Talk:Hong Kong/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Source for this passage? (Tiananmen Square)

On 2005-09-24, 25 Hong Kong pro-democracy LegCo members, some of whom were previously labelled as traitors by Beijing after the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown and barred from entering the mainland, crossed the border into the southern province of Guangdong, following an unprecedented invitation by the PRC.[26] The invitation was generally regarded as one of the greatest goodwill gestures from the PRC to the Hong Kong democrats since the June-Fourth incident.

There's a footnote to support that they were invited to the mainland by the central leadership. But we need a source to say that the invitation was "generally regarded as one of the greatest goodwill gestures". Who regards it as such? If a source doesn't materialise in a few days to a week, I'll be removing that entire passage. If we can't support that this was a "sign of good will", then that entire paragraph is pretty trivial for this article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Was unable to find any sources that regarded this as a goodwill gesture. Most sources viewed it as a strategic move to liaise with the democrats without any political consequence. However, I still think this paragraph is worthy of inclusion in this article. I made edits:

On 24 September 2005, 25 Hong Kong pro-democracy LegCo members, some of whom were previously labelled as traitors by Beijing after the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 and barred from entering the mainland, crossed the border into the southern province of Guangdong, following an unprecedented invitation by the PRC[25]. The invitation was regarded as a conciliation move[26] by the central government, and is purportedly induced by Tsang[27]. However, the trip was unsuccessful in starting a political dialogue since no "real talking"[28] was done. Hong Kong's pro-government lawmakers even proclaimed that the meeting with Guangzhou party chief Zhang Dejiang was a "courtesy meeting"[29] and that raising political issues was inappropriate.

Please check for style and agreement. Bgnuf (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

FAR(Feature Article Review)

I personally don't want to take this article to FAR. This article was promoted to FA three years ago. And right now, I found there are many problems that it should be fixed ASAP.

• Please refer to WP:SIZE. This article is 91 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles.
• Please refer to WP:LEAD. I don't think the lead is comprehensive indeed to cover the whole content. The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. Plus, the lead should have some sources in order to verify. Please refer to: WP:V and WP:CITE. The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads.
• There are many paragraphs I can see without citations/sources. The whole section of Military or Architecture or Religion contains no source at all. An FA article should be fully referenced. Please refer to: WP:REF or WP:SOURCE.
• External links should be well chosen. Please refer to: WP:EL
• Footnotes, including references (further reading) are not putting in a correct format. (e.g. 52-4) Please refer to: WP:MOS or WP:STYLE.
• It is strongly recommended placing couple tables to illustrate the point(s) clearly. (e.g. economic growth or composition of workforce in the section of economy, languages used/ethnic composition in the section of demography, % of different religion practise in the section of religion, etc). Coloane (talk) 05:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree major cleanup and addition of citation is needed, particularly in the sections mentioned. However, I don't believe the last point regarding tables is a needed per style guide or FA guidelines. It is not a prevalent feature among country featured articles, although detailed tables should be placed in the respective subarticles. — Kelw (talk) 00:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• I've deleted most of the links in the External links section. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Phew! I've fixed all the footnotes that needed to be fixed. All but a few of them placed at the top of the article are citing sources of information, and they should all be using various versions of the cite template now. Many of them have also been updated to an accessdate of today, because I accessed those webpages just now. But anyway, yes, large portions of the article remains unreferenced. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

International Ranking

I personally recommend that the section of international rankings be removed. It is much better to create a new article specifically for the International Rankings of Hong Kong in order to reduce the article size in general. Coloane (talk) 09:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Religion: Mormonism

The final paragraph of the religion section currently reads: "Hong Kong is the only place in the PRC where missionaries from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormon Church) can serve. The Church has a temple in Hong Kong which was dedicated by President Gordon B. Hinckley in 1996."

I see 3 problems with this portion:

1) It is factually incorrect, as Mormons missionaries also serve in Macau, which, like Hong Kong, is a special administrative region of the PRC.

2) Referring to Hong Kong as a "place in the PRC" is inconsistent with the style used throughout this article.

3) Given the relatively small presence of Mormons in HK, I don't think it merits such prominent mention in this article. The Mormon community in Hong Kongconsists of 22,556 members, http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/contact-us/china-8212-hong-kong, with between 5,000 and 6,000 adherents estimated to be 'active' in the faith http://www.cumorah.com/cgi-bin/db.cgi?view_records=View%2BRecords&Country=Hong+Kong.

Given the above points, in the interest of brevity, accurancy and relevance, the above portion should be deleted, and Mormonism receive the same treatment as other minor religious groups, with the number of adherents being reported but no special commentary provided.Spinner145 (talk) 03:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind deletion of the entire thing, but maybe we should try deleting only the inaccuracy and adding sources for the real facts? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, in that case I think a sensible edit would be just to modify the second sentence of the second paragraph of the Religion section to read (changed portion in italics): "Apart from the major religions, there are also a significant number of followers of other religions, including an estimated 90,000 Muslims; 22,000 Mormons, 4,000 Jews; 4,600 Jehovah's Witnesses and a number of Hindus, Sikhs and Bahá'ís[51]" and to include the link I gave as a reference, and then delete the paragraph I originally noted. Given the treatment accorded other similarly sized religions in HK, this treatment seems appopriate and proportional to me.Spinner145 (talk) 09:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

LegCo members trip to mainland in 2005

I took out the last two statements in that paragraph - [1] - firstly because I didn't see in the source provided anybody actually calling the trip "unsuccessful", and secondly because we can probably make a small article about the trip itself, but the trip remains not even one of the most significant political events in Hong Kong history, so it's best to summarise here on the main Hong Kong article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Simplified Chinese characters

User:Sky Divine, please stop adding simplified character without consensus. Your argument that we should add simplified characters simply because HK is part of PRC is totally illogical. The fact that HK uses only traditional suggests that we should only use traditional in the article. Chris! _ct 21:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Chris!, please stop deleting simplified character without consensus. Even Taiwan pages have them and PRC pages have the traditional. I don't see anything illogical in Chris's addition, only see your hatred to simplified illogical. Let's put the simplified back but below the traditional. --Atitarev (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

(1) Taiwan only has the simplified in the first paragraph, not the infobox. (2) No. let's not. (as I've stated on the PRC talk page) nat.utoronto 01:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Infobox or the first paragraph are equal to me. They are equally visible. I replied on PRC talk page. --Atitarev (talk) 01:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The infobox and the first paragraph may be equally visible, but there are separate conventions that we follow. The first paragraph includes all the scripts, the infobox only includes the scripts that are in official use. nat.utoronto 03:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems pretty obvious to me that User:Sky Divine is adding Simplified characters in this article because of a disagreement he's having at Talk:People's Republic of China[2] (where ironically he argues that Traditional characters should not be added to the PRC article, yet he wants to add Simplified characters in this article). I've already brought this up at the other Talk page, and I'll bring it up again - Sky Divine, if you have a disagreement at the PRC article, then keep it over there and don't drag it over here. And if you want to add Simplified characters in this article, please bring it up in the Talk page first. This article has a long established standard of not using Simplified characters. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes

Some pretty dramatic revisions were made in recent days to this article, and many of them seem to bold for a long and stable featured article like this. I therefore decided to restore some things to the way they were before some changes that I feel are not necessary. Since I can't find any note left here about those changes, I've made a new section. — Kelw (talk) 02:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at your edits and redid two of them:

• I reverted the changes to the infobox, the new map combines the information found in the previous two and leaves a space for an image. Plus your revert to the previous infobox actually reinserted false information (gini). The problems with the two maps and the request for an image that were discussed in the talk page I felt were solved by this change. Additionally, SVG-format maps are generally favoured.
• I replaced the topics template in See also, as is found in other geography featured articles. It tends to get lost at the bottom of the page among the many other templates.

Just a quick note to point out that if you look at the talk page you'll see that this article attained featured article status in 2005, 3 years ago, and you'll probably notice that the article has changed significantly since then. I do not think this article currently deserves its FA status, it's far too long for a summary article, very disorganised and lacks enough citations. I know you feel some of the changes were too bold, even though it is encouraged under WP:BOLD, however I'm hoping to improve it a lot before someone notices and slaps an FA review on it, and improving this article will definitely require bold edits. --Joowwww (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I've kept your revert of the of the topics template in See Also. However, there are a few problems I found with the infobox change:

• The nowrap templates stretch the infobox beyond the standard width. There's no need to avoid text wrapping unless we are dealing with units, such as "10 kg (22 lb)".
• There should not be a skyline picture. The image parameter is meant for map(s).
• I think your new map is good, but there are a few things that can be improved:
  • Can you make the map's width-height ratio larger, so that it resembles Image:Hong Kong Location.png and Image:LocationHongKong.png? This would help the map fit better into the shape of the infobox.
  • Can you adjust the colour scheme of the map to use more neutral colour tones, similar to Image:LocationHongKong.png?
  • We need to be careful with the borders of People's Republic of China to make sure it meets NPOV. Please have a look at Image:Hong Kong Location.png and note the disputed territories of China marked in pink. I am not an expert in these borders so I don't know if your borders are accurate, but you can ask other editors for help if needed.

Lastly, I do agree with you that some overhaul is needed for this article and it is quite disorganized. But to prevent an FA review we should concentrate on improving the writing of the article and finding citations for claims. Although changing pictures is sometimes good, it's not going to help with an FA review. And yes we need to be bold, but stability is also important in a featured article, so let's try to do this in steps. — Kelw (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The nowrap templates are there to keep certain sentences on one line, improving readability. Furthermore, according to my browser, both versions have exactly the same width, at 282 pixels. Although the image parameter is for maps, there is no regulation stating a map must be put there, and as Hong Kong is called a city more than it is called a country, it is a suitable location for an image of the city as in every other city article. Considering Hong Kong is not a country, it should technically not be using the country infobox at all, but as it suits the status of statistics better, I have let it stay instead of replacing it with the city infobox. Yes, before you state it, I am aware Hong Kong is technically not a city. The map uses the standard colours as stated in the talk section of WP:MAPS. I am intending to add rivers to it but both that and attempting to make it smaller will have to wait until I find an accurate representation of surrounding waterways. I actually thought about the borders of the PRC when making the map. While I understand the borders are a contentious issue, I felt that this map is a map of the location of Hong Kong, not a map of the location of China's disputed territories, and it would be bordering on being pedantic to add them. Notice the colour of Taiwan is lighter and greyer than mainland China. --Joowwww (talk) 22:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The colours are a small issue that I can compromise on, so it's okay. It's just that I am used to seeing some neutral colours on many other counrty infoboxes. I do hope that you can adjust the map ratio though. Personally I think it's better to have no skyline picture because it reduces image clutter, since we will be saving some space when the two maps are replaced with your improved map.

And it's good to see that you did consider the PRC borders issue. Like I said I'm not an expert on those borders so if your map is already accurate then it's fine. I know those borders seem less relevent for a map of Hong Kong, but please understand that there was a heated dispute about Image:LocationHongKong.png before its current form is settled, so it is a big issue for some people. — Kelw (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I did read all the talk page archives before I started editing the article. Perhaps a smaller image of the city can be put on top of the smaller map, taking up the same amount of space as is used now. I don't really think the infobox is too large for it, plus it keeps it consistent with other cities, where people would expect to find an image in the top right of the article. --Joowwww (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I've made the map smaller and used a small skyline image, as a result the whole infobox is actually smaller than before. That's not my preferred skyline image, it's wonky and a daytime shot would probably be better, but it's just an example to show that it doesn't necessarily get cluttered. --Joowwww (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

<<< Good job with the map. The only thing I changed is switching the order of the map and picture, so that the first map parameter is filled by a real map and the extra map parameter is filled by the picture. I also specified the width for the second parameter so the image sizes are uniform. Personally though, I still prefer having no skyline picture for a Country or Territory infobox. — Kelw (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Lead image

That's a great picture Diliff, the previous one was just until we found a better one. You seem to have a knack for great high quality pictures, do you have one of the same view from the Peak but in the daytime? --Joowwww (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think the old one was better. Skylines are generally ground-level photographs, rendering a city's profile in 2D, more or less. Photographs like this new one, taken from such a great height ... the elevation makes the buildings look almost abstract, and not as distinctive as the first photograph. That could be any city. I think the first one should return. Ford MF (talk) 19:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ford, I disagree. I think the 3-D quality and depth give a very good feel of what Hong Kong is like. I won't even get into the artistic merit of the photo, which beats the previous one hands down. Also, the first one is a "standard" postcard view- seen almost anywhere. Dionix (talk) 19:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, obviously I'm a little biased, but as a pretty regular city skyline-photographer and contributor, I don't think there is any rule, unwritten or otherwise, that says what a skyline photo is supposed to look like. As long as it illustrates the buildings, layout and topography of the city well, then it is suitable IMO. I do have a panoramic view of the skyline from Tsim Sha Tsui which I think is also better than the previous lead image. I'll upload it soon, if you'd like, but I do think that the current image is the ideal view of the city. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have a goood photo in the daytime. When I was in Hong Kong, it was very hazy during the day (and you can see the haze in the night shot too, although it looks much prettier with all the city lights). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with this image here from the Peak, but the caption should be modified to reflect that it is no longer a skyline. A skyline is suppose to be a silhouette of a city. It should say something like: "View of Hong Kong from Victoria Peak." Quality wise, it is a great picture, though a picture on a clear-day would be more preferable. This reflects reality though as it is hazy in HK on most days. --Kvasir (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the old image was much better that the new one. The new one has way too much HDR effect and is distractingly unrealistic. Can we switch it back? Kaldari (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If this is going to turn into a vote (please no more!!), count me in support of the new one. With the modified caption, it is perfect and, best of all, not typical. Dionix (talk) 00:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

For a daytime skyline, why not just use a cropped version of Image:Pauliyas Hongkong.jpg? Edit: I just want to say that this is another reason I feel there should not be any skyline photo at all. It's mostly eye-candy and is bound to be a contentious issue for a long time. — Kelw (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

A view from the peak like this picture is preferable because it shows HK and Kowloon at the same time. A skyline photo only shows one side of the harbour. Ideally, a clearer picture would show portion of New Territories in the background. --Kvasir (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

First Opium War

During the beginning of your article (whoever you are,) I saw that you just have to mention the first Opium war and it has nothing to do with Hong Kong. You should probably includee the war inside the articles Great Britain or China. You can mention the second Opium war, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevennelly11 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Cityscape

I've just implemented a major change to 3 sections of the article and thought I should share my reasoning. It's condensed the article visually but actually increased its disk size by 2 kb due to the amount of references I added.

• I know HK is a territory and isn't officially a city but I think you'll all agree that it is often described as such, and the term "cityscape" seems most fitting for the purpose of organisation.
• It also looks like someone had spent some time removing all sub-sections from the article and having only one tier of sections, while I understand that some featured articles do that, I felt that the scope of this one needs sub-sections to properly organise it and make it easier to find things for a reader of the article. Therefore I combined the sections Administrative districts, Architecture and Transport into this one. I also feel legislative and military could be made sub-sections of government, and culture could be expanded with sub-sections.
• The section starts with a paragraph on how the city formed, not so much its history but its urban growth and the reasons for why it has grown like it has (ceded in parts). Also states about HK's capital or lack thereof.
• Architecture is condensed, it's divided into statistics, landmarks and future development.
• Transport is condensed, with more general stats and less unsummary-like content.
• About images: I've replaced the HK terrain image in Geography as there's now a pic from the peak in Cityscape. Plus if you look from geography to transport the images go satellite > large area > city > blocks > street > then out onto the water > then zoom back to skyline. It wasn't intentional but I thought it gives a nice sense of flow.

Hopefully this change is to everyone's taste and other sections can be moved onto, making the article really deserve its FA status. Cheers,--Joowwww (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't agree with the huge change at all. First of all I do not agree that the article should treat HK as a city; it should follow the structure of a country/territory article because that's what HK is. The new subsections also complicate the article structure and I don't think we need to group anything together under subsections. Transport, architecture and administrative districts are fundamentally very different comcepts and do not belong together at all. Miltary and leagal system are also very different.

The Cityscape section is problematic as it merges three very different ideas. The first paragraph contains info already found in History section, the second paragraph belongs under Administrative districts instead. It is much more confusing than before.

I am happy with the sections structure we have before, and I don't feel changes are needed. To preserve FA status we should concentrate on rewriting in summary style within certain sections and finding citations. Citations are the key to FA's. I think the sections that need the most work (as in rewriting, not merging sections) are the Government section and the culture section. In short, I support rewriting and copyediting sections, but I strongly disagree with merging or grouping sections. Hope you understand. — Kelw (talk) 21:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, I want to say that I like the way you rewrote some of the sections; I just don't like merging any of them together. I am going to add back some of the rewriting you did to the sections but will keep them separate. And by the way, is it possible for you to discuss big changes here before adding them? That way we'd have a consensus and need not revert so much. — Kelw (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You may have a point, but I would just like to point out that Hong Kong is not a country, and is not to be treated as such. While the term "city" sometimes has definition, most commonly it is used in a general sense to mean an urban area with a large population. Hong Kong can easily be described as a city, and it would be delusional to think that it already isn't. I would also like to issue a friendly suggestion for you to read Wikipedia:Be bold and Wikipedia:Ownership of articles - I may certainly be wrong but I feel you are far too assertive in editing/reverting the article depending on your personal opinion of what you think it should look like (I feel, I think, I am happy, I will compromise, I don't like, I don't agree) instead of attempting to gain a broader consensus. No other editor of the article can now see the changes to the section layout because of your aggressive revert based on your single opinion, and are thus unable to give their own opinions. --Joowwww (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, I try to find a consensus among editors whenever possible. For example, while I personally do not favor having a skyline image, it is supported by many editors here during the discussion so it is fine. And notice that I kept much of your changes except the merging of sections. With all due respect, it seems at times you are the one who is being too assertive, imposing changes based only on your own opinion before any discussion and before any consensus is reached. Unfortunately, it seemed you hadn't bothered to discuss first at all, let alone wait for a consensus. This is a mature featured article and the text is the result of long and difficult debates among many editors. Therefore, changes should be made incrementally, not recklessly without consultation based on one's opinion. In Wikipedia:Be bold you will find the following: "Substantial changes or deletions to the articles on complex, controversial subjects ... or to Featured Articles and Good Articles, should be done with extra care. In many cases, the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view." — Kelw (talk) 04:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I have improved quite a few articles in this way and have not received a single complaint until now, and one included a jump from Start-class to GA-class in one edit. This article may be rated as FA-class but it is certainly not FA-standard, and any improvements, including the one I made (and took "extra care" in finding citations, formatting well, perfecting grammar and sticking to NPOV), should be encouraged not stifled. The guideline may say that care should be given (I had already read it) but nowhere does it say that bold edits should not be made. In fact, at the top of WP:Bold you will find "If you see something that can be improved, do not hesitate to do it yourself." Furthermore, I read every archive talk page of this article before I made any edits and have been careful to conform to established consensus. Nowhere in the archives has there been a discussion about sub-section layout. Nowhere in featured article criteria does it define article-wide sub-section layout. You are the only person who has registered a complaint with my edit to this article, out of many regular contributors, and I reiterate that with your aggressive revert based on your personal dislike of its appearance, no other editors of this article can give their opinion, be it good or bad. Perhaps a featured article review is in fact needed so that good-faith, positive, needed improvements can be made to the article without being accused of being "reckless". --Joowwww (talk) 11:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Not to flame any fires but I have so far supported the changes to these articles including new photos. This article needs much more revision and fine editing. We are letting far too many editors add bits and pieces in that really should go toward the main article of that section. This is an overall summary of Hong Kong in various aspects and text such as explanations need to be trimmed down to accepted facts. Explanation goes into the section article. I would however recommend Joowwww that you do not use subsections if at all possible. 20-sections is a good maximum limit to a city page. As for the debate over HK as territory/city-state versus city, let me suggest you consider if this is an encyclopedic article for the English-speaking world what would be most appropriate? Because if you edit it in a perspective that is not true to the place's actual function, the text will fail and sound ridiculous. I would say based on the way HK government is run, the way services are administered, etc that it is a bonafide city as much as New York, Stockholm, or London is. It may be a super-city or mega-city but it's a city alright. Perhaps the ambiguity over HK is that we generally call it "Hong Kong dei6" instead of "Hong Kong zhou1" (state) or "Hong Kong sing3" (city). But the terminology we give to label city workers and various places equates to HK as a city than a territory. Food for thought! .:DavuMaya:. 20:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Politics and government section

I feel this is a section that needs to be rewritten to a more summarizing form. The text right now goes back and forth and has a lot of unneeded info that shold be in subarticles. I think the section should summarize the following:

• The Basic Law
• Election and duties of the Chief Executive, move specific mentions of Donald Tsang's history into the biography article.
• Election and duties of the Legislature
• Summary of the political reform debate

I plan to make a change within the next few days. Any thoughts? — Kelw (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think all 3 current sections Politics, Legal system and Military can all be merged into one section. If the 62kb Australia featured article can do it (don't need a whole Foreign Relations section for Hong Kong), I don't see why this one can't. --Joowwww (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Australia article hardly mentions the legal system at all, so basically it merged only the politics and government sections, as is the case here. The legal system section is short and well summarized, so I think it can be kept. The politics and government sections is quite overloaded right now, so can I trim it down first before deciding whether to merge? Most of HK's foreign ties are economic, so a lot of that info is already in the Economy section. — Kelw (talk) 01:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Since it appears no one objects to summarizing the section, I went ahead based on the outline above. Feel free to revert or make changes and state disagreements here. Also, should this section be merged further with the legal system section? The FA Canada keeps the Government and Law sections separate. — Kelw (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Kelw, your recommended changes seem overly legal / technical. Where are the politics of "politics and government"? Surely the politcal parties and non-party groups deserve a major subcategory under such a section. And, Joowwww, seeing as Los Angeles, London and La Paz don't need sections on a city's military, perhaps it isn't needed here. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Los Angeles, London and La Paz don't need sections on their own military because they don't have their own military. I never said Military should have its own section, I said it should be merged into a single section covering government and law. --Joowwww (talk) 10:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Hong Kong doesn't have its own military, either. The People's Liberation Army unit based in HK is not under the authority of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Military status is very important to Hong Kong because it is one of major focus when negotiating about the sovereignty of Hong Kong. While Hong Kong people were against the idea of the presence of communist military forces in the territory, it was Deng Xiaoping dictating that the force would station in Hong Kong as it is the symbol of Chinese communist controlling the sovereignty of Hong Kong. There is an agreement about this between the governement of UK and PRC, and it is scribed in the Basic Law. Military status in Los Angeles, London and La Paz is not a concern within their states. It worth a section to mention. — HenryLi (Talk) 05:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Henry Li, I now see where you're coming from. Since this is an article about Hong Kong, and not about the handover negotiations, there is no need for mention of the PLA troops that happen to be based here. The California State National Guard units stationed in Los Angeles only get a mention when they are deployed or note worthy, right? Same situation here: the PLA is not note worthy in Hong Kong expect by its near-absence from sight and mind. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Sections

To try and make it easier for casual readers to find the information they want and keep to WP:Summary I'm proposing a change of the section layout. This will also help to better organise the article both during and after the Featured Article Review. It's based on a compromise between general guides at the Country and Cities WikiProjects and other featured articles. Some of the current sections may seem too big to merge together but a featured article about a major topic like Australia can summarise things well and at only 62kb is far more readable than the HK article.

• History
• Geography and climate
• Government and judiciary [or] Politics and law - merges the current Politics and government, Legal system and judiciary and Military sections
• Administrative divisions
• Economy - merges the current Economy and Healthcare sections
• Demographics - merges the current Demographics and Religion sections
• Transport
• Architecture
• Culture - needs expanding with media and sport

What do you all think about this. --Joowwww (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with merging the Demographics and Religion sections which contain related topics; the content itself should not need rewriting since the sections are already summarized. Economy and Healthcare should be kept separate as there is very little relationship between the two topics. — Kelw (talk) 01:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense all around. Healthcare, Demographics, etc might go under "Society," though. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I've had a go at condensing Economy. Most of it was statistics/historical info more suited to the Economy of Hong Kong page instead of this summary article. I've kept a lot of the relevant content, it was mostly a matter of rewording sentences to make paragraphs smaller. --Joowwww (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good in its condensed form. Dionix (talk) 18:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just merged Religion into Demographics. A lot of content in the Religion section focused on what the religion actually does, instead of information specific to Hong Kong. The Demographics section is now organised into four paragraphs: Population statistics, ethnicity/immigration, language, and religion. --Joowwww (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I've just merged Military into Politics and condensed. A lot of the politics section was describing what the government does, instead of what it is, which is more suited to the appropriate sub-articles. The military section easily fits into the politics section again by cutting out a lot of what there was and what it does, and just describing what it is. If anyone wants to know more detail about something they can click on the links. --Joowwww (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Healthcare

Would anyone object if the Healthcare section was moved to its own page, Healthcare in Hong Kong? This is of course important information but I think it's too specific for a main article summary page, contributing to the page's length, and would be better suited on its own article where it can be expanded and linked. --Joowwww (talk) 19:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

"Pearl of the Orient"

Does anyone remember this nickname for Hong Kong? --Tesscass (talk) 17:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

There are still some sites that mention it, but it has been used for both Hong Kong and Shanghai. --Joowwww (talk) 19:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've heard this term used for so many places and things (such as boats, cruise ships, etc.) that I don't think it's a unique phrase to HK, although I've certainly heard HK called that. I think many people also use it for the Philippines. Dionix (talk) 23:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Pearl of the Orient is correct, probably from the Pearl River Delta. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect - the British used to call Pulau Pinang (Penang) in Malaysia the 'Pearl of the Orient'. Jim B 25 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.22.194 (talk)

The term is also used for also used for Manila Adacore (talk) 09:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I Googled it, and with no other references, there were 166,000 hits. Add "Hong Kong" and it drops to 24,000. Singapore (w/o HK) is 23,500, Manila 19,000 and Shanghai 14,600. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It would seem the Orient has a lot of pearls. Adacore (talk) 09:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

LoL yeah it's not copyrighted or anything so any city can use it and a lot of cities consider them selves pearls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete168 (talk • contribs) 06:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The former Emblem of Hong Kong has a lion holding a pearl. — HenryLi (Talk) 18:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

was looking for some informations that i need...and found out lots lots of them had been deleted.. 1/3 of pages erased in 2 months? i would be glad if someone can fill in some back..especially the economy of HK..and living.. and the awards..need it for school works..n research.. thank you so much!

) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angellinissima (talk • contribs) 22:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Some content was removed from the Hong Kong page because it was getting too long, but you can find more info in the subpages. Take a look at Economy of Hong Kong and International rankings of Hong Kong. --Joowwww (talk) 10:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

question concerning the Hong Kong ID card

First of all I´m really sorry that this question doesn´t help to improve that article but I made everywhere equieries and didn´t get the answer for the following question which could have a strong influence on my future so please don´t delete it and try to help me if you can. Here´s my question: I´ve european citizienship and want to apply for a Hong Kong ID card (NOT the permanent one, just the ordinary without the right of abode) in order to be able to apply for a job in Hong Kong. Are there any possibilities for me to get this card? Many thanks for you help and understanding in advance! Dagadt (talk) 16:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

As is the case in most places, it works the other way around: first, get the job; then move to Hong Kong; and finally, apply for the ID card. There are relaxed rules that allow people to stay in HK for up to 1 year to look for work, but that is on a visa basis, not an ID card. In short, you need to have a justification for being in Hong Kong for an extended period of time before you are eligible for an ID card. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

HKID card is for everyone except bona fide traveller who do not stay more than 180 days. You may find some information in Visa and HKID card (exemption from registering the card). You should get an appropriate visa that allows you to work in Hong Kong. Proving evidents that you can earn your living or an amount of investment in Hong Kong is one of the key for approval. — HenryLi (Talk) 01:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all thank you very much for this information, but to apply for the training (Cathay Pacific Cadet Pilot Programme) of Cathay Pacific to become pilot I have to own the ID like you will see here: ...To qualify for our Cadet Pilot Programme, you must be at least 18 years old and a Hong Kong resident... If you click later on apply for this job they ask you for your Hong Kong Id number.  ::Moreover a friend of mine told me that I´d meet the Hong Kong resident requirement if I would have such a Hong Kong Id card (and just the ordinary one without the right of abode)... Dagadt (talk) 07:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid that it is not. From Cathay Pacific FAQ, it states more clearly about the requirement. "Who can apply as a Cadet Pilot? .... You must be a permanent Hong Kong resident... " (FAQ). Obviously, the purpose of the programme is to train Hong Kong people and rather than transient resident. — HenryLi (Talk) 18:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You´re unfortunately right HenryLi, but maybe it´s not correct what stands there because it´s not really up to date (8. What is the expected intake this year? We are planning to hire 225 pilots by the end of 2005!). And secondly under the section educational standart in the FAQ there doesn´t stand like in Cadet Pilot Program "or the equivalent educational standard obtained overseas". Thirdly

my friend is Cathay Pacific pilot and said that they changed some things. I´ll ask him, but anyway, please tell me how to get the ordinary ID card, in case that would be their new requirement. Dagadt (talk) 07:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You'd better read the visa link above. Investment or study is a pretty good reason to stay in Hong Kong. — HenryLi (Talk) 03:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Skyline Panorama

Is there anything to be done about the panorama pictured under "Architecture of Hong Kong"? It's a very wide picture, and on some screen resolutions juts out away from the text, disrupting the article's flow. Perhaps the image could be deleted altogether. I find two images of the city skyline to be kind of redundant. JeffDaniels (talk) 23:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:wide image allows scrolling of a wide image in cases of lower screen resolutions, so it should not be a problem. But I do agree with you that two images of the city skyline is redundant. And Template:Infobox Country or territory is not supposed to include a skyline image in the first place, so the infobox image should be deleted. — Kelw (talk) 02:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

But there are no rules saying there shouldn't be. And an image in the infobox sticks to established convention, it's where users would expect to find a picture of the city like in every other city article. --Joowwww (talk) 11:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hong Kong isn't like every other city. Leave the panorama picture as is. DOR (HK) (talk) 13:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Joowwww, I don't understand why you bring up the city infobox, when this article clearly uses Template:Infobox Country or territory and has much more in common with articles like Singapore, Monaco, or even Macau. The picture in the infobox serves no purpose other than providing eye-candy. That's why we should keep the panorama image, and remove the infobox image instead. — Kelw (talk) 02:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't bring up the city infobox. Please quote where I did. I know this article uses the country/territory infobox, hell I've edited it enough times. I don't care what template this article uses. You seem to be under the impression that Hong Kong is a country. It's not, it's a city. You can beef it up with "special administrative region" "it has its own laws" "it's a special case" all you want, but the majority of people who visit this article and who don't know any better will see it as a city. It looks like a city, acts like a city, smells like a city and can easily be defined as a city. It is a part of the PRC. It is Wikipedia convention to have a picture of the city in the infobox, like in other city articles. I don't understand why you have such a problem with this. We have already had this discussion. --Joowwww (talk) 10:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

<< You said "it's where users would expect to find a picture of the city like in every other city article," but this is not a city article and it doesn't use the city infobox. I don't know why you say "it is Wikipedia convention to have a picture of the city in the infobox"; there is no such convention, unless you are trying to bring up template:infobox city. As I said before, look at the infoboxes for Singapore, Monaco, or even Macau and tell me if they violate Wikipedia convention. Your rhetoric that it looks acts and smells like a city is, bluntly put, lazy logic. We might as well label whales and dolphins as fish. What is so important to you about having that picture in the infobox, that justifies misusing an infobox parameter and going against nearly every other article that uses this template? And from this discussion alone, it's quite clear that I am not the only one who finds two skyline pictures redundant. — Kelw (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the panorama in the architecture section is great and it'd be a mistake to remove it. Ditto for the little picture in the city box. TastyCakes (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the possible redundancy of having two skyline pictures. The only subject of this discussion on my part is, and has always been, the infobox picture. When I talk about convention, I'm not talking about infobox convention, I'm talking about article layout convention. Articles about cities have pictures of the city in the top right of the article, regardless of what infobox they use. People who visit Wikipedia and look at articles about cities expect to see that picture. When they look at the Hong Kong article - an article about a city - why should it not have an image there? Are you saying that Hong Kong isn't a city? Singapore and Monaco are undisputedly countries, so they are irrelevant. Macau has no well-known skyline, so it's a poor comparison. --Joowwww (talk) 16:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

2008 Olympics

This article should say it was the host of a 2008 venue, and have a sports section in any case. 70.55.85.40 (talk) 12:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Leading sentence

There seems to be a slow edit war occuring between people who think the leading sentence should be HKSAR and those who think it should be HKSAR of the PRC. After reading the previous discussions on this issue, no consensus seems to have been reached. Shall we try to find one now, and end this edit war?

I'm proposing it stays as HKSAR in the intro, but is changed to HKSAR of the PRC in the infobox. A compromise. This fulfills one side's argument that the full official title is both unnecessary and affects the article's readability, but where readability isn't an issue - in the infobox - the full, official title can be given, achieving some people's request of adhering to convention. --Joowwww (talk) 19:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought that in the previous discussion, editors have agreed that we should keep PRC out of the name. Though I could be wrong since I didn't really participate in that discussion. My position is that it is widely known that HK is part of China and that it is really unnecessary to have PRC in the official name. But like you said, we should compromise on this issue in order to avoid an edit war. I guess your purposed compromise makes sense and I am willing to accept it.—Chris! _ct 20:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see a consensus, perhaps I overlooked it. I'll check again. Of course if there was one then it should be maintained. --Joowwww (talk) 14:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This proposal makes sense. In a way Hong Kong is special because it hasn't always been under the PRC and that explains the need for the government's website to say "HKSAR of the PRC", but the "full name" shouldn't have to be repeated to death. HkCaGu (talk) 23:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

We seem to be back to the slow edit war, again. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't know if it's somebody who stayed tuned to all 60 legislators' oath, one by one, with the full name "HKSAR of the PRC". HkCaGu (talk) 04:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation and etymology

I've made a pronunciation template for a new etymology section in an attempt to solve the messy intro problem. I understand this has been a very contentious issue so feel free to state any objections or changes that need to be made, or if it just doesn't work at all. Regards --Joowwww (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

A further thought: Perhaps if there was an image of a written 香港 on a temple wall or somewhere, the template could be made to look like an image thumbnail? --Joowwww (talk) 14:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

References

I made the refs take up less space, is it appropriate? Enlil Ninlil (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for trying! I've had to remove your edit because of a discussion here where it was decided that scroll boxes should not be used for citations. The image of the Garrison building was making the reference list narrower on higher resolutions, so I've fixed that. Regards, --Joowwww (talk) 09:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

New user box

New user box

This user supports Hong Kong independence.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Niikhk (talk • contribs) on 13:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

LegCo President on infobox?

I've just added "Legislature" to the infobox. Would "Legislative Council President" be an appropriate addition or not? --Joowwww (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added it. --Joowwww (talk) 20:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Protection needed?

We seem to be under pretty constant attack. A temporary editing block might encourage some of these children to go elsewhere. Thoughts? DOR (HK) (talk) 02:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Section condensing complete

OK the article is now condensed, and at 61 KB I think is now a fine size. All that's needed now is for loads of references to be added, and then I think it'll be ready to get back that featured star. --Joowwww (talk) 10:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

HK is not considered part of Mainland China?

I note the following statement in the article:-

"Hong Kong is not considered as part of Mainland China and remains largely self-governing,"

According to Wikipedia's Mainland China article, Hong Kong is *generally* not considered part of Mainland China. However, the above statement asserts that it is the absolute truth. I think there is a conflict of assertions in these two articles and we need to work on a consensus.

For everyone's convenience, the relevant section in the "Mainland China" article is reproduced here, as follows-

"Mainland China, Continental China, or simply the mainland, is a geopolitical term usually synonymous with the area that is culturally and legally associated with the territory of the People's Republic of China (PRC) currently under the direct political control of Beijing. This means that the term usually does not include the two Special Administrative Regions (SARs) of Hong Kong and Macau."

Please discuss.--pyl (talk) 04:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

To some old ROC politicians, "the mainland" is a quick colloquialism to mean any part of Greater China not currently ruled by the ROC. Even as the political ideal fades, those in the KMT who still hold to "Recover the Mainland!" are certainly not excluding HK SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Yes. HK is not considered part of Mainland China. You said it yourself, "This means that the term (mainland China) usually does not include the two Special Administrative Regions (SARs) of Hong Kong and Macau." The answer is pretty clear. Hongkongers generally don't consider themselve mainlander, the ROC view that SchmuckyTheCat said is very obsolete, Moreover, ROC never had HK in their possession even when they were in mainland China.--Da Vynci (talk) 12:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I have just read the document provided as a reference to your quoted paragraph in the -Mainland China- article. The document is a record of the proceedings of an Hong Kong SAR government meeting convened in responds to a judgement made by the central government regarding a bill. The details of the particular bill is not important but if you look at clause 2(1) it deals specifically with the definition of the term "Mainland" and this is a quote from that part of the document.

"... this seems to be consistent with the Administration’s understanding that the term “Mainland” should be taken to mean any part of China other than the HKSAR, the Macao SAR and Taiwan."

I think it's pretty clear that the Central government consider the term "Mainland" to exclude Hong Kong and that the Hong Kong SAR government agrees with that definition. I think the inconsistency is with the -Mainland China- article using the term "generally" when their own reference states otherwise. (Pete168 (talk) 08:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC))

That reference does not take into account the old KMT point of view, nor the historic use. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Is that a problem? DOR (HK) (talk) 02:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Only if you want to hold that definition rigidly to that single reference. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Well that "single" reference is an official clarification of the definition, meaning from that point on all other official use of that term will adhere to that definition. If you reference a case in court you just need to bring up the precedent case and not every single case there after. That official definition is a definition accepted and used by both governments involved and as a term used by governments in official documents the definition will have to be rigid so that there is no room for misinterpretation.

In terms of historical use, Hong Kong has only been under the control of the PRC since 1997 so historically Hong Kong has never been included in the term "mainland" through out the world.

If you are talking about colloquial use, then it's a different matter, I don't know how you are going to find reference for colloquial use, may be there is a Wiki guideline. Though as a person who lived and work in both Hong Kong and China I would argue that among the population of both territories the colloquial use of the term "mainland" is accepted to exclude Hong Kong also. Actually now that I think about it, this would lead back to historical use, colloquial use of terms usually stems from history so since historically Hong Kong has never been part of the "mainland" the population in colloquial use of the term never considered Hong Kong part of the "mainland" and this believe is reinforced today by the official clarification made by the government.

So I think in the two territories involved and the rest of the world (the counties that recognise PRC and Hong Kong SAR will have to use the same definition on an official level) there is a "rigid" definition of the word.

That only leave the ROC which you brought up, it's actually quite interesting reading through the details of the law. I went to ROC's Mainland Affairs Council and found a section regarding "Mainland Affairs" and a section regarding "Hong Kong and Macao Affairs" and when I started reading through the law governing Taiwan-Mainland relations it stated the definition of "Mainland" to be any territory of the Republic of China that is not part of Taiwan (the definition of Taiwan being any territory that are under the effective control of the ROC government) so on the face of it, it would appear that the ROC considered Hong Kong part of the Mainland but then I found that this act was sign into law in 1992 while Hong Kong was still a British Colony and I remember from a TV show (I don't have a written reference but I am sure I can find something if I can be bothered digging for it) that the KMT recognised the British's claim to Hong Kong and so when the act was written the sentence "territory of the Republic of China that is not part of Taiwan" excluded Hong Kong and Macao, which I suspect is the reason why they set up the seperate "Hong Kong and Macao Affairs" section to deal with them without having to change the law. I also read through the amendments to the law made since 1997 and none of them dealt with the changing of the definition of "Mainland". So it's safe to say at least on an official level (since 1992) the ROC also take the term "Mainland" to exclude Hong Kong and Macao.

When you say old ROC politicians, are you talking about their own sentiments or do you have proof that on an official level the KMT's stance is to take Hong Kong back as well because the treaties to cede Hong Kong to Britain was sign before the formation of both the ROC and PRC and under international law it needs to be recognised and in fact it was recognised by the PRC letting Britain rule it until 1997. So I think at the bear minimum you need to show references that on an official level the ROC never has and never intend to recognised Britain's claim to Hong Kong, otherwise what you are arguing for is a small number of "old ROC politicians" who take the definition of "Mainland" to be different from everyone else's and I don't think they are a large enough number to influence the "rigid" and official meaning of the term. I might be wrong but that's what I think from reading all the stuff. (Pete168 (talk) 05:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC))

Oh I just realised someone has already added "generally" to the sentence, since the page is locked if an admin can be bothered to change it can you please take out the "generally" from the sentence, but if no one can be bothered it's not that big of a deal. (Pete168 (talk) 07:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC))

Done. Btw, spectacular analysis Pete168.--Da Vynci (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Portal proposal

Hi all, I've made a suggestion at Portal talk:Hong Kong regarding the HK portal so if you are interested please see the discussion there. Regards --Joowwww (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Satellite Image Ambiguity

Hello, there is an image captioned "Areas of urban development and vegetation are visible in this false-colour satellite image." I could not find a legend or indication of which colour corresponds to which sort of geography. Perhaps this caption could be improved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.221.163 (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems pretty obvious to me. I've added a legend to the image page anyway. --Joowwww (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

redirecting "China" to the "PRC"

There is a discussion going on here.--pyl (talk) 05:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Mainland China

Why is it that there has to be anything at all about "Mainland China" in the intro? Does it really matter if it's not considered part of the "mainland"? It just opens the floodgates to the debate on the political connotations behind that name, and it just looks like it's a bunch of HK wikipedia editors trying to avoid association to the mainland and making a point of it. Besides, people from Hainan don't consider themselves part of mainland China either, but because that is not a political debate people don't care enough to revert the intro for Hainan on Wikipedia. What happened to the simple introduction of "HK is one of two special adminsitrative regions of the PRC, the other being Macau" (follow the Puerto Rico model?). Colipon+(T) 22:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's simply because people outside China would have easily thought that Hong Kong is a part of "Mainland China". But the fact is it isn't. (I think it is not debatable, no one would consider HK as part of mainland, and nothing about politics). So it is just to make it clear.--Kfsung (talk) 08:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Octopus card

The Octopus card can indeed be used for small purchases; I do so every day, and since it is so commonplace, it doesn’t need a citation. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Everything needs citation. It doesn't matter if it's commonplace or that a particular editor personally knows that it's true. WP is based on WP:Verifiability. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

No, not everything needs citation everywhere. There is already a citation about Octopus and there is the Octopus article. We don't need to repeat everything everywhere. HkCaGu (talk) 09:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

If this article wants to regain FA status then every single statement is going to need a reference. --Joowwww (talk) 12:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Would you please cite a source for that? DOR (HK) (talk) 06:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Right. We don't need every sentence to be backed by a citation, but everything that the article states need to be verifiable in citations. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice if every sentence was cited or referred. The minimum should be every paragraph should be cited.--Visik (talk) 08:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

This article states that "Hong Kong" is written as "香港" in Chinese, but doesn't list any source for that. Is that an error?

This article states that "Hong Kong" officially is called "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" / "香港特別行政區", but doesn't list any source for that. Is that an error?

Anyway, the Octopus card article tells that the card can be used in vending machines, parking meters and other kinds of purchases usually costing small amounts of money, and lists references for that. If a simple link to the article about the card isn't enough, it would be very easy to simply copy some of the references from that article. (Stefan2 (talk) 00:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC))

National anthem

I don't know if this has been discussed before, but I think the Basic Law does specify that Hong Kong's national anthem is March of the Volunteers. It is in Annex III[3] of the Basic Law. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

HQG, with all due respect, March of the Volunteers is the PRC's national anthem; Hong Kong, as a non-national entity, doesn't have one any more than California would have a "national" anthem. (State song, yes; national anthem, no.) DOR (HK) (talk) 08:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I've noticed that all the PRC references in the HK article were cut but the ones in the Macau article remain. Kind of interesting because Macau seems to be aligned politically with Beijing more so than Hong Kong. Thus the semantic results we see on Wikipedia. People in HK don't want that association, but people in Macau don't really care. Colipon+(T) 22:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It sort of depends on the wording. It would sound strange to say "California's national anthem is The Star Spangled Banner", but it wouldn't sound so stange to say "The national anthem of California is The Star Spangled Banner". The former implies ownership, and California doesn't own it. However California uses it as California is part of the United States. That is, the answer to "What national anthem is used in California?" is The Star Spangled Banner. I don't think there is any harm in saying what the national anthem for Hong Kong is, but it does need to be worded carefully or foot-noted to be sure there is no confusion about whether Hong Kong is a nation. Readin (talk) 03:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous theory Readin (with all due respect)! First of all, even the article California doesn't mention the national anthem of USA. Also, The Star Spangled Banner doesn't explicitly state "The Star Spangled Banner is the national anthem of California" either. Simply because it is not necessary. Look, if your theory don't work even work in the examples u provided, I think it is time to consider withdraw from ur suggestion. I know what u are suggesting, that is to include National anthem to sub-nationl entities. I know we can use some idiosyncratic wording to "carefully" place the nation anthem in, but I think a more important question is whether it is necessary. What is the reason and logic of doing it? If we start to include national anthem to sub-national entities, we have to be consistent. That is, to include national anthem on article such as California (your fine example)? Tsim Sha Tsui? Notting Hill? Kowloon? Kowloon City? Kowloon Bay? Kowloon Station? The answer is, not necessary. --Da Vynci (talk) 12:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hong Kong as a dependent territory does not have a anthem of its own. The March of the Volunteers is an anthem of the People's Republic as a whole. Montemonte (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

History

The history doesn't explicitly mention if Hongkong was part of Guangdong province or it was originally a fishing village in southern China prior to being a British colony. Can anyone found out more information and ascertain it. --Visik (talk) 08:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The omission is due to history. "Guangdong," like all provinces, was far less specifically defined before the 20th century than it is today. So, the short answer is "it isn't explicitly identified as part of Guangdong because it wasn't explicitly part of Guangdong. It was, however, implicitly a part of the province." DOR (HK) (talk) 06:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It definitely was part of the Bao'an County of the province of Canton or Kwangtung. And by the way before the cession there were several villages on the island of Hong Kong, and many villages in Kowloon and in where was later known as the New Territories. Montemonte (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

One thing worth noticing is that before the British established the trading port and decide to call it Hongkong in 1842, in the time of Imperial China the area of now known as "Hong Kong" only included Hong Kong Tsai 香港仔 (the small inlet between the island of Ap Lei Chau and the south side of Hong Kong Island) and did not include Kowloon, Lantau Island or New Territories. Therefore, it may be inappropiate to use the term Hong Kong as if it includes Kolwoon, Lantau, and NT like today for matters before 1843. --Da Vynci (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Developing vs developed

I removed the mention of HK being "developed" because I don't see it as relevant. If you're comparing developed and developing societies, yes, HK will be on one list and China the other. But I don't see the relevance of mentioning it here because cities being developed while the country is developing is all too common--and HK and China are indeed apples and oranges in terms of economy comparison, hence the phrase "HK retains its developed status" is just plain weird and un-notable--comparing political systems has much more relevance. HkCaGu (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The sentence that you deleted is exactly a comparison of the political systems in Hong Kong and in China -- one is capitalist and one is communist. Hong Kong is developed because it's not communist, and China is developing because it's communist. These are facts, and I don't see why you have to delete facts. - 68.6.120.13 (talk) 01:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if you read what I said, and your reasoning is simply not valid. Developed or developing may have to do with political history, but are not determined by "communism". Hong Kong, if ceases to be capitalistic and is imposed governance identical to Shanghai and Beijing, will be just as developed. Therefore, it is invalid to say that Hong Kong retains a "developed status" (or implicitly, it didn't go back to "developing" in 1997) because of the Basic Law 50-year guarantee. HkCaGu (talk) 02:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Hong Kong's status as a developed economy, if relevant at all, belongs in the economy section, not the intro. --Joowwww (talk) 12:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. As Hong Kong is China's only developed city, it deserves mention.DOR (HK) (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with HkCaGu. Hong Kong's was established as a trading port in 1843, which predate the establishment of People's Republic of China more than 100 years. In that 100 years, the development of HK and mainland China has significant differences, and those differences led to the result of HK now being a developed entity while China is not. HK now being an overseas territory of PRC does not change HK's unique historical background. Thus, the word "developed" should stay. --Da Vynci (talk) 11:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, the relationship b/w HK & UK (before 1997) is similar to HK & PRC (after 1997), as ensured as the Basic Law of Hong Kong. Just as you said on your own talk page, "Hong Kong was not part of the kingdom--it only belonged to the kingdom.", therefore using your words, the current political situation is "Hong Kong is not part of PRC--it only belongs to the PRC", despite the geographical connection b/w southern PRC and Northern Hong Kong. Consequently, any attempt trying to blur the line HK and PRC should be postponed until 2047. Please be patient. --Da Vynci (talk) 11:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I know it is beside the main point of the arguments here, but I find your side statements rather interesting. I think drawing an analogy from the statement that "HK was not part of the kingdom....." is a rather poor one. The relationship b/t HK and the UK before 1997 is totally different from HK and the PRC after 1997. Since being part of the PRC, the people of HK became full citizens of the People's Republic. While HK is part of the PRC, it is also true that the mainland belongs to the people of HK, as HK people now have the right to exercise Chinese sovereignty. HK people never had the right to exercise UK sovereignty. HK is not an overseas territory of the PRC. It is a full part of the PRC with a special status guaranteed by the PRC constitution. To be blunt, an oversea territory means the territory that belongs to another country, yet the people cannot be full citizens of that country. That's clearly not the case for HK after 1997.--pyl (talk) 15:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I doubt. Hong Kong permanent residents with the nationality of the People's Republic do not enjoy full citizens' right. They do not have the right of abode in the rest of the People's Republic, and some are even denied of the rights to visit the rest of the People's Republic. Their full right is restricted to be within the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Montemonte (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing of "full rights" of Chinese citizens, who are not guaranteed the freedom of movement anyway! Shenzhen SEZ itself used to enforce its boundary with the rest of Shenzhen municipality, and of course there is the hukou system. Hong Kong residents actually have more rights in general than their mainland counterparts. HkCaGu (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

That's true. But what I wished to point out was that a special administrative region as in the case of Hong Kong is just like a colony but name. The People's Republic actually prefers to preserve quite a lot of the elements of Hong Kong's colonial structure of adminstration as well as the colonial way of linkage between the sovereign power and the colony. Montemonte (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the sentence is important enough to be mentioned in the opening so normal readers who don't know anything about HK and China can understand HK's special status. The status is relevant as most readers understand China as a developing country, and HK's developed status as a highly self-governing region makes it not just another city in China.--pyl (talk) 15:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how mentioning whether or not HK is "developed" is a statement on its political status. The section "Politics and government" is exactly what tells the readers about the political status of HK. And the intro paragraph already mentions that it is a SAR and that it is governed under the "one country, two systems" policy. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Having said that, I would not be opposed to adding sentences about how HK belongs to international bodies like the WTO and the WHO. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The introduction is only about political status? Isn't an introduction about quick information so readers know what the article is about quickly? I think anything important and relevant can be mentioned in the introduction.--pyl (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This entire discussion has been about political status, and where the sentence was inserted was a paragraph about political status. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see what you are saying now. The 2nd paragraph of the introduction is all about HK's political status. Well, maybe if that "developed status" statement is to be inserted, then the proper place would be somewhere in the 3rd paragraph where it is all about HK's economy.--pyl (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't care which paragraph goes where--my opposition is the saying that "HK retains its developed status". Normal logic is that once you're developed, you're developed. You can't go back from developed to developing, especially not because of a peaceful/arranged takeover by the PRC. If you can't go back to developing then why mention it. There might be a way to phrase it right, that Hong Kong is now a developed economy within a developing country, but given that many PRC cities have become "developed", the relevance diminishes. Comparison of economical figures (such as HK is X times/percentile...etc. higher than PRC average) is one way the difference can be mentioned. HkCaGu (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I had an issue with the word "retain" as well. It implies that, being part of the PRC, HK was running a risk of losing the "developed" status. I am not sure if that implication would comply with the NPOV rule. I was going to change that word but couldn't think of a better one. Maybe another expression like one you suggested is better.--pyl (talk) 05:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Now that you have deleted the sentence about Hong Kong's status as a developed country and China's status as a developing country, you have not added the same information in the Economy section of the article as you said you would. Is this PRC-style censorship or something? - 68.6.120.13 (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

If no conclusion has been reached, then the sentence (about the fact that Hong Kong is a developed country while China is a developing country) should stay, in the way it used to be. If any Chinese feel offended by this factual statement and want to delete that sentence, discuss! - 68.6.120.13 (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Lead image again

Old lead image

Current lead image

Newer version just uploaded

I noticed that a while back that the then lead image of mine was replaced by Base64 with a similar one that he took. While I certainly see the merits of both images, I can't help but think that the older one has better colour and composition and slightly more eye-pleasing exposure (I think the current one looks overexposed for a night shot). Now this may be my own bias, so I didn't want to simply be bold and replace it, especially as there may have been some discussion over which one was more appropriate (if so, I missed it when scanning the talk page), so I thought I'd bring it up here. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree the picture I took is kind of overexposed, I should have done a few more trials before uploading to here. I think the image Diliff took isn't perfect, but has less flaws than the new one I took, according to a few friends of mine. Until me or someone else upload a better image with more appropriate timing, exposure and editing, I suggest the lead picture should change to the more eye-pleasing exposure. And my image should be delisted when no page is using it. Nevertheless, more user input on this issue is needed. --Base64 (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I've uploaded a newer version just now, see if the exposure is suitable for evening night darkness. --Base64 (talk) 11:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response (I guess ideally we need other responses though - not just the two photographers involved!). I'm glad you agree with me as I didn't want to offend you by mentioning it as I remember you defended it at the time. I'm not sure that the new version is better though. It is a bit too dark IMO and that is the reason why I took the photo as an exposure fused composite in the first place, as the brightness range is too great for a single photo. It's just that I think that my version has a better balanced exposure to be honest. Any other opinions guys? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well it's ok, after viewing my image for over a hundred times over a year, I am not satisfied with my image. Its all about timing, location and experience when taking these kind of images. I have limited knowledge in exposure blending/HDR imaging, but I still keep the (46 x 3) [+-2 Exposure] RAWs hoping that I can fix them one day. By the way, you also have an FP with similar brightness: File:Yarra_Night_Panorama,_Melbourne_-_Feb_2005.jpg. --Base64 (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, exposure blending is not easy, and (at least with the tools that I have) you can't make adjustments to the settings and get an immediate result to see how it looks, so it really is trial-and-error. In an ideal world, I'd like to see the exposure balance and framing of my image with the clear air of yours. There is definitely more detail visible in the background of yours, but I don't think it makes a big difference to the detail around the harbour. The sharpness is about equal in both images (both excellent). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Lead sentence

If "territory" needs to be pipe linked to an explanatory article, it should be Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China not a list of international treaties. The word "Chinese" should not appear before Guandong, as both Hong Kong and Guandong are Chinese. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) -

uh, the term China itself may means Republic of China to some people. If China=Mainland+Taiwan+HK+ Macau. PRC is just a part of China.--Da Vynci (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Government type

The government is the Hong Kong Government. Is not the Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. SAR is just a title, not an actual government. Benjwong (talk) 05:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"Government type" refers to what kind of government the region runs on. Things that apply here are "Constitutional monarchy" and "parliamentary democracy". So "Hong Kong Government" would certainly not be appropriate. If you are looking to avoid association with the PRC, you can always just put "Indirect Parliamentary Democracy" or something along those lines. Owing to HK's unique circumstances, however, it is still most appropriate to say "Special Administrative Region". What do other editors think? Colipon+(T) 05:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The template field is called "Government type". But if you look at the actual article is just "Government". THe HK government is its own government. If you must settle for an alternative. I would rather just say "Pro-democracy, Pro-beijing, Pro-government". Benjwong (talk) 05:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"Pro-democracy, Pro-beijing, Pro-government" sounds like a political position, not a kind of government. "Indirect Parliamentary Democracy" sounds like it might work. This is issue is a bit different than the "Head of State" issue because the "Head of State" title explicitly mentions something that HK does not have on its own, it only has it as part of the PRC. However, HK does have its own government, even if that government is subordinate to the PRC. So the "government" description can just be about HK, it doesn't absolutely have to mention the PRC's role. Readin (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yet another reason the country infobox is inappropriate. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Agreed. Maybe it's time to construct an infobox specifically for the two SARs? Something that'll leave out all the baggages of treating HK and Macau like countries politically, but still include all the info that make them unique entities in international relations. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the country infobox is appropriate. After all, Hong Kong is highly autonomous and is effectively separate in its legal and political systems to mainland China. It also has its own currency, internet tld, calling code etc. It would make no sense to make Hong Kong infobox one that is similar to other Chinese provinces. A good solution to this issue would be to simple leave the "Government type" empty, as it is done on some dependecies on Wikipedia. Therefore there are no neutrality claims or any more headaches about trying to describe what political framework Hong Kong runs on. But if there is something that has to be put there, then perhaps "Indirect Democracy" with a link to "Government of Hong Kong" would be a good idea. Thoughts? Colipon+(T) 14:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, as long as the country infobox is used, disagreements will always spring up about whether or not to populate fields such as "government type", "national anthem", "head of state", etc etc, and how to populate them. This goes back to the root of the problem - HK and Macau are not countries after all. If we make an infobox especially for HK and Macau, we can, for example, have a "Chief Executive" field instead of a "Head of State". Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I know this is likely to annoy some people, but I've marked the government type "Non-sovereign indirect partial democracy (Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China)". First, it is important to note the "non-sovereign" because the democratic nature of HK is compromised by the fact that the sovereignty is held by the PRC, which is not democratic. Second, the "partial" democracy is based on the limits Beijing has placed on Hong Kong's demcracy. To quote a Washington Post editorial, "On Dec. 29 Beijing decreed that the next election for the executive, in 2012, would not be by universal suffrage. It said a direct vote could take place in 2017 -- but only if Beijing first approves the system to be devised for it, which it says should include the pre-approval of all candidates. Full democracy for the Hong Kong legislature, which currently chooses only half its seats by a popular vote, would be delayed until at least 2020. " (Yes, it's an editorial so I don't cite it in article, but even within an editorial there is a difference between the facts and opinions). The SAR is left in to provide more details about the relationship between HK and the rest of the PRC.

I realize it isn't perfect, but at least it moves in the correct direction of describing the government type rather than the government name. Hopefully we can agree on further improvements. Readin (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

There is actually no accurate term to describe Hong Kong's type of government. I would suggest "partially democratic dependency". Montemonte (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Location Maps

It is interesting that as what seems like a collective effort to airbrush any mention of the PRC or Chinese sovereignty, over the past year or so location indicator images such as these two have been removed from the infobox altogether (notice how they both have some kind of implicit reference to the PRC, probably why they striked a nerve with some HK editors), and replaced by the current locator map, which is not incredibly informative. I myself am not trying to advocate for putting the China location map back into the infobox, as I think it is unnecessary, and doing so would probably fan more attacks on me as trying to propagate the authoritarian policies of the Communist Party, but I do think it may be useful to put the Pearl Delta Map somewhere on the article to offer some context. Or feel free to create another "politically neutral" map which would give an average reader a better idea of where Hong Kong is than the current map. But I think if the sole purpose for removing these maps was to avoid any connection to the PRC, then it is quite obviously unreasonable.

Colipon+(T) 20:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm that is strange, to my untrained eye the maps to the right look like better maps than the one used in the info box... Was there a reason given for changing it? TastyCakes (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I made both that map showing all of China and the current infobox map. The map of China was made after the current one, and I didn't change it because there was no consensus to do so and the current map was doing its job just fine. --Joowwww (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Would the location maps showing France or Germany within the EU and the EU within the world be good examples to follow? Montemonte (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hong Kong and China & Head of State issue

As per the convention on articles for other self-governing territories, i.e. Puerto Rico, Cook Islands, Aruba etc., there is a "Head of State" under the "government" in the territory's infobox. Hong Kong is unique in that neither the National Anthem of the PRC is written into the infobox as the official anthem (although this can be justified because HK does not have its own "territorial anthem"), nor is Hu Jintao written into the infobox as the legal head of state. In fact, the opening section and infobox almost avoids mention of China entirely (including as part of its official name, although this has been previously discussed). It is interesting that this phenomenon is found so prominently on Wikipedia, and not on such sources like the CIA world factbook (which explicitly mentions "China" throughout), and the Economist country briefings. Both sources also have Hu Jintao as Hong Kong's head of state. In addition, Macau's article states explicitly that it is a SAR of the PRC, whereas Hong Kong's does not. Without amending the article itself, it may be best to have a discussion on this issue. Colipon+(T) 01:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If we just stop using the country infobox for Hong Kong, I think we'd get rid of these problems. Hong Kong is not a country and has never been a country. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

From dictionary.com we have "any considerable territory demarcated by topographical conditions, by a distinctive population, etc.: mountainous country; the Amish country of Pennsylvania." and "the land of one's birth or citizenship.". HK has enough of a unique history, unique culture, and unique people to warrant being called a "country" for at least some definitions of country. If you equate country with "independent sovereign state", then HK has never been a country, but that is not the only definition of country and it is not necessarily the one implied by the use of the country infobox. Readin (talk) 02:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Both SARS have not reached the point where naming a head of state actually matters. About macau being more mainland-ish and happy to be with PRC, that is very normal. If you follow the Sino-Portugal Treaty of Peking 1887 there are tons of controversies (especially in English text) on why macau was so neglected. They never felt fully integrated from the start. Benjwong (talk) 03:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but in the same sense Aruba's head of state (being the Queen of the Netherlands) doesn't matter either, but the editors of that article have never had a beef with putting it in the infobox. Besides, your post seems to justify that an article's lead section should be dependent upon its friendliness with mainland China, not upon facts. Colipon+(T) 03:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you give us the exact title in Chinese of the "head of state of the SARS"? Preferably if you have a source that would be good. Macau's article is expected to be more pro-beijing friendly, that's all I am saying. I personally think both articles should be consistent with each other. Benjwong (talk) 03:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure whether there's a such thing called "head of state of the SARS". The HK SAR itself is not a state. The state where the HK SAR belongs to is the People's Republic of China. The Head of State is the Head of the PRC (中華人民共和國國家主席), Hu Jin Tao.--pyl (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok you don't seem very sure either. I believe there is no such thing (at this point). Benjwong (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

HK's head of state is, as Pyl points out, the head of the state that HK is a part of. That state is the PRC, so HK's head of state is the PRC. I don't see any uncertainty in that. Colipon has a good point about the SAR mention. It seems there has been an effort to airbrush HK's status as part of the PRC out of the picture as much as possible. Readin (talk) 04:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Article 43 of HK basic law says "the Chief Executive of Hong Kong shall be the head of Hong Kong SAR". That is the highest level. For HK and Macau there is no such thing as "Head of state" on paper. Benjwong (talk) 05:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

What does the head of the SAR have to do with the head of stete? The SAR is not the whole state, therefor the head of the SAR is not necessarily the head of the whole state. In this case the head of the whole state is a different person. There is no contradiction here. Readin (talk) 05:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I too have had this feeling for a while that there has been an effort to airbrush HK's status as part of the PRC out of the picture as much as possible. Let's look at the opening paragraph:-

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

Questions comes to mind immediately would be: 1. Special Administrative Region of what state? 2. "a territory", territory of what state? The answer to both questions is the People's Republic of China.

A while back I added People's Republic of China to the information as well as the heading of the infobox and the phrase got removed rather quickly. If I could recall correctly, the reason for the removal was it is unnecessary information. I failed to see how that information could be unnecessary to normal readers, but I didn't want to risk the prospect that other editors might hostilely treat me as someone who has a political agenda to serve for the PRC.--pyl (talk) 06:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

There have been some really good points presented here. I definitely sense that the intro, and probably the entire article, tries to avoid explicit mention of Chinese sovereignty. Editors even have a problem with placing the official name of the SAR into the infobox, and this issue has been of significant discussion previously. There is no hidden agenda here. Hong Kong is part of the PRC, and by the way the article looks right now it seems that it wants to avoid this connection at all costs. Regardless, the way the article, especially the intro, is worded currently, is unquestionably unfair. Some mention of the PRC should be made so that any junior reader doesn't come to the implicit conclusion that Hong Kong has nothing to do with the PRC.

I also bring your attention to a more lighthearted issue. On the Jackie Chan article, originally it says he was a "Chinese" actor, martial artist... etc (which he undoubtedly is, and he has so proudly declared this fact on many occasions). But that was taken out of the intro without explanation by editors, who apparently believe that anyone from Hong Kong can't be presented as "Chinese". I've refrained from making any edits there, but I wanted to bring the issue to attention. Colipon+(T) 17:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Changes

Anyway, I propose the following changes to the intro:

1. As per convention on Hong Kong's own government website, the official name of the territory is "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China". See [4].
2. As per convention in the infoboxes of practically every other non-sovereign dependency in the world (and as it is presented on sources like the CIA world factbook), insert the "Head of State" into the infobox. (On some articles of French dependencies, like New Caledonia, instead of "head of state" the convention is simply "President of France", we can do that here too). This head of state is Hu Jintao.
3. More neutrally-worded changes to the "not considered part of mainland China" sentence.
4. Make similar and corresponding changes to the Macau article.

This is not aimed at fanning PRC propaganda. This is purely aimed at making the intro and the presentation of facts more balanced. Colipon+(T) 17:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You guys are absolutely mixing territorial issues with politics. This is why they have this thing called one country two systems. You are welcome to say SAR and PRC are of the same state, but you cannot say they share the same political positions. Thus the head of state of the PRC does not automatically qualify as the head of state for HK/Macau. You can share culture, food and even land. But until 2047 there is no sharing of politics. Benjwong (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

There are two systems, or subsystems, but there is one state. Final authority rests in all regions of the PRC, whether they be Autonmous Regions, SARs, or provinces, with the PRC legally and practically. In the case of the Hong Kong SAR, this authority comes legally through its ability to interpret the basic law and practically through its control of the military. Further, this relationship exists at the pleasure of the PRC state - HK has no ability to opt out on its own (in contrast to, for example, EU states that may choose to withdraw membership at any time).

This distinguishes Hong Kong from places like Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea where the PRC exercises neither legal nor practical control. Readin (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the PRC exercises legal authority on the people of Taiwan (eg issuing travel documents, offering consular assistance when the ROC doesn't have points of presence, acting as the government for the people on Taiwan for numerous aspects of international relations). Taiwan is not a good example, but your point is largely valid.--pyl (talk) 02:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Taiwan is a necessary example as some people try to group HK and Taiwan together, but they are very different cases. In what situations are you saying the PRC acts as the government of Taiwan? All cases of Taiwanese travel that I know of, or of Travel to Taiwan, involved working with the Taiwanese government, not with the PRC, except in cases where the travel is to or from the PRC (as one would expect). As for "consular assistance", in what cases are you talking about? Readin (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anyone trying to group Taiwan and HK together in this discussion. A ROC citizen can get PRC travel documents to travel out of the country, if that country does not have ROC presentation. A ROC citizen can go to the PRC embassy and seek assistence if he or she is in trouble. The PRC acts as the government for the people on Taiwan in relation to international matters where the ROC has no representation, eg the UN. These are examples where the PRC government act as the government for the people on Taiwan.--pyl (talk) 13:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That a Taiwanese can choose to go get travel documents from the PRC because the PRC is willing to give them in some non-ROC lands where the ROC citizen is under the jurisdiction of some third country, and that a Taiwanese can choose to go to the PRC embassy for assistance in that same third country, is very different from saying "PRC exercises legal authority on the people of Taiwan". What you are describing is not legal authority, it is assistance in a third country where PRC pressure on the foreign government prevents the ROC from providing the assistance. You might argue that the PRC is exercising legal authority over that third country because it is able to tell that third country whom it may and may not have diplomatic relations with, but that is a very different situation from what we were talking about with Hong Kong where In the case of the Hong Kong SAR, this authority comes legally through its ability to interpret the basic law and practically through its control of the military. Further, this relationship exists at the pleasure of the PRC state - HK has no ability to opt out on its own. And this does indeed distinguish Hong Kong from places like Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea where the PRC exercises neither legal nor practical control. Readin (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No choice if ROC has no representation in the country. Also, the PRC has legal authority to act for the Chinese citizens on Taiwan for international matters, eg UN matters. The PRC has legal authority in this case through international law.

I was never comparing Taiwan with HK, and as I said above, I don't think anyone was talking about Taiwan at first place. You brought up Taiwan and said the PRC has no legal nor practical control on Taiwan, and I was just saying that it is incorrect. The PRC does, in some cases, have legal authority. Taiwan was not a good example to use was all what I was saying.--pyl (talk) 14:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Taiwanese have a choice of whether to travel to countries that don't recognize their government. Once they travel to such a country, they have to obey the laws of that country. If that country wants them to go to some foreign embassy to get their paperwork done, it doesn't make them subjects of that foreign embassy, it makes them people living outside their own country having to obey the laws of the jurisdiction in which they are living.

The UN is another example of a third party. The UN can obey the PRC all it wants. That doesn't have any impact on whether Taiwanese are under the legal authority of the PRC. Also, the PRC has legal authority to act for the Chinese citizens on Taiwan for international matters, eg UN matters. And how exactly does the PRC enforce it's actions in Taiwan? The PRC can no more enforce rules for its citizens in Taiwan than Taiwan can enforce rules for its citizens overseas.

This distinguishes Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea from Hong Kong as the PRC has the accepted military ability and to enforce its decisions in Hong Kong with little resistence. Readin (talk) 14:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Do we really have to discuss in detail Taiwan's status in a page about Hong Kong? I think it is terribly rude and I really want to stop this. I think you are acting like a typical Taiwan independence supporter who is simply so damn scared of any prospect of people putting Taiwan next to Hong Kong. No one was talking about Taiwan at first place, and the world doesn't revolve around Taiwan or Taiwan independence. Taiwan was simply not a good example to give at first place.--pyl (talk) 15:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This dude is definitely pushing his PRC communist propaganda (i.e. POV). The intro paragraph does state that Hong Kong is now an special administrative region of the People's Republic of China. This is perfect, and should be sufficiently informative. The Hong Kong article should be about Hong Kong. If you want to talk about stupid Hu Jintao, why don't you play around with it in the China article? Also, the official name of Hong Kong is "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" for sure, and I don't see why "People's Republic of China" is part of Hong Kong's official name. - 68.6.120.13 (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I also invite you to look at the Chinese name on the official emblem of Hong Kong.

I will leave it up to other editors to judge whether or not this is communist propaganda. With all due respect, the official website of the Hong Kong government calls itself the "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China". People here keep missing the point. Some fully sovereign states even have a head of state that doesn't even belong to their state (i.e. Andorra, Canada, New Zealand etc.). It is a legal fact that Hu Jintao is the head of state of the PRC and all of its territories. Colipon+(T) 02:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments like those by User: 68.6.120.13 are exactly the ones I was talking about. The official name for the territory is "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of People's Republic of China". Look at HK's passports and the basic law. You probably don't want to talk about the "stupid Hu Jintao" but I am not sure lots of other people aren't particularly proud of their heads of state either. But it is a fact and it is relevant to the readers of an encyclopedia. I don't see how others are pushing for a so called "communist propaganda". Is anyone saying HK is communist? Is anyone saying HK doesn't practise "one country two systems"? Is anyone saying HK should be communist? I am not sure what propaganda you are referring to.

I too have issues with that "not part of mainland China" phrase. When Hu Jin Tao says "Taiwan and the mainland are both part of China", I am sure he includes Hong Kong in his definition of "the mainland". There are numerous other examples, I just don't have the time to list them all. Hong Kong is usually not included when the term "mainland China" is used, but it is as absolute as what the phrase is stating.--pyl (talk) 02:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

For changes number 1 and 2, if there is no valid or coherent opposition, I will propose that the changes take place sometime within the next week. I will cite the CIA World Factbook as the source for both of these changes to avoid revert wars. Colipon+(T) 03:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Please find primary sources from the HK or CN government for these claims. It shouldn't be hard to find more direct claims for this. I believe you also suggested using a city template instead of country template for in the infobox. That is not a bad idea. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I don't think the People's Republic defines Hong Kong as part of its mainland. Many statutes and regulations are using "中国内地" as if Hong Kong and Macau are not part of "中国内地". Montemonte (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The document [5] that Pete168 mentioned above 4 months ago got a few paragraphs of illustration. (See paragraph 8 to 10 of that document.) Montemonte (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If Hong Kong goes by the official short form Hong Kong, China, then Hong Kong = Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and China = People's Republic of China. Then the full name of "Hong Kong" is NOT "HKSAR of PRC". Sometimes we say "Hong Kong" and sometimes "Hong Kong, China". The same contexts should then decide whether to say HKSAR or HKSAR of PRC.

HKSAR can indeed be used alone without PRC, e.g. Hong Kong Observatory. In a one-agency context, who cares what country HK belongs to? But once you go to the HK Government website, they emphasize PRC because HK has not always been PRC. Go to many other provinces' websites, and you're not going to find the "full name"--even Tibet because there is less ambiguity. It's the same reason New Mexico puts "USA" on its license plates and other states don't.

As to the Head of State issue, the PRC president is elected by delegates including those from HK and Macau--and they live there unlike those so-called "Taiwan" delegates. There are functions that Tsang cannot perform and requires the presence of Hu. Hu's duties do include HK. Wen? Maybe some. Many other cabinet officials? No. HkCaGu (talk) 05:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The HK special administrative region of the People's republic of China is found in many sources. I am not so much against that term for an encyclopedia.

The Head of state is a totally different issue. It has no basis. This position has no Chinese title, not even a real job description. Article22 claims "nobody in the Central People's government shall interfere with HK's affair." They already have article14 separating military and defence affairs. So who is this mystery head of state figure that overrides the entire basic law and One Country Two system policy. Is he some kind of emperor? I didn't know CIA sources were so right all the time. Next time I'll ask them for advice regarding Taiwan and Tibet independence claims. Benjwong (talk) 06:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It's alright as long as it's dealt with in the same way as any other dependent territory such as Aruba or Puerto Rico as mentioned in the beginning of this thread. As far as Hong Kong is concerned, the head of state is the head of state of the People's Republic of China. The Basic Law stipulates that the Chief Executive of Hong Kong is the head of the special administrative region as well as the head of the region's government.

The full name of Hong Kong is, however, "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China", which is unlike the format of the full names of most dependent territories. It's interesting to see how the "Communist" Party wants to highlight its ownership over the territory. "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" can be regarded as a partial short form. Montemonte (talk) 16:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think any one is trying to highlight HK's ownership. HK is a "Special Administrative Region". If it is a region, it has to belong to a state. To this end, I think "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China" is the proper and natural name.

Also, I think there is an error in translation. "Mainland China" means 中國大陸. Your translation, “中國內地” should really be "Chinese Inland" or "Inland China". Hu Jin Tao used the term 大陸 which is mainland when he made the statement that "台灣和大陸同屬一個中國" (Taiwan and the mainland both belong to the same One China). It is pretty clear in that statement he included HK in the definition of "the mainland". Otherwise, the statement would make no sense. Therefore, as I said above, HK is usually not included in the definition of mainlain China, but that statement in the article is too absolute.

Finally, I think there is a misunderstading over the role that a head of state can play. A head of state can be purely symbolic. For example, the Australian head of state is the Governor-General representing the Queen in right of Australia. The G-G's role in Australia is essentially symbolic. The Basic Law is a subordinate legislation of the Constitution of the PRC. In the Constitution, it is pretty clear that the head of the state of the PRC is the president. Currently, the president is Hu Jin Tao.--pyl (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The only thing signed between the SARS and PRC is the Basic law. There is no chief or head of state anywhere mentioned. If this position is purely symbolic, it has even less reason to go into wiki. Head of state for the SARS is about as legit as a "father of democracy" for the PRC. Both would misinform in a template/article.

Also Puerto rico is a bad comparison. Puerto ricans were mainly happy to be a part of the US. I can tell you HK and Macau people have quite a mixed feeling toward the PRC. So it's not remotely the same type of child-parent state relationship. Benjwong (talk) 19:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You constantly refer to the SARs and the PRC as if they were on an equal footing. But the hard truth is that they are not. HKSAR is subordinate to the PRC both legally and in practice. This is why they fly the flag of Hong Kong below that of the flag of China on all Hong Kong government buildings (the same reason why Hong Kong's passport has a Chinese emblem, and not a Hong Kong emblem on it, and the same reason that Hong Kong citizens are considered Chinese citizens under the Basic Law). Just because the people of HK have mixed feelings about the PRC doesn't render this legal fact unworthy, and render its non-inclusion justifiable. Many Australians dislike the monarchy. That doesn't mean Queen Elizabeth II should be removed from its infobox as its legal head of state. Colipon+(T) 20:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you have it backwards. HK and macau citizenship has a higher footing in the international arena. The Chinese PRC citizenship is possibly the most restricted piece of document you can have. An overseas Chinese person with a US or Canadian citizenship has 10x more rights than a Chinese person holding a PRC citizenship. HK and macau passports are constantly counterfeited in China. That's fact. I don't see anyone counterfeiting the PRC passport to be wishfully living under the communist party. Out of respect, most people have no problem with the PRC flag flying higher. PRC is obviously the bigger piece of land. Benjwong (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's incorrect. The status of most people in HK is PRC citizen with a resident status in HK. In other words, there is no such thing as "HK citizenship". HK is not a state.--pyl (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

"The only thing signed between the SARS and PRC is the Basic Law."

That is incredibly wrong. There are numerous trade agreements, ongoing criminal extradition agreements, and etc. The basis for your opinion on this discussion is just so far from fact it has no basis in reality. Plus, the Basic Law gives the PRC authority to interpret the Basic Law which they have done.

The PRC is a state. Hong Kong is one part of the state. Hu Jintao is the head of state. Hu Jintao is the head of state of Hong Kong. Whether HKers like it or not. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

The trade agreements etc are not related to this discussion. Even the constitution of the PRC does not belong. Don't mention things that are not relevant. Hu Jintao is the head of the PRC. And if HK is part of that state, it has One Country two systems to handle the differences. Benjwong (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It is called "One country two systems". I think you are emphasising on the "two systems" bit, but when a state is mentioned, the emphasis should be on "one country". The country and the state is the People's Republic of China.--pyl (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

"The only thing signed between the SARS and PRC is the Basic Law."

According to the wikipage on the Hong Kong Basic Law, It was adopted on April 4, 1990 by the Seventh National People's Congress (NPC) of the People's Republic of China]]. It doesn't say anything about the SAR signing it. It does say The Basic Law was drafted in accordance with the Sino-British Joint Declaration on the Question of Hong Kong (The Joint Declaration), signed between the Chinese and British governments. From what I can tell, the Basic Law originated in agreements signed by Britain and China. It was refined by a joint Hong Kongese-Chinese team. It was made law by a unilateral act of the PRC. The only thing signed between multiple parties was the agreement between Britain and China. Hong Kong, unfortunately, was a pawn in all of this and had no ability to veto or make demands. Sovereignty was transferred from Britain to China. It shouldn't have happened, but it did. Readin (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, Ben, One Country Two Systems was the formula devised so HK could be subject to PRC sovereignty. A Hong Kong passport may be coveted by mainlanders, but on its cover is still engraved "HKSAR of the People's Republic of China", not simply "Hong Kong". The emblem on it is the Chinese coat of arms, not the Hong Kong regional emblem. The NPC is the body that has the highest constitutional authority to interpret the HK Basic Law. That's why it's called a Basic Law and not a Constitution. While it is understandable that editors like you do not want to make Hong Kong associated with the PRC in any way, it is unfair for an encyclopedia article to reflect this opinion exclusively to override what is legal fact. Colipon+(T) 23:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me bring to your attention the following things:

1. The Basic Law itself was promulgated and signed by President Yang Shangkun of the People's Republic of China in 1990.
2. The Basic Law is called, in full, "The Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China". The Full name of the region here is not debatable.
3. Article 12 of the basic law declares: The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be a local administrative region of the People's Republic of China, which shall enjoy a high degree of autonomy and come directly under the Central People's Government. This constitutional clause effectively disproves all of Benjwong's contentions in a direct and forceful manner.

These are facts taken directly from the Basic Law. Colipon+(T) 00:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I oppose to any of the above proposed changes because they are attempts by POV editors to highlight China's ownership of HK.—Chris! _ct 20:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Please read my talk above. No one is emphasis ownership. HK people are Chinese. PRC is also owned by the people of HK.--pyl (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

After some thoughts, I think I can accept purposed change 1. But I will not accept purposed change 2. Hu Jintao is not HK's head of state because HK has no head of state. That is because HK is not a state.—Chris! _ct 00:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

According to article22 again, it saids "No department of the Central People's Government and no province, autonomous region, or municipality directly under the Central Government may interfere in the affairs which the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region administers on its own in ccordance with this Law." Benjwong (talk) 06:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I am aware that Article 22 says what it says. I am not aware how that justifies the fact that PRC should not be included in Hong Kong's official name. If it wasn't supposed to be included I'm sure they'd take it off of a Hong Kong passport, the Hong Kong emblem, and the title of the Basic Law itself. Colipon+(T) 06:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I just want to comment on the Head of State issue, Head of State should not be confused with the Head of Government or the Representative of the Head of State. Using Australia as an example (because I remember this issue came up during the Sydney Olympics) the Head of State of Australia is the Queen of England while the Representative of the Head of State is the Governor General and the Head of Government is the Prime Minister. While the Prime Minister is for all intense and purposes the Leader of the country, he makes all the decisions, the Head of State is still technically the Queen. So in Hong Kong's case I think the Chief executive is performing a dual role as the Representative of the Head of State and the Head of Government but technically the Head of State is still the President of China because Hong Kong technically is not a "State" and so it can't have a Head of State.

With regards to the name issue that's pretty interesting because the official address for California for example is "California USA", California is the State (or region) and USA is the Country. So if Hong Kong's full name is "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China" does that mean technically the official address for Hong Kong is "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China People's Republic of China"? Or is "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" the region (or State) and "People's Republic of China" the Country? Not sure, I'll try to look into it.

And also the "Mainland China" issue I thought we dealt with this months ago, I remember doing a lot of research on it and typed a whole section explaining why Hong Kong is not considered part of "Mainland", please look in the achieves to find my explanation. I think people have to remember we are talking about encyclopaedic information here, referencing an off the cuff comment by the Chinese President or the sentiment of old GMT generals is not good enough, when it comes to terminology we are looking for official usage and or common usage. On those two points it is clear that the term "Mainland" does not include Hong Kong and Macao. Pete168 (talk) 04:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources for Head of State

I've found numerous sources for the head of state, since earlier the CIA World Factbook was not deemed valid by some editors. Please reference the following sources:

1. Australia Foreign Affairs
2. UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office
3. Switzerland Federal Department of Foreign Affairs

Colipon+(T) 02:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You have 4 sources showing the "head of state" title. While that part is true (even if they all copied from the CIA worldbook). I have 400+ sources that say the chief exec is the highest position for the SARS with no mentioning of anyone higher. While I see where you are coming from. You are pushing into wiki a title that continue to have little to no description and have way too much "assumed" authority. Way too much. Benjwong (talk) 06:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

A few years ago, Donald Tsang read out his oath stating that he was executing his duties as "the chief executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China", and he executed this oath to Hu Jintao, the head of state of the PRC in its entirety, Hong Kong included. Hong Kong retains a high degree of autonomy, and that fact is made clear in this article. But by the way the article looks like now it doesn't even look like Hong Kong has anything to do with the PRC. Colipon+(T) 06:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok that oath represent "HK to PRC" not necessarily "chief exec to head of state". As far as I know the chief exec, Donald Tsang, manages a group of citizens that have uncensored internet, infinite porn, more human rights in and out of China, more freedom on just about everything. The head of PRC, Hu Jintao, manages a group of people that have none of the above. Benjwong (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I can understand that a citizen of Hong Kong would like to avoid this connection to the PRC at all costs, and does not want to appear like they are ruled under an authoritarian regime - and this is made clear in the article, and has always been (that Hong Kong has a high degree of autonomy in all areas except foreign affairs and defence). But a perceived moral superiority and greater individual freedoms does not lend any weight in arguing that the PRC is not part of Hong Kong's official name, and certainly does not mean that the PRC and HK are separate, distinct entities. In this sense, 内地 and 香港 are distinct entities, but 中国 and 香港 are not. This is the root of the issue. So are you against both the head of state change and including PRC as part of the name change? Because as it stands right now both of these changes are justifiable beyond a reasonable doubt. Colipon+(T) 18:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Not trying to make things worse, but I sense a feeling that people of PRC are desperately trying to highlight China's ownership of HK at all cost. By calling Hu Jintao the head of state of HK, you are making that POV more apparent to readers. As a compromise, I am willing to accept purposed change 1 because HK is indeed part of PRC. But it is impossible for me to accept purposed change 2 because 1) HK is not a state and 2) it has no head of state.—Chris! _ct 22:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China" is fine. I agreed with that many posts ago. I thought it was encyclopedic enough. There are many sources to support it.

The part I disagree with is the "head of state" going into wiki. No single political position controls both territories. It doesn't do anyone any good to keep emphasizing the political differences between PRC and the SARS. Benjwong (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's quite the reverse. I think Hong Kong editors would like to avoid any connection to the PRC at all costs. But I thank you for your input, and I understand your concern about POV, and I am convinced we can move forward on this issue without resorting to edit wars. Because I value your input, I have not gone ahead and made any bold edits. But I am tired of this notion that any mention of the PRC is attempting to highlight ownership, or is "communist propaganda". It is this systematic anti-PRC bias that now makes the Falun Gong article look like a marketing pamphlet for the group.

Hu Jintao is, in fact, the head of state of all of the PRC, which Hong Kong is part of, and I have cited four sources for this. It is the same as Queen Margarethe II being the Queen of the Netherlands, but also the head of state of Aruba and the Netherland Antilles, both of which are politically separate from the Netherlands in a manner analogous to Hong Kong's separation from the Mainland. Aruba keeps its own currency, the Florin, its own anthem, its own internet codes, its own government, and its own culture. The Dutch parliament has no authority over Aruba (whereas the NPC can still interpret the Basic Law). However, it is stated explicitly in the article that Queen Margarethe II is the Head of State of Aruba. This does not highlight Dutch ownership of the territory, as it is made clear in the article that the region is autonomous. A similar consensus can be reached here for Hong Kong. Colipon+(T) 23:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok more than 50% of these so called anti-PRC bias are old 1960s, 70s, 80s news that should have came out a long time ago. What you are seeing is just people putting stuff online that are historical old news. If you are hearing it for the first time, well..... you have no one to blame but the central government who is hiding too much. The other 50% is regular news coverage. Except PRC seems to completely lack any ability to criticise (fix) itself before others jump in.

And why are we constantly comparing Aruba, Puerto Rico and other commonwealth like territories? They share rights with their parent countries PRC citizens would dream of. Benjwong (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately constantly putting down the PRC government does not justify your contentions nor does it directly relate to the issue. Whether you perceive the PRC to be morally backward, lacking in porn, have pitiful human rights records, whatever it may be, Hu Jintao is still the head of state of the PRC and Hong Kong is still part of the PRC.

But there is one issue in principle, upon which this "head of state" issue rests. Essentially that principle is that every other non-sovereign entity on Wikipedia has a "head of state" in its infobox, but Hong Kong and Macau do not. If the CIA world factbook (which is developed by an organization that is quite anti-PRC) and numerous foreign affairs departments around the western world issue documents saying that Hu is the head of state of Hong Kong, then it is only just for this fact to be presented on Wikipedia. Colipon+(T) 23:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

But what about the other 400+ sources that doesn't mention any head of state? Other than offer defence protection (which was already covered under the HK basic law). What does this head of state actually do for HK? Does he know when traditional chinese will be wiped out in the SARS? Does he have any say in how to better handle HK's finance structure, such as double taxing (once to the HK gov, a second time to the CPC)? No such position exist to deal with genuine society concerns. Like Chris said above, the "head of state" is thus far all about ownerships and claims. I am beginning to agree. Benjwong (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Just because every other non-sovereign entity on Wikipedia has a "head of state" in its infobox, doesn't mean Hong Kong and Macau articles need to have a "head of state" in their infobox. This is ridiculous.—Chris! _ct 00:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, the issue is not ownership. The issue is about a presentation of facts. If Hong Kong were still a dependent territory of the UK, Queen Elizabeth II would be this head of state, (check world almanacs before 1997). There is no reason this has to be different simply because Hong Kong's sovereignty was transferred to an authoritarian state that doesn't have as much of a favourable global reputation. I have four reputable sources here that say explicitly that Hu Jintao is the head of state of Hong Kong, while you present no sources that say that he is not. Every other dependent territory in the world has a head of state - the head of its sovereign nation. This is about following encyclopedic conventions, not about highlighting PRC ownership. Colipon+(T) 00:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Like I really respect your effort. But I ultimately don't think there is enough sources to show what this head of state actually does under the special administrative region. It is especially dangerous that it is an authoritative system. Such a position could just override/risk the (so far pretty successful) one country, two system relationship. Benjwong (talk) 00:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Granted, Ben, but it has been pointed out earlier by another user that some heads of state don't even do anything. If you want to see what exactly the head of state does in Hong Kong, simply refer to the preamble of the Basic Law. The Basic Law was promulgated by the Chinese President. It is quite clear here that he is the head of state of all of the PRC, including HK. Colipon+(T) 01:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That perhaps is the other half of the problem. You suggest it symbolizes XYZ, but someone else may interpret it as ABC. It is best to not make anymore claims. I would be interested in putting up "democracy ambassador" on the PRC country template. I can probably find references to support it. Doesn't mean I should do it. Benjwong (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with Colipon+'s "Proposed Changes" As per Hong Kong order of precedence, the Chief Executive is the Head of Hong Kong Government and in theory subordinates to no one. Even when officials from the PRC visit HK, those officials (including the President) are just listed as Special Guests. This rules was designed to eliminate even slightest symbolic authority of PRC's political figures over HK's internal affiar. Although for formal purposes HK has PRC's name appended at the end, in practice HK opreates as if it is a seperated entity from PRC (e.g the legal system, seperated currency). Rendering HK looks like just a city within PRC has been a continuous PRC propaganda recently, while there r areas they can play with (such as adding the word "China" whenever they see the word "Hong Kong", specially on products such as stamps and emblems), in this case the President of PRC has been purposefully omited from the Order of Precedence, that's why the President is not entitled to be listed here too, until 2047.--Da Vynci (talk) 01:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact that Hong Kong operates as a separate political entity is made clear in the introduction (and the central government does try to avoid appearing like it has symbolic authority over the territory, such as the infamous Jiang Zemin response to Hong Kong reporters in 2001). Constitutionally speaking, however, under One Country, Two Systems, Hong Kong and the Mainland belong to the same state, but are governed by different institutions. But legally and in practice, Hong Kong is a constituent part of the PRC, not a separate entity with equal footing as the PRC. It is separate and distinct, however, from mainland China. Under the Kingdom of the Netherlands arrangement, the Dutch parliament has not even the hint of constitutional authority over the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba, who are called "countries" in their own right. It is evident here that constitutionally, Aruba is more autonomous than Hong Kong. Even under these circumstances, the "head of state" of Aruba is still Queen Beatrix. Colipon+(T) 02:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Your analogy is invalid because: Queen Margarethe II is listed as Head of State in Aruba because the monarch is on the top of their Order of Precedence. But, in Hong Kong, CE is the first on the Order of Precedence, and President of PRC is NOT included. --Da Vynci (talk) 03:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the OoP is there for internal reasons and only used to dictate protocol. It is not entrenched within the constitution. The HK Basic Law is promulgated by the President of the PRC, as stated very clearly in its preamble. This is mostly for symbolic reasons, yes, but it is still a legal fact. Colipon+(T) 03:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You might want to refer to the thailand airport crisis, where both HK and PRC citizens were stuck at the airport in the chaos. Notice how they were rescued and handled differently. This is probably a good example of each government operating independently as expected. One head of state position managing everything is not real. There has never been such thing in the past. Benjwong (talk) 04:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Colipon+(T) 04:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus on Proposal #1

So we have reached a consensus on proposal #1. I do believe that "PRC" being part of the official name should be presented, but not stressed. Therefore, I move that this fact be only presented in the infobox, and not the lead sentence itself, to avoid future controversy (or it can be the other way around, what do you people think?). I propose the lead sentence remain the way it is, with the following tweaks:

The first paragraph remains unchanged.

Beginning as a trading port, Hong Kong became a dependent territory of the United Kingdom in 1842, and remained so until the transfer of its sovereignty to the People's Republic of China in 1997.[7] Along with Macau, Hong Kong is one of two special administrative regions under the "one country, two systems" policy. As a result, Hong Kong retains its own currency, legal and political systems, and maintains a high degree of autonomy in all of its affairs, with the exception of foreign affairs and defence, which is the responsibility of Central Government in Beijing.

I believe this presents a balanced view. Not only does it make it clear that Hong Kong is sufficiently autonomous and distinct from the rest of China, but it also presents a more balanced introduction to people who have little knowledge on this subject. Colipon+(T) 01:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest the following:

Beginning as a trading port, Hong Kong became a dependent territory of the United Kingdom in 1842, and remained so until the transfer of its sovereignty to the People's Republic of China in 1997.[7] Along with Macau, Hong Kong is one of two special administrative regions under the "one country, two systems" policy. As a result, Hong Kong retains its own currency, legal and political systems, and maintains a high degree of autonomy in all of its affairs, with the exception of foreign affairs and defence.

Because, depends on the situation, foreign affair could be but necessarily the responsibility of Ministry of Foreign Affairs , while defence could be but necessarily the responsibility People's Liberation Army, or the PLA General Staff Department, or Central Military Commission or the Central Government in Beijing (the current red link suggests there possibly is no such organisation with the exact name) , or the Communist Party of China, or President Hu Jintao, or Premier's Wen Jiabao responsiblities. This page is not about government departments of PRC. So the one I suggest (without specifying any departments) would be a more balance and practical one. --Da Vynci (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Da Vynci on this matter. I will now make this change as well as the proposed change in the infobox. The head of state issue remains unresolved. Colipon+(T) 03:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This one is good enough for now. Benjwong (talk) 04:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I am glad that at least one issue has been resolved. But it will be subject to reverts, I'm sure. It has already been reverted once, by an editor who is unaware of the discussion going on here. Colipon+(T) 04:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Sovereignty

Neither the UK nor the PRC claim that sovereignty was transferred in 1997. The PRC uses the words "recover" and "resume", the UK uses "restore" but neither uses transfer. It is not incorrect to use the word "returned" either, as the PRC obviously claims successory rights from the Qing. The current wording (and title of the main Wikipedia article on the subject) of "transfer of sovereignty" is a MADE UP TERM that did not exist before Wikipedia used it. This is Wikipedia prescribing usage and definitions which is absolutely against policies. Usage of that term prescribes a whole cascade of ideas (that sovereignty was held by the UK was a disputed idea by the PRC, and not disclaimed by the UK, so why is Wikipedia saying it?) that Wikipedia is not in the business of doing. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Regardless of what the PRC and UK said, the fact remains that the PRC had never had sovereignty. I've changed it to read "Chinese exercise of sovereignty was resumed by the People's Republic of China in 1997." Hopefully that will be acceptable. Readin (talk) 19:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

There are sources for saying HK was under British sovereignty (Hong Kong's New Constitutional Order By Yash P. Gha and Hong Kong Act 1985 (c. 15) "As from 1st July 1997 Her Majesty shall no longer have sovereignty or jurisdiction over any part of Hong Kong."), and there are sources that use "transfer of sovereignty - wikipedia didn't originate it (Managing the Transfer of Sovereignty over Hong Kong). The wording of the PRC and British announcements likely reflects an unwillingness to mention what was (and is) a humbling memory for many Chinese and something the PRC wishes to undo. Readin (talk) 19:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The "transfer of sovereignty" is definitely not a Wikipedia idea. In fact, it was what the event was called when it happened in 1997 on numerous news sources and documentaries. Back then Wiki was still in the pre-conception stage. Colipon+(T) 06:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with the wording of "transfer" here, but only because it is the more neutral and general term. The word "transfer" does not preclude that the PRC is actually "resuming" sovereignty. I would also like to warn against adding more text in the article to resolve this issue. It's something which, in my opinion, is really not that big of a deal in the context of everything else that can be improved in the article. If other editors want more clarification on this issue, I suggest they find reliable sources that comment specifically on the wording, and add to article Sino-British Joint Declaration. The words "resume" and "restore" are actually used in the Joint Declaration. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to be wrong here that sources show people used transfer of sovereignty before Wikipedia did. Thanks to Colipon an dReadin for pointing those out. I still think as our first introduction to the topic, we should use the words in the Sino-British declaration. It is the primary source. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Don't get too carried away by the exact political wording on official documents which may contain POV. See WP:DUCK. The JD is a treaty that somebody didn't want called a treaty. And the phrase "China resumes" is probably because someone couldn't withstand "transfer". As the long-running joke goes, Chinese are emotionally hurt easily. The PRC foreign ministry frequently accuses someone of hurting the Chinese people's feeling. HkCaGu (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with HkCaGu and Hong7Gong, and disagree with SchmuckyTheCat. Coz the Government of Hong Kong predates People's Republic of China some 100 years, it is illogical to such word as "resume" because PRC didn't exist in 1842. Readin's suggestionn was nice, but it wasn't acceptable because it mention the words "People's Republic of China" which didn't not exist at the time when HK was given to UK. There has been consistent irrational attempts from people who are under the influence of Chinese Communist's propaganda try to promote PRC's authority in expense of quality and logical of this article. This Sovereignty thing is just one of those attempts. --Da Vynci (talk) 23:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

If people are having problems with the word "sovereignty" may I suggest using "control" instead, like "Britain transferred effective control of Hong Kong to China" or something like that. Because two countries can claim sovereignty over a territory at the same time but only one can have effective control over it at any one time. But to be honest aren't we nit picking just a bit over this term? Pete168 (talk) 04:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"Control"? The word "control" is always dangerous when "autonomous" or disputed territories are concerned because the word implies ruling to every degree. I'm definitely against the use of "control". --Deryck C. 11:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Well the autonomy Hong Kong enjoys is at the pleasure of China and can be withdrawn by China at any time, one could argue that's "control" but I cbf, pointless exercise to please everyone. Pete168 (talk) 14:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

In a sense the whole world is at the mercy of a few superpowers, so that argument doesn't exactly apply, but there we go... --Deryck C. 17:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent Chinese nationalism

I am really disgusted by the recent "Chinese nationalism" of some Wikipedians from China. From what I see, some of them have been complaining that the Hong Kong article does not mention enough about China, and recommending that a lot of information about China to be added to the Hong Kong article. This is simply ridiculous. The introductory paragraph already clearly have the following sentence:

"Beginning as a trading port, Hong Kong became a dependent territory of the United Kingdom in 1842, and remained so until transfer of sovereignty of Hong Kong to the People's Republic of China in 1997."

This sentence already gives the readers enough information about the relationship between Hong Kong and China. I don't see the need of adding information about China everywhere in the Hong Kong article. If people want to know more about China, they can simply go to the China article or the PRC article.

I don't know the motive behind the recent actions of those nationalistic Wikipedians from China. But the dirty tactics for sticking a lot of information about China here and there in the Hong Kong article is disgusting. Why do the Chinese always love to impose their own things on others? Why are the Chinese always so insecure that they have to always emphasize to the whole world that they possess something? Why didn't the British need to use the term "Hong Kong, UK" every time they referred to Hong Kong before 1997? I hope the Wikipedians from China could be more civilised. Leave Hong Kong alone. - 68.6.120.13 (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Neither is this the place for HKers to deny or subtly push aside that HK is part of China. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I'm amazed that I'm being called a "Chinese Nationalist". Who would have thought?

People who visit an article use it in different ways. Not everyone will read the opening sentence. Quite a few people will skim the page looking at the info boxes, pictures and maps to get a quick overview of the topic. Some others may come looking for a specific piece of information which, if in the info box, will save them the trouble of looking at the first paragraph. Still others may skip the first paragraph entirely and look for a specific paragraph in the article containing the information they want. While we cannot possibly have every sentence contain all information about the topic, we do want to avoid misleading people by leaving out information that is important. This is especially true of the infoboxes that people are most likely to use independently of the article. Like it or not, the fact that China is now sovereign over Hong Kong is a critical piece of Hong Kong's identity and status. It should be in the first paragraph, and it should be in the info box. China also has control over the HK government, so mentioning China in the the description of the government is only natural, not part of Chinese Nationalism. Readin (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Basically, the introduction of this article was long cooked by English-speaking Hong Kong editors, far more numerous than English-speaking mainland editors, to sound like Hong Kong has nothing to do with China. It's understandable, and not uncalled for. Many people dislike being associated with the PRC. But it is not reasonable, and not informative to the average reader. It is trying to imply, in more ways than one, that Hong Kong is separate from the idea of "China". Colipon+(T) 05:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess the uncivilised way that some PRC Chinese people are imposing their own way of thinking to Hong Kong and the rest of the international community is the reason why a lot of people don't want to be associated with the PRC, which has already become a name of shame and uncivilisedness. - 68.6.120.13 (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Not to be picky. But Chinese nationalism has two levels.

• Regular Chinese nationalism is just regular people ok with Chinese stuff. People interested in ink drawings etc, nothing big. You can find similar ideas in Italian nationalism, German nationalism, US nationalism etc.
• PRC-only Chinese nationalism is like Fenqing, Mao zedong always right, simplified chinese is the best, mainland is the motherland, censorship is great, PRC flag belongs on everything.

This article should not have any trace of PRC-only Chinese nationalism because HK has not reached that point yet. Benjwong (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Benjwong. It is interesting to look at those pro-PRC's nationalism/imperialism editor's edit history, that they don't seem to care any about Hong Kong apart from making edits that persistently stressing Hong Kong is part of PRC. For example, if u look at their past 500 edits, they typically haven't made any contribution to any other Hong Kong-related articles, this indicates that they are either have limited knowledge about the life in Hong Kong or simple not interested in matters other than stressing mainland's imperialism. If you at their profile u may realise that they are not even born in Hong Kong nor from Hong Kong. While wikipedia is for everyone to edit, it is recommended that editors should contribute something u actually have knowledge of. Searching over the Intenet for sources to support ur view is great and all, but perhaps non-Hongkongers should refrain from persisting ur personal opinion againist the rest of us who ARE actually from Hong Kong when editing an article that is about Hong Kong. --Da Vynci (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Ridiculous like how you deleted other editor's comment on this talk page, probably inspired from Censorship in the People's Republic of China? --Da Vynci (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the user you're talking about is from Hong Kong or if all their account is used for is to push the fact that Hong Kong is now part of China. What matters are the edits they make. That is the reason the personal attacks rule exists, don't attack them based on who you perceive them to be but by the edits they're making to the article in question. If you have a problem with a particular edit, bring it up here. Don't start an argument along the lines of "they're not Hong Kong people so what they're writing isn't true". TastyCakes (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi TastyCakes, I think we have to be precise here. You said Hong Kong is now part of China i guess u meant Hong Kong is part of People's Republic of China didn't you? If you did, no one is arguing on that one. The title of the infobox is very clear stating that Hong Kong is part of People's Republic of China and this is not the centre point of the arguement. But if you said Hong Kong is now part of China, that is debatable, because everyone has different idea abut what China is, some say China consists of People's Republic of China(mainland+HK+MC) and Republic of China(Taiwan). Your statement will be logically problematic because Republic of China doesn't have sovereign over Hong Kong currently. If you are saying China=People's Republic of China (i.e.Mainland+HK+MC), this will conflict with Beijing's principle that Taiwan is a non-seperatable part of China. I know China is the common name for PRC, just like if I someone tell you he/she like watching Korean TV Drama you will automatically assume it is TV drama of South Korea because North Korea doesn't produce any TV drama and sell overseas. But despite common usage, the fact is Korea is splited into North Korea and South Korea now. That's why the page Korea isn't directed to South Korea, similarly the page China is not pointing to People's Republic of China nor Republic of China. You see, while most of us agree officially "Hong Kong is part of People's Republic of China", those are other subtle differences causing the agruement, such as the fact that HK in practice operates as if it is a differnt country, having it's own currency, using English common law, flight from Hong Kong to mainland China is consider international, and most recently whether Hong Kong is not part of mainland China, etc. Some pro-PRC imperialist people wants to downplay those facts, while other wants to present it as is. --Da Vynci (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Pardon my imprecision, yes the PRC is what I meant. TastyCakes (talk) 01:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, I doubt if it is considered a personal attrack if someone is just pointing out on talk page that, for example, if you have limited knowledge about New York City and not even from NYC, don't persistingly inserting personal opinion againist those who ARE actually from NYC. Especially, when a group of people is someone keep adding "New York City is controlled by Government of USA" in redundant places on the New York City page. How would u react? Also, I didn't assume/perceive where those pro-PRC imperialists is from, it is on the people's usepage in Chinese wikipedia (linked from the Eng wikipedia profile page) clearly state he/she is not from Hong Kong--Da Vynci (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The comparison to New York City was thought-provoking for me, and you are right that the New York City article doesn't say as much about NY being part of America as the some of use are saying the Hong Kong article should say about HK being part of China. But I think there is an important difference. Things that are well-known, even important things, are often less mentioned than important things that are less well known. For example, the article on Bill Clinton does not mention that he was a male, even though that maleness had an important effect on his presidency. In comparing Hong Kong and New York, you are dealing with cities having very different histories. New York was part of the USA at the founding of the USA. It has remained a part of the USA ever since. It grew to be a large important city as part of the USA. It has never participated on its own in important international organizations where most members are sovereign states. EAnyone who knows anything about the New York will not mistakenly assume another country is still in charge, or that New York is self-sovereign. However, Hong Kong was under British sovereignty for more than 150 years. It grew to be an important trading center and a developed area under British sovereigty. The transfer of sovereignty happened a mere 10 years ago. Moreover, English readers especially, and this is an English wikipedia, are more likely to know NY's status than HK's status. Readin (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, important fact that you just described such as Hong Kong grew to be an important trading center and a developed area under British sovereigty has been repeatedly censored from the opening section by PRC-supporters. Colipon even asked in his/her edit summary that why is it really even necessary to mention China being "developing" and HK being "developed"? Well, since we have allowed fact such as Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China presented in the title of the infobox to satisfy PRC-imperialist's desire, to be fair I think we should also allow facts that are just as important but less tasteful for PRC-supporters. --Da Vynci (talk) 04:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been following that discussion closely, I had mistakenly thought the issue was whether to call the rest of the PRC "developing". My opinion on the opening sentence is more related to the question of sovereignty. My understanding (and I could be wrong) is that the city originated prior to British sovereignty. However the sentence leaves the impression that it started under British sovereignty. But if we are going to use the word "transfer" we should also make note that HK originated under Chinese sovereignty. I do think that noting the development under British sovereignty is a reasonable part of the introduction as it is the primary fact that distinguishes it from other cities in China and the source of most other facts that distinguish it from other cities in China (and the rest of East Asia). Readin (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Da Vynci, I deleted your attack on Colipon and will delete any further attacks on editors based on their nationality. Talk pages are not a free speech area and discussions on talk pages should be about improving the article - not general commentary, socializing, and certainly not rants and insults.

Further, Wikipedia is an international project. You obviously have a strong POV about Hong Kong. These biases need to be put aside to edit in a neutral manner. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

SchmuckyTheCat, well you didn't you delete personal attrack aimed at other HK editors written by Colipon. Obviously you are bias too. If you don't agree with anything, express your own opinion, don't just delete it. Wikipedia is not censored. I supported my edits with government sources and publication. You are the one who is bias and POV because you keep deleting referenced info.--Da Vynci (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I am sure that the people who are actually from Hong Kong are more familiar with Hong Kong than those people from China. I just find it funny and stupid that some people from China are "teaching" Hongkongers "Hong Kong is like this" and "Hong Kong is like that". - 68.6.120.13 (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand how this would frustrate people from Hong Kong, and indeed to me seems one of the main points of friction on Wikipedia: who is considered qualified to write about a subject? But clearly the rule cannot be that only Hong Kong people can edit the Hong Kong article, or that mainland Chinese people can't edit it. Among other reasons, obviously there are going to be outside editors that do know enough about Hong Kong to contribute significantly. If editors are constantly putting inappropriate material in inappropriate places in the article, discuss those problems or tell an admin you think they are being counterproductive. Their locations, and even their points of view, do not by themselves invalidate their edits. TastyCakes (talk) 01:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like you to find an example clearly and explicitly stating where I had used ad hominem attacks. All of my comments on this page has been directed at edits, not people. While several editors has simply attacked me without much grounds on being "imperialist", spreading "Communist propaganda" etc., I have repeatedly thanked editors for their input, regardless of whether or not they are consistent with my views, regardless of whether or not they are consistent with facts. It is important to approach this issue with a calm mind. Hong Kong is a special case with a special political status. Please don't misunderstand this as Mainland editors telling Hong Kong what to do. Understand it as people from both inside and outside of Hong Kong contributing to the Hong Kong article.

If you actually look through my edits on the Hong Kong article, without the pre-conceived notion that because I was originally from China and therefore biased towards the PRC government, you will notice that I was the editor that clarified that Hong Kong has "a high degree of autonomy", "retains its own currency, legal and political systems", and removed the "PRC" reference from the "Government type" field. These are not the actions from a PRC imperialist, who would rather make it look like Hong Kong is a city in China (and this is what I have been repeatedly accused of). Editors simply look through my Chinese userpage, look at a few edits that affirm their views on my lack of credibility, and then assert it on this talk page, while ignoring the rest of my edits.

With regards to the developing country and developed country edit, I think it may be more reasonable to put that in the next paragraph. Instead of making the distinction, I suggest we simply add this fact to the next line paragraph:

Renowned for its expansive skyline and natural setting, Hong Kong is one of the world's leading financial capitals, a major business and cultural hub, and maintains a highly developed and capitalist economy.

I still have faith that all of us can move forward on this. Colipon+(T) 18:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Head of State issue

I recently came across the factbook of the CIA and noted the recent head of state debate. I saw the following in the factbook:-

chief of state: President of China HU Jintao (since 15 March 2003)

head of government: Chief Executive Donald TSANG (since 24 June 2005)

cabinet: Executive Council consists of 15 official members and 16 non-official members

elections: chief executive elected for five-year term by 800-member electoral committee; last held on 25 March 2007 (next to be held in 2012)

election results: Donald TSANG elected chief executive receiving 84.1% of the vote of the election committee; Alan LEONG received 15.9%

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/hk.html

I am not saying that this should be include in the article: it doesn't matter to me either way. As I can feel a large sense of rejection for anything that puts HK and the mainland together, I am not going to upset those people, as long as they don't start making up stories like some people in the Taiwan independence or Chinese reunification movements. I am listing this just shows the common sense. HK is part of a state called the People's Republic of China. The head of state for HK is naturally the President of the PRC.--pyl (talk) 04:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with you if "head of state" has to be perceived literally for this box. As far as Hong Kong as a territory is concerned, nevertheless, the Chief Executive serves as both the head of the region and head of government. IMHO the principle is that this box should be used in the same way as all other dependent territories. Montemonte (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The way it's been done in all other dependent territories is that there is a "head of state" in the infobox. But in the Hong Kong article, because of an extreme political sensitivity towards tying Hong Kong together with the rest of the PRC, this has been omitted. Airbrushed, if you will. I brought together numerous sources from the Foreign Affairs departments of various Western countries. I attempted introducing it again, but it caused a great uproar with editors from Hong Kong, and opened the floodgates to a horde of ad hominem accusations. If I am to constantly bring up the issue I get accused of spreading "communist propaganda", fervent "Chinese nationalist" etc. I end up losing a lot of goodwill and don't really get anything across. So there needs to be a third party to bring this issue here because my credibility has been attacked on the basis of my nationality. Colipon+(T) 20:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Referring to what Colipon said.

“ I attempted introducing it again, but it caused a great uproar with editors from Hong Kong ”

First of all, how do u know everyone who disagree with u is from Hong Kong not anywhere else? As per Hong Kong order of precedence, the Chief Executive is the Head of Hong Kong Government and in theory subordinates to no one. Even when officials from the PRC visit HK, those officials (including the President) are just listed as Special Guests. This rules was designed to eliminate even slightest symbolic authority of PRC's political figures over HK's internal affiar. Although for formal purposes HK has PRC's name appended at the end, in practice HK opreates as if it is a seperated entity from PRC (e.g the legal system, seperated currency). Rendering HK looks like just a city within PRC has been a continuous PRC propaganda recently, while there r areas they can play with (such as adding the word "China" whenever they see the word "Hong Kong", specially on products such as stamps and emblems), in this case the President of PRC has been purposefully omited from the Order of Precedence, that's why the President is not entitled to be listed here too, until 2047.--Da Vynci (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Please do not boldface my comments. If you really wanted to highlight what I said please just copy and paste the parts that you want to rebut against. I have numerous sources backing up one side of the head of state issue, including the CIA world factbook. It is fine that you do not accept this and are presenting other viewpoints. As you can see I respect your opinion. As such I have not boldly edited the article to cause edit wars. Clearly I stand on one side of the head of state issue and you stand on another. That does not mean we cannot eventually come to a consensus, which is what I have been working towards. I would like to hear some input from other users as well. Colipon+(T) 22:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I tried not to duplicate what u said and paste it else where to waste bandwidth (coz the page is getting longer). Well, but I can use a quotation template, which i have now. You haven't answered my question, why do u think people who disagree with you are from Hong Kong, but not from anywhere else? --Da Vynci (talk) 02:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

We can certainly work together as long as you don't try to add the Head of State and ignore the Hong Kong order of precedence again. Response to your The way it's been done in all other dependent territories is that there is a "head of state" in the infobox. , this is because other dependent territories have the head of state on the top of the Order of Precedence, but Hong Kong order of precedence clear states the Chief Executive is the Head of Hong Kong Government and in theory subordinates to no one in Hong Kong. Your Head of State suggestion has been perviously rejected by other editors just not long ago, please respect the rest of us, relax and let go of your POV. --Da Vynci (talk) 03:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Everything in Wikipedia is supposed to be backed up with a reliable source. We don't always follow that, but when there is serious point of contention it becomes more important to have a reliable source. Pyl has one - the CIA world fact book - that clearly backs up the position that Hu is the HOS of HK. I believe your options are to either challenge the reliability or neutrality of the source, or to come up with another reliable source that disagrees with Pyl's source.

The Order of Precedence argument is interesting, but not yet convincing. Is there a rule that says you can't be the head of state if you're not #1 in the order of precedence? Perhaps there is, but to convince me you'll need a source. Strictly speaking, , having a source for HK's order of precedence (OOP) combined with a very good source for saying a HOS must be #1 in OOP and then concluding Hu is not HOS could be considered OR, but it would be good enough for me to switch sides in this debate due to reasonable doubt.

As it stands, however, Pyl has a reliable source that directly says Hu is HOS for HK. We don't have any reliable sources that say otherwise. The listing of Hu as Head of State should be in the info box. Readin (talk) 03:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Pyl's source that cited explicitly says President of China HU Jintao, and avoided using the word "Head of State". This made your point is a little irrelevent. Hu's title is Head of State of PRC, President of PRC, not President of Hong Kong. I think only the Government of Hong Kong website has the authority to be qualified as the reliable source in this matter (instead of some forign spy agencies on the order side of the world), and so far the HK Govorment website states NO such position as Head of State in Hong Kong. So, until Government of Hong Kong website official indicates the "Head of State", no such infomation should be inserted into the infobox. --Da Vynci (talk) 04:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I said I am not going to push for the Head of State entry to be included in the infobox. You guys make a decision based on the merits of the arguments. I am not going to upset the sensitives of HK politics. But since I am mentioned, I will need to clarify some statements. The source does explictly say "Chief of State", which means exactly the same thing as "Head of State". I don't think we will need to argue the difference between the two, do we?

The fact that the HK SAR website doesn't say it doesn't mean HK has no heads of state. Wikipedia's rules accept all assertions from all reliable sources. I personally believe that the factbook is one of them in this situation. If you don't believe me, run a query at the reliable sources board and find out.--pyl (talk) 05:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I missed that distinction between "Head of State" and "Chief of State" earlier. I need to read more carefully sometimes.

And I'm sorry I have to do this, but what is fair for Da Vynci is fair for da Pyl. Do you have a source that says "Chief of State" is the same as "Head of State"? Honestly, I've often heard "Head of State" but I can't say I've heard much mention of "Chief of State". They do sound an awful lot alike, but so do "Head of State" and "Head of Government", and the same source says Tsang is the Head of Government. Readin (talk) 05:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Head of state and Head of government are different. Head of government means the person who is in charge of the government. Using Australia as an example, the head of state is the Governor-General representing the Queen in right of Australia, and the head of government is the Prime Minister of Australia. For Hong Kong, the head of state is the president of the PRC and the head of government is the chief executive.

I am sorry. I don't have such sources, and it is too trivial for me to spend my time looking for it, although a reading of the Chief of State article shows to me that they are the same things.

I think if you guys don't mind, we should just change the argument to "Chief of State issue for Hong Kong"?--pyl (talk) 05:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The {{infobox country}} applied in this article is primarily designed for a "Country". In this regard country=state (国家), this includes USA, PRC, Japan, etc, not the region of a country/state, apparently HK isn't one. So I agree that Hu is HOS of PRC, but not to be written in the infobox of HK. Otherwise change the infobox to another one such as {{infobox city}}. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 06:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Pyl, sorry you I think you have mistaken, quoting your Using Australia as an example, the head of state is the Governor-General representing the Queen in right of Australia, and the head of government is the Prime Minister of Australia. For Hong Kong, the head of state is the president of the PRC and the head of government is the chief executive. The Queen Elisabeth II's title is Queen of Australia, her governor-general's title is Governor-General of Australia, that's why they are both listed on the Australia page, however Hu Jintao's title is not President of Hong Kong that's why he shouldn't be included as Chief of State on this page, instead he should be inclded here. The reference on Government of Hong Kong website should be piroritised here, which indicates no such thing as Head of State of Hong Kong, thus President of PRC shouldn't be listed here. The Order of Precedence of Hong Kong also indicates no one is on the top of the Cheif Executive --Da Vynci (talk) 11:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you are trying to do, you are trying to include the "Head of State" to sub-national entities. As if on the sovereign state's pages has already includd the detail of Head of State is not enough, and you think there is a need inclde details of "Head of States" at all city levels, provance levels, town levels. If we start including Head of State to sub-national entities, we have to be consistent. We will need to indicate HoS in Tsim Sha Tsui, Notting Hill, Kowloon, Kowloon City, Sydney,etc. But I don't think it is necessary. Hong Kong is a dependent territory with its own Order of Precedence which explicitly excludes the position of Head of States. Details of the Head of State goes to the country's page, not here.--Da Vynci (talk) 12:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Here I add. Though you can say HK is a country or state, obviously HK isn't a state of the term Head of State / Chief of State (this redirects to HOS) (國家元首). Writing Hu is the HOS/COS of HK is equally incorrect that saying "Hu is the HOS/COS of Shanghai" or "Obama is the HOS/COS of New Jersey (state)." -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 12:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not trying to do anything. I don't think you are reading properly, as I have repeated numerous times, I don't care if "Chief of State" is included in the infobox for Hong Kong. I found your baseless accusation quite offensive. What I care about is the denial of the truth because of personal political views. Hong Kong does have a chief of state and it is the president of the PRC. This is just legal common sense, and there is now a reliable source saying it.

There is no such title as President of Hong Kong, as Hong Kong is not a state. I am not sure why you mention it at the first place.

Hong Kong is not just another city for the PRC. It is a SAR. Shanghai doesn't issue passports, neither does New Jersey. Hong Kong is not a dependent territory either. That's pre-1997. Hong Kong is now an integral part of the People's Republic of China. If you really think that Hong Kong is just another city for the PRC, use the city template.

I don't think Order of Precedence explicitly excludes anything. It just doesn't include it. Using it in this case would be WP:OR in my view.--pyl (talk) 12:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The CIA info list is originally designed for country data. As explained in its definition and notes - Executive branch, "Chief of state includes the name and title of the titular leader of the country who represents the state...In the US, the president is both the chief of state and the head of government. " They fill the COS of SARs by PRC president's name as a compromise because the SAR Chief Executive cannot be a COS, he/she can't represent a country. Conversely, COS doesn't rule only a single region/city/province but a whole country. Thus the PRC president isn't required to be mentioned. Neither do the other Chinese region/city/province articles. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 13:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me state, since I was asked, that I agree with Pyl's last statement above except for the the very last line. There is no WP:OR here.

This is the most important repeat of Pyl: I don't care if "Chief of State" is included in the infobox for Hong Kong.and What I care about is the denial of the truth because of personal political views. Hong Kong does have a chief of state and it is the president of the PRC.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22president+%22+%22hu+jintao%22+site:gov.hk+-fmcoprc SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Interesting, in the numourous search results u provided, none of them addressed Hu's Chief of State of Hong Kong, or Head of State of Hong Kong. All it say is Hu visit Hong Kong a lot, just like how the Cheif Executive visited around the world a lot.

http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en-GB&q=Hong+Kong+chief+executive+official+visit&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8. --Da Vynci (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The CIA fact book, which says Hu is HK's "Chief of State", also uses the term to refer to the Heads of States of other places. For example, both the United States and Puerto Rico have President Obama listed as "Chief of State". So I believe that at least as far as the CIA factbook is concerned, Pyl is right that "Chief of State" and "Head of State" are synonyms.

The UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office has Hu listed as "Head of State" for Hong Kong.

The more I look into this, the more I'm coming to respect Da Vynci's view. If Hu were clearly defined as HOS for HK, then it seems like that information should be easily found and verified by numerous sources, including some China (esp HK) sources. Also, HOS is often just a ceremonial position, just like the order of precedence is ceremonial. For that reason, the practical realities of China's sovereignty over HK may not matter much in determining who is the HOS. For now I'm casting my vote with leaving it out of the infobox, at least until get some better information or sources. Readin (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Readin. Yes, I agree, if Hu is going to be listed as Head of State in the HK article, it should be backed up by a profile page in the Hong Kong Government website or at the very least been mentioned as Head of State of Hong Kong on the HK Gov website. If not, we should not list it. --Da Vynci (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I find where this discussion has went to be fairly interesting. There seems to be two arguments against putting head of state in the infobox. 1. Hong Kong is the same as California or Shanghai, and sub-national entities do not need "head of state" in their infobox. 2. Hong Kong's politics is separate from that of the PRC, therefore the President has no power, even ceremonial, over Hong Kong. Notice how the two arguments contradict. Clearly, argument (1) is more of a surface argument, and due to HK's unique history compared to other sub-national entities, it is clearly not comparable to Shanghai or Kowloon. Argument (2) can be valid by itself, but the inclusion of both seems to suggest a POV at play. Even more interesting, we have now heard a third argument contending that the head of state for Hong Kong must have the title of "President of Hong Kong" because Elizabeth II has the title of Queen of Australia. The inconsistency in these arguments suggests to me, at least, that the user who brought them forth is obviously influenced by a personal POV.

[6] This is taken is from the HK government. Although there is no explicit mention of Hu being the head of state of Hong Kong, it is clear that by the reference to the "Central Government" that Donald Tsang is receiving leaders from the state's central government - the state to which Hong Kong belongs to. I am of the view that because the PRC government is still in charge of the foreign affairs and defence of the region, it is justified to put Hu as HK's head of state. Although this seems like a delicate political notion it is rather consistent with numerous reputable sources. Clearly the CIA and I are not coming from the same POV. This seems to go against Da Vynci's argument that PRC leaders have no authority, even ceremonial, in HK, simply because of the OOP. I also second pyl's boldfaced sentence above. Colipon+(T) 20:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Colipon, your website says "President Hu Jintao and other Central Government officials will visit Hong Kong June 29 to July 1 to attend Hong Kong Special Administrative Region 10th anniversary festivities.". Here visit as in what guest would normally do. The Hong Kong Government receives many guests every year, receving guests from other government doesn't indicates any authority. President Bill Clinton also received HK Democratic leader Martin Lee too, but this doesn't mean the HK Democratic leader has any authority over US Government. [7] --Da Vynci (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Your argument works perfectly if Hu Jintao was referred to as the "President of the People's Republic of China". But he was not. He was referenced along with "officials from the Central Government". I will not delve into the Martin Lee example. In my view it is merely argumentative and not even a relevant, let alone valid contention to this specific case. I welcome other editors read it and judge for themselves. Colipon+(T) 23:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I will be welcoming to change the article if there is anyone able to provide reference from the official Hong Kong Government website actually states that Hu is the Head of States of Hong Kong. The article you found is referring to Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China, not the Central Government of Hong Kong, as there is no such organisation. More importantly, the article doesn't even mention Hu is the Head of State of Hong Kong, so I think it is time for you to stop repeatedly trying to insert any Head of State position that doesn't exist in the Hong Kong. --Da Vynci (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

“ The truth is, official Hong Kong Government sources should be prioritised here, the official Hong Kong Government website indicates NO such position as Head of State of Hong Kong, so we should present it as such. --Da Vynci (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC) ”

“ As per Hong Kong order of precedence, the Chief Executive is the Head of Hong Kong Government and in theory subordinates to no one. Even when officials from the PRC visit HK, those officials (including the President) are just listed as Special Guests. There is no such position as Head of State in the Hong Kong order of precedence, thus the title of HOS should not be included here.--Da Vynci (talk) 01:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC) ”

What's the point of quoting two statements of yourself when they have already been debated to be invalid. That's quite a curious style of debate, as the arguments are becoming circular.

It is not the truth that HK government sources should be prioritised. It is not in the Wikipedia rules and it has no sound basis. If government sources are prioritised, then North Korea must have a great human rights record, but it may not necessarily be the truth, as the governments also have their political considerations. Speaking of which, will the government be popular in HK if it always acts as a subordinate government to Beijing?

You are aware that when the Queen *visits* Australia, her majesty is also listed as a special guest? So your order of precedence really doesn't mean anything other than WP:OR. See Australian order of precedence and compare it with Canadian order of precedence--pyl (talk) 04:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

"in theory subordinates to no one." That is easily proven untrue. When Tung Chee-hwa resigned he had to submit his resignation to the NPC, not the people of Hong Kong. The numerous references on gov.hk to "President Hu Jintao", in repeated instances those references are more than just "ceremonial". The more you insist on denying it, the more it seems important to put it in the infobox. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

1) The reliability of HK government source isn't openly disputed by any international agencies. It's uncomparable with North Korean. 2) My point differs from Da Vinci that the Central Government of PRC (represented by Hu) do have the power to influence the SARs in many ways, though indirect and inefficient (such as the infamous #23 and rejection of the foreign human right fighters' immigration to SARs). i.e. the PRC president to HK administration doesn't qualify either definition of CoS in CIA factbook: ceremonial or direct administration. IMO the CIA data is incorrect in the first place because the design of its factbook form never considers the complexity of SARs status. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 05:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Sameboat! Pyl, you arguement using Australia's OoP isn't valid because the Queen's title is Queen of Australia according to the Australian Government Website , also the Governor-General is representing her on the Order of Precedence so no doubt she is the Head of State. But, in the Hong Kong Government's website there is simply no such thing as Head of State of HK, nor does it say the Chief Executive is representing Hu. I think u are running out of arguement, u r comparing Hong Kong Government to North Korean Government, who are you kidding?? Let me remind you, Hong Kong's rating on the top of Fraser Economic Freedom of the World: 2008 Annual Report, on the top amoung the 141 countries. You have no foundation to question to the reliablity of the Goverment of Hong Kong website on important matter like this. The CIA factbook contain a generalised table and is ill-designed to describe Hong Kong's special situation, the flewed table result in this clerial error that contradict to the official Hong Kong Government website. --Da Vynci (talk) 06:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

On the subject of HK's "neutrality", I note that my question has been sidestepped. Will the government be popular in HK if it always acts as a subordinate government to Beijing? I am guessing that HK government omits the head of state issue to please residents like you?

I have been trying not to step on the land mine of political sensitives. So I am trying to be polite to you, and I would also appreciate the same gesture being extended to me. You first alleged me of something that I have repetitively said that I am not doing (and I think I am owed an apology for that), and now you are talking to me in such personal and patronising matter. No, I am not running out of arguments, and I am not kidding when I drew the analogy between HK and North Korea, as I believe they are both subject to political interference. And what does economic freedom got to do with frank reporting of Chief of State? The ROC's relatively free economically but it also had an apparently corrupt president.

Back to Wikipedia rules, do you want to run the Factbook link at the reliable sources board and see if it is accepted?--pyl (talk) 07:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

My disbelieve of the CIA factbook bases on their treatment of HK and Macau. It just like they're remaining the state of someone's colony. Mentioning the CoS of a colony is conventional, just like stating "Obama is the CoS of Puerto Rico," it's correct of the traditional sense. But SARs are different, for example, their citizens cannot seek for independency while it is possible for Puerto Rican (political party). -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 07:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Sameboat. The CIA factbook erroneously says the Country name of this place is Hong Kong. I think it will be really problematic if start following such an inaccurate, poorly designed table. Overmore. if u r saying CIA is a reliable source but HK Government isn't, what make you think CIA is not subject to the same polifical interference that u accused HK Government? Will CIA website turn out as generally acceptable in the reliable sources board, probably yes. But does it means it proves Hong Kong is a country and all other info on that table is correct? NO. --Da Vynci (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

To SchmuckyTheCat:Regarding his The numerous references on gov.hk to "President Hu Jintao", in repeated instances those references are more than just "ceremonial".

There are also many other reference to many other Presidents on the government websites [8], mentioning someone as President (such as President of the Legislative Council, President of People's Republic of China, President of USA, etc) simply isn't supporting your speculation that there is a position called Head of State of Hong Kong. --Da Vynci (talk) 06:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama is undisputedly the head of state of Puerto Rico. But as far as Puerto Rico is concerned, the head of the territory as well as the head of government is its governor. In the case of Bermuda, the head of state is the Queen in right of the UK, represented by a governor she theoretically appoints, who acts as the de facto head of the territory, whereas the head of government is the premier. In the case of Hong Kong, the head of state is the president of the PRC, currently Hu Jintao. The Chief Executive serves both as the head of the region (read the Basic Law) and head of government (again explicitly defined by the Basic Law).

Since the current infobox template is applied to all the articles on inhabited dependent territories, and that the word country rarely refers only to sovereign state in conventional usage, I'd say the template is suitable for the Hong Kong article. The only problem is that an extra field is apparently necessary for the head of the territory. This is already done with articles such as Bermuda and the Cayman Islands. Montemonte (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with pyl in running the CIA world factbook in the reliable sources board. I also agree with Montemonte. Colipon+(T) 20:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

CIA factbook erroneously says the Country name of this place is Hong Kong. Is that a reliable source? --Da Vynci (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

For those interested, and can read Chinese, it may be interesting to read [9]. It is interesting that here Hu is referred to as "State President" in Chinese, simply "President" in English, and not "President of China". If Hu was not the head of state of Hong Kong, then Hu should be referred to as "President of the PRC". Also, note that "President Hu Jintao, who is in Hong Kong for this special occasion, swore in the Chief Executive, Mr Donald Tsang, and the Principal Officials." In the Chinese article it says Hu "supervised" the swearing-in. Kind of interesting, isn't it, looking back at the comments that were made that said Hu has no ceremonial power in HK, because of the OOP? Would a special guest like Obama be supervising this swearing in? Would the President of LegCo be supervising this swearing in? At this point, it should be clear that Da vynci's previous post is purely argumentative, not informative. It is even more interesting to watch this video [10] on YouTube. If anything the symbolism is more than clear. I do agree that having to stress the PRC in every line is slightly awkward. Hu Jintao even looks a bit awkward. But here it is simply common sense that Hu is the head of state of all of PRC, including Hong Kong. In my opinion this is so painfully obvious that it doesn't even need a citation. Whether this fits with the belief system of some editors, it is the fact. Colipon+(T) 21:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL, to sum up, you are saying you can't find anywhere it addresses Hu as the Head of State of Hong Kong on Hong Kong Goverment's official website. If there is really such a position call Head of State of Hong Kong in the HK Government, there should be a profile page on the HK Government like this one, but so far there is none. I think that fact is pretty clear now. --Da Vynci (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I concede there is no prescribed title of "Head of State of Hong Kong", and you would not find this on the HK government website. Again, to say that this is evidence that Hong Kong does not have a head of state is a brave assertion at best. Hong Kong is part of the PRC, and the president of the PRC is Hong Kong's head of state. Just because Barack Obama is not called "The President of Puerto Rico" does not mean he is not Puerto Rico's head of state. That aside, you also missed the point of my argument. I was basically saying that your argument that Hu is called "President" like any other leader (i.e. the U.S. President) does not have any validity. Colipon+(T) 23:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The translation you suggest is also debatable, as the address could also be more correctly translated as President of the Country, President of the Nation, although President of the State is also possible, but since HK is not a country/nation/state, it is referring to People's Republic of China, not Hong Kong. --Da Vynci (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, you missed the point of my argument, and fleshing it out again will take time and energy, which I no longer have. Your line of reasoning has evolved from "HK and China are distinct political entities and PRC leaders don't even have symbolic authority over HK, so Hu is only head of state of PRC, not HK", to "Hu's title is not 'President of Hong Kong', so Hong Kong doesn't have a head of state" to "Hong Kong doesn't have a head of state because you can't find those exact words on the Hong Kong government website." And all of these arguments have been handily refuted by several users above and myself. I will let other users read the website and judge for themselves. Meanwhile, you should offer your opinion on taking the CIA world factbook to WP:Reliable Sources. Colipon+(T) 23:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

CIA factbook also erroneously says the Country name of this place is Hong Kong. Is that a reliable source? --Da Vynci (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This is becoming a big waste of time. There is still no honest answer in terms of what the head of state does for the SARs. Pointing out the title in the CIA factbook 15 times is no different than pointing it out the first time. Less than 1% of the sources out there even support such a title claim exist. This discussion was over long ago. Benjwong (talk) 00:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

lead image

Hi there. I hope you guy don't mind but I decided to change the lead image from the HK skyline to a photo collage of HK and its various scenes. I noticed that in other sections you see collage pics of New York, London, etc. HK is a dynamic city and it deserves a collage as well. Anyway, I took all of the photos myself but I don't know how to edit it. Its semi protected unfortunately.

Wanch (talk) 07:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The the idea of collage is great! and the composition u inserted seems nice. But man....where is the panoramic night scene? Could u perhaps bring back a night scene? While the overall choice of pics look good, 2 of the pics at the right bottom (the airport and the guy in a market) seems to small to illustrate ideas properly. It would be wonderful if it can be replaced it with a close up pic of similar theme. Apart from that, it was a nice job! --Da Vynci (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I originally thought of the panoramic night shot as the centrepiece of the collage but unfortunately I don't have a pic of that and I wouldn't feel comfortable getting images from others. I'm thinking of using the previous night pic but I need to get permission from the owner. I'm planning of redoing the collage and I'll reupload it asap. Wanch (talk) 04:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I assume you're a newcomer and welcome. Any image uploaded in Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons are free to be applied (files taged with "public domain / cc / GFDL / copylefted".) You may check the image summary that there may be a tag stating "fair use" that requires extra caution to decide in which article these images should be used. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 05:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The old image here has a GNU Free Documentation License, which seems to mean derivative works are fine but must credit the original author and be released under the same license. TastyCakes (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

What's up with the crap resolution of the collage? — Jan Hofmann (talk) 02:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, if/when you recreate the collage Wanch, make sure you make the overall image size as big as possible. Images are not just used as thumbnails in the article, but are also intended to be viewed at full size. And also, it would be most appropriate to use the best possible images of Hong Kong from Commons (as mentioned, you don't need permission from the authors if they have been released on Commons), not just your own images. The current collage is a nice idea but if we don't get these improvements, it probably should be reverted as the current collage is just far too small. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

That said, the collage at London is a similar size, although it only has 3 larger pictures in it. And I guess it's higher resolution. TastyCakes (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

True, but there is no reason for the London collage to be that small either. It seems pointless to me. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hong Kong is not part of Mainland China

Seeing SchmuckyTheCat repeatingly reverting the article, pls take a look at this. The Hong Kong Goverment is very clear on that. Arrangement for Entry to Hong Kong from Mainland China HK is not part of mainland China, as described in the article "Arrangement for Entry to Hong Kong from Mainland China", this is two different places, otherwise there wouldn't be a law saying Mainland residents who wish to settle in Hong Kong must apply for One-way Permits (OWPs) from the Public Security Bureau Offices where their household registrations are kept. This is under Article 22 of the Basic Law.

"Postage Guide 2007" published by The HongkongPost also very clear on that, in which Section 1 is Mail to Hong Kong, while Section 2 is dedicated to mail to Mainland China, clearly stating they are two different places and HK is not inside Mainland China. DO NOT remove the sentense "Hong Kong is not part of mainland China" unless you have government source supporting it. --Da Vynci (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

At this stage, I do not want to be involved in that "mainland China" argument. I don't have the time for it. I clicked on the link you provided to the Hong Kong Post website, and the front page said "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China" as the official name of the territory. I am just curious why you would use this link for a reference to support your argument that Hong Kong is not part of mainland China, but you refuse to accept that the territory's official name is indeed "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China". I don't think we can have it both ways here.

I accept that everyone has their own bias and preferences, but I think neutrality is important.--pyl (talk) 08:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Contrary to your belief, it is ok to state the official name Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, it is a fact after all, and I've never tried to remove that, unless it was placed on the wrong place (such as on the Government Type field). But in PRC there is Mainland China, and there is Hong Kong. This is completely acceptable to have the official name of HKSARofPRC and not being part of mainland China. This is because of traditional convention, Hong Kong was (and still is) an island when the British obtained it, so Hong Kong can hardly be classified as "mainland" in anyway. Even sometimes later, the area of the territory expanded to include some land from the mainland (namely Kowloon, NT) , the naming convention continue to refer the name of the island (Hong Kong) as the name of the territory. So by custom people always refer "mainland China" as the Chinese area on the North outside Hong Kong, and never include Hong Kong as part of mainland. This naming convention may be something that non-HongKong people who don't know much about Hong Kong may not have knowledge of, but this naming convention has historical root, important, commonly used, supported by government source and cannot be omitted. --Da Vynci (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Simply put, PRC =/= Mainland China. Mainland China is part of the PRC, just as HKSAR and MCSAR do administratively. To a further extend, Hong Kong isn't within Guangdong Provine unless the status of SAR has been stripped, but this is highly unlikely in the foreseeable future. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

One thing to add, SARs are "officially" excluded from Mainland as evidented in the search result within PRC official site [11]. Though geographically speaking, HK and MC are bordering with Guangdong Province, nowadays the term is more administrative-oriented. That's why Hainan Island is considered as part of the Mainland due to its legal status. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 06:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

As in the Northern Mariana Islands, politics trumps geography. Rota, Tinian and Saipan are the 2nd, 3rd and 4th southernmost of 14 islands, but because of its political separation from Guam, they are in the Northern Mariana Islands. Geographically, Hainan is not mainland but much of Hong Kong is, but most people don't think that way. HkCaGu (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it is fair to say that HK is not part of the Mainland in the intro as long as we clarify the usage of the terms in Chinese, i.e. neidi vs. dalu. In HK it is now incrasingly politically correct to use "Neidi" to refer to the mainland and not "dalu", although both are still acceptable in common usage. Colipon+(T) 19:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

"Dalu" is used for Taiwan-Mainland context and "Neidi" is used for HK/M-Mainland context, and both terms currently translate to "mainland" in English. In either practice, HK is still not part of "mainland", except maybe for POV of pro-green folks who seem to like classifying HK as "Dalu". HkCaGu (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with HkCaGu, no official documents ever spell "mainland China" as dalu/dalau/dula/dulee or Neidi/Leidi/NeuDa in Hong Kong, those are not even words in the Oxford English Dictionary, they are not common English words, and almost unseen in any formal English language documents in Hong Kong. On the other hand, the term Mainland China is used in all major English newspapers such as South China Morning Post, The Standard, on the Hong Kong Government website, the Hong Kong Post Office, TV news, etc. --Da Vynci (talk) 00:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I've talked with some Mainland friend and they agree that they prefer the term Neidi over Dalu. I think the pejorative quality of Dalu is stemmed from Taiwaness bias toward PRC. HK documents regarding the immigration of Mainland citizen to HK applies Neidi [12], though the English still translates Mainland. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

As someone who is from Taiwan, I think I need to clarify some statements here made about Taiwan.

There is really no pejorative quality of the term "Dalu" for its normal usage here in Taiwan. The pan greens who don't like mainland China tend to use the word "China", as "Dalu" essentially implies that Taiwan is part of China. Similarly, the pan-greens don't tend to include HK as "Dalu", as they don't use the term "Dalu".

The real contention is, whether the pan-blues and the mainland would include HK as part of the mainland. HK is commonly included as part of the mainland for matters regarding cross-strait relations, eg "Taiwan and the mainland are both part of the one China"; HK and Macau are both under the jurisdiction of "Mainland Affairs Council". I accept that HK is generally not part of the mainland in its common usage, but HK is administratively part of the mainland here in Taiwan.

There are also an increasing number of media in Taiwan who would use "Neidi" instead of "Dalu" when they talk about the mainland, but the percentage is still relatively rare compared with HK.

I accept what you are saying above, but my personal view is Neidi should be literally translated into "inland", not "mainland". --pyl (talk) 04:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest remove that Mainland part from the lead and rewrite the article Mainland China to state the different definitions of the term between regions. It is a bit complex that will confuse any reader who doesn't know about HK. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 04:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree.--pyl (talk) 05:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, I disgree. The term Mainland China is referenced by official sources and used in the Laws of Hong Kong, it should stay. LOL, even when I clicked on Sameboat's link I see the word Mainland is used in the English version, not Neidi. According to Wikipedia:Citing sources "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to other language sources of equal caliber." I agree that the term Mainland China should be explained in its article, but in this article it is an important information and should not be removed unless there are government sources disproving it. If people want to find out that is Mainland China they can well click on the link. The term Mainland is used commonly in Hong Kong, Government, Pos t office, telecommunication. Also, did you (Sameboat) speak in English language with your mainland friends? If not, i believe it is not relevent, because we are talking about English usage of the word "mainland "here, term Dailau or Nadai is almost never used in formal English writing/conversation. In English language, the word Mainland China is always perfer over other unofficial transliterated terms (such as delau, dailau, dilaw, dalaw, nedeai, nide, leedau). --Da Vynci (talk) 21:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

For Hong Kong usage, both dilaw and leedu means Mainland China, it is not like what Pyl said that Neidi should be literally translated into "inland", not "mainland", an official usage , please see the Chinese title of Mainland and Hong Kong Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement. --Da Vynci (talk) 21:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. Colipon+(T) 20:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with any idea. But those sources, actually hardly the sources but materials for analysis, really make the lead looks redundant. And I dreadly recommend move them to the Hong Kong#Legal system and judiciary section. The definition of Mainland isn't that important to Western readers, far lesser than to us Chinese. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

That's why I trimed it down to a simple sentence now, it is not redendant anymore. Wikipedia is for everyone to read, not just Westerners, don't worry about it too much. It is referenced, factual, simple and clear. it is best if we keep it as is. --Da Vynci (talk) 03:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I have another suggestion for the mainland China line. I am supportive of the idea that Hong Kong is not part of mainland China (and as per my proposed change #3 above, I have never advocated for removal of this line). But I think it can be presented differently. How about:

As a result, Hong Kong is separate from mainland China in that it is largely self-governing, has its own currency, legal and political systems, a high degree of autonomy in all of its affairs, with the exception of foreign affairs and defence.

This makes the sentence look less awkward, less POV-oriented, and does not run into any more contentions about the political POV about mainland China. Colipon+(T) 21:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

See paragraphs 8 to 10 of this document. [13] Montemonte (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Why do we have to emphasize HK being 'not part of mainland China' while it is clearn part of China? Can I say Hong Kong is considered as part of China? It's just a bit strange. --Gomeying (talk) 12:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

This is to honour the fact that China and Hong Kong operate like different countries in practice since long time ago. Most of the law and legislation apply to mainland china, does not apply to Hong Hong. Also China use Chinese Yuan, Hong Kong use Hong Kong dollar. They also have different way of driving, even the electric plug is different, Hong Kong is part of China mostly in name, but not so much in practice. The Basic Law even states that:

“ No department of the CPG and no province, autonomous region, or municipality directly under the Central Government may interfere in the affairs which the HKSAR administers on its own in accordance with the Basic Law. (cf. BL 22) ”

--Da Vynci (talk) 09:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Emblem of Hong Kong

The English title on the Emblem of Hong Kong is Hong Kong.

Just to point out there is a false information on the footnote #1 (which is a note to the title of the info box), where it reads

“ This (Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China) is the official convention employed on the Hong Kong Regional emblem... ”

The correct English title on the Emblem of Hong Kong ( or Hong Kong Regional emblem) reads "HONG KONG", not "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China" (although HKSARPRC appears in Basic Law and HK Gov's website, but not on the Emblem of Hong Kong).

I tried to correct this, but another editor reverted my edits repeatedly, probably I hit his/her nerve by removing anything about China. But, I think we have to either fix the title or the footnote. Can anyone verify what are the English words on the Emblem of Hong Kong? (showing on the picture on right hand side) --Da Vynci (talk) 10:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's work something out here instead of reverting each other. I am not sure why you are fighting over what the emblem says - it is just a symbol and not exactly a good reference for what Hong Kong's conventional long name is. The better references are the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Hong Kong Basic Law, both of which would support "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region". Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, the problem is that footnote #1 says "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China" appears on the Emblem of Hong Kong, but it is obviously not. We can correct that either by changing the info box title or the footnote, which I tried both, but reverted by a particular editor. --Da Vynci (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Then how about we change footnote one to say that "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China" appears in the Basic Law? See this - [14]. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

That's one way of solving it, as u said, follow the Basic Law and totally ignore the Emblem of Hong Kong. The other way would be follow the Emblem of Hong Kong and totally ignore the Basic Law. Both of them are bad because it is imbalance.

The thrid way would be find a way to accommondate reference in both Basic Law and Emblem of Hong Kong.--Da Vynci (talk) 09:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with following the Emblem at all. As I said it is only a symbol and not a legal document. I think we should just take out mention of the Emblem. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the Chinese text on the Hong Kong emblem definitely says 'HKSARotPRC', as does all Hong Kong passports. The English on the Hong Kong emblem merely says "Hong Kong" in capital letters. Check Hong Kong Special Administrative Region passport. Colipon+(T) 00:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you are reading an Engish wikepeida, no? That's why we should consider the English text on the emblem first, besides, English is Hong Kong's official language. (which is different from China, I may add) --Da Vynci (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The emblem is not a source. This is not an issue. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Then why on earth the footnote cite the Emblem as a source? Well, you are saying the Emblem is not a source because u see fact that you don't like. You seems have no problem follow the Chinese words on the Emblem as a source, but this is an English wikipeida, we follow the official English source whenever there is discrepancy with other languages. --Da Vynci (talk) 18:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Please don't WP:POINT anymore. You can read both languages. You can see how the emblem obviously does not treat both languages equally. Chinese is obviously primary. The emblem simply proves the full name is 中華人民共和國香港特別行政區, which translates to "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China". That it is the English Wikipedia here is irrelevant. Anyone with minimal knowledge (and having read the lead paragraph) will understand 中華人民共和國香港特別行政區 is not equal to "Hong Kong". HkCaGu (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

According to the The Official Languages Ordinance, enacted in 1974, both English and Chinese language has equal legal status in Hong Kong. Moreover, WP:Citing sources states:

“ Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to other language sources of equal caliber. ”

Of course, there maybe discrepancy between the Chinese and English versions, just like many other bilingual documents. That's why, in this case, it doesn't really matter what the Chinese words are and how they could be translated differently into English, the English title of the Emblem reads the English words "HONG KONG", with the fact that English is an official language of Hong Kong, this is what we should follow. --Da Vynci (talk) 23:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You said English and Chinese has not been treated equally here? Chinese is 'obviously' primary? Well, they may not be the exact translation of each other, but the 2 versions of the title certainly have equal legal statues. Do you have official source to support your claim that the Chi/Eng Emblem titles are not of equal status? If not, please refrain from speculating. The Emblem (including its choice of words) is the work of an extensive design process and subjected to many authorities' approval, at the end the words HONG KONG is chosen for the English text, and we should respect that. --Da Vynci (talk) 23:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

FOR SAKE OF WHAT. The stupid emblem is not a source compared to the Basic Law. It's an emblem. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Hi, SchmuckyTheCat, did you just call the Emblem of Hong Kong a stupid emblem"? According to the REGIONAL FLAG AND REGIONAL EMBLEM ORDINANCE - SECT 7 (Protection of the regional flag and regional emblem), person who desecrates the regional flag or regional emblem by publicly and wilfully burning, mutilating, scrawling on, defiling or trampling on it commits an offence and is liable on conviction on indictment to a fine at level 5 and to imprisonment for 3 years. http://www.hklii.org/hk/legis/ord/2602/s7.html Becarful what you are going to do with this "stupid emblem" you called. --Da Vynci (talk) 09:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. And furthermore, here's the basic law article 9: "In addition to the Chinese language, English may also be used as an official language by the executive authorities, legislature and judiciary of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region." HkCaGu (talk) 04:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, this proves English is an official language of Hong Kong, thank you, i can see that. But it doesn't seem to prove the titles on the Emblem is unequal as you claimed, it also doesn't suggest how we can disregard the English title on the Emblem. --Da Vynci (talk) 09:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Location of Government Hill

I understand that Hong Kong has no prescribed capital. The government offices are located in Government Hill, which is located in the Central and Western District. I think we could list the capital as "none" and then put in a footnote stating that "Government Hill is located in the Central and Western Government", pointing out the location of the government without calling the district an official capital. Would anyone here object to this listing? Inkan1969 (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

"Government Hill" is not a recognized term in Hong Kong and is even more obscured than "Victoria City". Small places like HK and Macau do not necessarily have a capital. It's best just leave it blank and not appear. HkCaGu (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Many many countries, territories or subnational provinces far smaller than Hong Kong do have capitals. Names like Government Hill and Victoria City are not obscure at all except to those who are ignorant about Hong Kong's history and geography. Montemonte (talk) 00:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The Victoria City as a whole is more often said to be the capital than the Government Hill alone. Montemonte (talk) 00:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

This is actually true. Legally speaking, under English common law tradition captials do not necessarily have to be designated explicitly by statutes. The Victoria City has always been regarded as the capital since long time ago. The name "City of Victoria" is entrenched in the law of the territory, specifically Laws of Hong Kong Chapter 1, Schedule 1 under the INTERPRETATION AND GENERAL CLAUSES ORDINANCE. The important fact is that nothing has been done to amend the legislation no matter before or after the 1997 transfer of sovereignty. So technically we can mention "Victoria City" in the captial field, just to make the article more informative. --Da Vynci (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Lead-in

Under the section 'Etymology', it rightly points out the 'correct' or 'more accurate' (transliterized) pronunciation of 香港 in the Cantonese language/dialect, namely - 'Heung Gong'. My suggestion is to put "Hong Kong or Heung Gong" instead of just 'Hong Kong' in the title or in the lead-in to add emphasis to this correct pronunciation. I'm sure many will agree that one purpose of wikipedia is to correct :misconceptions: and also :mispronunciations:. I believe 香港 natives will be more than pleased to hear their city pronounced correctly. I hope wikipedia could play a role in this. Add: this is similiar to the renaming of Bombay to Mumbai to reflect the 'correct' pronunciation. In HK's case, it would seem the government has no intention to change the spelling. This doesn't mean that people shouldn't make the effort to pronounce the city correctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.120.9.84 (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The city isn't called Heung Gong in English. --Joowwww (talk) 11:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

There're policies in Wikipedia involving the titling convention, things like "Hong Kong or Heung Gong" is even unacceptable for an article title or redirect. Please refer to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Naming conventions and other policies or guidelines. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 11:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the city is not spelled Heung Gong in English, and I don't expect it to be changed in the near future. Fair enough if it is not right to change the title. I do reiterate that there can/could/should be more emphasis on the 'more accurate' spelling 'Heung Gong' in the lead-in section (i.e. the first paragraph). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.0.246.88 (talk) 07:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Heung Gong is not an accurate spelling. There is no language in the world that uses Heung Gong. Heung Gong is a transliteration, one of many that are listed in the pronunciation drop down box. --Joowwww (talk) 10:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we better adhere with the name Hong Kong. The name Hong Kong is not a exact transliteration and not intended to be used as such. Yes, it may sounds like the Cantonese pronunciation of the place, but it is a English name after all. It is called Exonym and endonym, just like many other countries names, such as China (which doesn't remotely sounds like the exactly transliteration Jhongguó) , Japan (transliteration should be Nihon), Italy (in Italian language it actually should be written Italia).

This is an Englihs wikipeida, we use English name. If the place has an official English name, use it. --Da Vynci (talk) 17:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

And no, I haven't seen any official or government spell Hong Kong as Heung Gong. Well, besides, whether the spelling of Heung Gong is accurate is also debatable, as some may also argue that it could also be Houng Gong, Hung Goong, Honng Koong, Heng Gon.....--Da Vynci (talk) 17:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point! I never said the name should be changed. I only said that 'Heung Gong' transliteration could emphasised in the lead in paragraph... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.74.55.24 (talk) 02:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Mention of "China" in lead

We have to somehow come to a consensus on this "Pearl River Delta" and "East Asia" debate. It seems there's been a lot of reverting, and that some users are trying to highlight HK's status as Chinese territory, while others try to avoid mention of China, whether implicit or explicit, at all costs. Something needs to be done or else this will result in a constant edit war... Colipon+(T) 06:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, it is clear the issue is not about "mention of China" as the word "China" appears 25 times on the article (46 times if u include the Notes section), the title of the info box reads People's Republic of China in bold, The lead itself includes 3 mentions of China, most those mentions have remained unchanged for very long time. Do you think your descriptin of "others try to avoid mention of China, whether implicit or explicit,at all costs" is perhaps a bit exaggerated? --Da Vynci (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the Macau article does this great.

"The Macau Special Administrative Region, commonly known as Macau or Macao, is one of the two special administrative regions of the People's Republic of China, the other being Hong Kong. Macau lies on the western side of the Pearl River Delta, bordering Guangdong province in the north and facing the South China Sea in the east and south.

It leads with the long form name (but not the ultra long form SARPRC) and follows with short form. It wraps up the sub-national status with a direct link to a descriptive artic, SARPRC. It closes the sentence with the parent nation and side mentions Hong Kong. The second sentence cleanly describes what it borders (Guandong), and major geographic features (PRD, South China Sea).

The current lead is a mess. It doesn't link to SARPRC, it doesn't link to PRC, it uses Chinese as an adjective before Guandong (as if HK is not Chinese) and geographically places it in "east asia" which to most readers might as well mean Korea. The current lead is great if you want to obfuscate the relationship between HK and the PRC but it doesn't help readers. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

There are already 47 mentions of China on the article, I think it is time for us to care about the quality of the article, and to be descriptive and informative, rather than just adding more more "China"s. SchmuckyTheCat have you done any improvement to this article other than adding "China" more than it is needed? Honestly ur edits are rather disruptive. It is time for u to have a change. --Da Vynci (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

The point is, there is obviously a double standard with the Macao article, mostly because Macao editors often do not mind an association with China, whereas Hong Kong editors generally want to avoid this association. Thus the mention of "East Asia" and not "Southern China". Understandably, there are about 47 mentions of China in the article, but none are as important in holding the definition as the first sentence. Besides, the vast majority of these mentions are in the context of "mainland China", as in, distinct from Hong Kong. So the argument that there are "enough" mentions of China clearly doesn't hold water. I am not advocating for explicit mentioning of "Hong Kong is a special administrative region of the PRC", I am just saying a neutral standard should be enforced here. Just because China shouldn't be highlighted in the intro doesn't mean Hong Kong should be made to look like it has nothing to do with China. Colipon+(T) 22:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

As you corectly pointed out yourself, the issue is not really about whether there are enough mention of "China", therefore certainly it is not about whether people "try to avoid mention of China...at all costs." that you described in the opening section of this discussion section. Similarly, I also found your description "look like it has nothing to do with China" is quite exaggerated, with the infobox title says Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China in bold font, the sentence in the lead "transfer of sovereignty of Hong Kong to the People's Republic of China in 1997", how did the lead looks like "nothing to do with China", Mr Colipon? --Da Vynci (talk) 00:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we close this section, and open a new section with a more factual description of the issue. To have a meaning discussion, we should at least agree what the issue is, agree? I suggest we should rephrase the issue in question to:

“ Some editors want to highlight the de jure sovereignty of PRC over Hong Kong, while other editors want to highlight the de facto independency and special status of Hong Kong. ”

How does it sound? If we can agree on what the issue is, we can move on solving it. --Da Vynci (talk) 23:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Somewhat, although to be honest, the de jure sovereignty of the PRC over Hong Kong is NOT disputed, while the de facto "independence" of Hong Kong can be hardly presented as solid fact. Colipon+(T) 02:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The point is, we are trying to find a balance between these two views. Why not just use the same as the Macao lead? Colipon+(T) 02:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is not really about whether people avoid the "Mention of "China" as you titled, with your discussion lead paragraph is biased and misleading right from the beginning. China is mentioned 46 times in the article and you described the issue as "somebody try to avoid mention of China"!? You can either rename the talk title or open a new talk section if you want to discuss PRC's largely unexercised sovereignty over Hong Kong vs Hong Kong's practical independency and special status. --Da Vynci (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Enlightening...you can't even write a discussion lead paragraph without being misleading, and you think we should re-write the lead paragraph of the article in the way you suggested? --Da Vynci (talk) 13:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

If Wikipedia were there before 1997, what would you write in the lead, objectively? Of course, a British colony next to/taken from China! Now why we should stop mentioning that now? Hong Kong (post-1860s) is not an island disconnected from a larger landmass like Singapore. Hong Kong was not isolated from China, and was pretty much dependent on the Mainland (think food and water).

Not including China (PRC or whatever) in the lead (by just saying Asia and Pearl River) is ridiculous and is obvious POV-pushing. Look at how most news articles in the West describes Hong Kong, and you'll find the phrase "former British colony" somewhere in there. Therefore I propose that mentioning "SAR of the PRC" should be in the lead sentence, then immediately followed by its colonial history (a former British colony until 1997). This is how you would make someone understand what Hong Kong is if you're limited to a sentence or two. The population density and detailed geography can follow these. HkCaGu (talk) 04:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

"largely unexercised sovereignty"? Quite subjective comment there, don't you think? This is why the PLA makes a point of staying in Hong Kong right? Be calm, Da Vynci. I haven't even made an edit in the last couple of days, trying to see the debate unfold here. Feel free to attack me as much as you want in the mean time. I don't mind it as long as it goes on to improve the article. Colipon+(T) 05:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I have serious issues with this statement, and to me, it shows an errourous understanding of the reality:-

"Hong Kong's practical independency...."

Hong Kong is not practically independent of the PRC. I don't know where the concept came from and if the person insists on using this as an justrification for his/her edits, then I would like some reliable sources using *exactly the same wording*. I think the most reliable source in this respect would be the official documents from the HK SAR government.--pyl (talk) 05:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Use the Macau lead. And, just because the PLA is physically in Hong Kong doesn't mean it exercises any influence. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether the PLA exercises any de facto influence over HK. That's not the point of this discussion. PLA is a symbol of Chinese sovereignty over HK, and that's all Colipon said. Yes use the Macau lead.--pyl (talk) 06:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

This title of this discussion is about whether Mention of "China" in lead has been avoided. The title of this discussion is misleading from the beginning coz the what the initiator really want to discuss is China's unexercised sovereignty. This misleading title causes users like HkCaGu thinking highlighting Hong Kong's special status simply equal "avoid mention of China". However, given that fact that the lead mentions China 3 times, the infobox title has People's Republic of China in bold, China has been already mentioned 47 times in the articles, the issue isn't really about Mention of "China" in lead as stated as the title. Open a new section if anybody want to discuss other non-related issue such as Chinese sovereignty.--Da Vynci (talk) 12:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The most common phrasing used by government and business leaders, in English is “The Mainland of China,” and not “Mainland China.” DOR (HK) (talk) 06:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality of Lead

This section should serve as a discussion for editors to talk about their views on the following issues (marked in italics below):

Hong Kong (Chinese: 香港), officially the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China (1. is this necessary? Since it's already in the infobox? What about just using the shorter long-form name, i.e. HKSAR?), is a territory in East Asia (2. territory of East Asia, or Southern China?) , located south of Guangdong (3. "Chinese Province of Guangdong", "Province of Guangdong" or simply "Guangdong".) and facing the South China Sea to the east, west and south. It has a population of 7 million people but only 1,108 km2 (428 sq mi) of land, making it one of the most densely populated areas in the world.[7]

Beginning as a trading port, (4. Should more of Hong Kong's history be highlighted here? After all, is entire colonial history is glossed over in this intro.) Hong Kong became a dependent territory of the United Kingdom in 1842, and remained so until transfer of sovereignty of Hong Kong to the People's Republic of China in 1997.[8][9] Along with Macau, Hong Kong is one of the two special administrative regions under the "one country, two systems" policy.[10] As a result, Hong Kong is largely self-governing, has its own currency, legal and political systems, a high degree of autonomy in all areas except foreign affairs and defence,[11] and is generally not considered part of mainland China.[12][13][14][15] (5. might it be more appropriate to say, "considered separate from mainland China?")

Renowned for its expansive skyline and natural setting, Hong Kong is one of the world's leading financial capitals, a major business and cultural hub, and maintains a highly developed capitalist economy. Its identity as a cosmopolitan centre where east meets west is reflected in its cuisine, cinema, music and traditions,[16] and although the population is predominantly Chinese, residents and expatriates of other ethnicities form a small but significant segment of society.[17]

Awaiting suggestions, Colipon+(T) 13:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Changing discussion title as I told you, is a good start Mr Colipon. Unfortuntely, I don't think we can solve the problem with confined multiple-choice like that. This is not a word game. Not to mention you only given 2 choices: one being a obvious bad choice and another being the answer you want. Besides, you missed the essential question out, how Hong Kong's special status and de facto indenpendency (in areas except defence and foreign affair) should be highlighted if PRC's largely unexercised sovereignty (in areas except defence and foreign affair) is highlighted? --Da Vynci (talk) 16:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

"is a territory in East Asia (2. territory of East Asia, or Southern China?)"

I suggest "is a territory on the edge of southern China. It gives the location well, but is a bit ambiguous as to whether HK is part of China or next to China.

"Hong Kong (Chinese: 香港), officially the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China (1. is this necessary? Since it's already in the infobox? What about just using the shorter long-form name, i.e. HKSAR?)"

Although no place except Macao matches HK's situation exactly, I looked up a number of places that I thought had some similarity, mainly small city-sized countries dependent on a powerful neighbor and small territories that while controlled by a larger country are not normally thought of as part of that larger country. I looked at all the European microstates. I looked at Singapore, Northern Ireland, Guam, Puerto Rico, and Okinawa. In every case, the first or second sentence of the article stated the highest secular authority of the place. In all but one article this was stated in the first sentence. Also stated was the formal "type" of territory, that is whether it was a city-state, an "unincorporated insular area", a "prefecture" etc.. This information was stated in the first paragraph regardless of what was said in the infobox. I see no reason Hong Kong should be any different.

"Hong Kong (Chinese: 香港), officially the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China" is almost perfect. The only question is whether the common name "China" should be used instead of the more formal "People's Republic of China", but since there are other issues surrounding the word "China" the formal name should probably stay. Readin (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Da Vynci is still using "Hong Kong's de facto independence" as reasons for arugment. Please provide reliable sources saying that as I requested above. Then you mentioned "China's largely unexercised sovereignty". Why is the PLA stationed in Hong Kong? Is it a symbol of Chinese sovereignty or is it merely a ham sandwich? China certainly exercises its sovereignty. The PLA is physically in Hong Kong. There is no such thing as "largely unexercised sovereignty".--pyl (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I said de facto indenpendency (in areas except defence and foreign affair) in Hong Kong. Tell me, what does PLA do other than defence? --Da Vynci (talk) 03:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

For the beginning phrase, Hong Kong should be officially the HKSAR, not the HKSAR of the PRC. The PRC part was added by an IP editor after most every mention of PRC was deleted from the opening paragraph. Hong Kong, China is officially HKSAR of the PRC. That means HK=HKSAR and China=PRC. Simple logic. HkCaGu (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Why should the Hong Kong article be different from other place articles that mention the top level government in the first or second sentence? Readin (talk) 13:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, it should be something like "HK, officially HKSAR, is a SAR of the PRC." or "The HKSAR is a SAR of the PRC." (Macau version). Then geography and colonial basics should be covered. Population density comes after. HkCaGu (talk) 16:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Because it misleads reader to think Hong Kong is the same as the rest of China, e.g. suggesting the same Laws, censorship, driving driving direction, currency, when the fact it is not. It totally fails to mention the special status of Hong Kong, the phrase "Special Admininstration Regions" sounds even less autonomous than Mongol Autonomous Region. The idea of wikipedia is to inform, not to be binded by officious (but inaccurate) name. --Da Vynci (talk) 03:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion

Hong Kong is located on the South-east Coast of China, roughly equidistant from Taipei and Hanoi. It has a population of seven million people and a land area of 1,108 km2, making it one of the most densely populated places on earth and the most vertical city in the world.

Founded as a trading port, Hong Kong became a dependent territory of the United Kingdom in 1842. Expansion further into the Kowloon Peninsula toward the end of the century was documented in a 99-year lease that set the date for what was to become reunification of the entire territory with the Mainland of China, in 1997. As a special administrative region (SAR), Hong Kong – like neighboring Macau – enjoys a high degree of autonomy in domestic matters, has its own currency and representation in some international organizations and is not subject to the laws of the rest of China.

DOR (HK) (talk) 06:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I am going to make a couple of bold edits, judging from the consensus from editors here. Obviously, it won't be perfect because there are still some disputes. So I welcome other editors to please help me out. Colipon+(T) 02:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

[15] Here are my changes to the intro. Among the biggest changes, I made the first paragraph clear, as per suggestions from Schmucky, and clarifies Hong Kong's status concisely to an average reader. I added some more brief descriptions about its past as a British colony, so readers have a bit of background on that unique part of Hong Kong's heritage as well. I then went on to clarify the extent of Hong Kong's autonomy, and which authorities are responsible for which areas. I also moved the "population density" section to the bottom as it does not fit too well with the first paragraph. Finally, I got rid of some of the references for the "not part of Mainland China" phrase. It's general consensus here that Hong Kong is separate from Mainland China for all practical purposes, so that is clarified to the reader, without the need to justify it with 4 separate references. I really hope the grammar is sound and please correct it if it still lacks flow. Colipon+(T) 02:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Good! Only problem is that the 99-year lease was only for the NT (including what is known today as New Kowloon). HK and Kowloon were ceded "in perpetuity". The 99-year lease was significant in two ways: it originated the date 1997-06-30 and with the development in the whole territory over the years, made it impractical to return just the NT. HkCaGu (talk) 03:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course, one might say " Expansion further into the Kowloon Peninsula toward the end of the century was documented in a 99-year lease that set the date for what was to become reunification of the entire territory with the Mainland of China, in 1997." DOR (HK) (talk) 06:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The current intro leaves that a bit ambiguous doesn't it? How do you see fixing this issue without making it too cluttered again?Colipon+(T) 03:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

You can remove the sentence "sustained a high level development since its transfer of sovereignty to China in 1997". That will save some room. Benjwong (talk) 03:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The first two sentences that make up the first paragraph are perfect.

I think we need a either a second paragraph or an addendum to the first paragraph to introduces the next three paragraphs. Right now the paragraphs are:

• Introduced formal name, sovereignty, and location of Hong Kong
• Describe colonial history
• Describe 1-country-2-systems
• Describe economic success and large population

The problem I have is that there is no mention of the economy until the 4th paragraph. There is no mention of a high degree of autonomy until the third paragraph. These are key concepts about Hong Kong and I think we should try to get them mentioned as soon as possible after we take care of the sovereignty and location mention. A sentence to be added to the first paragraph might read, "A British dependent territory until 1997, Hong Kong is an important financial center that enjoys a high degree of autonomy from the PRC under the 1-country-2-systems arrangement." Readin (talk) 14:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree. How Qing ceded HK to UK in 1842 is much less important than the return to Chinese control in 1997, which is still in most every Western news article. The colonial history belongs down there, but the label "former British colony" is recent enough to belong higher up. HkCaGu (talk) 17:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

My sentence could use some improvement, I'm sure, but I added it anyway. Readin (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)