' throughout. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there any reason to include the information in the lead section? See these edits. I reverted it back to the way it was since the new info was unsourced and I could only find little information linking Weihaiwei with Hong Kong. Ta-Va-Tar (discuss–?) 03:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Tavatar, was there any reason not to include the information about Weihaiwei? For a long time in living memory, Hong Kong actually was a British colony, whereas Weihaiwei had become a long forgotten ex-British colony. But now they are both ex-British colonies and they were the only two British colonies in China. So I can see no harm in mentioning Weiheiwei in connection with the fact that Hong Kong was a British colony. Also, you mentioned about none of my information being sourced. Was any of it doubted? We only need sources for information that is contested. And if it was only the Weiheiwei bit that you were worried about, then why did you do a wholesale revert? Anyway, can you now give a good reason why Weihaiwei shouldn't be mentioned in conjunction with the fact that Hong Kong is one of two ex-British colonies in China, because I intend to re-revert your reversion. David Tombe (talk) 10:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Tavatar. It makes no sense to include Weihaiwei in the lead section, which should be reserved for the most important information regarding Hong Kong. While I appreciate that Weihaiwei may be relevant to Hong Kong in the sense that they were both former British colonies, there is no justification whatsoever to include it in the lead section. However, I consider it may be appropriate to mention Weihaiwei (very briefly, in a line) in the History section. Moreover, the policy of verifiability is one of the five pillars and should be respected. Tavatar is indeed challenging your assertion, and therefore, there is a genuine need for sources. I would also like to remind you that Tavatar is trying to get this article promoted to FA status - and addition of unsourced materials does not help that.Craddocktm (talk) 10:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Forget about the FA status. Article improvement is much more important, and this article is not owned by the wiki-Hong Kong project. It seems that you both have a very narrow focus as regards the purpose of the article. The idea of an encyclopaedia article is to cater for as wide a perspective as possible, and it's important that readers are made aware early on that there was a lesser known British colony in China as well as Hong Kong, and that Hong Kong was only one of two former British colonies in China. As you can see in the Weihaiwei article, it mentions that Hong Kong was the other British colony in China. Most people would of course know that, but not so many would know about Weiheiwai, so it's even more important that we reciprocate by getting a link to Weihaiwei when people are reading about Hong Kong, because Weihaiwei is the other lesser known part of that same branch of history. Encyclopaediae are for widening peoples' knowledge. Are we trying to promote knowledge or are we trying to hide knowledge?

As regards the other points which you disapproved of, let's go over them one by one.

(1) Did you object to mention of the fact that Hong Kong island was ceded to Britain in perpetuity? You have removed that key piece of information so I want to know why. It is not sufficient to state lack of sources as a grounds for removing material. If you are in doubt, then put in a request for a source. But few people are likely to doubt that specific piece of information.

(2) Did you object to mention of the Treaty of Nanking 1842 and the Opium War?

(3) Did you object to mention of the fact that Kowloon was added in 1860?

(4) Did you object to mention of the the fact that the New Territories were obtained under a 99 year lease in 1898 which was the same year that Weihaiwei was obtained?

You removed all these key pieces of information and I want to know why. I don't want to hear about sources or FA status. We'll get sources when needs be. Meanwhile I just want to hear a good reason as to why you don't want to have these pieces of information in the article. David Tombe (talk) 18:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

What the purpose of an encyclopedic article is can vary from person to person, and it suffices to say that I do not agree completely with your proposition that our objective is to cater for as wide a perspective as possible. This purpose is infeasible - adopting this purpose would open the floodgate and allow an awful lot of information to be included in the lead section. I do not think it is wise to engage in a debate as to what the objectives are - that would never end - rather I would look to Wikipedia policy.

Given that we are concerned as to how the lead should be written, why not look at WP:LEAD? It says, "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects." The word "concise" has also appeared for several times.

Therefore, would you mind telling us the importance of Weihaiwei in relation to Hong Kong? If the only importance is that they were both British colonies in China, I fail to see sufficient importance for it to appear in the lead. Certainly many cities share characteristics with Hong Kong. Macau is the only other Chinese SAR along with Hong Kong - but it doesn't appear in the lead. Guangzhou, Shenzhen and Hong Kong all belong to the Pearl River Delta - but the first two cities do not get mentioned in the lead either. There is also no place for the other three of the Four Asian Tigers. If we agree with your request, then it follows that we should include those cities as well, and it is easily foreseeable that the lead would no longer be concise.

The only relation between Hong Kong and Weihaiwei is that they share a common characteristic. In my view, that is insufficient to mention Weihaiwai in the lead.

I would expect the lead to mention information that is directly related to Hong Kong. Therefore, I consider that there is an arguable case for you to include point 1-4 in the lead (but the reference to 1898 should not, in my view, mention Weihaiwei). But I wish to hear from others before commenting any further.Craddocktm (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

David Tombe, first of all, I wasn't saying that the facts you added are wrong. It was just in the wrong section. The WP:LEAD section is intended to be an inviting summary for the whole article. The dates and details you added were already in the Hong Kong#Colonial section, which I thought was too much information for a lead section when you start listing out all the date. Plus you added the Weihaiwei details without ever mentioning it again in the rest of the articles. If you mentioned something in the lead section, you need to explain it further in the rest of the article. Adding onto the fact that the info was unsourced and we are in FA review right now, so we are pretty sensitive about unsourced information, it was just easier to resolve this matter by reverting the edits for now.

I looked up more into the connection between Weihaiwei and Hong Kong after you added the information, the only similarity I found is that they were both British colony. Weihaiwei was loaned for 32 years. Most of the information tends link it to Germany and Russia rather than Britain. I can only see it being briefly mentioned in the Hong Kong#Colonial section. It's true that both New Territories of Hong Kong and Weihaiwei were handed over to Britain on 1898, but Hong Kong was signed over through Convention for the Extension of Hong Kong Territory and Weihaiwei was signed over through 訂租威海衛專條 [Convention for Weihaiwei]. Page 152–153 of this book talks about Weihaiwei. Ta-Va-Tar (discuss–?) 20:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The point is that Hong Kong is famous solely because it was a British colony. And there may be people who are interested in British colonial history in China who come to the Hong Kong article, not intending to read anything about Hong Kong at all, but only to see if they can find out if Hong Kong was the only British colony in China. An introduction needs to have a simple statement to the effect that Hong Kong was one of two British colonies in China, the other being Weihaiwei.

Anyway, I'm beginning to see what's been going on here. There is an enormous section on Hong Kong's pre-colonial history and it was much bigger than the section on the colonial period, at least until I altered the titles a bit. That indicates that something is seriously wrong. Any history of Hong Kong that is worth recording only began in 1841, but it looks as though somebody has been trying to play the colonial period down and trying very hard to make a big story about the pre-colonial period in which absolutely nothing of note ever happened.

You guys need to get a sense of proportion before you think about putting this article forward for FA status. David Tombe (talk) 21:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

When you compare the time range from 35,000 BC to 1800s with a mere 100 year of colonial history. Proportion is fairly self-explanatory. If readers want to dive deep into the colonial history of Hong Kong, they would be reading History of Hong Kong (1800s–1930s) and British Hong Kong, since Hong Kong is now a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. Ta-Va-Tar (discuss–?) 23:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You need to get a better sense of proportion. The 36,000 years prior to 1841 could be summed up in two words. Fishing village. Hong Kong as a concept only began in 1841. David Tombe (talk) 23:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

No offence, but your assertions demonstrate strong systemic bias. Hong Kong as a concept to Westerners only began in 1841, but it is truly offensive to assert that pre-colonial history is not worth recording, and that nothing notable occurred before 1841. For example, Sung Wong Toi is a relic in Hong Kong paying tribute to the last two emperors of the Song Dynasty who, being pursued by the Mongols, fled all the way to Hong Kong. And Hong Kong is famous SOLELY because she was a British colony? If that is true Weihaiwei would be as famous as Hong Kong. Hong Kong became famous because of her economic achievements and also because of the much publicized Sino-British Joint Declaration. After ceasing to be a British colony she continues to be famous as an international financial centre. At any rate, people are interested in many Hong Kong related topics, which are normally dealt with in the See Also section rather than in the lead. The mere fact that some people may be interested in a peripherally related topic certainly does not justify its inclusion in the lead. If you are so interested in promoting British colonial history in China I propose you create a new article on this.Craddocktm (talk) 07:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Craddock, I didn't remove any information from the article. I inserted two pieces of information which have been opposed by editors who seem to think that the colonial history of Hong Kong is not the most important aspect of its history. For whatever reason these two pieces of information are being kept out of the article,

(1) Hong Kong Island was ceded to Britain in perpetuity,

(2) Hong Kong was one of two British colonies in China, the other being Weihaiwei.

David Tombe (talk) 00:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

neither of these two facts belong in the lead section. I put "in perpetuity" in the treaty section. I don't see where in this article, which is almost completely devoted to summarizing other articles, the Weihaiwei mention belongs. It's a really minor point not fit for a summary. I suggest finding another article, or suggesting a way to fit it in here.

The colonial history of Hong Kong is not the most important aspect of this topic. Hong Kong was an international curiosity (all those Chinamen acting like Brits, how cute) and is since an international trade and finance center with its own unique culture. The present wouldn't happen without the past, but the past is not the most important. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Schmucky, You say that Weihaiwei is only a minor point which shouldn't be mentioned in the article. However, encyclopaediae are for the purpose of educating people. Most people have never heard of Weihaiwei before and so it is important that we draw it to the attention of the readers in connection with a parallel topic. We have an article on Weihaiwei but it needs to be advertised in a parallel topic such as Hong Kong which is much more famous. The only reason that I can think why anybody would not want to mention Weihaiwei in the Hong Kong article is because they don't want other people to know about it. And why would somebody actively want to hide this obscure piece of knowledge? Certainly not because it's obscure.

On the reasons that you have given, you could go now to the Weihaiwei article and remove the reference in the lead to Hong Kong and rationalize that there is no need to have Hong Kong mentioned in the lead.

The colonial era in Hong Kong lasted from 1841 until 1997. After that, nothing much has changed. Before that it was only a fishing village. Yet somebody has managed to make a huge story out of the pre-colonial era. And when you actually read that story, you can see that it is largely only bits of history from the South China region generally, where Hong Kong later happened to be situated. Very little of that information is directly relevant to Hong Kong as such, and what is relevant is hardly of note. Yet, by contrast, the colonial era is only given a short section. Then we have other sections under other titles which are also part of the colonial era but labelled as if they were different from the colonial era. The colonial era would in fact be the umbrella title for all of those subsequent eras up until 1997. I tried to correct that, but it has been undone again. Why? It is clear to me that somebody is trying to play down the colonial era and trying and make out that the major part of Hong Kong's importance is independent of the colonial era, and that the colonial era was just a small glitch in Hong Kong's long history.

If that is what is going on here, it would explain the reticence to mention that Britain had another colony in China. Thankfully, alot of readers can see right through this kind of strategy. David Tombe (talk) 11:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Mmm. I thought I heard the sound of a Brit colonialist talking... Hong Kong is only well known because the Brits occupied it; it had no history before that, and has no future after that. I don't think any more needs to be said about where you appear to be coming from. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Seriously. Weihai is historical trivia at best in the context of Hong Kong history. There is no documented influence on Hong Kong exerted by Weihai and there is no documented direct relations between the two during the colonial era. The two cities didn't even come under British control at the same time or under the same circumstances. These are the reasons why Weihai is never mentioned when one reads Hong Kong history in books and other publications. This is a top-level article about Hong Kong and it should only include the most notable facts. Under David Tombe's logic, this article would become an article about British colonial history and include any and all historical trivia, because that seems to be his definition of "educating people".

That being said, however, I would love to see an article specifically on British colonialism in Asia. Maybe David Tombe can initiate this. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 13:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

David, this is a WP:SUMMARY article. I haven't looked at the history section in a while, maybe somebody has consciously re-arranged it to lessen the importance of the colonial era. Or maybe they haven't. Either way, there simply is not enough room in this article for the kind of "parallel information" of the level of minutae you insist on. Every section of this article is a summary of a wider article that goes into more depth. Put your information in a different article, nobody is trying to hide it or censor it, there is just an editorial decision that it doesn't merit the importance to be included here.

Declaring "nothing much has changed" is defining hogwash, which is a nicer term what I wish to say. You've got blinders on, and that is why this is a community writing project and not any single vision. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

The current lead and the education section say that Hong Kong's education system "loosely follows the English system". That used to be a very true statement, but alas, no longer. In 2009 the government implemented the 334 Scheme, otherwise known as the New Senior Secondary curriculum, which provides for 3 years of junior secondary schooling, 3 years of senior secondary education, and 4 years of tertiary education. The HKCEE and HKAL will be abolished and replaced by one public exam, to be taken by students in the sixth year of their secondary education. Here's some official information: [6]. I am wondering how we should amend the article to reflect the change. Since the new scheme has been introduced for only a short time, I reckon there is no need for a drastic rewrite, although the new scheme has to be given due coverage. Craddocktm (talk) 09:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• Too true. The very thought crossed my mind when looking at the article this morning. Perhaps someone who knows enough about it (ie not me) should do the honours. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Perhaps we could reword it to something like "Prior to 2009, (it was this). After the implementation of 334 Scheme, (it changed to that)" Ta-Va-Tar (discuss–?) 18:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

But still the new Diploma of Secondary Education qualifications is having an equivalence scale with the English A-levels, as the HKALE does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desvoeuxrdwest (talk • contribs) 09:48, 23 October 2010

The current lead image is subtitled "View during the day from Victoria Peak". That is completely wrong. It is, instead, a view from Kowloon towards the Island.

That said, I too support reverting to the night-time skyline view from the Peak, looking east along the Island. Far more striking image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.200.236.70 (talk) 07:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

User:NInTeNdO insists on replacing the skyline image with this mediocre collage. I consider it to be way too tall and the whitespaces are out of place. Since NInTeNdO keeps replacing the picture I'd like to hear some other opinions. — Jan Hofmann (talk) 13:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Hofmann. That skyline is a little bit old. Collages are modern and many articles use them. Just view New York City, London, Tokyo, Istanbul, Singapore, Brussels, Beijing, Karachi, Bombay, Delhi, Bangkok, Dubai, Perth, Copenhagen, Helsinki, Riga (and there are many more cities which have a collage). But just Hong Kong doesn't have one, it's a very famous global city and because that I placed a collage in this article. How do you think about it now, Mr. Hofmann? Kind regards, NInTeNdO (talk) 13:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind having a collage at all, my point is that yours isn't good enough. It's 1) too tall and 2) the whitespaces make it look very unprofessional (compare to File:NYC_Montage_12_by_Jleon.jpg). Removing the lowest picture from it would be a start. — Jan Hofmann (talk) 13:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

That is a kind of software which is professional, like Inkscape and Adobe Photoshop. You can't make a collage like that one. TheEmirr makes many beautiful collages, like the one of London and Ankara. NInTeNdO (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're trying to say. If he can't make good enough collages then we can't use them in our articles. Your opinion of them as being beautiful is subjective, I think they're mediocre at best. — Jan Hofmann (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you help to make the collage good? And too the one of Paris? I hope so. NInTeNdO (talk) 14:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that a number of images in the collage actually exist as thumbnails in the article. For example, the Avenue of Stars picture, the Government House picture and the Buddha picture appear both in the collage and the Hong Kong article. I do not see why the images have to be repetitive. I'd prefer reverting to the skyline image. And please kindly observe the WP:3RR and stop edit warring. Craddocktm (talk) 15:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the collage looks ok (I think the white space looks fine, but I agree it's a bit tall), but I think Craddock is right, the collage shouldn't use the same pictures found elsewhere in the article. TastyCakes (talk) 15:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• I support reverting to skyline. I don't like the collage at all. It looks far too busy - there are too many elements, making each one too small to appreciate. And then, the transparent part in between the individual images has this blurred edge, which makes the whole thing look fuzzy. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree. And the dimension of the collage should be somewhat close to File:NYC_Montage_12_by_Jleon.jpg, square shape can do as well. Kennedy Town and Avenue of Stars are omittable, I would suggest replacing them with train of MTR or Star Ferry. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm ok with the collage as long as each image satisfy WP:IUP and captions + alt text (feature article with collage such as San Francisco provides good guidances) Ta-Va-Tar (discuss–?) 21:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Can I make a new collage of better quality with wider dimensions?--Dolphin Jedi (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

can you? you certainly can. but should you? well, the issue is that it would break the standard of many city articles to have an excessively large collage, so be wary of that limit. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 22:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• I support a mix of various pictures that is clean, and better looking than the skyline. Skyline really is hard to see, and plus, if you can add MORE pics, it will be more diversified, just like HK really is.... Can you make a new colleage with less clutter? Too much is too much. Just 5-6 pics is good. You know what I mean?Phead128 (talk) 05:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

David Tombe, what are you doing? Your re-sectioning edits got rid of an overall section called "History" for the historical content of the article, and it also got rid of the link to the main History of Hong Kong article. I've reverted. Please discuss before you edit, especially since we are undergoing the FA nomination process. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't overlooked the fact that the link to the main history section was removed and I was intending to restore it within the next half hour. The rationale behind my edits was to properly group the sections into three eras. The way that you have just reverted to makes it look as though the colonial era was just one small era amongst many. It overlooks the fact that everything right up until 1997 was still the colonial era. The proper title for the events in the mid-nineteenth century would either be 'nineteenth century' or 'The Arrival of the British'.

I am happy enough to leave your revert in place, in order to avoid a problem over the link to the main history section. But you need to change the title of the first sub-section. You cannot call that first sub-section 'The colonial era' because it is only the beginning of the colonial era. It should be called something like 'The arrival of the British', or 'The beginning of the colonial era', or 'The Opium War and the Treaty of Nanking'. It cannot be called 'The colonial era' as if that small section embodied the colonial era in its entirety. David Tombe (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Mostly I just wanted you to discuss before making these types of changes. At this point it's best to leave edits to the task of addressing FA nomination issues. I do have a suggestion in reorganising those subsections though - how about we get rid of the subsection heading for WW2, and have one subsection for the colonial era? Then the history section would end up with three subsections: Pre-colonial, Colonial, and Post-1997. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree that the WWII sub-section is disproportionate. I was aiming for three eras myself. WWII can just be discussed inside a general colonial era sub-section.David Tombe (talk) 18:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Actually I wanted to wait for Tavatar to comment on this and see if he agrees, since he is the one that's taken the unofficial lead in editorial fixes to push the article to FA. Hopefully he has no objections. Please just be patient with your edits during the FA nomination. I've had experience pushing articles to FA and GA statuses before. I find it better to have one editor leading the editorial effort. I'm not saying you shouldn't edit the article at all, but the edits you've been doing are not minor. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm ok with the three sub-sections idea, I think it makes the History section flows better. Ta-Va-Tar (discuss–?) 19:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, since you're doing FA, I'll clear off until after the FA is finished. But I want to leave you with one thought. The first line in the main article states that Hong Kong is one of two special administrative regions in China, the other being Macau. You drew attention to Macau because you wanted the readers to know that there is another one that is not so well known. And rightly so. That's how knowledge gets expanded. And the exact same goes for Weihaiwei. It was a lesser known British colony in China and so an opprtunity should be sought to link it within the text. It doesn't have to be in the lead, but I'm sure that if there is a will, there will be a way to weave it in, just as you have woven Macau in. David Tombe (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind if we actually got rid of that little tidbit about there being two SARs, with Macau being the other. The article doesn't even bring up Macau again except in the geographical context. It's irrelevant to have this in the lead. Mentioning Macau is more relevant to Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China just as mentioning Weihai is more relevant to an article on British colonial history. But speaking of Macau, on an off topic note, I would love to see an article on the relationship between Hong Kong and Macau. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

HongQiGong, That's interesting that you would like to drop the mention of Macau in the lead whereas I am all in favour of keeping it. In fact I'd be in favour of getting a mention for Port Arthur, Kwanchowan, and Kiaochow as well. None of these names should of course dominate the article, but it is only fair to inform the reader that there were other European colonies in China as well as Hong Kong. Alot of readers will probably not know this, and so an opportunity should be taken to give them a link to expand their knowledge. David Tombe (talk) 20:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The lead should focus on the present, not the past. I'm on the fence about Macau. If there were more SAR, I'd be against it being mentioned where it is but with only two it pairs up two very unique territories. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

The reason Macau was mentioned is because there are only two SARs in this whole world, and Hong Kong is currently a SAR. British colonies are different because there were this many. Ta-Va-Tar (discuss–?) 23:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but only two in China. Two SAR's and two ex-British colonies in China. I think you guys have got to realize that the menu needs to be diversified somewhat. Yes, it's an article about Hong Kong and so most of the information should be about Hong Kong. But it's an encyclopaedia article and we need to provide links to related articles. Somebody who comes to read the Hong Kong article because they are interested in Hong Kong as an SAR should be offered the choice to view an article about the other SAR (Macau). And somebody who comes to read the Hong Kong article because they are interested in Hong Kong as an ex-British colony should be offered the choice to view an article about the other ex-British colony (Weihaiwei). It's like saying "So you're interested in Hong Kong? Maybe then you'd be interested in reading about Weihaiwei or Macau too. Here are the links." The typical reader response may be "That's interesting. I never knew about Macau, I'll take a look", or "I never knew about Weihaiwei, let me take a look and see what that was all about". That's the attitude which I was trying to promote. I was trying to promote a wider awareness around the subject from the particular to the general. David Tombe (talk) 00:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

No offense here, but I'm not sure if you are aware of this policy WP:NOTADVERTISING... Ta-Va-Tar (discuss–?) 00:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes Tavatar that's right. No advertising. But I wasn't talking about that kind of advertising. I was talking about advertising other wikipedia articles for the purpose of promoting knowledge. That was a bit of a play on words. David Tombe (talk) 00:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

David Tombe, I definitely see where you are coming from. But I see this issue in a larger context of what is relevant enough to include in the article. You can basically apply the logic you are demonstrating with every single detail about Hong Kong that is mentioned in the article. Maybe a reader came to this article because he is interested in the Opium Wars. So exactly how much information should be provided on specifically the Opium Wars? Or maybe a reader came because he is interested in Sino-British relations. The amount of information to include and exclude on this article has sort of evolved over the years as editors come and go. As to why Weihai is not mentioned while Macau is, I can only guess this is because Weihai's existence as a colonial territory is nowhere near as notable and documented in literature about Hong Kong history. Having said all this, however, I hope I haven't given you the impression I am completely against including information about Weihai in the article. If there is a good way to insert information about it into the current flow of the content, I would not be against it. But I do think in the overall scheme of things, it's not a big issue and certainly not something that's worthy of a long argument over. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

HongQiGong, Let's first look at the issue of Macau being mentioned in the first sentence of the article. I don't know who did that or how long it has been there for, but I am all in favour of its retention. It's a fair guess that the person who wrote that wanted to immediately draw the readers attention to the existence of a parallel topic. It was like saying 'if you're interested in this article, you might also want to look at the Portuguese alternative'. My guess is that the reason why Weihaiwei has never been mentioned so far is because nobody has ever thought to do so. It is not a subject which is widely known about. But you should not take the fact that it is not widely known about as a reason for ensuring that it continues to not be widely known about. It is an obscure topic which is of note, and its existence should be advertised when the opportunity appropriately arises. That can be done with a simple wording such as 'Hong Kong was one of two British colonies in China, the other being Weihaiwei'. The blue link to Weihaiwei can then be followed or not followed at the discretion of the reader. It is not for the editors here to decide that Weihaiwei is not interesting enough or not important enough to be advertised in the context. Hong Kong is famous because until recently it was a British colony in China. People who come to read the Hong Kong article are entitled to leave and report to their colleagues the fact that they have just found out that Britain used to have another colony in China further up the coast. That is what an encylopaedia is all about.

If you think that a simple four word allusion to Weihaiwei is too much for the article to cope with then you seriously need to start thinking about trimming that pre-colonial section down. The pre-colonial section could be reduced to a few lines something like, 'prior to the arrival of the British, Hong Kong island was largely deserted.' Then you could recount the tale about those two guys who fled there during the Song Dynasty, as a means of getting the locality recorded in the pre-colonial history era and showing that something happened on the territory which is now in Hong Kong. You need to try and put yourself into the position of a typical reader and try and imagine what kind of facts they will find interesting. David Tombe (talk) 12:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

That's just it - the fact that Weihai's colonial period is not widely known is precisely why it should be kept off. It's not about whether or not that factoid is "interesting". We're supposed to reflect published materials. If it was a notably relevant point in Hong Kong history, it would have been added (and kept) by now, because that would be reflected in the sources that editors have used for the article. This article has existed for nine years. About the pre-colonial period in Hong Kong history - maybe some of those details should be deleted, and maybe not. But as a whole, there has been plenty of study on pre-colonial Hong Kong. On the other hand, Weihai is a lot more relevant to articles on British colonialism than in the context of Hong Kong and Hong Kong history, but it's never even mentioned in British Empire! Now I have never worked on that article, but I have to wonder if, it got elevated to FA status without ever mentioning Weihai, then why should it be added to this article? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 12:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

HongQiGong, You seem to think that the fact that Weihaiwei's colonial period is not widely known is precisely why it shouldn't be mentioned. That is rather presumptuous. I would accept ignorance as an excuse for lack of inclusion. But once attention has been drawn to the subject and a concerted effort is being made to keep the subject hidden, then we move out of the realms of ignorance and into the realms of censorship. Hong Kong is famous because it was a British colony in China. Weihaiwei is not famous, but it was also a British colony in China. So shouldn't the readers be entitled to know, when reading about Hong Kong, that Hong Kong was one of two British colonies in China? The only reason why anybody would want to hide mention of Weihaiwei is because they are uncomfortable about Hong Kong's colonial connections and the last thing that they want is for it to be known that Britain had another colony in China further up the coast. And the fact that the Hong Kong article contains so much empty details in a long pre-colonial section indicates that I am correct in believing that somebody has been involved in abusing the Hong article as a means of pushing a point of view. I read through the pre-colonial sub-section. Most of it was about general Chinese matters and not specifically about Hong Kong. I must have been nearly half way through the section before I came across a relevant fact, that being that at some point in history a school was opened in what is now part of the New Territories. Hardly a notable fact. That sub-section on the pre-colonial era looks like something that would be handed in for a written assignment in which somebody was tasked to write as much as they could about something that there was nothing to write about. We've all had to do those kinds of assignments at some stage and we all know the art of drawing out long sentences that say nothing. And that's what the pre-colonial era sub-section looks like.

There is a group of you here who are collectively determining the contents of this article, and I notice that the article is semi-protected. This is a classic case of 'consensus' winning through 'collective ownership'. And since wikipedia allows this state of affairs to occur, I will leave you all to it. But don't think that other readers can't see through exactly what is going on here. The second sentence in the introduction reads "it (Hong Kong) is renowned for its expansive skyline and deep natural harbour". This is a classic piece of subtle history revisionism. The truth is that it is renowned because it was a British colony. And Macau is renowned because it was a Portuguese colony and not because it is an SAR. David Tombe (talk) 14:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• I've been watching from the wings, and think it's now time to wade in: For me, it's clear that Macao should be mentioned in the article, and Weihaiwei not. I think it may sound like a great idea to put 'interesting' stuff in an article, in the hope that it will "build the web", but the connection is too contrived. It's just too much of un fol éspoir because we make connections which are 'relevant' and 'germane'. AFAICT, the Weihaiwei connection seems to me to be irrelevant, and too remote to justify any mention in this article. Sure, why not in the article about British Empire? but here, I feel it violatesWP:TRIVIA, and the discussion along the lines of inclusion is going too far. It's not within the scope of this article to develop the theme of British colonial era in Asia, so it would violate WP:Coatrack, which I know is only an essay. But so what? Macau is different. Macao and Hong Kong are neighbours, and their people are close cousins. Their colonial eras overlap considerably, and their economies and people are closely intertwined. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Right, even as I think we should just exclude Macau (unless we actually expand upon HK's connection with it as another SAR), I do think there is a stronger case for its inclusion than for Weihai's inclusion. There is an overlap and mutual influence in the way that transfer of sovereignty back to China is conducted in the two cities. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
    • yes, anything mentioned in the lede ought to be developed in the body. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

David Tombe, I and others have repeatedly mentioned the irrelevance of Weihai as why it has been excluded. The only common thread they have is that they were both British colonies at one point. That is trivial. But I guess I can't change your mind if you choose to believe there is some kind of conspiracy going on here. You are not the first, and will not be the last, to huff and puff about wanting to include some trivial content. If there is consensus to include it, it will be included. But so far I believe you are the only editor in the article's nine-year history to argue for its inclusion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

HongQiGong, The common thread is that they were both British colonies in China, and the only two British colonies in China. That is not a trivial linkage. David Tombe (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not trivial in articles about the British Empire. But it is trivial in a top level article on Hong Kong. Weihai had no influence on Hong Kong. It was not taken by the British at the same time or under the same circumstances. It was not handed back to China at the same time or under the same circumstances. There weren't even direct relations between the two. If the only common thread is that they were both British colonies in China, that is the very definition of trivial. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Confucius, I didn't say that Hong Kong had no future post 1997. I did said that it had no past of any note prior to 1841. And you can't make any deductions about who might be a British colonialist on the basis of any of this. I have opposed revisionism on wikipedia across quite a wide range of topics. And clearly this article has been in the hands of a group who have been trying to re-write history. I am only pointing the fact out and I will now leave my comments to this extent on the review page. David Tombe (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

HongQiGong, You're still trying very hard to paint a picture of no commonality between Hong Kong and Weihaiwei. I'll read you a quote from page 158 of "British Mandarins and Chinese Reformers (The British Administration of Weihaiwei (1898-1930) and the Territory's return to Chinese Rule" by Pamela Atwell.

The propaganda campaign against the British continued throughout 1929 and another alarming article was reprinted from a Chinese journal in the Shanghai Morning Post in August. This particular author again insisted upon Weihaiwei's unconditional return to China, but went even further in calling to attention the similarity between this issue and that of the British presence at Hong Kong. It was suggested that Great Britain should also be expected to withdraw from the latter in the near future. The vastly greater importance of Hong Kong to British commercial and military interests made this an especially disturbing point of view and an underlying concern throughout the Weihaiwei negotiations.

It's not as if I was asking you to make a link to the Jamaica colony. Weihaiwei could be mentioned and linked in the section that deals with the negotiations for the handover of Hong Kong. It could be mentioned as an earlier precedent. David Tombe (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Again let me reiterate that I am not completely oppose to Weihai's inclusion. But what you've quoted is in the context of Weihai's history. Weihai was never mentioned in the negotiations for Hong Kong's return. This is the point you seem to be missing - Weihai's history has nothing to do with Hong Kong itself even though it is relevant in articles about the British Empire. The information you want to insert is not about Hong Kong. It's about the British Empire. The two are not the same. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

HongQiGong, What I quoted shows the strong similarity of circumstances as between Hong Kong and Weihaiwei. You can mention the Weihaiwei rendition treaty of 1930 as a precedent in the section about the 1984 Sino-British joint declaration. Nobody here is talking about Kenya or Jamaica. David Tombe (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

If there was really a "strong similarity", Weihai would have been a big part of the negotiations for Hong Kong's return to Chinese rule. But it wasn't even mentioned. Anyway, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• Commonality is great, but it does not define whether one subject should be mentioned and linked to in a WP article. Just because cities are in the same country, or two people born on the same date is not enough reason for them to be mentioned in each other's article (maybe some other, like the date article). You have failed to demonstrate relevance. Even if relevant, any mention must conform to WP:N and WP:UNDUE. Kindly stop the rhetoric. Accusing us presently assembled of owning the article and being 'revisionists' just because we don't agree with you will not get you anywhere. This discussion is getting stale so will be my last word for now. Seek a third opinion if you must. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's a quote from Jimbo at the WP:UNDUE section, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." This description applies to how a link of Weihaiwei should be included in the Lead section. Potentially, I could see Weihaiwei being mentioned in a sentence within the British colonial era section after some careful reorganizing of the current information. Ta-Va-Tar (discuss–?) 03:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Macao should be mentioned, but not Weihaiwei. Seriously, that is just unnecessary information that would clutter the HK article. It's already pretty full of detail as it is for veteran Hong Kong acquaintances to look at. Further adding irrelevant details like Weihaiwei is redundant, unnecessary, and the vast majority of viewers of the HK article page is just looking for a brief summary about HK, seriously.Phead128 (talk) 05:54, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Though this header may not be all clear, I reverted this edit by Bporter28, because the image he chose, contrary to his intention, does not show "all of the city", as it doesn't even show parts of Central. The night image, also from Victoria Peak, has a wider angle, though due to the smog Kowloon is a bit obscured, so by even Bporter28's it is better. Another point is, if we are to not use a collage, then the night image it is. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 00:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hong Kong does not have any anthem of its own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desvoeuxrdwest (talk • contribs) 09:48, 23 October 2010

you are correct in that no one devised an anthem for HK, separate from any other territory, because it has never been independent! As a territory of the British Empire, it used God Save the Queen, the UK anthem, and after 1 July 1997 it has used March of the Volunteers (《義勇軍進行曲》). Read the article before posting questions such as this, PLEASE. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 00:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Many dependent territories have their own anthem, different from the sovereign power behind them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.198.29.220 (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

"March of the Volunteers" definitely is not Hong Kong's anthem. It is totally wrong to say & "assume" "March of the Volunteers' is Hong Kong's anthem. There's ZERO fact behind such saying & an insult to the autonomy of Hong Kong. --Sitcomfanhk (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

All of those are simply untrue.

1. Straight from my download (off the HKSAR Gov't website) of the Basic Law, Article 10:

On page 91 of the Basic Law, it states that "The following national laws shall be applied locally with effect from 1 July 1997 by way of promulgation or legislation by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region:... 1. Resolution on the...National Anthem and National Flag of the People's Republic of China"

Sovereignty and autonomy are not the same thing. Just travel a few hundred kilometres to Guangxi and you will see what I mean.

Please don't make any more fabrications like this. -- HXL's Roundtable, and Record 08:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

We are talking about Hong Kong's anthem, NOT national anthem. Yes, "March of the Volunteers" is the national anthem of China, but not Hong Kong's regional anthem. Please don't try to twist the fact & make groundless assumption. There's no single legislation stating "March of the Volunteers" is Hong Kong's anthem. Also, Guangxi is NOT a SAR, but Hong Kong & Macau are. Plus, all provinces & municipalities in China are explicitly not allowed to have its own flag & anthem by law.--Sitcomfanhk (talk) 05:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Guangxi is an AR, but that doesn't mean that it has more freedom to do what it wants than Shanghai does. HK is definitely not sovereign, but it has an abundance of autonomy. And I think you are the one who is attempting to over-complicate matters. This issue should long have been a done deal. -- HXL's Roundtable, and Record 06:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You still fail to supply ANY source to back up your so-called claim. Even the Chinese version of this article has nothing mentioning "March of the Volunteers" as anthem of Hong Kong. Also, Shanghai is NOT an AR or SAR. --Sitcomfanhk (talk) 07:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

What are you asking for? He quoted primary sources. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Show me where his quote says it IS HONG KONG's anthem.--Sitcomfanhk (talk) 08:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The infobox parameter is a national anthem, not regional. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I already showed you the direct quotation from the Basic Law, that HKSAR shall adopt the PRC's September 1949 resolution, so cut it out, ya separatist. -- HXL's Roundtable, and Record 15:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Nothing from your quote says it's Hong Kong's regional anthem. Misleading traitor.--Sitcomfanhk (talk) 07:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Enough with the name calling. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

{{edit semi-protected}}Remove "March of the Volunteers" as Hong Kong's anthem, which is incorrect.

Sitcomfanhk (talk) 07:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done see my soon-to-be added comment above. -- HXL's Roundtable, and Record 07:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

There are archives about this. The national anthem is March of the Volunteers. As this article uses the country infobox, nation is the word used and to that point this is accurate. Also relevant, one of the most obvious uses of an anthem is to be played at sporting events, HK plays March of the Volunteers at ceremonies. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Then the country infobox should be removed & be replaced with something truly reflects the reality & the truth. Playing the song at "federal-level" ceremonies does not change the fact it is NOT Hong Kong's own anthem. Will Team Texas play its own state anthem, instead of the USA national anthem at Olympics??--Sitcomfanhk (talk) 08:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Texas does not field a team at the Olympics. The infobox display is for a national anthem. The national anthem for HK is March of the Volunteers. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

There needs to be more to fully illustrate that poverty is increasing as a direct result of libertarian policies. This article is far right propaganda. Wikipedia has a libertarian bias 99.38.230.227 (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Rather than inject far left propaganda, perhaps we might leave the article as it is. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected}}"the phrase forming a highly visible group despite their smaller numbers" is very subjective and should be omitted given the sensitive topic of ethnicity. In any case it is not relevant to the subject matter. The source cited does not make this claim.

Ncor (talk) 07:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

•  Done ThemFromSpace 07:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The brandline—Asia’s world city—complimented the identity and underscored Hong Kong’s role as an international hub for business, arts, and culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.233.159 (talk) 06:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

One section says that, according to Emporis, there are around 7000 skyscrapers in Hong Kong. That is wrong. The Emporis reference says that's the number of high-rise buildings, which it defines as structures whose architectural height is between 35 and 100 meters. Emporis defines skyscrapers as 100m or higher.http://standards.emporis.com/?nav=realestate&lng=3&esn=18727 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.87.74 (talk) 07:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The territory of Hong Kong should include The Shenzhen Bay Bridge (which opened in July 2007) & a portion of the Shenzhen Bay Checkpoint, where both are under Hong Kong's jurisdiction.

"In accordance with the "Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on Authorizing the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to Exercise Jurisdiction over the Hong Kong Port Area at the Shenzhen Bay Port" adopted at the Twenty Fourth Meeting of the Standing Committee of the Tenth National People's Congress on 31 October 2006 and the relevant laws and regulations, and pursuant to a request for instructions from the People's Government of Guangdong Province and at the request of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, the State Council now gives the following reply concerning the area and the land use period of the "Hong Kong Port Area at the Shenzhen Bay Port" which is established in the area of the Shenzhen Bay Port and over which the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is authorized to exercise jurisdiction:

1.The area of the "Hong Kong Port Area at the Shenzhen Bay Port" comprises the Hong Kong Clearance Area and the section of the bridge surface of the Shenzhen Bay Bridge which connects with the Hong Kong Clearance Area.

The total land use area of the Hong Kong Clearance Area is 41.565 hectares (more particularly set out by the setting out coordinates detailed at Annex 1).

The section of the bridge surface of the Shenzhen Bay Bridge refers to the section beginning at the south-east boundary of the Hong Kong Clearance Area and ending at the boundary line between the Guangdong Province and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (more particularly set out by the setting out coordinates detailed at Annex 2).

2.The land use right of the "Hong Kong Port Area at the Shenzhen Bay Port" is to be acquired by way of a lease under a lease contract for State-owned land signed between the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and the People's Government of the Shenzhen Municipality of Guangdong Province, and the land use period shall commence on the day on which the Shenzhen Bay Port commences operation and shall expire on 30 June 2047.

http://www.hklii.org/hk/legis/en/ord/2210.txt"

Even Hong Kong Observatory's map has such marking. File:Http://www.hko.gov.hk/wxinfo/ts/temp/tempehk.png--Sitcomfanhk (talk) 07:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Jurisdiction does not change boundaries. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

The boundaries are changed as well. You can't enter the bridge & the checkpoint from China without passing Hong Kong's immigration & customs. There's also a physical border line symbolizing such new border. --Sitcomfanhk (talk) 05:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This is explicitly saying it is a land use lease, not a boundary change. The definition of the land use area explicitly uses the boundary line as a descriptor. You can't aay the boundary line changed when the boundary line is part of the description. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

By your logic, New Territories should be excluded from Hong Kong, right?--Sitcomfanhk (talk) 07:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

"area" "land use right" are not words synonymous with annexation. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

New Territories has never been annexed to anyone. It was and is on lease.--Sitcomfanhk (talk) 08:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Based on this decision of PRC's national people's congress, the Hong Kong legislative council had passed an ordinance for the purpose of this port of entry. For legal purposes the Shenzhen Bay control point, and the bridge, are deemed to be part of Hong Kong. 203.198.25.166 (talk) 11:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Legal jurisdiction is not annexation. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

In addition to "Hongkonger", "HONG KONGER (with space in between)", "HONGKONGESE", "HONG KONGESE" should also be acceptable.--Sitcomfanhk (talk) 07:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Hongkonger is way more common. Andyso^{(talk page)} 06:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Eofreedom,Major changes such as the description of the government are generally conducted after extensive discussion. When changes are made without discussion, particularly when they introduce nonsensical notions such as a presidential system for Hong Kong, they tend to get reverted.

So, rather than just make what changes one person thinks are right, let’s have a discussion.

I would describe Hong Kong’s governmental system – which is not the same as “type of government,” but then it isn’t a national one – as “unelected executive supported by a strong judicial system and weak legislative and military institutions.” DOR (HK) (talk) 09:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Come on - Hong Kong does not have a presidential system! I would be surprised if Eofreedom can come up with reliable sources to support his edit. I have heard academics describing Hong Kong's system as "quasi-presidential"..... which tells you it isn't accurate to label the Hong Kong system "presidential". I think I will be bold and revert Eofreedom's edit.Craddocktm (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Wiki's definition of Semi-presidential system:"The semi-presidential system......is a system of government in which a president and a prime minister are both active participants in the day-to-day administration of the state. It differs from a parliamentary republic in that it has a popularly elected head of state who is more than a purely ceremonial figurehead, and from the presidential system in that the cabinet, although named by the president, is responsible to the legislature, which may force the cabinet to resign through a motion of no confidence."

Which aspect of Hong Kong's political system resembles this? Take the Chief Executive (CE) as the President. The nearest analogous position for the prime minister is probably the Chief Secretary for Administration (CSA). (1) The CE is not a figurehead, obviously. (2) The CSA is obviously not responsible to LegCo as well, and the LegCo could not force the Executive Council, the CSA, or the CE to resign by a motion of no-confidence. Clearly, Hong Kong is not Semi-presidential, or quasi-presidential as you've mentioned.

2. Wiki's definition of parliamentary system:"A parliamentary system is a system of government in which the ministers of the executive branch are drawn from the legislature and are accountable to that body, such that the executive and legislative branches are intertwined. In such a system, the head of government is both de facto chief executive and chief legislator."

Lets look at Hong Kong again. Are the CE and the Executive Council Intertwined" with the legislature? Obviously not. They are not even Members of the Legislative Council, and the LegCo could hardly move any non-confi vote against any individual member of the Exco. It may be questioned that certain LegCo members are actually serving on the Executive Council as well (e.g. Lau Wong Fat). However, none of the policy secretaries, undersecretaries, or political assistants overlap with the LegCo's members; ie, no minister is drawn from LegCo). As such, Hong Kong is hardly parliamentary.

3. Wiki's definition of presidential system:"A presidential system is a system of government where an executive branch exists and presides (hence the name) separately from the legislature, to which it is not responsible and which cannot, in normal circumstances, dismiss it."

Hong Kong sits comfortably with this definition. The CE and his Exco existsand presides separately from LegCo, which it is not responsible and which cannot, in normal circumstances, dismiss it. In Basic Law theory, the CE is "responsible" the LegCo but in practice, it is difficult to see how this operate, given the CE has exclusive power to initiate budget and policy, and powers t dimiss the LegCo, veto LegCo bills, and even dismiss LegCo. Clearly, Hong Kong is a presidential system.

Of course, none of wiki's definitions are definitive. However, they do serve as useful guidelines to gauge the nature of Hong Kong's system.

By the way, words such as unelected executive etc. are hardly about regime type at all. They are more about the precise characteristics of the government's institutional design. An executive can be elected or unelected even within the same regime type (eg presidential system). It is not entirely correct either, because the CE's produced by an Election College, which under certain circumstances, can admit an opposition figure like Alan Leong to stand as a candidate. While the Governor of British Hong Kong was completely unelected (appointed by British cabinet), there is an electoral process in Hong Kong, in spite of its alleged purpose to serve Beijing's interests - the more appropriate way is to say that the elections for the executive is one of limited suffrage, in which only 800 people can exercise their right to vote on who should be the next CE.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eofreedom (talk • contribs) 14:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

To begin (I do not have the time to read all of your post now), your refusal to at the very least communicate through your summaries is inexcusable. If it were not for your restraint this page would have been fully locked by now --HXL's Roundtable and Record 14:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Succintly put, a presidential system refers to a system in which the head of executive is democratically elected. Also, presidents are almost invariably "party men" - but HK's CE is not allowed to have political affiliation. That's why Hong Kong won't fit the definition. You may want to look at CUHK's Prof. Kuan's submission to LegCo - he described Hong Kong's system as "quasi-presidential" on page 3: [7]. Note that quasi-presidential is not necessarily the same thing as semi-presidential.Craddocktm (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with you and summarize my position as follows: that (1) how the executive is constituted and (2) whether the executive and the legislature are constituted and presiding separately, are two different things, and that the defining element of presidentialism is (2) rather than (1). Before I turn to the core of this submission, I wish to draw your attention to an analogy with unicamerialism in legislatures. Compare the New Zealand parliament and the PRC's National Peoples' Congress. Both are regarded as unicameral (in wikipedia) and this is probably uncontroversially correct. The New Zealand parliament satisfies most definitions of being democratically elected, while the Chinese congress obviously does not. But this does not make the Chinese congress a quasi-unicameral parliament, simply because democratic elections do not define the nature of the NPC as an unicameral parliament. Instead, the existence of merely one chamber does.

The notion of the president being democratically elected as the defining feature of presidentialism is extremely problematic. Consider the world's first and arguably most representative presidential system in the United States. Early US presidents could not be said to be democratically elected by today's standards, as the nation's vast majority of white women, black males and females, if not also poor white men could not cast their votes for the presidency. Further, even today, the US president is formally elected by the electoral college, and the electoral college's vote is not necessarily consistent with the decision of the majority in the popular electorate (although they indisputably coincide for most of the time). The first victory of G.W. Bush is a clear example. Yet, the limited suffrage of the early American republic, and the existence of indirect presidential elections, do not undermine the US's status as a presidential system - simply because the executive and the legislature are separately constituted and presided independently of each other.

Finally, if quasi-presidentialism is possibly different from semi-presidentialism as you've suggested, then it would be highly defensible to say that what Professor Kuan really meant was a Presidential System with Limited Suffrage: it is the Limited Suffrage that makes Hong Kong's presidentialism at best quasi. However, the usage of Presidential System with Limited Suffrage is more advantageous than quasi-presidentialism (despite they are presumably of the same meaning) because it embraces concepts that are immediately understandable to those unfamiliar with Professor Kuan's writings. In short, presidentialism (ie, executive and legislature being separately constituted and presiding independently of each other) with the qualification limited suffrage (ie, at least part of the electorate is excluded from the election of the chief executive and/or at least some of the seats in the legislature) are concepts that are relatively straightforward when compared to the lone-invention quasi-presidentialism, which could easily be mistaken as the radically different semi-presidentialism. It can also neatly (if not elegantly) summarize Hong Kong's regime type without going too deep into the details of institutional design - a job which should be left to the main body of the article itself.

To add, autonomous region is more suitable than non-sovereign for the following reasons: (1) governments in the world are either sovereign or not sovereign, to say that HK is non-sovereign does not help much - it does not give us any hint about the government type as words like republic, monarchy, federation, British overseas territory, or autonomous region do; (2) what makes Hong Kong, a non-sovereign entity special, or indeed a special administrative region, is the relatively high autonomy it possesses - Shanghai and Guangzhou are also non-sovereign entites with unelected executives and unicameral legislatures - Hong Kong is different from them because they do not possess the kind of autonomy the former enjoys - from the power of final adjudication and separate representation in the WTO, APEC, and the Olympic Games, to the ability to issue its own SAR passports, banknotes, ID cards, and to maintain its own separate customs territory and visa policies. It is doubtlessly justifiable to describe Hong Kong in ways different from Shanghai. Furthermore, autonomous region is an already established page in wiki (the SAR is included as one subspecies of autonomous region), and it as a concept implies both non-sovereignty and autonomy. As such, it captures Hong Kong's characteristics, without, again, plunging into details of constitutional design which should be left to the main text.

Therefore, Presidential Autonomous Region with Limited Suffrage is likely to be a strong candidate for Hong Kong's government type classification here in wikipedia. To recap, Presidentialism with Limited Suffrage is visibly something different from Presidentialism (without limited suffrage) - otherwise the qualification is not necessary - and you seemed to have overlooked this very important qualification.

Nonetheless, after this rational discussion - I think our agreement is in fact far larger than our disagreement. Thank you very much for reading. User:Eofreedom (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I do agree, to a certain extent, with your submissions. However, I remain unable to accept your contention that being democractically elected is not a defining feature of presidentialism. A brief survey of institutional design literature would tell you that the parliamentary and presidential dichotomy is applied exclusively to democracies. In other words, one should satisfy himself as to whether he is dealing with a democracy before proceeding to label the political system in question as either parliamentary or presidential. Your example of unicameralism is not the best of analogy since, in my view, democractic election is not part of the definition of unicameralism, while it is an indipensible part of that of presidentialism. Moreover, while the institutional design of the USA is not the most democractic, most of us would not say it is not democratic. Democracy is a spectrum: at one end you have authoritarian rule, and at the other end universal suffrage. If we have to place the USA on this spectrum, I think nobody would disagree that she should be placed closer to the end of universal suffrage than authoritarian rule.

I think our disagreement is due to a semantic problem: we have different definitions for democracy and presidentialism.

Wikipedia does provide some guidelines as to how to settle such problem: we stick to the terminology used by reliable sources. To come up with one's own terminology would constitute original research which is prohibited on Wikipedia. You have yet to come up with any reliabe sources that describe Hong Kong's system as presidential or "presidential with limited suffrage". On the other hand, Professor Kuan is far from the only one who says Hong Kong has a quasi-presidential system:

• see also the article "Political Paralysis of the Basic Law Regime and the Politics of Institutional Reform in Hong Kong" that was published in Asian Survey: [8].
• Dr Sing Ming from CityU used the same teminology when he gave a talk in HKU in 2004: [9][10].

I think it is pretty much a foregone conclusion that quasi-presidentialism has become the standard phrase to refer to HK's political system. Craddocktm (talk) 09:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. If this is indeed a semantic problem, then a compromise would be the best solution, so long footnote[s] are added to let the reader understand what quasi-presidentialism means. "Quasi-presidential Autonomous Region" plus a citation or two of sources such as Dr. Sing and Professor Kuan's papers would do. Is this agreeable?

Eofreedom (talk) 11:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

That is fine with me. :) Craddocktm (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - changed. Added with limited suffrage for the sake of clarity. If its unacceptable, please delete as appropriate.

Eofreedom (talk) 12:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't visited this page for months, but then the change in the lead has immediately caught my attention. Saying Hong Kong has "numerous" high international rankings smells of POV, and it is certainly problematic to mention all the "good" high international rankings without mentioning the "bad" ones e.g. the Gini coefficient.Craddocktm (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed this?

Statistically Hong Kong's income gap is the greatest in Asia Pacific. According to a report by the United Nations Human Settlements Programme in 2008, Hong Kong's Gini coefficient, at 0.53, was the highest in Asia and "relatively high by international standards".[151][152] However, the government has stressed that income disparity does not equate to worsening of the poverty situation, and that the Gini coefficient is not strictly comparable between regions. The government has named economic restructuring, changes in household sizes, and the increase of high-income jobs as factors that have skewed the Gini coefficient.[153][154][155] DOR (HK) (talk) 08:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

That's the stance of the government - I know that there are plenty of academics who do not exactly agree with that: I have read a number of journals in which scholars do use the Gini coefficient as a ROUGH measure of Hong Kong's income disparity when compared to other economies. At any rate, the Gini coefficient is just an illustration, and the thrust of my point is that the lead is highly POV - certainly you would not disagree? I would recommend removing the "high rankings" altogether or adding something to balance it. Craddocktm (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

That's the stance of "plenty of academics who do not exactly agree with that;" what makes you feel it is more valid than the government's position? Think about it: the Gini Coefficient is a measure of the differences in incomes, so it doesn't consider anything but income. Some 45-50% of Hong Kong people live in very heavily subsidized housing, which is similar to a cash income. But, that benefit isn't considered by the Gini Coefficient. Further, the lack of taxes on personal income -- aside from straight salaries -- means that the government doesn't have much good data on actual incomes from things like small businesses or overseas investments. In short, the Gini Coefficient is a poor measure in this particular case. Finally, let's get down to brass tacks: what kind of POV is it that says a wider disparity in income is worse than a narrower one? Maybe that POV would also like to argue that a perfectly flat distribution is better than a little bit of disparity? DOR (HK) (talk) 05:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I can throw back the same question to you: what makes you feel academic writing is less valid than the government's position? Since Gini coefficient is a measure of income and income only, what's wrong about using it as a measure of income disparity? I recognize there are limits with the Gini coefficient - but that is not a good argument against its inclusion, is it? All statistics have certain limits, so should they all be disregarded? Also, subsidized housing must be assessed in light of the level of public expenditure: Hong Kong's public expenditure hardly ever excedes 20% of GDP and is pretty low by international standards. A typical display of the small government tradition of the colonial government. But then you have not really answered my question: is not the current lead POV? Certainly "numerous" would be a peacock word. You also seem to have missed the point that I put the word bad in scare quotes. If you do not think that a very high Gini coefficient is necessarily good or bad (hence NPOV in itself), am I right to say that you are objecting to its inclusion on the sole basis of its statistical limit? Then, in light of your attention to the limits of statistics, I guess you would not say no to removing the last line of the lead?Craddocktm (talk) 10:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Look at it this way: The academics are working on a global, one-size-fits-all model. Their entire purpose is to have a cross-boundary measurement, and they pretty much succeed. The Government Economist (that’s the official title, by the way), is simply saying “this model isn’t as useful for Hong Kong as you might think. Be a bit careful about slapping that ‘most inequitable’ label around.” Does that make sense? One’s broad, everything-in-the-world; and the other’s highly specific to this particular case. (Oh, and I'm not going to answer your question because I don't know how to.) DOR (HK) (talk) 06:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

"Statistically Hong Kong's income gap is the worst in Asia Pacific."

Doesn't this assume that income gaps are a bad thing? Surely it would be better to say the income gap is the widest in Asia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.87.74 (talk) 13:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done sorry for the late notice but if n00bs like you signed your posts on talk pages with ~~~~, I would have more likely noticed your post. I have fixed the language to address POV concerns, though income gap can be a destabilising and dangerous factor in many cases. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 20:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the insult. I guess you've never had your automatic log-in run out. You must be so awesome as to be hard to live with. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

and you would be addressing me? if so, what is your point? --HXL's Roundtable and Record 15:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

My points? (1) Don't assume that anyone not as awesome as you is a "n00b;" and (2) being polite costs nothing but adds great value. Try it sometime. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

accusing me of assuming that "anyone not as awesome as me is a n00b" could amount to an attack. I called xem a n00b because that what (s)he is. Anyway, could we agree to remove everything in this thread that was posted in March? this conversation between us is nothing but chatter. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 15:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the obsessiveness of income gap. Of course it's going to be huge in Hong Kong since some of the wealthiest people in the world live there. If Bill Gates moves into my building, the income gap of my building is going to be enormous, but i'm not any poorer. A more useful statistic would be how does the 10% poorest compare to 10% poorest of other countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.16.220.211 (talk) 15:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)