Talk:Hong Kong/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Cantonese

I’ve added “/ Cantonese” at the back of Chinese. This is very political, but it is correct according to the general public. Please understand, but if you take it out I will be fine with it. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 03:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Oshawott 12: See Hong Kong#cite note-4. —AE (talk • contributions) 03:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I did but it is more symbolic as we speak that language, and Chinese / Cantonese can show that Cantonese is the norm.

Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 03:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not accurate to list Cantonese there since it's not actually official. The linked note and exposition in prose already explain the prevalence of Cantonese. Horserice (talk) 04:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Good point. I agree. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 09:31, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

There's such a thing as de facto official, such as the status of English in the UK. And as a matter of fact Cantonese enjoys official status as far as the Standing Orders of the Legislative Council is concerned. 219.73.72.210 (talk) 09:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Dispute

Zozr789 please explain why you reverted Horserice's edit here without a rationale. —AE (talk • contributions) 07:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Why Horserice is reverting, my edits in the article. The current edits did not cover the historical aspects such as British control; and then Japanese occupation in the wake of the Pacific War, and then the repatriation of Britain and finally return to China, and Hong Kong's independence in all respects. The current edits did not cover the city's economy; and being one of the most important centers of investment. Zozr789 (talk) 08:33, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I always discuss the changes in the article and there is no response from anyone. I saw many users are reverting my edits all the time but, it is okay that my previous edits included very important aspects and points that were not covered by the previous edit. Zozr789 (talk) 09:15, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I tried very kindly to make the article cover all aspects and points, but I find other than that only the offensive and violent; by the users I have discussed the edits that I made but there is no respond from anyone I do not know the current edits is missing much information and sources, and I have been threatened by the ban. This is only the best weapon when any problem occurs. Zozr789 (talk) 11:34, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Please do not revert more than 3 times on a page within 24 hours or you risk being blocked. (WP:3RR) —AE (talk • contributions) 11:44, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I understand for the million time that if I revert the old edits, I will be blocked. This is always the threat and prevention method. To keep only in mind these current edits in the article, is missing much of information and sources; and they are not enough to tell about Hong Kong. Zozr789 (talk) 12:31, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

No, I do not mean that reverting old edits will lead you to be blocked. I only said reverting 3 times in 24 hours. Moreover, the lede is not required to tell everything. It's just a summary of what the articles says. Also, the sources are very old (2011). Readers prefer the most updated and well-written information. —AE (talk • contributions) 13:13, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I will try as much as possible in these edits, to repair the sources and fix the linguistic errors. After doing all this I will try to discuss of publishing these edits; into the article on the talk page. Because the current edit in the introduction, are not good in telling about Hong Kong at the points; of history, politics and economy. Zozr789 (talk) 13:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Infobox title area

I'm opposed to the changes made to the infobox title that Scriptions has made and wanted to get some feedback on it instead of just going back and forth in edit history. Here's what I don't like:

· Added spacing breaks consistency with every other country-level article
· Added detail just seems like a more verbose way of expressing what was already there
· Added sizing changes emphasizes info that's not necessarily relevant to English readers

Citobun and Abelmoschus Esculentus, since you two also were involved in the last conflict, I wanted to ask for your thoughts?

- Horserice (talk) 01:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, i think it is endless argument on which romanization should be preferred in the third line of the heading of the infobox (see also the argument in Template talk:Infobox Chinese; word of warning i am not canvassing, as well as my disruptive edit on opening WP:ANI). Since someone preferred Sidney Lau (Sirlanz may be?), Scriptions preferred Cantonese Yale. I preferred displaying any romanization that resemble "Hong Kong" and the same method for "SAR", such hot exploding potato, my suggestion for all Cantonese parameter in {{Infobox Chinese}} is show all (|showflag=) in the Chinese template. While remove the third line for romanization for {{Infobox country}} in this article, as no official romanization existed in HK. Matthew hk (talk) 01:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

second note. MoS style of infobox against to use {{small}} as the text in infobox in default, is small already. Extra scale down of the text is not recommanded. For bold and bigger text, i think its requires to look at specific template/doc and quote relevant MoS for some ground on discussing with him. Matthew hk (talk) 03:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

What is and isn't official in Hong Kong or anywhere else is of no relevance to this discussion. Only the degree to which a transcription system is understood is relevant. Scriptions (talk) 12:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

If that's the case, I would argue that Jyutping is far more common than the Yale system (that's been my experience, even if I do prefer Yale myself). Kdm852 (talk) 09:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

The readers who need transcriptions of Cantonese are non-native learners. Therefore, the transcription system most likely to be understood by non-native learners should be preferred, and that's Yale, as the majority of learning materials for Cantonese use Yale. Scriptions (talk) 13:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I would be interested to see what you're basing either of those assumptions on. I don't see how any transcription other than IPA could be said to be accurate. 'Understood' is different from 'usable', and since neither could be said to be useful to someone who wasn't trained how to read them. Also, the vast majority of learning materials I have come across use Jyutping. What's more, I would suggest either giving both showflag status, or neither, until a consensus on this issue is reached. Kdm852 (talk) 06:15, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I would just say introduce controversial edit without discussion and forming consensus (as well as document it) for many times, is lack of WP:CIR. For romanization alone, Cantonese Pinyin was used to teach in HKIEd. I am not sure they still included in the curriculum or not, or still the only system that accepted by HKEAA (according to the content of wiki article), thus it just end up as super!vote on which method. For styling and wording, yet it still the same potentially controversial edit that, to avoid 3RR and slow edit war, correct way is using the talk page here Talk:Hong Kong, not edit back and fourth, and chatting in "edit summary". It still lack of WP:CIR for doing so when they should knew the method to solve it. Also i don't wanna forum shop, but may be WP:RFC and WP:DRN are tools. Matthew hk (talk) 08:54, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand why you bring up showflags here; this discussion is about this article's first infobox's title area, which doesn't include a showflag in any of the proposed versions. There's also no such thing as ‘showflag status’; which showflag, if any, to use is decided on an article-by-article basis.

All scientific transcription systems are just as accurate as IPA.

Obviously, nobody can read any language or transcription system that they haven't learnt to read. Just as obviously, that's not an argument for foregoing a transcription in this infobox. Scriptions (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, but since this discussion is about which to prioritise, and not whether to omit one, that's irrelevant. You have yet to establish why one system should be given preference over all the others. Kdm852 (talk) 17:37, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

This is primarily a discussion about whether to use my version or Horserice's, and both of them have Yale only. (The article has never had anything but Yale here.) Your argument that ‘neither could be said to be useful to someone who wasn't trained how to read them’ is just as irrelevant to the question of which system to prioritise as it is to the question of whether to forego a transcription entirely, as suggested by Matthew hk. Scriptions (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Most books currently used for learning Cantonese use Yale, including Colloquial Cantonese, Complete Cantonese, and Basic Cantonese. (You can look inside them on Amazon, which unfortunately can't be linked to from Wikipedia.) Scriptions (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

"Most books" requires more proof than "I found a couple that do". What's more, Amazon is hardly a reliable source for popularity when it isn't that commonly used in the Cantonese-speaking parts of the world. If you want some counter-examples, the Greenwood press which publishes many of the popular Cantonese language books in Hong Kong uses Jyutping. So too does Cantonese101 online materials. What's more, so do most of the more commonly used dictionaries in HK, for example: Cantodict, Jyutping is the default romanisation for the MDBG dictionary, the CC-Canto online dictionary from Pleco, it seems to be the more common romanisation system on Wiktionary. It seems, from my own experience, that Yale is not the more common of the two, and I haven't seen any compelling evidence to the contrary presented so far. Kdm852 (talk) 17:37, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Colloquial and Complete are the world's two main series of teach-yourself books for languages, and both of them use Yale. Meanwhile, you haven't managed to dig up a single textbook that uses Jyut6ping3, which speaks volumes.

A textbook is not sufficient to learn a language; it must be supplemented with a grammar, and again, the main one, Cantonese: A Comprehensive Grammar, uses Yale.

The relevant question isn't which system is more common but which system is understood by more people in the group of readers that needs the transcriptions. That group is primarily made up of non-native learners, and they are of course more likely to understand the system used in the textbook they used (or are using) to learn Cantonese. Scriptions (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

State with WP:RS. Also use {{talk ref}} and {{cite book}}, either qualitative or quantitative to list which one is the most suitable as your proposal. Not your own WP:original research and personal experience Yale Cantonese romanization is the best. I bet i can dig out HKEAA source however. Matthew hk (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

BTW, Here is a website made by a professor of CUHK, not sure what status in the curriculum of the uni, but it is not Yale as the first and default option in the drop down menu. https://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/lexi-can/. Matthew hk (talk) 15:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The point of specifically labelling the Yale as Hong Kong Cantonese is that the pronunciation can be different in 广州. The spacing was added because you found the version without spacing too cluttered.

Including the local spelling and a transcription of it is the norm in such infoboxes, so your argument about relevance to English readers is irrelevant. If it is to be included, which it is, it should be at an easily readable size. Scriptions (talk) 12:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

That strikes me as a very unnecessary distinction. It would be as if the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand articles all added qualifiers in their infoboxes for American English, British English, Australian English, and New Zealand English.

My point about spacing is that it breaks general web design principles outlined in Wikipedia:Infoboxes. The added spacing can't be there because it's not consistent with every other country-level article on the entire site. My concern about clutter was more focused on your added content and not the layout of the infobox. Horserice (talk) 00:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

The English-speaking countries are called the same in all varieties of English. If New Zealand actually was called something different in NZ English than in US English, it would be natural to point out in the infobox that the name given was NZ English.

You will have to point out which specific part of that page you're referring to. Consistency is not a value in itself (e.g. it would be more consistent to kill everyone in a room than just some of them, but it wouldn't be better), so it doesn't matter in itself whether the article is consistent with other articles.

The concept of ‘clutter’ may be relevant in relation to layout, but it's never relevant in relation to content. Less intelligent people may feel overwhelmed if the amount of information exceeds a certain threshold, but Wikipedia is not dumbed down. Scriptions (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

The names aren't pronounced the same in different varieties of English. Here's Australia and New Zealand. The pronunciation differences are as minor as Hēunggóng and Hèunggóng.

There's an entire section that's labeled Style, color and formatting.

Consistency's not valuable? Then what stops editors for every country page from doing their own thing? It's what keeps all of these articles organized and easily parsable. And what kind of straw man argument is that? You're so ridiculous for equating killing people in a room to this. Horserice (talk) 21:36, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

It ought to be unnecessary to point out, but apparently I have to: I'm not equating anything; I employed reductio ad absurdum to make the uncontroversial point that consistency is not a value in itself, i.e. it's only a good thing if it has positive consequences. Keeping ‘all of these articles [...] easily parsable’ is a possible such consequence. The fact that consistency is not a value in itself means that ‘because it's not consistent’ is not a valid argument in itself.

Hēunggóng and Hèunggóng are different spellings, not merely different pronunciations.

If the spacing ‘breaks general web design principles outlined in Wikipedia:Infoboxes’, you should be able to point out where in Wikipedia:Infoboxes these general web design principles are outlined. Scriptions (talk) 19:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

homelessness

Proposing a section on homelessness. Benjamin (talk) 07:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Pollution from mainland China causing bad air in Hong Kong

Although over 90 per cent of its population uses public transportation,[27] air pollution from neighbouring industrial areas of mainland China has resulted in a high level of atmospheric particulates.[28]

While one of the sources mentioned above (Yu, Huang & Ng 2013) does point out the possibility of seasonal variation in air quality being influenced by pollutants of mainland China origins, claiming them to be the main reason for high levels of atmospheric particulates is unfounded. In fact the source (Yu, Huang & Ng 2013 p.58) points out local traffic is still producing significant amounts of particulates so I think the sentence in question does not meet the high quality standards of Wikipedia and should be edited or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.62.52.49 (talk) 16:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2018

Add a subsection under "Environment" that is called "Air Quality." Under this subsection, please include the following:

"According to the 2016 World Health Organization Global Urban Ambient Air Pollution Database, the annual average PM2.5 concentration in 2016 was 23 micrograms per cubic meter, which is 13 micrograms above the recommended limit of the WHO Air Quality Guidelines for the annual mean PM2.5. The main contributors of air pollution are motor vehicles, marine vessels, and power plants, which all contribute to the challenges of local street-level pollution and regional smog. Arod59881 (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

References

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Autonomy movement

Lmmnhn has reverted my reversal of the deletion of the autonomy movement. I assert that the movement is causing real change in Hong Kong (cf refusal of a visa renewal to the president of the Foreign Correspondents' Club (Hong Kong), and issues related to Chan Ho-tin), and therefore deserves mention. Lmmnhn claims it is not causing any change. Opinions requested. DOR (HK) (talk) 10:43, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2019

The second line in the 'culture' session has a biased, imperialist tone: 'Traditional Chinese values emphasising family and education blend with progressive Western ideals, including economic liberty and the rule of law.' The notion that Western ideals are 'progressive' is contentious and clearly the opinion of the author as opposed to anything factual. Furthermore, the insinuation that Eastern values are less progressive is ignorant and orientalist.

I recommend removing the adjective and changing the line to 'traditional Chinese values emphasising family and education blend with various Western ideals, including economic liberty and the rule of law.' Although this is still far from problematic and a total rewrite of the first paragraph might be necessary somewhere down the line, perhaps avoiding the oversimplification that comes with a binary East/West divide. Ezekieljs (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done I agree that progressive is not the best wording. I note the reference used (Carroll, 2007, pg 169) says "blend of Chinese and Western culture and its emphasis on both traditional Chinese values such as family and education and on modern Western values such as economic freedom and the rule of law". As such, "progressive" does seem Western-centric and biased. NiciVampireHeart 12:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request - cost of living and minimal wage

Please add to article info similar to: "While Hong Kong is most costly city in Earth to rent (average of 8315£ per month) the minimal wage is very low HK$32.50 (US$4) per hour." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.147.108.90 (talk) 2019-03-16T10:06:45 (UTC)

Not done The statement is an original research, please see WP:OR#Synthesis of published material. Matthew hk (talk) 10:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2019

Please change

is a special administrative region of the People's Republic of China on the eastern side

to

is a special administrative region on the eastern side

as the former version is quite redundant when "People's Republic of China" appears again after only several words within one sentence. 1.198.22.229 (talk) 11:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I feel it is more clear like it is, since "special administrative region" by itself isn't clear (at least I would ask myself "administrative region of what?") – Þjarkur (talk) 22:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

""Despite the territory's current political association with the mainland, most of the population self-identify as Hongkongers rather than Chinese.[21]""

In regard to the cited survey (https://www.hkupop.hku.hk/english/release/release1563.html), about 80% of the interviewee identified with Hongkonger and 60% with Chinese, which seems to imply an at least 40% overlap of the two, thus making the statement "most of the population self-identify as Hongkongers rather than Chinese" inaccurate if not intentionally misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.119.202.217 (talk) 2019-04-30T04:10:14 (UTC)

The number are up and down for the last two decades. Personally as an amateur statistician and wiki editor, in my opinion, it should be avoid pure word description of the survey and should instead listing the original wording and percentage. And may be yes for creating more argument on self interpreting the result (and violate WP:OR). But the statement in wiki article, based on the original result, would be: Based on December 2018 survey, most ( 43.2% ) people self-identified as "Mixed Identity", followed by Hongkonger ( 40.0% ), "Hongkonger in China " ( 26.3% ), Chinese in Hong Kong (16.9% ) and Chinese ( 15.1% ). However, the survey did not state the "Statistical significance" and standard error, etc. Also, it may be relevant to state the result in 2007 , 1997. But a rough look, "Mixed Identity" is the most among the year, which seem always followed by "Hongkonger ". Matthew hk (talk) 04:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

It seem Mixed identity is not in the original survey [1] The 43.2% above is the sum of "Hongkonger in China " ( 26.3% ) and "Chinese in Hong Kong" (16.9% ). Matthew hk (talk) 04:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a clearer(?) source. Although still I reserve my doubt that 40% can be appropriately referred to as 'most'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.119.202.217 (talk) 2019-04-30T09:09:22 (UTC)}

Among the 4 options, "Hongkonger only" had the largest number of people to select. Since it is an closed end questionnaire as well as quantitative one , it is legit to use the wording "most", as a 40.0% is larger than 26.3%. However, it did not have any actual meaning as we never know the context of "Hongkonger in China " or "Chinese in Hong Kong" to individual interviewee (.e.g. Chinese as ethnic group/cultural group or nationality?) And since this kind of qualitative survey did not exist, we are only able to list the original quantitative survey "as it". Matthew hk (talk) 23:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• APEC Logo.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Macau link

Can you add the link for Macau in the "See also" section? I've already made a link of Hong Kong in the Macau page. Entity Valkyrie (talk) 06:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Question about Land Categorization

The article states:

The territory's 2,755 km2 (1,064 sq mi) area consists of Hong Kong Island, the Kowloon Peninsula, the New Territories, Lantau Island, and over 200 other islands. Of the total area, 1,073 km2 (414 sq mi) is land and 35 km2 (14 sq mi) is water

There seems to be 1647 km^2 that are uncategorized. Can someone clarify? Norm Reitzel (talk) 16:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The article is full of relic that editor failed to cite their content. I need time to have a look on original narrative on textbook and may be Lands Dept. website. Matthew hk (talk) 09:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Protection of the Varieties of Chinese

Hello- I have created a new page on English Wikipedia linked to a page on Chinese Wikipedia called 中國方言保護. I would like to invite editors to visit the page and make edits concerning the subject, which I would guess is near and dear to the hearts of people of Hong Kong. Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

About new future edits in this style with Harvard template on Wikipedia

Please, for future created pages on Wikipedia try not to use the Template:Harvard citation no brackets. It is so puzzling for next new edits and changes, and highly boring to find references of them. I think usual reference list Template:Reflist is the best choice for long reference list and short, either one. PoetVeches (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2019

Fix spelling error of worlds's to world's in the article. 98.159.244.79 (talk) 02:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 02:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Double standard edits on Hong Kong and Singapore

So my edits and other people who edited the info has been removed by because " putting economic rankings here deviates from MOS:INTRO." If that's the rule than I will obliged but than you look at Singapore wikipedia page who also deviates from MOS:INTRO but than User talk:Horserice said " The lead section of the Singapore article is way too long and all the rankings there is add unnecessary fluff. But we're not working on that article so it shouldn't concern us. " WHAT EXACTLY DOES THIS MEAN ? That Singapore is allowed to glorified but Hong Kong is not allowed to ? Singapore is allowed to exaggerate it's edits, Singapore is the only wikipedia page in the world that is allowed to do that ? If you Singapore wiki page allowed to add all the things that breaks the rule but than saying is none of concern how is this not double standard ? No way in heck that you convince anyone that is no hypocrisy and double standard on wikipedia. PLEASE RESPOND AND DEAL THIS WITH FAIRNESS.

DerekHistorian (talk) 13:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

And so your solution was to engage an edit war and vandalize Singapore? You know how this looks right? Feinoa (talk) 13:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Whatever edit in Singapore or any other article does not bear any influence on editing in Hong Kong article. STSC (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Life expectancy

I think it is correct to state that Hong Kong has the longest life expectancy. The world bank data [2] is one of the sources which I have previously seen along with [3]. There is also secondary coverage in [4], [5], [6]--DreamLinker (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Wage gap

"the wage gap remained high"
Is this the sex wage gap?--Adûnâi (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it is Gini coefficient between blue collar and white collar and between manager. Yet again there is lots of fact and figure need to be dig out citation... Matthew hk (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2019

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHong_Kong&preload=Template%3ASubmit+an+edit+request%2Fpreload&action=edit&section=new&editintro=Template%3AEdit+semi-protected%2Feditintro&preloadtitle=Semi-protected+edit+request+on+4+October+2019&preloadparams%5B%5D=edit+semi-protected&preloadparams%5B%5D=Hong+Kong Hello cold wid da bouys (talk) 11:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC) ק

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 12:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

We (Sirlanz and I) seem to have a difference of opinion as to facts vs. opinion. He prefers to include as a statement of fact (and without any citation) a change in the one country, two systems formula; whereas I prefer to define that administrative law as it was written.

Views, please. DOR (HK) (talk) 19:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Mistake in Hong Kong Legal Tender Statement

Statement in Hong Kong wikipedia page states that the Hong Kong dollar is the 13th-most traded currency in the world. According to the Foreign Exchange Market wikipedia page, this statement is false as it places it at number 9 on the list of most traded currencies by value. One of these pages are wrong in this statement so it would be best if this could be fixed in a timely manner as thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousands, are viewing this daily as the protests rage. Thank you for the time you took to read this. 2600:8801:980:2EE:DDDE:741F:90BE:D08B (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)Frank King 10/17/2019

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2019

Change "The protests have continued into October, becoming the largest-scale protest movement in Chinese history, with several street marches known to have attracted more than 1.5 million Hong Kong residents each time." to "The protests have continued into October, becoming the largest-scale protest movement in Hong Kong history, with several street marches believed to have attracted almost 1 million Hong Kong residents." 96.250.7.151 (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Do you have any WP:RS for that? I'll also add a citation-needed to the article itself, but will update with figures from the protests article for now :) - ChrisWar666 (talk) 23:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@ChrisWar666: The Economist stated the 16 June protest was PROBABLY the largest political protest ever staged in Hong Kong. It may have been the biggest in China’s history.. (only bold added by me, the capitalization was by the magazine) So by common sense it should be changed to HK , and may be adding "probably" wording. Also it may be more accurate to state the magazine did not believed the actual figure that claimed by the organizer, as the magazine stated The estimate may not be reliable. But there is no disputing the impact of this display of discontent, and others leading up to it.. Matthew hk (talk) 00:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

And instead the entire statement need to be chopped and rewrite for no RS and probably synthesis of sources. There is no RS (yet) for stating the historical significant of the protests that last until today. Matthew hk (talk) 00:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@Matthew hk: Right, that sounds good to me, checking the 2019 Hong Kong protests page there seem to be more sources talking of largest protests since 1997 (Bloomberg) and in HK history (Hong Kong Free Press). Yes, we could quote police figures, but we already link the protests page so I think that should be enough (maybe even take out the figure, leaving 'probably largest' only?). True, there is no way we can know the historical significance, but they are undeniably making news around the world (I confess, I don't remember the 2014 protests, but it was a different time of my life.); and they also fit nicely into the paragraph they are in, talking about political debates. Perhaps a rewrite of this part, more in line with the 2014 ones? "In 2019, a proposed extradition amendment bill permitting extradition of fugitives to mainland China triggered a series of protests, described as probably the largest in Hong Kong history." For the moment I'll add the economist source, and if we agree on a rephrase I guess this can be marked as answered. - ChrisWar666 (talk) 01:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

"Area" needs tidying up

The "Area-Total" of 1,108 sq km given in the infobox in fact excludes the maritime area under Hong Kong's jurisdiction. The "Area-Water(%)" supposedly refers to inland waters.

The relevant data given in Section 4 "Geography" suggest that the "Total Area" is 2,755 sq km, in which 1,073 sq km is land and 35 sq km is inland waters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.250.192.84 (talk) 03:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

In the 2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph, it should be "Sovereignty over the territory was returned to China in 1997" instead of "...transferred to China...".

Before Hong Kong was a british colony, it is part of China. So we should use the word "returned" instead of "transferred". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckkcdh (talk • contribs) 02:16, 7 August 2019

The political entity "China" that originally held sovereignty over Hong Kong no longer existed in 1997. So no, it was not being "returned".24.182.239.226 (talk) 06:35, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

An inaccurate interpretation guised as pedantry. Per the phrasing of the Joint Declaration itself, the transfer of sovereignty is referred as a "recovery." In further legalese, per international norms as seen with the Soviet Union>Russia, the government of PRC is recognized as the successor to the entity of "China" since its accession to the UN.

Sleath56 (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

"City in Southern China"

The page begins with "This article is about the city in southern China. For other uses, see Hong Kong (disambiguation)." Should this not be changed to something along the lines of "The SAR of China", or "The Special Autonomous Region of China", "The territory in the south of China", or something along the lines of this? Hong Kong does not hold city status within the People's Republic of China like other cities such as Shenzhen or Guangdong, therefore it may be incorrect to call it a "City" in formal terms, it is more of a layman's term to describe HK. This is also considering that there are cities within HK itself. Also, reading the peer review in 2018, it was commented that "The territory" and "The city" when referring to Hong Kong indeed refer to different things, and this should be applied to the situation in question. ChanticoPK (talk) 00:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@ChanticoPK I agree, I changed it because it IS different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YuriGagrin12 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

"with organisers claiming to have attracted more than one million Hong Kong residents"

This was a fine summary a few months ago. However, since June, the protests have expanded greatly. Should we not replace this claim with something stronger. Not sure what though. Since this is GA, I leave it to you all to decide what to say. The source (Darrach 2019) was published in June. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't Xianggang be mentioned?

I don't understand this, can someone explain it to me? Peking is called Beijing on the English Wikipedia, Nanking - Nanjing, then why is Hong Kong not Xianggang (Xiang Gang)? Shouldn't it at least be mentioned? Is this form never used? For what it's worth, I saw this name in an atlas in Ukrainian (although English is the only European language that changed Peking at all?).--Adûnâi (talk) 12:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Because no English reliable source use Xianggang . Xianggang is the pinyin of 香港, but majority of Hong Kong people speak Cantonese (which Cantonese Yale, Jyutping, etc were the right methods of romanization) and foreigner only know Hong Kong as Hong Kong. Matthew hk (talk) 12:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Matthew hk. 'Hong Kong' is a bad transliteration of the Cantonese name Chinese: 香港; Jyutping: Hoeng1 gong2. Also, English remains one of the official languages of Hong Kong, spoken by 53.2% of the population (according to the 2016 census), and the official rendering of the name is "Hong Kong", used by all authoritative sources. I have never seen anybody in Hong Kong render the name using the Pinyin. Kdm852 (talk) 04:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

The pinyin is already listed as one of the transliterations in the infobox in the “Etymology” section. That’s probably sufficient. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Kdm852. I guess it was so bad because it invented probably before Wade–Giles system and the native speaker of Hong Kong at that time did not speak the Guangzhou accent (which equally bad for Guangzhou to be transliterated as Canton in the past). But at least it sound somewhat more similar to the current pronunciation of 香港 and used in most present-day English publication. Matthew hk (talk) 07:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Matthew hk I believe there just wasn't a standard method for romanising Chinese languages yet, so they made do. The only change to the name was separating in into 2 words. It use to be rendered as "Hongkong" until the 1950s. This is why many old companies (such as HSBC) still spell it as one word. Kdm852 (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Tamar is Hong Kong's capital

The legislative Council is located there and it is the center of Hong kong Kadske (talk) 11:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually it is wrong. There is no such capital for the "city state". The CBD is located in Central (中環) and the government headquarter used to be located in the hilly area of Central . Despite the new government headquarter is located in Tamar , in local Cantonese media, the area (Tamar, Central, Admiralty, etc.) is known collectively as "中區" (not sure English media refer as Central or other term or not). Thus the de facto centre should stated as "Central" or that new defined centre/central ( "中區") according to Cantonese source. Matthew hk on public computer (talk) 12:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Matthewhk here, there is no de jure capital and listing the district where the building is as the de facto capital doesn’t make much sense. I don’t think any reliable sources do that either. — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

It is not even a formal district . Tamar is a fork defined sub-division of Central and Western District. Matthew hk (talk) 13:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Yep, sorry I meant it doesn’t make sense in general. Whether it’s Tamar, Central, Hong Kong, Central and Western District, or any subdivision of Hong Kong. — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Status quo lead reverts

@CaradhrasAiguo: Is there a reason to this and this revert besides that it's stable? Being the status quo is not a reason to repeatedly revert.

It's reasonable to mention and link the nation of which Hong Kong is a special administration in the lead; it's obviously relevant information to say what it is a a special administration of. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Because it is an obvious, verbose redundancy to stating it is on the eastern side of the Pearl River estuary in southern China. And I would be careful about being linked to someone with

a history of socking and disruption. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 00:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Then we can remove southern China, which is a geographic statement. It seems more relevant to link to the political entity of which Hong Kong is a special administration than the geographic part of that, i.e. the link to China is more pertinent than the link to Southern China. Alternatively, we could use is a special administration in southern China if some of the geographic information should be preserved.

Are you seriously publicly accusing me of sock puppetry because I added the word & wikilink China to the lead of the article on Hong Kong and an unconfirmed IP sock of another editor once added China to the lead of the article on Macau? Really? — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

No, that Hong Kong is a SAR (where China is linked to!) and part of southern China / Lingnan is many orders of magnitude more important than linking to an irrelevant, evermore bloated overview article. And there never was nor will there ever be a reason to have [geographical direction] China as a legitimate link when [[direction China]] is an article.

If I thought you were a sock of Whaterss, I would have added to Whaterss' sockpuppet investigations report page. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 01:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

It'll be easier to break up my response to your reasons for omitting China from the lead:

• It doesn't matter if China is linked in Special administrative region of China. If article X should have a wikilink to article Y, it's not sufficient for X to link to Z which links to Y; a reader shouldn't have to chase through special administrative region or Southern China to reach China per MOS:LINKSTYLE.
• I also disagree with the statement that China is irrelevant... that's literally the nation that Hong Kong is a special administration of.
• The article on China is also only an overview article insofar as it's an overview on the country of China; there's nothing wrong with linking to a country article.
• It's also irrelevant whether the article China is bloated. That's not a consideration for wikilinking something. Otherwise what's even less useful is the linked South China consisting of just two short lists and no prose describing anything (why this is piped from the text southern China which has a separate article on the slightly different southern China is a different issue).

I agree that special administrative region of China on the eastern side of the Pearl River estuary in southern China is redundant. What about:

... special administrative region of China in the eastern Pearl River Delta by the South China Sea.

Note that this provides both the additional geographic information that it's on the coast of the South China Sea (I would say surrounded by if not for the Kowloon land connection) and the Pearl River Delta information (which should link to the descriptive geographic article on the Pearl River Delta rather than the current amalgamation of the actual river and general estuaries anyways), while linking to the more basic main articles that help tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is per MOS:FIRST.

Re your sock comment: What is the point of you saying that? It sufficiently convinces you to warn me about making such an edit but not sufficiently enough to take it to SPI? You should be careful about making such comments to anyone outside of SPI. Any concerns about socks should only be expressed at SPI; a soft accusation or speculative connection is inappropriate, can be considered casting aspersions, and is never taken lightly. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@CaradhrasAiguo: anything regarding the proposed modification? — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Suggested Edit Request

Shouldn't this article mention the end of Hong Kongs self-control, and how China will take control of the state in 2047. Mentioning this is vitally important to give readers an understansing that in the future China will gain control of this state. Stating this also gives another level of depth to the article as you can make this a sub section and expand upon it in the future. Stating this will help grow the article into the best possible state it can achieve. Thanks Much. InferableSpy (talk) 03:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC) https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/2091219/new-hong-kong-think-tank-focuses-way-forward-beijing-after

What makes you think China will "take control of the state in 2047"? There's nothing in the Basic Law that requires any changes whatsoever. If you actually read the Basic Law, it is structured much like the US Bill of Rights: a list of things that are NOT allowed. No socialism, no high taxation, no elimination of the Hong Kong dollar, etc. DOR (HK) (talk) 10:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@InferableSpy: There is already mention of the expiration of the Joint Declaration 50-year guarantee in the article (under the subsection "Political reforms and sociopolitical issues"):

The Joint Declaration guarantees the Basic Law for 50 years after the transfer of sovereignty. It does not specify how Hong Kong will be governed after 2047, and the central government's role in determining the territory's future system of government is the subject of political debate and speculation. Hong Kong's political and judicial systems may be reintegrated with China's at that time, or the territory may continue to be administered separately.

This could be mentioned in the lead. There aren't any other details to mention though, and Wikipedia cannot predict the future. — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I may have missed it while reading the article, my bad. Thanks for clearing things up! InferableSpy (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

So, what we have is speculation about something that may -- or may not -- take place sometime at least 27 years from now. I'd suggest that's not something for an encyclopedia. DOR (HK) (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Colonial flag

@Feinoa, Interinter321, Knight of Gloucestershire, and HaeB: Please discuss the inclusion/removal of the colonial flag image here, rather than through edit summaries in a series of reverts. Thanks. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

It seems that the former flag has been included in this article for many years, so Feinoa should make a better effort to justify its removal - especially after being reverted by three different editors. Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm seconding what HaeB said. Regards, Knight of Gloucestershire (talk) 13:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Feinoa has since been blocked for sockpuppetry, so this is now somewhat moot. — MarkH₂₁^talk 13:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Beijing Skyline.webp

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2020

This sentence in the lead — ″In an annual ranking of the Index of Economic Freedom, Hong Kong has come out on top 25 years in a row, according to the Heritage Foundation, a U.S. conservative libertarian think tank.″ is outdated, as Hong Kong is no longer at the top and has since been replaced by Singapore. It should be changed to either being 2nd after Singapore or removed entirely to reflect the present situation. Facteker (talk) 04:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

References

@Facteker:  Partly done: I changed the text to "As of the 2019 annual ranking...", which matches the reference. You may want to provide the reliable source for the 2020 ranking, and the specific wording you would like to be used. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

really 1000 cases on 7.5mio?

this is astonishing as it was a British colony and UK got it. Wikistallion (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Hong_Kong Wikistallion (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Is there some reason Hong Kong's status 20+ years ago is relevant to the spread of the coronavirus? DOR (HK) (talk) 12:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Size/distribution of territory

In the "Geography" section, it says, "The territory's 2,755 km2 (1,064 sq mi) area consists of Hong Kong Island, the Kowloon Peninsula, the New Territories, Lantau Island, and over 200 other islands. Of the total area, 1,073 km2 (414 sq mi) is land and 35 km2 (14 sq mi) is water."

Am I missing something? If 1,073 km2 is land and 35km2 is water, then what about the remaining 1647 km2? Bambi'nin annesi (talk) 10:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

This appears to be a combination of different sources, where this HK survey gives 1648 sqkm of sea area. The 35sqkm probably means non-sea water. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Official names and unsourced additions

@Apples&Manzanas:, Article title policy does not apply to usage in article body, and this edit summary is verbosity of the worst kind. And now you are simply introducing false, unsourced content. The source cited makes no reference to population rankings of any cities, yet the previous version's text citing it is still phrased as "most populous". CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Reply:

• Okay that was an accident by me about the city's population, I thought it was discussing population and I thought I was fixing your grammar, my bad.
• That isn't what this is about. This is about the name of China. That is obviously the only controversy between us, so no need to discuss anything else. I have no other disagreements with you.
• Uninvolved editors, please look at the following edit dispute and read the relevant edit summaries. I wish to get a neutral third party opinion here.
• My first edit: My edit 1
• Caradhras revert: Caradhras revert 1
• My second edit: My edit 2
• Caradhras revert 2: Caradhras revert 2 (and also reverting a different editor)
• Next Caradhras made this edit, which is relevant. Caradhras next edit 2.2.
• My third edit: My edit 3
• I realized I accidentally reverted something I didn't mean to - see: my edit 3.2.
• Then, I got reverted again, Caradhras revert 3.
• The weird thing is I don't even know why I'm getting reverted here. China is (A) The official name at the UN: UN Link. (B) The actual article title: China. (C) The common name. (D) Wikipedia almost always uses the official short titles rather than official long titles: e.g "Australia" not "Commonwealth of Australia", "Indonesia" not "Republic of Indonesia", etc.
• You can look at these examples Isle of Man says the Sovereign state is "United Kingdom" rather than "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"...Cocos (Keeling) Islands Sovereign state is "Australia" rather than "Commonwealth of Australia".
• I'm quite lost for words and can't work out why this is happening...My reasoning has never been answered, and has only been ignored.
• I think it's bad to slip this 'do not alter' note in, to try to make my edit seem more controversial than it actually is. That was not part of the article's stable version content. You just snuck that in now, under a misleading edit summary. You should at least self-undo that note. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

So...CaradhrasAiguo, do you still disagree? Can I now change "People's Republic of China" to "China". We can seek a third opinion on this if need be. Preferably someone not from Mainland China/Hong Kong/Macau/Taiwan. I've still never really understood why you're opposed to the word "China" to be honest...Taiwan agrees that Hong Kong is part of "China" -- they only disagree with which China is China, "China" calls itself "China", etc. I don't see the need to revert me here. I'm not related to Mainland China/Hong Kong in any way, I'm ethnically English. But "China" just seems to be the most logical name as per my reasoning above. And you know, the fact the article changed is kind of still relevant...It means Wikipedia decided to call PRC as China per consensus. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 17:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The above wall of text is mostly conduct-related and only contained one bullet point directly pertaining to the naming. So long as it is good enough for Beijing and Taipei to use the full name (abbreviated to PRC and ROC, respectively), it is good enough for usage here. The failure to grasp that WP:AT (which includes WP:UCN) does not apply to article text reeks of WP:IDHT. Given that, there is no need for a 3O. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Reply:

• Firstly, your aggressive attitude reeks of POV. I've avoided saying that until now. But my friendly tone and desire to discuss this has clearly gone nowhere. And oh please. I heard your point countless times, but that isn't any argument not to call China as China, that is merely a point of rebuttal. But it doesn't establish that People's Republic of China is the more appropriate name.
• I gave you a number substantial points, you have continually ignored them which also reeks of WP:IDHT.
• E.g China is "The official name at the UN: UN Link."
• E.g "Wikipedia almost always uses the official short titles rather than official long titles: e.g "Australia" not "Commonwealth of Australia", "Indonesia" not "Republic of Indonesia", etc."
• E.g "You can look at these examples Isle of Man says the Sovereign state is "United Kingdom" rather than "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"...Cocos (Keeling) Islands Sovereign state is "Australia" rather than "Commonwealth of Australia"."
• As for your examples of Beijing and Taipei, well, they probably need to be changed as that content likely existed before PRC was moved to China and before ROC was moved to Taiwan. But I'm guessing there is one editor who will try to stop that from happening. So now we have a bad situation where some articles will say PRC and others will say China, and you'll fight to the depth to stop me from making that uniform and consistent.
• It's also funny that you'll use the examples of Beijing and Taipei to demonstrate that China can't be called China, but you'll ignore the fact that the article China is called China -- which is perhaps the most pertinent analogy. And yeah, your analogy has no more weight in Wikipedia policy than mine, don't pretend otherwise.
• I guess you're also going to ignore the fact China is called China in many other places such as: Here, and here, and here too, especially in infoboxes. So what's your logic? I could equally say 'because China is called China there and there, then it should be called China here'.
• At the risk of making a bleedingly obviously point there's no rule saying we can't name something just because it's article title either.
• We can each find counter examples but all you've done is try to say that article title "China" doesn't HAVE to be used in the article content, sure...but that's no reason why the article title SHOULDN'T be used. I'm not saying China should be called China only because it's the article title. It is also just the better term per the myriad of other arguments I've given. You've never given any arguments for your position. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 17:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Oof, that's a lot of bullet points. IMHO the HKSAR's odd geopolitical situation warrants additional clarification on the concept of 'China' in the article. I think to a lot of people 'China' means Greater China or Mainland China (and to the uninitiated maybe even ROC), and the simple usage of 'PRC' instead of just 'China' in the article clears up all of that potential ambiguity. Doanri (talk) 17:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Repeating the same points like the Marco Rubio bot does not strengthen them (I have merely thought of them as irrelevant WP:OSE), rather it just establishes a solid case for your being topic banned, with no possible appeal route, from any articles on the Sinosphere, broadly construed. The repeated mention of the "'China' is the official name at the UN" is so irrelevant it cannot be interpreted as anything other than heckling sheer incompetence. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I thank Doanri for their input. @Caradhras, that's such a hyperbolic and uncalled for (and baseless) threat. That threat is so laughable, based on me wanting to make one change to an article. If you're trying to provoke a reaction from me, it won't work. I'm above that kind of thing. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure you can both discuss without making unnecessary topic ban threats or unnecessary references to behavioural policies. There's reasonable points made on both sides, it's not improper to have a discussion on talk about it. And a discussion can be had without casting aspersions. As for points, I'd point out that naming conventions do apply to bodies of articles, WP:NCPLACE. And for China specifically, to address this particular issue, we have WP:NC-CN. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for those links ProcrastinatingReader, I assume therefore I can make the relevant change now? Apples&Manzanas (talk) 21:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually WP:NC-CN applies especially to official contexts involving the PRC's two SARs, and is also quoted as Where "China," or "People's Republic of China" is used it should not be changed arbitrarily. Your haste, waiting fewer than 20 minutes after the above post before going about mass changes (potentially WP:POINT), is well-noted. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 21:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Reply to Caradhras:

• I certainly did not go on a POINT campaign, I was fixing articles to make them consistent and in accordance with policy (example for editors unaware of what Caradhras is referring to). I honestly couldn't see what grounds you would have to revert me given the discovery of these policies -- but I guess you managed to surprise me, okay we can discuss further then. I'm hoping we can have this conversation in a civil manner. Let's discuss edits not editors.
• The policy clearly says: "When discussing geography, those places within the territorial control of the People's Republic of China should generally be said to be in "China"." For example, "Zhongguancun has become a major centre of electronics in China", "... a novelist from Chengdu, China".
• WP:NCPLACE clearly shows the relevance of following common name, something you previously said was irrelevant.
• Addressing your above comment about how the policy says China/PRC shouldn't be changed arbitrarily, I have two responses to this. Firstly, I'm not changing anything arbitrarily, I've given you detailed reasoning with policy backing as to why I made that change. Secondly, you are simply cherry-picking one sentence of the policy whilst ignoring its context and the rest of the policy. This is the full context: "Following is the consensus guide on when to use which term in reference to subjects related to China [note: the policy is clearly saying that in some places one term is more appropriate than another]. Consistency of language across all articles is not a requirement of Wikipedia. It is also not necessary that a single article use one term consistently over the other. Where "China," or "People's Republic of China" is used it should not be changed arbitrarily. In many contexts [note: not all contexts] the terms can be used interchangeably. Which one is used in such contexts is largely a matter of editorial style [note: the example of when referring to geography is defined by the style guide, therefore my change wasn't "arbitrary"]. In cases where either "China" or the "People's Republic of China" both seem appropriate editors should use their own discretion." Those comments about not changing things arbitrarily are clearly referring to places where either 'China' or 'People's Republic of China' can be used and saying that both terms can be used within an article i.e it's saying that it's okay to reference People's Republic of China in one place (e.g referring to a Constitution) and China in another place (e.g referring to geography)...I.e the policy is saying that there is no ban on using both terms if it's more appropriate in one place and less appropriate in another place. The policy then goes on to say under which circumstances each term should be used...It quite clearly says when talking about geography, China is the more appropriate term.
• Is this really your new argument...'don't change it because it wasn't that way before'?. It really doesn't seem like a particularly strong argument when compared to the myriad of reasons I've provided both now and before (much of which you dismissed/ignored without much comment).
• Lastly, I would also point this out "Within articles, places should generally be referred to by the same name as is used in their article title". Now the decision was made to move People's Republic of China to China some time ago, which clearly has at least some relevance here. You may not have liked this change, but it happened. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 23:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Very chic of you to thank me for my input. Did you perchance consider actually doing anything with it also? Doanri (talk) 22:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

When you first made those comments, I kind of thought 'okay whatever, I'll leave this issue, I don't want an argument.' Since the policies were showed to me, they pretty much unequivocally stated my position was correct...so the policies kind of override your personal thoughts on the matter in my personal opinion. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

The policy you quote literally states 'In cases where there is ambiguity, use the more specific "People's Republic of China."' I'm afraid that means my personal thoughts on the ambiguity are quite relevant. Doanri (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Your quote from the policy is relating to something entirely different, it's discussing political documents and the adjectival form 'Chinese': Full context: "When mentioning official documents, institutions, or positions, it may be preferable to use the full official name "People's Republic of China". For example, "The Constitution of the People's Republic of China...". However, subsequent mentions in the same article may use the adjectival form "Chinese". For example, "Chinese premier Wen Jiabao". In cases where there is ambiguity, use the more specific "People's Republic of China". Also, you're saying there is ambiguity in this case of Hong Kong due to its special region status, right? So here's a question I have for you out of curiosity, would you support me making changes like this example to cities on mainland China? Or is there supposed ambiguity in every single case? I have a feeling you wouldn't support me making that change on cities on mainland China either, or that I won't get a straight answer to this question, but I'm hoping you'll prove me wrong. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 16:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I support the changes you made on the mainland China articles, and I indeed think the ambiguity is caused by the SAR status and by the relatively complex colonial history of the region. Doanri (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I can accept this as a compromise position. CaradhrasAiguo? Apples&Manzanas (talk) 17:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad we've agreed. Thank you for taking the time to discuss this. Doanri (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Just to make my position clear: I didn't agree with you, I was just willing to accept this as a compromise. Though Caradhras didn't like this compromise so we're kind of back at square one. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 04:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Between the infobox and opening sentence, in most cases (Beijing would be the foremost exception), I would accept this position only in the opening sentence, under the geographic construct proviso (When discussing geography...). However, pertaining to the infobox, as these administrative divisions are a PRC construct, they fall under the broad category When mentioning official documents, institutions, or positions, thus we ought to defer to the formal name. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 00:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Cities are not documents, institutions, or positions by any stretch of the imagination. The policy clearly says "When discussing geography, those places within the territorial control of the People's Republic of China should generally be said to be in "China". That feels pretty straight forward to me: it seems like it's clearly referring to, well, places under the control of the PRC Govt. The policy even gives the example of "Chengdu, China"...By your logic Chengdu is also a construct of the PRC Government, yet the policy says to say "Chengdu, China" rather than "Chengdu, People's Republic of China". China also is a formal name, it's the official name at the U.N. Not to mention that infoboxes of every other country seem to use the official short titles rather than official long titles. Infoboxes are meant to be short and brief. I feel like we're entering lamest edit war ever territory here, but at the same time, I can't really see why you're holding out. Your logic entirely fails because the policy says to say "Chengdu, China" rather "Chengdu, People's Republic of China"...despite "Chengdu" being an administrative division of the PRC Govt. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 04:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the classifications of cities are by definition constructs, as the term sub-provincial city was never used in China before the PRC. And before conflating (an incredibly bad-faith strawman), infobox usage with in-prose usage (which I do not disagree over), I suggest you read WP:CIR. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 07:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Cities are not "documents, institutions or positions". It's telling you literally want to insult me at every opportunity rather than engage in any form of debate. You realize Doanri actually said that they support me making these changes to every article (except Hong Kong and Macau). So is Doanri 'incompetent'/believing bad faith arguments too? Your view is actually in the minority here. Caradhras, all you do is just insult, insult, insult, and then brush things off with a flippant response. It doesn't actually make your arguments look any stronger. I'd suggest you read Wikipedia's policy on civility. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 13:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

1) I specifically stated the classification of cities, and a brief read-over of List of cities in China would make it abundantly clear of the multiple levels of designation. 2) Once more, "A novelist from Chengdu, China" or similar formulations is only applicable to prose, which infoboxes are not in any way, shape, or form. Addendum: Did I mention Doanri? An endless stream of strawmen does not solicit a proper response, nor do misleading omissions, such as the below quoting of the Within articles, places should generally be referred to..., which is clearly part of a paragraph contrasting the article title with historical names (e.g. Byzantium vs Constantinople vs Istanbul), not the present-day official name. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I never said you mentioned Doanri. That was exactly my point. You relentlessly insult me as incompetent etc etc, but my position is largely shared by the only other editor who has weighed in (Doanri). All you ever do is ignore all the substantial points I write, and then when pressed on this, your only tactic is to poison the well or resort to ad hominems. It's abundantly clear you want to ignore the plainly worded meanings of the policy. And what do you mean infoboxes aren't prose? I don't think you even know the definition of prose. You're going off a random tangent now, with no relevance...Nowhere in that policy creates some distinction for infoboxes vs article text. I noticed you totally abandoned your claim that cities are "documents, institutions, or positions", sliding into a new argument about Byzantium vs Constantinople, which isn't even mentioned in the most relevant policy. But if you want to discuss this policy, then I guess you'll clearly ignore the text which says "Within articles, places should generally be referred to by the same name as is used in their article title". Apples&Manzanas (talk) 17:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Once again, I never claimed cities themselves (as settlements) are "documents, institutions or positions", but rather mainland Chinese cities' designations as prefecture-level cities, etc. are administrative classifications, so do carefully read my original reference to administration; the point of the infobox is to illuminate that very administrative hierarchy in a big-endian fashion. It would be helpful if you not continue belaboring that.

Actually, MOS:INFOBOXGEO explicit in its application to the titles of geographical infoboxes, e.g. the |name = parameter in {{Infobox settlement}}. In addition, WP:NCGN#Use English points directly to MOS:INFOBOXGEO: For use of names in infoboxes, see the infobox guideline. If there was community consensus for additional stipulations regarding infobox usage at WP:NCGN, that standards page would have additional mentions of the word "infobox". Let's not pretend community standards apply in situations where they do not.

(Points of order) 1) I did not resort to ad homina (for example, "you are an Englishman and have no standing to comment on anything Chinese" would be one), mind the unsubstantiated accusation there. 2) Nope, I am not sliding into a new argument about Istanbul, it is quoted later on in the very paragraph that you were citing:

Within articles, places should generally be referred to by the same name as is used in their article title, or a historical name when discussing a past period. Use of one name for a town in 2000 does not determine what name we should give the same town in 1900 or in 1400, nor the other way around. Many towns, however, should keep the same name; it is a question of fact, of actual English usage, in all cases. For example, when discussing the city now called Istanbul, Wikipedia uses Byzantium in ancient Greece, and Constantinople for the capital of the Byzantine Empire. Similarly, use Stalingrad when discussing the city now called Volgograd in the context of World War II.

CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes but whether they are an administrative construct is entirely irrelevant: e.g look at the example of "Chengdu, China" being used, despite Chengdu being an administrative construct, I thought we already agreed on this (excluding the disagreement about infoboxes). If you want to attribute bad-faith to me saying I'm English 10 days ago, then I don't know what to say. I say it because I'm often accused of being a nationalist for Country X or Country Y, which causes people to not to AGF. It's a statement about myself, not an aspersion against anyone else. And, talking about historical names has nothing to do with the present names? That's entirely irrelevant, China is the modern name of China. MOS:INFOBOXGEO says "Infoboxes for geographical items (e.g. cities and countries) should generally be headed with the article title". It does say that a longer title can be used, it does not say it must be used. With this said I must say, this is actually the best and only valid reason you've given so far for why the infobox content should be different to the article content. Like, I'm actually being generous here? This is the first time you've made this argument. I still don't really believe it's a strong case for why articles should use the long title (when the policy says the article title should generally be used), but at least it's a semi-decent justification/defense. I don't actually agree with you that the long title should be used, but pointing me to the infobox guideline is enough for me to say 'yeah okay, your position has some at least some backing here with regard to infoboxes'. Maybe that's the first thing you should have showed me? I'm happy to leave this discussion here with there being no consensus on whether short tiles or long titles should be used in infoboxes given the ambiguous nature of MOS:INFOBOXGEO. I hope we agree that China should be generally used in-article text when referring to cities and such, though that isn't what this talk section is about. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Bibliography

Split out Bibliography to its own articel, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.100.139.52 (talk • contribs)

What purpose would that serve? - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 12:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

"Hog Kog" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Hog Kog. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 31#Hog Kog until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 11:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Area

I may be missing something but, in "Geography" section, the article says "the territory is 2,755 km2 (1,064 sq mi) area" and "of the total area, 1,073 km2 (414 sq mi) is land and 35 km2 (14 sq mi) is water" which means a total of 1,108 km2. So, where are the other missing 1667 km2 gone? Here (see Hong Kong in the list) land/water numbers reported are different. Lone Internaut (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

To add to "Geography" section

To add to the "Geography" section: a map that clearly shows where Hong Kong is located in relation to other important settlements of the Pearl River Delta. I was unable to do this because there is no "Edit" button in this article.

Guangzhou Shenzhen Hong Kong Dongguan Foshan Jiangmen Huizhou Zhongshan Zhuhai Macau Zhaoqing Enping Heshan Kaiping Sihui Hong Kong/Archive 12 (Guangdong)

173.88.246.138 (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2021

In the 'Political reforms and sociopolitical issues' section, there is a sentence that needs a citation: "As of 2020, Hong Kong is considered a flawed democracy that is not fully representative of the population." -Taltos :) (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC) |}

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. That is a summation of the sources used in that section. If you'd like to change the prose please start a discussion and see if you can change consensus. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

—5.108.247.250 (talk) 12:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

You haven't said what you think is wrong with the coordinates in the article, and they appear to be correct. If you still think that there is an error, you will need to provide a clear explanation of what it is. Deor (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2021

Could someone please revert this edit, as it removed the link to HK (disambiguation) from the hatnote. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 17:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done (courtesy ping Faster than Thunder) — LauritzT (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to distinguish the HK Ethnic minorities and foreign domestic helpers

The ethnic minorities number in HK should exclude foreign domestic helpers.Filipinos and Indonesians are the 2 biggest group of non-chinese population in hk but majority of them are short-termed labors and cant aqure HK citizenship. According to the 2016 Census, after excluding foreign domestic helpers, the number of ethnic minorities was 263 593, making up 3.6% of the whole Hong Kong population. This number is better to represent the real situation and cause less confusion . Therefore, I proposal that we should make a distinguishment in the Demographics section or at least mention this fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purekung (talk • contribs) 14:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

I propose that the article should be split into two: 'Hong Kong' and 'Hong Kong Special Administrative Region'. Hong Kong is the city, HKSAR is the (puppet) authority that rules Hong Kong currently (1997- -- they are not the same. HKSAR should be treated like British Hong Kong.Eight96Four (talk) 05:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose for the same reasons the proposal to split China was rejected a few months ago. Would you also advise splitting Germany into "Germany" and "Federal Republic of Germany", or Puerto Rico into "Puerto Rico" and "Commonwealth of Puerto Rico"? For the entity that administers Hong Kong, we already have a separate article: Government of Hong Kong. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The state of the current article is fine (not too long yet still comprehensive) so splitting the article is unnecessary. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 16:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, as per Germany comment above. Many thing about Hong Kong changed after 1997, but it’s still the same city (just more nasty).DOR (HK) (talk) 16:28, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Most entities do not have a separate page for their current political system, only their past ones. As the current page should be up to date, an article in the style of British Hong Kong would be a duplicative content fork. For the current system, there is the already mentioned Government of Hong Kong, as well as Special administrative regions of China, which cover different aspects of the current authority. CMD (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, it is hard to define whether the content should be in which of the articles if it is split. The HKSAR can be explained by the current situation of Hong Kong, that's the unfortunate fact. Sun8908 _Talk 17:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Mx. Granger. And shall we split Germany and Federal Republic of Germany? --HypVol (talk) 07:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per all the above. Horserice (talk) 08:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose for the reasons mentioned above. Hong Kong has not been a British colony for 24 years: as such, the current government and the political system is a part of Hong Kong like anything else (culture, geography and so on), like it or not. Should you wish to add anything, Politics of Hong Kong would be better than Government of Hong Kong.

• Oppose I don't see similar examples for other political entities. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 01:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose : This city of Hong Kong is officially known as the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region = it's the same thing. One must be out of his mind if he may propose splitting Singapore and Republic of Singapore for example. 08:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose : HKSAR is the official name of the city, as noted on its passport, constitution (Basic Law of HK), and official government-issued IDs. We don't split South Korea and the Republic of Korea. We don't split the United States and the United States of America. We don't split Mexico and the United Mexican States. We don't split the Soviet Union and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. We don't split the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We don't split Pakistan and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. And so on. Also the so-called "puppet state" entity you're referring to is the government of the city (HKSAR Gov) rather than the actual city itself, which is officially formally called the HKSAR in its Basic Law constitution. Yeungkahchun (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Many actually refer to Hong Kong Island or the conurbation as a whole when they talk about Hong Kong, as opposed to the adminstrative region. It's like Great Britain and the United Kingdom aren't the same article. The same is true for Holland and the Kingdom of Netherlands, or Micronesia and the Federated States. 203.145.95.91 (talk) 09:06, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Hong Kong Island is only a tiny part of the entire Hong Kong city. Hong Kong Island itself is so small, it's unsustainable as it's own entity without Kowloon and New Territories. This is based on history and facts.Rwat128 (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose For all intents and purposes, Hong Kong and Hong Kong SAR are the same thing. Rwat128 (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose they are virtually the same Yinwang888 (talk) 02:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose they are synonymous TongGau (talk) 13:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Sister Cities

The main page for the city of Osaka lists Hong Kong as one of its Business Partner Cities, citing an Osakan government page as a source.

https://www.city.osaka.lg.jp/contents/wdu020/keizaisenryaku/english/international_network.html

Why doesn't the Hong Kong page reflect this? Did the page's author decide such things are irrelevant or did the Hong Kong government drop its partnerships with other cities?

Thank you: Feline74 (talk) 05:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Articles aren't authored by a single person. It's just that nobody's added a "sister cities" section yet.

Interesting

Funny how little of the last years history is on here. Wikipedia is censored by someone! Lead paragraph makes it sound like a hugely democratic paradise Sirhissofloxley (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Be Bold! Add what you think is missing, with reliable sources. DOR (HK) (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2022

Request to add Housing in Hong Kong under the section Hong Kong#Infrastructure. 223.25.74.34 (talk) 14:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Not done — Section makes no mention of housing. Hatnotes under section headings should lead to articles that cover the section's topic(s) in more detail. CentreLeftRight ✉ 18:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

All right then. 223.25.74.34 (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Preventing the spread of disinformation

Hi there! I have noticed that there has been an effort to explicitly distinguish Hong Kong from China, this includes spreading disinformation online on a number of occasions by labelling Hong Kong as an "country" when it is in fact not. Personally, I feel that this means Wikipedia is taking a political stance and is supporting the Hong Kong separatist/independence movement in China. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should only serve to provide its users with unbiased information. Thus, I am hoping that this movement of attempting to separate Hong Kong from China can be put to a halt.

For those of you who feel that China by convention should only refer to Mainland China, I am urging you to read up more on the status of Hong Kong and Mainalnd China. Hong Kong having its own system only implies that it is not part of Mainland China. It doesn't mean that it has gained independence from China. Instead, Mainland China should be used to refer to well...Mainland China and not the whole of China. China by default refers to the People's Republic of China 🇨🇳 which includes Mainland China, Hong Kong and Macau. Of course, here the inclusion of Taiwan would be controversial and thus I would not want to add it in here.

As such, I sincerely hope that everyone will correct such disinformation that is currently being circulated on Wikipedia if you happen to come across it. Thank you. Fukienshin (talk) 04:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

• No specific examples
• No specific editors
• No edit summaries other than "Restore my own edition of the page, stop changing it guys"

Nobody is going to know what your exact grievances are without looking through your edits like I did. Obviously Hong Kong is not a country, and a problem with a number of Hong Kong-related articles is that Hong Kong is labeled as a country in their infoboxes. This is a correction that needs to be made en masse. However, instead of labelling Hong Kong a "region" you should use the label "SAR" as it is more specific. CentreLeftRight ✉ 07:18, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I have seen the edits that you have made to the pages about the different districts in Hong Kong and I really do appreciate that. On a side note, I didn't label HK as a region. That edit wasn't done by me.

ps 你怎麼這麼易怒呢 Fukienshin (talk) 13:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Am I correct to think that the OP would not differentiate, say , Economy of Hong Kong, Politics of Hong Kong, or History of Hong Kong? If so, I strongly disagree! DOR (HK) (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2022

The regional flag and regional emblem of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region at the top of the homepage have been modified. For example, the Chinese name of Hong Kong should be Hong Kong Special Administrative Region(Chinese:香港特別行政區). Sieats macedonia (talk) 07:25, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:58, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

The change in question has already been reverted. Yue🌙 20:32, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Recent changes to the Education section

I am not restoring the additions to the Education section made by Joeccho because information in this article should be concise and details should stay in the main articles unless they are integral to understanding the content. Yue🌙 07:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2022

Hi, I wanted to add more details about the Universities and preferably a timeline for Hong Kong. Since I am very familiar with HK, I would like to add more details about it. Thanks!! TagMaster21 (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Cannolis (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Demographic breakdown listing "white" as category is arguably racist

The ethnic breakdown of Hong Kong takes from a source that distinguishes Asian nationalities and ethnicities, but then truncates most Caucasians into the wholesale grouping "white". This is a form of racism, specifically, failing to provide comparable distinction in race for those Caucasians, e.g., "Dutch", "white English", "Ukrainian", "white American", etc. The implication is that "white" is a sufficient identifier for those individuals, notwithstanding their specific ethnicity or nationality, as opposed to the much more delineated groupings for Asian ethnicities and nationalities. The same logic would condemn the category of "black" (as opposed to "Nigerian", "Zambian", "black American", "black English", etc.). It is understandable why Asian nations are of greater focus, given the geographical locale of Hong Kong, but this is not an appropriate designation for Wikipedia, notwithstanding the source's terminology. If anyone cares to improve on the source so as to eliminate the discrepancy, I believe it will improve the article overall. I will do so myself if I find an improved source. Thank you. Resurgence133 (talk) 03:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

What is this incredibly ignorant soapboxing? First of all, nationality does not equal ethnicity or race. Second of all, most countries' censuses group by race (especially English-speaking ones), including Western countries like Canada, my home country, where "White" is listed in our official statistics. Third of all, what do you mean by "improve the source"? The source is the Hong Kong government's official statistics, which use the Chinese term 白人 (literally "white people") and the English term "White", like several other countries. There are no WP:RS issues as far as I can tell, unless you would beg to differ? "Not an appropriate designation for Wikipedia", according to you but not any policy guideline I am aware of.

Outside of this specific discussion, you may also want to look into how censuses are conducted. In most places, including Hong Kong, ethnicity / race is self-reported. Perhaps many people do not identify as a specific ethnicity anymore because their lineage is irrelevant to their identity in Hong Kong. Perhaps some people do identify as French, or Dutch, or American on the census, but not enough people to do so instead of identifying as "White", so it would not make sense to create a specific category for certain subgroups.

Your complaint is the equivalent of going to the United States article and saying, "It's racist to have 'Whites' listed when they distinguish between two indigenous groups—Native Americans and Pacific Islanders. We should ignore the fact that the source is official statistics from the U.S. census and just find a different source that distinguishes between Irish Americans, German Americans, etc."

I also like the comment that "It is understandable why Asian nations are of greater focus, given the geographical locale of Hong Kong." How do you understand it though? Do you think the Hong Kong government went, "Oh since we're in Asia, we should distinguish the Asians only, even if we have statistics for every specific non-Asian ethnicity." Or do you think that maybe the government just doesn't have those statistics at hand because they weren't reported adequately or at all? And what better source would there be to substitute the Hong Kong government's? They're the only ones conducting censuses of every household across the city! Yue🌙 05:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Please don't feed the trolls. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

"92.0% Han Chinese"

In the infobox it is said that there are 92% Han Chinese. Does this figure include or exclude non-Han Chinese, e.g., Manchus, Hlais? 118.140.125.81 (talk) 04:01, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

In my (extensive) experience with HKSAR demographic data, all PRC citizens are classified as “Chinese,” unless otherwise stated. Perhaps the original source has more / different information, but my belief is that the extremely few non-Han Chinese citizens would indeed be included under this category. DOR (HK) (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Numerically few; but there are many notable people with (at least partial) non-Han ancestry. 118.140.125.76 (talk) 07:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

. . . “Numerically few . . .” In other words, statistically insignificant, and so not useful in this context. DOR (HK) (talk) 14:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

What's so hard to tell whether they are covered or otherwise? If no such information is collected in censuses or surveys then there's no basis to wikilink Han Chinese as opposed to ethnic Chinese. 118.140.125.73 (talk) 07:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Hard? No. Incomplete data, that’s all. DOR (HK) (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@DOR (HK): Just change it if there's nothing whatsoever which suggests only Hans are covered. 118.140.125.80 (talk) 09:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Pardon me if I refrain from making arbitrary changes to what the actual sources says. Maybe it's just me, but that doesn't seem very useful. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

To replace the reference of 92% in the infobox from Han Chinese to Chinese peoples. 118.140.125.70 (talk) 11:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

🔔, please establish that there is some dispute about the accuracy of the edit before you run rough-shod over it. Quite rude. DOR (HK) (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Whatever the case, thanks. 118.140.125.75 (talk) 07:28, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Hong Kong Product Exports (2019).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Recent changes in the lead.

On June 7 user Tart (talk · contribs) altered the lead of the article, by significantly reducing its size. Seems like no one protested. I do not think this was appropriate, especially for such a Good article and I think it should have been discussed first. He also added a claim in →‎Economy which has been left unsourced. What's to be done? Lone Internaut (talk) 13:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

A lot of it seemed to be tightening language in a way that led to removal of wikilinks to various list pages. I don't see anything objectionable. I also didn't notice any new uncited claim in the economy sub-heading. Could you please be specific what content you are looking to restore? Simonm223 (talk) 13:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I just think the lead looked and read better before those edits, I don't think "tightening language" is necessary given that the lead was anything but too long. Here you can see what's been added, which I don't think is referenced anywhere else in the text. Lone Internaut (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Lead missing info about recent history

As title; the protests and increase in Chinese influence on the territory is really notable. I don't have the capacity to add the info in, but think it definitely deserves a mention. toobigtokale (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Another reason to not shrink the lead but to expand it as it was before June 7 (see above) and add further recent developments. Lone Internaut (talk) 15:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Information about area

I see that info box information about land and water areas is not exactly in line with the quoted site (see note 9). But I am not authorised to amend them. The total is correct but there is a difference of around 4 km2 in excess or deficit for each piece of information. Regards. Kerguelenross (talk) 13:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed Yue🌙 22:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@Yue

Thank you for this correction. Cheers. Kerguelenross (talk) 01:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Wrong information in the chapter "Demographics"

I quote: "as well as the third-highest number of billionaires of any city in the world" => Wrong information, it's the second-highest. Please see the source reference 205, and actually also the introduction chapter. Elod1234 (talk) 11:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Latitudes

How about there is latitude and longitude for this location in the basic data as there is ab Beijing or Jerusalem? 109.252.9.119 (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2023

change "In November 2020, Hong Kong's Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau proposed a new law that will restrict cryptocurrency trading to professional investors only, leaving amateur traders (93% of Hong Kong's trading population) out of the market." to "In June 2023, Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission's proposed Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASP) regime came into effect, allowing virtual asset exchanges to provide services to retail investors based in HK. This is a part of an international effort to standardise regulation of virtual assets lead of IOSCO (International Organisation of Securities Commission). The new Hong Kong regulatory framework is also the result of the continuous collective effort of the Government, the regulators and the industry in fostering growth of the fintech community and establishing Hong Kong as a premier crypto hub." Sandycpeng (talk) 14:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like a change from a non NPV perspective in ONE direction to a non-NPV perspective in the OTHER direction. I would support a more neutral description of the change than either the current text or the proposed text. PianoDan (talk) 16:46, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I concur with this. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Deactivating the template for now, given there is potential discussion about what wording to use. CMD (talk) 01:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC)