Talk:Hong Kong/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

"Remain unchanged for"

Quoted from the original version of the article: " In the Joint Declaration, the PRC promised that under the "One Country, Two Systems" policy proposed by Deng Xiaoping, China's socialist economic system would not be practised in Hong Kong and that Hong Kong would enjoy a high degree of autonomy in all matters except foreign affairs and defence for 50 years until 2047. "

I'll proceed to rephrase the above sentence, as "In the Joint Declaration, the PRC promised that under the "[[One Country, Two Systems]]" policy proposed by [[Deng Xiaoping]], the socialist economy system in [[mainland China]] would not be practised in Hong Kong and Hong Kong's previous [[capitalism|capitalist system]] and life-style shall remained unchanged for 50 years (until 2047). Hong Kong would enjoy a high defree of autonomy in all matters except foreign affairs and defence."

According to Section I of the Annex I of the Sino-British Joint Declaration, " after the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region the socialist system and socialist policies shall not be practised in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and that Hong Kong's previous capitalist system and life-style shall remain unchanged for 50 years. ". See also Paragraph 3(12) of the declaration and the article on Wikipedia. — Instantnood 14:45, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Interestingly, the term "Mainland China" did not appear anywhere in that document.--Huaiwei 15:16, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. "the socialist economy system in [[mainland China]] would not be" should read "the [[socialism|socialist]] [[Economy of mainland China|economy system in China]] would not be". — Instantnood 15:44, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

A Colonial Article?

The USSR and several other former states have articles about there former political structure and the like. Would an article on the former "colony of Hong Kong" with the same structure as Hong Kong SAR's article be a good idea? It would be stressed, of course, that the territory no longer exists as such. 81.154.89.115 00:39, Mar 13, 2005

That's a good idea. But there's already an article on history. Perhaps we can have a redirect, for instance [[Hong Kong (crown colony)]], to the relevant section(s) at the article History of Hong Kong, and add an infobox there. — Instantnood 14:44, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Wade Giles

I suggest we remove the Wade Giles pronunciation guide as I believe Pinyin is the only official Mandarin romanisation, also perhaps it would be better to move the pronuncation guide to a seperate article as it is a bit cluttering. I wil try it now. Páll 19:04, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Páll. — Instantnood 08:00, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

President of the PRC

The Head of State of the SAR is President Hu Jintao. Should the table say "Head of State: President Hu Jintao" ? (10:06, Mar 25, 2005 81.153.150.174)

absolutely not. The head of state of the SAR is Donald Tsang. The head of state of the nation that the SAR is in is Hu Jintao. SchmuckyTheCat 20:04, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I would say that Donald Tsang is Head of GOVERNMENT with Hu Jintao as Head of STATE. (21:56, Mar 25, 2005 62.253.64.17)
Exactly. But then to a certain extent the chief executive of Hong Kong is also serving certain function as the head of the territory, the figurehead position like other heads of states. — Instantnood 18:39, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
not even that complicated. The head of any "state" is the entity which they are head of. Arnold Schwarzenegger is the governator of the State of California, the Premier of Quebec is Jean Charest, the Chief Executive of Hong Kong is Donald Tsang. We're talking about the region, not the nation. SchmuckyTheCat 19:58, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dependency status of Hong Kong (and Macao)

Please take into consideration of this list of dependencies from the CIA World Factbook. They are dependent territories. — Instantnood 18:37, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

  • Techinically, they are called Special Administration Regions. But in reality, their rulers and some policies depend on what the People's Republic of China does. So you can say HK and Macau are dependents of China. Zscout370 15:11, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • The problem, thou, is that when we talk about dependent territories, we usually refer to territories which are not a constituent of the home country, but an overseas extension of it which maintains linkages, often economic. The two SARs in question here, however, are considered a part of the PRC's home territory...a territory as much part of the PRC as any other part of the PRC is, and that is when it ceases to be a "dependent" territory, and becomes simply a subdivision of the PRC.--Huaiwei 15:27, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Ah, thank you Huaiwei. Also, to let you know, I uploaded new images of the HK SAR flag and emblem. Zscout370 15:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        On paper it can be stated as anything the drafters feel like. In political science people don't look at only what is written on papers. The structural arrangements of the two special administrative regions are nothing different from dependencies, except they're denied from the right of getting independence (or being transferred to another sovereign State). — Instantnood 18:24, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
        • But then, Hong Kong and Macau would not be defined as "dependencies" under your definition, since they have been transfered over from a soverign state (Britian and Portugal, respectively) to another sovereign state (PR China). Zscout370 18:25, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          Contrary to Instantnood's believe, the status of the two SARSSARs is not simply a case of "dependencies denied the right for independence". Conversely, there are a part of the PRC given special priviledges to run their economy as has been so under British colonial rule. The term "special administrative region" has to be closely scrutinized. The PRC has had SARs prior to HK and Macau in her long history, and non of these has ever been considered seperate entities from the mainland dependent on Beijing administration for the running of their affairs. They remain as subdivisions of the PRC.
          In addition, perhaps it has to be reminded that the terms of the handover calls for the PRC to maintain the status quo, but only for 50 years. Also, there is nothing in theory to prevent the PRC from removing all priviledges overnight long before 50 years as passed, and in fact, there has been mutterings that this process has already happened. The formular allowing HK's return to Chinese rule was called one country, two systems, itself very telling of its implications. Do other nations call their dependencies ruled under the "one country, two system" formular, considering their dependencies are not neccesarily considered a constitutional part of their country? How many countries have a clause indicating they have a timeframe in which they have to maintain a status quo?
          Last but not least, in response to Zscout370's comment above, the SARs' return to Chinese rule is not exactly seen merely as a transfer of soverignty from one entity to another, which suggests that HK, for eg, continues to be governed and treated as a colony, albeit by another state. This is "erroneous", because HK is not a colony to the PRC government. Notice I say "return to Chinese rule", because in Chinese, the "transfer of power" is actually known as "Huigui" (回归), meaning, to return. It reflects Beijing's continued stance, that HK was occupied illegally, and 1997 was the year it resumes soverignty over its rightful territory as has been so unquestioningly before the opium wars. Indeed, its 香港回归祖国, literally "Hong Kong returns to the Motherland".
          Therefore, it must be noted, that appreciation of this issue can take a slightly (yet crucial) difference when seen from the Chinese perspective, and this is the perspective which is unfortunately often ignored in the Western media. Wikipedia certainly should and can address this. It does not help, that current local politics in Hong Kong, whereby there emerges a divisive line between those calling for greater authomony from the PRC, and those who are pro-Beijing, the former group has always been more vocal and visible, and in a way, is also reflected here by Instantnood's viewpoints thus far. Taking their views wholesale without recognising alternative views is not NPOV, in my opinion, and certainly calls for greater attention to this.--Huaiwei 19:03, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          We're looking at the same thing at two very different perspectives. I read from your user page that you're a geography major, and I'm not sure how much you know about politics and political science. It is very true that the two special administrative regions are, unlike other dependencies, such as crown dependencies and overseas territories of the UK, part of the sovereignty holder. Therefore from this point of view they're not dependencies. Nonetheless we'll also have to look at the government structures, especially the sources of power, of the two special administrative regions. The chief executives are appointed by the Central People's Government of the PRC. In laws the relations between each of the special administrative regions and the CPG are defined in pretty much similar ways as it was to the UK and to Portugal. (And indeed many laws in Hong Kong reads "the Crown" as "the CPG", and the Queen as PRC's president.) The colonial ways of running the government are also largely, if not totally, preserved. — Instantnood 20:21, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
          I do not know how familiar you are with the field of geography, on how we are expected to look at spaces in multi-disciplinary ways, and that there is also a sub-discipline in geography called political geography, which deals directly with politics and soverignty over space. The above situation, and that over the whole debate on Mainland China, runs smacks into the path of this academic discipline. We are not looking at things from different perspectives in the academic sence of the word. Rather, the core difference in our interpretations, is that one is a local, who fails to disjoin personal political opinions from the issue at hand, and the other a "foreigner", who looks at the entire issue from a third lense, and who can look at things without political overhang. As I mentioned before, I have seen my fair share of Hong Kongers who show great aversion towards any implications that they are "Chinese nationals", and quite naturally, I would hardly consider that as a "given" and "factual reflection" on HK politics, as thou alternative views do not exist.
          As we can see above, you continue to allerge, that Hong Kong is a dependency, because it is "comparable" to other dependencies. You even veer towards suggesting that the the two SARs are "colonies" of the PRC by suggesting that the "law" says so, in a rather vague and imprecise fashion. This does not refute any of my comments made above, and simply supports it, in fact. The one country, two system formular requires that the laws reflect parallel treatment of the two SARs as thou they were still under colonial administration. But we know full well that this was so because of the said formular, and cannot be interpreted as a reflection of a permanent, tangible, political status. The two SARSSARs has been returned to the PRC. Both territories were part of Chinese imperial rule before western intervention. The PRC did not colonise them in 1997 and 1999 respectively. All these are valid and major signs distancing the situation of the two SARs from that of "regular" dependencies.
          Politics, I have to remind, it not merely reflected in the printed text of law books and constitutions. I do not know what kind of academic background you have, but I would think this is rather intellectually superficial and academically handicapped. As we can see right now, the Beijing government was asked to interpret the basic law, a reflection of the fact that even words enshrined in constitutions are still open for reinterpretation, and the text itself can certainly be modified if needed. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is not a publication aiming to repeat what is said in law books word for word. It goes beyond that, taking into account multiple interpretations of the laws. Being NPOV is not just about pure textual reliance on the words of the law. It is also about a recognition that multiple interpretations exists.--Huaiwei 20:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          You are concluding the two special adminsitrative regions are not dependencies because of the differences with " "regular" dependencies ", while I'm saying they by what they share in common. Any by saying " The PRC did not colonise them in 1997 and 1999 respectively. " you're in effect implying dependent status must have something to do with colonialism. And I don't know how you came up with saying I'm a local. Just because I said I'm staying in Hong Kong at my user page? — Instantnood 21:11, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
          It is true indeed, that dependencies are very much a legacy of the colonial era, and I am actually surprised that you fail to see this blatant connection. Yes, the two SARs are not dependencies, because their existance involves a completely different political circumnstance compared to "regular" dependencies. You try to draw similarities between them, yet these pale in comparison to the differences at hand. Naturally, you are adverse to recognising this. Finally, the term "local" can be interpreted in multiple ways, and I challenge you to "predict" what I meant to imply by that word, since you chose to single it out for comment.--Huaiwei 22:04, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          Would be nice if there is unbiased third party to join this conversation. — Instantnood 11:13, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
          Am I not one? :D --Huaiwei 11:47, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          And excuse me for pointing out that Hong Kong and Macao has never been part of the PRC, and the PRC has only 56 years of history. The PRC "resumed" sovereignty as it is considered, though not unchalleged, as the successor of the ROC, and the Qing dynasty. The setup of the two sepcial administrative regions are not "priviledges", and their autonomy is not restricted to eocnomic matters. If you read the Sino-British and the Sino-Portuguese joint declarations word by word, you'll probably find that 50-year is not stated as the lifespans of the two special administrative regions. Rather it reads " The above-stated basic policies of the People's Republic of China regarding Hong Kong and the elaboration of them in Annex I to this Joint Declaration will be stipulated, in a Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, by the National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China, and they will remain unchanged for 50 years. " (Paragraph 3 (12)) and " stipulating that after the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region the socialist system and socialist policies shall not be practised in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and that Hong Kong's previous capitalist system and life-style shall remain unchanged for 50 years. " (Section 1 of Annex I). Nowhere, not in the two basic laws, has stated the two special administrative regions would be scrapped after fifty years' time, and be incorporated. While I'm not saying opinion from pro-Beijing or pro-CPC people can be neglected, one would have to note that such people are not the majority among Hongkongers. — Instantnood 21:11, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
          Oh, my bad. If I refered to the two SAR's as part of the PRC prior to colonialism, I was refering to them under Imperial Chinese rule. That the PRC's soverignty over China is disputed is besides the question, because right now, the PRC government does exercise that soverignty. If you are suggesting that the PRC government is not the same as the Imperial government, then yeah, sure. Care to explain why it is "return to the motherland", and not "colonised by China", a reflection of China as a geographic entity rather then a political establishement, perhaps?
          The one country, two system formular was created by the PRC government to convince the British into withdrawing from the entirety of HK's territory beyond those covered by the 99-year lease. The British never needed to withdraw from Hong Kong Island itself, so a sweetner is neccesary, especially considering the possible backlash in Britain itself should Hong Kong be returned with no guarantee that it will not see its economomic and political systems completely overturned by the Chinese overnight. As far as the Chinese government is concerned, that formular is a "priviledge", because it is not a "right". A priviledge can be reinterpreted and withdrawn, well illustrated by the political turmoil occuring between HK and the Beijing government right now, and therefore shows quite starkly that it is no longer a "right" of the HK people which the Beijing government cannot meddle with. It is the right of the American people to certain social liberties, for example, and the American government cannot take it away without public consent. Can the same be said of the PRC government with regards to HK citizens?
          You quoted the words of the agreement word for word. Incidentally, I myself have read it countless times, and quite strangely, I do not understand why you would think my interpretation is any different from yours. I do not imply that the SARs will be abolished without fail after 50 years. Rather, I said that "the terms of the handover calls for the PRC to maintain the status quo, but only for 50 years", exactly as reflected in the document above. It seems to me, that my words are being constantly misinterpreted beyond its intentions?
          Finally, your last line encapsulates your determination in the disregard of "minority" views. Unfortunately, your "minority" isnt exactly that small. Millions of folks in the rest of China probably happens to share this "minority" view.--Huaiwei 22:04, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          (response to Zscout370's comment at 18:25, 22 Apr 2005) I meant after 1997 and 1999 the PR China cannot transferred the sovereignty of the two special administrative regions to other sovereign States. — Instantnood 20:21, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

1906 typhoon and tsunami

Continued from /Archive1#1906 Typhoon and Tsunami. Typhoon Wanda hit Hong Kong during early September 1962, at the time of high tide, resulting in tides as high as 20 feet like tsunami in Sha Tin. Would 1906 be a mistake, and the contributor was in fact talking about Wanda? — Instantnood 13:40, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Tsunami is not the correct word either. It should be storm surge. Tsunami is from seismic sources, where storm surge is from the pressure difference in storms. --XF95．邪 03:25, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There was indeed several typhoons hitting Hong Kong consecutively (within a fortnight) in 1906, but so far I haven't found any evidence showing there was a storm surge or tsunami. — Instantnood 08:54, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Should Tung Chee Hwa's resignation be moved to the politics column?

I think it would be more approiate that way Hunter 03:38, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Old Hong Kong flag

I just want to ask does anyone have the old hong kong flag, the blue british one with a white circle with lions or sumthing inside it, if its in good detail, can u please post url - 202.74.196.194 09:13, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

oh gosh thanks so much!!!, im new to using this kidda edit thing so excuse me if im bad mannered. This is so perfect thank you so much! , just out of the blues, arent you people scared that some ignorant noob will delete all this for fun? - 202.74.219.94 09:53, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

anti-HK page needs your attention

Please visit Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Hong_Kong_Geographical_Association and vote. --Zero 10:27, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why dont you relax and refrain from assuming all those who voted delete were "anti-HK", and not merely being generally deletionist across any topic in wikipedia?--Huaiwei 10:54, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I personally think that an organization like the HKGA should get a page, even if it be a subsection of a geography page or that of a Hong Kong university. Plus, more about this group should be detailed. I already voted to keep this article in here. Zscout370 15:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Actually I don't mind if people are anti-HK or pro-HK; that's their choice. The title is to get people to pay attention. --Zero 15:33, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Ok, but please do not do that next time. Just the word's VfD will get our attention. But this page, by itself, it is not anti-HK. Zscout370 15:40, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments by 138.78.20.2

I'm pasting the comments by 138.78.20.2 here, since they clearly don't belong in the article.

As a hker, I must point out that it is defintely wrong to say 1/3 speak English at work!
as have been a philosophy major, i must point out that ancestor worship seems not to be part of confucianism's tradition. Or at least, the rituals used by Hong Kong people are basically inherited from Taoism.

Please note that I've also slighly changed the sentences this comments referred to.

LjL 14:37, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

The ceremony perhaps is bequeathed from Taoism, but the spirit (慎宗追遠) is from Confucianism. He/she should know that if he/she has ever learnt Chinese Language and Culture in F7. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 17:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


The correct Chinese characters for the word that you mentioned should be "慎終追遠", rather than "慎宗追遠". Please improve your Chinese level before claiming that you have "advanced" level of proficiency in Chinese in your user page. Thank you. - 169.231.17.65 02:26, July 3, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for telling, you tao. :-> -- Jerry Crimson Mann 3 July 2005 13:58 (UTC)

Financial Advisor: John Cowperthwaite (1961-1971)

I am surprised that there is no mention of Sir John Cowperthwaite. Hong Kong was one of the poorest city/states in the world since at least the Opium Wars. But from the early 1960's to the late 1980s Hong Kong would go from one of the poorest places to one of the wealthiest. In fact, it would surpass the United Kingdom in per-capita income (it's Colonial ruler) amongst other economic indicators. One of the main reasons for this was the person appointed to oversee the Hong Kong economy: Sir John Cowperthwaite.

And this accomplishment is even more impressive when viewed in proper historical context. At the time of his influence and power (the 1950's and 1960') most, if not all, of the largest economies started creating more entitlement programs and government regulations; all hallmarks of a centrally-planned economy. Almost all of these economies would start to see stagnation within a decade.

But in Hong Kong, Sir John Cowperthwaite thought that the best solution to improving the Hong Kong economy was to let the people decide for themselves. Large entitlement programs were not created and taxes and government spending were kept to a minimum.

And this was not easy. He had to work very hard to stop the beauracrats in London from interfering in the economy. And, lest we forget, the lack of natural resources and racist attitudes that were held towards the Chinese. Some of these racist attitudes included an opinion that the Chinese people could not create a vibrant and stable economy.

I would like to add some of this to this Wiki but I am not sure what to do and I am not a very good writer. I hope that someone will look into this (you could do a search on Cato.org for some very good info) and give some well deserved credit to this Scot who believed in the free-market.

Ian Lewis

--68.32.18.225 3:38, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Ian. You can actually start an article for John Cowperthwaite on Wikipedia, and add his name in articles such as this one, and economy of Hong Kong. There are several financial secretaries, including Cowperthwaite, and Haddon-Cave, who had done a lot to establish the principle of positive non-interventionism. — Instantnood 15:57, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Who is or isn't a celebrity

Should Tung Chee Hwa be regarded as a "celebrity"? --Cylauj 11:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • No, he's a politician. Same thing only different. - SchmuckyTheCat 03:38, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Tidy-up

This page deserves a tidy-up. Too many point-forms -- a bit over-simplified. See PRC and South Africa; they're good examples to follow. Something can be added as well, like the origin of the name "Hong Kong". I think I would spend some time on this article later. :) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 17:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Architecture

Perhaps we can also talk about the architecture of the indigenious resident of the New Territories. :-D Is there any information on that? — Instantnood 11:37, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Image

The image in the history section seriously distorts the text arrangement, leaving plenty of dead spaces. Originally I aligned the pic left, which was later on reverted by PZFUN. Few days later, user riddle did a similar way to mine. Once again, the correction was erased by PZFUN. I do think that the pic aligned right would make the entire paragraph ugly-looking; there're many lines of emptiness between the heading and the content follows. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 10:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mcy Jerry, do you see something like this? And what is your screen resolution? Is it 1024×768 or larger? Riddle | Talk 10:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Haha, mine is much larger, I'm afraid. Still, I've the same viewing problem as yours. :-D -- Jerry Crimson Mann 11:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
PZFUN has added two more images to the History section, but the problem is still here (at least when viewing on my computer). What about yours? And on my computer, moving those images downward solves the problem. What about yours? Riddle | Talk 01:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The same old blunders...;) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 06:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well...which question are you answering - the first or the second, or both? Riddle | Talk 06:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image problem

An explanation of my recent edit (this is not the most recent edit of the article, though):

  • I moved the image downward because of this viewing problem I encounter in the recent versions of the article (which is also discussed in the above section).
  • I removed two images to reduce the possibility of creating new viewing problems.

Do you have the same problem? If so, did my edit solve the problem, or did it create another? Please let me know by leaving a message here. Also, if you have any suggestion on how to solve the problem, please feel free to state it here. Your opinions count. Riddle | Talk 04:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The History section is again snowed under an avalanche of images! =.= -- Jerry Crimson Mann 30 June 2005 05:49 (UTC)

election of a new Chief Executive

Hi, is the election of a new Chief Executive on 10 July still on (as stated in the first two paragraphs of Hong_Kong#Politics_and_government)? It is quite confusing, as Donald Tsang is already the winner, and assume the post on 24 June. Am I missing something? -- Vsion 6 July 2005 08:03 (UTC)

Image formatting

The moving of images is advocated by the comments from the FAC page. Surely you don't want the page to lose FAC right? Please let the images flow around. Deryck C. 7 July 2005 10:41 (UTC)

Removed pictures

On the FAC, there were several complaints about copyrihgt issues with the photographs here. I checked through, and two of them had problems, so I've removed them. Given that this article is already heavily laden with pictures, the removal of two shouldn't be a major issue. →Raul654 16:40, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

At the same time, some images are replaced. :) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 17:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I really liked the one of the ship. It drives home the point that the Brits came in with guns blazing and took the place. What was the problem with that pic? SchmuckyTheCat 20:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Don't look at me - it's got an acceptable copyright, so I didn't touch it. Mcy jerry removed it with this edit →Raul654 20:42, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry, that was addressed to him. No flies on you, mate. SchmuckyTheCat 20:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
    • It's artistically va-va-voom. But in fact it's from the article about the First Opium War. Yes, the Brits came in with guns blazing, but did not take over the place promptly in the war. So I think it, together with its caption, has a weaker link to the contents. You may put it back to the original position, nevertheless, if you like. It's fine by me. ;-) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 06:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Whatever, but I think it's time to archive these comments... Deryck C. 11:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

There is a duplicate picture of the Heng Seng Index. Please remove one of them from either the History or the Economy paragraph. --Kvasir 14:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, I'm afraid I might have made a bad situation worse by adding two pictures, but how can you have an article on Hong Kong without the canonical shot of Hong Kong at night?

Isewell 17:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

User PZFUN deleted an image of HK's colonial flag, stating "Why the flag? It's hardly the best image." I have restored the picture for the following reasons: (1) The flag is historically significant, and rather aesthetically pleasing too. (2) The resolution of the image is clear enough; a high-resolution image would take up too much space. --Lapin rossignol 08:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

History

I've just noticed one big gap in the coverage of the history of HK that isn't covered in this article or any other of the linked articles - the period of colonial occupation, e.g. structure of government, list of governors etc... that would be nice to have I think. Enochlau 03:01, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a brief discussion on how Hong Kong, both in leased and occupied terroritories, was decided to be returned to the PRC shortly after WWII. The current article implies that the decision was made at the time of the Joint declaration in the 1980s. I don't know the details myself, so maybe someone would be interested to elaborate? BW 03:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Alignment of old_hong_kong.jpg and 1945_liberation....jpg

User:61.61.254.9 moved the above pictures to the left again and again - reverting reverts by myself and others. I believe there was a massive debate on this a while ago - and I believe the reason for it is because left-align creates odd-looking paragraphs (although right-align creates white spaces on certain non-complaint browsers). I don't want to get in an edit war so lets discuss here before any further reverts.

I suppose, the best way forward would be to see what the page was like when we were given featured article status, no? My vote would be for right-aligned because left-aligned creates odd looking pages for users with lower resolution screens due to the Cities information panel (or whatever its called) at the right. Pictures lower down, however, would be all right left or right aligned although the existing layout is probably best. --Mintchocicecream 08:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

At the FAC page, most people demanded left align. However a major writer of this page, PZFUN rejected to do so (left align). In the end the FA was passed with the right align kept, yet, many hope for a left align. Deryck C. 08:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
File:Screenshot of the article 'Hong Kong' (0940, 21 Jun 2005; 1024 by 768).png
Thanks. I was not aware of the support for left-align, though I still think it can create issues with lower resolutions - even on 1024x768, it looks rather cramped; and we must remember many people run resolutions even lower than that.

The above screenshot (found in the relevant discussion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hong_Kong/Archive3#Image) is probably what User:61.61.254.9 experiences - although I cannot replicate the behaviour as it is probably a browser-specific bug. Perhaps, a new solution has to be found - for example, removing the pictures entirely or moving them lower down the page, or making them smaller? In any case, a solution has to be found or else this left/right picture editing war will continue... --Mintchocicecream 08:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

In this case the pictures are not responsible for the problem. It's the info box which is responsible. That user's browser probably had set the default value "br clear=right". Deryck C. 03:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Gourmet Paradise

A bit surprised there's little content in the article about the eating culture of Hong Kong, as well as music, cinema, etc. The section on culture can be expanded a little bit, and there's still lots to do for the culture of Hong Kong article. :-) — Instantnood 18:05, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I've added content to the Culture section.--Sir Edgar 06:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

This article is somehow too long. Better put the details onto other articles. Deryck C. 06:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's too long, but I did notice some unnecessary details (too much on politics, vague history, etc). The information that I added though (economics/demographics), I feel, is relevant. I'll see if I can edit/move out some stuff.--Sir Edgar 02:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Nationality

I've always wondered, what is someobody who comes from Hong Kong called? - Cypriot stud 16:29, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

A Hong Konger, or a Honkie (jokingly), but the adjective is usually just Hong Kong. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 16:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, it depends. Someone would call themselves Chinese while some Hong Kong people. About a hundred thousand of Hong Kong people gained British citizenships before the handover in 1997, and a ten times more population had BNOs. SCMP would call Hong Kong people Hongkongers, while some westerners call them Hongkongese. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 16:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
I believe the standard is Hongkongers or Hong Kongers. "Hong Kong people" is frequently heard too. Hongkongese sounds like neologism to me. :-) And yes many Hongkongers of Chinese descent are having dual nationality. British, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand.. All ethnic Chinese automatically became PRC citizens at the time the sovereignty was transferred. The PRC government does not recognise dual nationality and the foreign citizenships of these people if they have not renounced the PRC citizenship formally. — Instantnood 17:01, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
I've NEVER heard Hongkongese in normal usage. Deryck C. 17:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Originally I had an odd sense upon "Hongkongese", but a friend of mine who have studied in Canada for some time told me that people in Toronto preferred Hongkongese to Hongkonger, due to a more smooth and less strange pronunciation. The reason that you've never heard may be you've never lived in Canada. :-) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 18:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Possible reason ^_^ Deryck C. 11:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
I doubt upon hearsay regarding the term. Nevertheless, it appears that "Hong Kong people" is more frequently used from Google:
Taking a more accurate stance, this one was done to eliminate phrases such as "Hong Kong, People's Republic of China" and "Hong Kong's people":
Carlsmith 15:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Hey Carlsmith you've gotta add up the results of Hongkonger, Hongkongers, Hong Kongers and Hong Konger. :-) — Instantnood 16:03, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
Here are the results (for pages in English or Chinese)
These give a total of 38,990. Without specifying the language we may get pages from other languages. (For instance, German gives 25,300 for "Hongkonger".) Based on Google search "Hong Konger(s)" is more common than "Hongkonger(s)". Nevertheless as for local usage, SCMP, which online version requires subscription (i.e. it does not contribute to the number of hits on Google), uses "Hongkonger(s)". — Instantnood 17:07, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
Well almost simultaneously, I've got these results:
However,
  • "Hongkongers" and "Hongkonger": 460
  • Subtotal: 1894
  • Results for "Hong Konger", "Hong Kongers", "Hongkonger" OR "Hongkongers" = 30,700 + 1840 + 5820 + 21,200 - 1894 = 57,666 at most (as more repeated combinations have not been subtracted)
But then the same criteria needed to be applied to "Hong Kong people (or Hong Kong's people)" and "Hongkongese (or Hong Kongese)".
"Hongkongese" or "Hong Kongese" = 3760 + 1840 - 32 = 5568
I won't argue that "Hong Konger" is not popular enough for regular usage. But "Hongkongese"? It certainly has a much longer way to go into our daily vocab. --Carlsmith 17:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
How about "Hong Kong (Special Administrative Region) citizen"?
Hong Kong is not an ethnic nationality. Hong Kong is not a nation, ethnically nor politically. China is a nation of the majority ethnic Han Chinese. Hong Kong is a region within a territory populated by Han Chinese.
Ethnically, the majority of the population of Hong Kong are ethnic Han Chinese. Unless the people of Hong Kong regard themselves having a seperate ethnicity from the ethnic Han Chinese of PRC, Hong Kong would not constitute itself as a nation. For there to be a nation, there must be an ethnic consciousness of a distinct ethnic nationality. Therefore, Hong Kong is not an ethnic nationality, but a regional difference seperate from the Han Chinese population of the PRC.
Politically, Hong Kong is a region, ie "Special Administrative Region" of the PRC, and not a "nation". This is highly emphasized for the PRC and SAR governments. Hong Kong was a village and was simply chosen as a port by the British for economic purposes. There were no distinct Hong Kong culture before that, except for being Cantonese along with those from the rest of Guangdong, which may be argued to be a cultural trait seperate from the Northerners, but I don't believe these differences could be enough to consitute itself a seperate ethnic identity.
"Hong Kong-ese" and "Hong Konger" both sound ridiculous, and are ethinically and politically unfounded for the most part. It would only exist if there were a strong Hong Kong ethnic consciousness within its people. Generally, a more neutral and accurate term would be a citizen of the Hong Kong SAR--the "nationality" based on virtues of citizenship, regional, and political differences, but not a nationality based on ethnic group.--Ruthless4Life 23:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Correction: I don't think "Hong Kong citizen" would be the correct term either, as the people of Hong Kong of Chinese descent have become "citizens of the People's Republic of China with the right of abode in Hong Kong." Nationality-wise, that would be the legal term for Chinese in Hong Kong. Ethnicity, on the other hand, would be a totally different story.--Ruthless4Life 06:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • My experience with my defacto and her family and friends is never call them Chinese, this implies the are from the mainland and in HK they are looked down upon by some people. To call them Chinese give them the thought of dirty and rude. So any version of Hong Kong or properly Heung1 Gang6 Yan4 is correct. Enlil Ninlil 00:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
First, I assume when you say "Chinese", you are referring to Jung Gwok Yan or Zhong Guo Ren (中國人). If so, secondly, it really depends on who you talk to. My own experience tells me that in fact, despite what western media may portray, HKers have become prouder than ever to being Chinese ever since 1997. (This, however, does not mean they are particularly fond of the mainland government. A distinction should be made in regard to this between the PRC and the Chinese people themselves.) Hong Qi Gong 01:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Date for article to appear on Main Page / spoken version of article

Does anyone know when will this article appear on the Main Page? I'm asking since I'm planning to take over User:Forschung's work on the spoken version of the article as he hasn't been active since May, if time is still available before the article shows up there. --Carlsmith 17:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Nobody knows. FYI, the article Porgy and Bess, which gone onto FA 2 weeks after the HK article did, had already gone to the main page last week. Deryck C. 12:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Finally it's listed on Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/September_2005! I guess I'll have to do it as soon as possible then. -Carlsmith 05:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Have you got the software for the .ogg format? :-) — Instantnood 08:01, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

The spoken version of the article is finally done! Please feel free to leave any comments here. --Carlsmith 09:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

A (possibly) silly question: why ogg? Deryck C. 15:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
That's the standard prefer by the spoken article WikiProject. :-D — Instantnood 15:40, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Shall there be separated clippings for different sections, for this long article? :-D — Instantnood 15:40, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Ah, good. I'll like to volunteer if a voice-actor is recruited. Deryck C. 15:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Little Hong Kong accent~ good anyway to show characteristical difference from other English-speaking countries! -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
My accent consists of HK and Australian parts. Deryck C. 17:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Not really that kind of Hong Kong accent that many people, including myself, consider inferior. :-) Just some very slight Hong Kong-style. Anyways thanks so much Carl. — Instantnood 12:40, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

FILTH?

"Prior to the handover, British expatriates were able to live and work in Hong Kong for up to a year, without work permits, which gave rise to the acronym FILTH - Failed In London, Try Hongkong."

How important is this in a Hong Kong article? I understand the acronym FILTH is found [1] on different sources, but somehow I feel this is tagged onto the article for the sake of it rather than for any good reason. It would go well as a separate article but I don't think it warrant inclusion in an overview of Hong Kong... --Mintchocicecream 05:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Removing it from here and putting it in "history of Hong Kong series" maybe a better choice. Deryck C. 07:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
One more note, adding it to "Britons in Hong Kong" may also be a good choice. Deryck C. 07:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hong_Kong/Archive_2&oldid=1136271958"